US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/6- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[hp_fa]

Thanks for the reply, so if I read you correctly, liability is did USAPA start a union soley for evation of the award? Permanent injunction means any contract must contain Nic? So if east wins, we could still have a damages trial?

Liability is whether USAPA failed in its Duty of Fair Representation to the former West pilots. Of course the main underpinning of that allegation is the failure to adopt and follow the Nicolau Award as far as seniority issues are concerned. USAPA arguably caused a breach when they made DOH/LOS part of the USAPA constitution at the time of its creation and testimony did occur that Stephen Bradford was primarily motivated by the Nicolau seniority list at the time he began forming USAPA.

The permanent injunction was the trial court's way of compelling USAPA to not do anything to undermine the Nicolau seniority list, including negotiating any contract that did not contain the Nicolau seniority list within any new contract. The injunction can be lifted or modified by the trial court when it sees fit to do so. Examples of when it might do so are: A new contract containing Nicolau is negotiated and ratified; upon having received evidence in court proceedings that the injunction needs to be modified; or, upon instructions from a superior court (the 9th Circuit or the US Supreme Court).

The idea of "winning" at the 9th is nebulous. If he 9th affirms the trial court then it is clearly a West win. If the 9th reverses and remands with some relatively minor corrections then the idea of who won is not as clear (although I would expect that the East (and Seham) would claim a victory. If the 9th finds that the case was not ripe and ordered dismissal then that would be a clear East victory, at least until such time as the case would become ripe under whatever ruling the 9th handed down.

I have said many times that my tea leaves do not see an out and out decision coming from the 9th ordering the dismissal of the case and the injunction. It could happen, but I don't see it happening. I personally see it either affirming or ordering relatively minor changes in what rulings the trial court has made in the case.

Does that help?

 

[cubfan]

Liability is whether USAPA failed in its Duty of Fair Representation to the former West pilots. Of course the main underpinning of that allegation is the failure to adopt and follow the Nicolau Award as far as seniority issues are concerned. USAPA arguably caused a breach when they made DOH/LOS part of the USAPA constitution at the time of its creation and testimony did occur that Stephen Bradford was primarily motivated by the Nicolau seniority list at the time he began forming USAPA.

The permanent injunction was the trial court's way of compelling USAPA to not do anything to undermine the Nicolau seniority list, including negotiating any contract that did not contain the Nicolau seniority list within any new contract. The injunction can be lifted or modified by the trial court when it sees fit to do so. Examples of when it might do so are: A new contract containing Nicolau is negotiated and ratified; upon having received evidence in court proceedings that the injunction needs to be modified; or, upon instructions from a superior court (the 9th Circuit or the US Supreme Court).

The idea of "winning" at the 9th is nebulous. If he 9th affirms the trial court then it is clearly a West win. If the 9th reverses and remands with some relatively minor corrections then the idea of who won is not as clear (although I would expect that the East (and Seham) would claim a victory. If the 9th finds that the case was not ripe and ordered dismissal then that would be a clear East victory, at least until such time as the case would become ripe under whatever ruling the 9th handed down.

I have said many times that my tea leaves do not see an out and out decision coming from the 9th ordering the dismissal of the case and the injunction. It could happen, but I don't see it happening. I personally see it either affirming or ordering relatively minor changes in what rulings the trial court has made in the case.

Does that help?

yes thanks....

 

[cleardirect]

Pure speculation at best but I doubt that NIC was unaware of the consequences of his own award to the U pilot group. Plus, I did read his award. He penalized the U pilots for the financial position of U with total disregard to what the U pilots gave up to keep the dog alive. Additionally, he went to great lenths to explain how we would gain 22 million a year in contract enhancements under the AWA contract. A shocking lack of understanding of the times we live in and work under. And no the retirements on the East side are not joint benefits. Yea Right. 22M per year to lose 5-10-15 -20 years of seniority. Reading his award
leads to an even clearer picture of why we fight and a joint contract better be good enough for the majority of pilots to vote for it while at the same time giving themselves a seniority/advancement death sentence. The survival of this company is NOT dependant on a joint contract. I believe it will not happen. Plus if something catastrophic happens in this business or to the US in general what do you think will happen to PHX without a joint contract. Something dramatic will need to happen to bring either or both parties to the table. You need to understand that MOST people here will take USAPA ANY day of the week vs. NIC. All of the court victories in the world will not force a joint contract. Any solution other than a doomsday scenario will take years. Do you have any good ideas other than "get over it" and "you agreed" both of those are non-starters. And food for thought. If Kirby came along and said times are tough 10% pay cut, last offer, but you get NIC. What would you do??"

VNIIMN
NPJB

Have you read the dispatchers arbitration award? The east loves to point to that award as to why DOH should be used. Read it carefully, the reason that it went DOH was because the west dispatchers were going to lose under DOH but gain because of the better east contract. Nicolau used some of the same logic and saw that the east was going to make large gains because of the improved west contract. The award came out before the Kirby proposal. It has been testified to that the Kirby would be $100 million to the east.

It is incorrect to look at it as a loss of 5-10-15 years seniority. You are still getting your longevity pay for the number of years served. Your seniority is what you could hold. If after 15 years you were senior enough to hold furlough that is what it was worth. At AWA 15 years you were senior enough to hold mid level line holding captain.

But putting all of that aside. The Nicolau is done. The courts are not ruling on the award. The time for the east pilots to do something about that was looooong ago. The Nicolau is here to stay. If you can not accept that fact then leave.

All of the other extraneous nonsense is just that, noise. All of the gyrations with the union, Nicolau is still there. Threats of changing unions, dissolving the union, merging the union, Nicolau is still there. Dreams of some fragmentation or merger with another airline, Nicolau is still there. Uninformed speeches about where the money comes from or what the hubs will be IF, the Nicolau is still there. I will say it again. If you can not accept that the Nicolau is the seniority list for this airline than it is time to find somewhere else to work.

This line I find the most telling of everything written.

You need to understand that MOST people here will take USAPA ANY day of the week vs. NIC.

USAPA is an association not a seniority list. But either way it will be USAPA that ends up implementing the Nicolau list. Talk about poetic justice. The bargaining agent designed to eliminate the Nicolau will be the one to place it in a contract.

Yes, yes we all know how you are going to vote. We have all heard it enough times. But reality check, you are but ONE vote among many. You speak for a small segment of the east pilots. Let’s just see how a true vote comes out. Then we can see if the majority of pilots understand the facts and reality of our situation.

To answer your question. No a 10% and Nicolau not acceptable and I would vote no. However if USAPA (the east) drags this out for very long that may not be a problem. As I have said all along. The dynamics change, Parker or economics or world events will not allow a static situation. Look at the base closings, PIT, LGA, BOS, LAS the sale of 190’s. You add in there a merger, a bankruptcy, the merger of two other us carriers not us. The price of fuel spikes or falls to $30 per barrel. Another terrorists attack, another big change in FAR rest rules. All of this could change where we are today. But none of that is going to change the Nicolau award.

So continuing to wish it away or find more and more unlikely scenarios will not make it go away. So go on and on about how it should have been done how Nicolau should have done this or that. Keeping telling yourself and anyone that will listen how much you think that you lost. It matters not, there is nothing that any of us can do to change that list. As it stands now not having the Nicolau is good for me and I can continue for quite awhile like this. It would be nice to have more money but I am not desperate for the raise.

Delay all you guys want, the west and judge Wake will be waiting when the east finally figures out that we or Nicolau are not going anywhere. 6 months from now I would guess that there will be an entirely different attitude coming from the east. You all can work out why that could be.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

The issue is NOT whether the NIC is fair. We all know it's not. The issue is whether USAPA can negotiate a contract for all the pilots, or whether it is bound to non-contractual agreements made by ALPA.
I think that the 9th will probably overturn the verdict because of ripeness. That won't end this, just extend the real argument into the future. They COULD dismiss the case on ripeness grounds, while making some kind of statement concerning USAPA's ability to negotiate and whether it should be bound by ALPA's agreements.
This is really a huge precedent setting case, which is why it is taking the 9th so long to decide it. I expect a decision before the damages trial is scheduled to begin, or the 9th (or Judge Wake) will stay the damages trial until the decision.

 

[cleardirect]

The issue is NOT whether the NIC is fair. We all know it's not. The issue is whether USAPA can negotiate a contract for all the pilots, or whether it is bound to non-contractual agreements made by ALPA.
I think that the 9th will probably overturn the verdict because of ripeness. That won't end this, just extend the real argument into the future. They COULD dismiss the case on ripeness grounds, while making some kind of statement concerning USAPA's ability to negotiate and whether it should be bound by ALPA's agreements.
This is really a huge precedent setting case, which is why it is taking the 9th so long to decide it. I expect a decision before the damages trial is scheduled to begin, or the 9th (or Judge Wake) will stay the damages trial until the decision.

That is an incorrect statement. Nicolau knows that it is fair otherwise he would not have written it that way. It is your opinion that it is not fair but the are many that know the Nicolau list is fair.

USAPA is free to negotiate the rest of the contract except the portion all ready agreed to. We, east and west pilot agreed to N/M/A. That part is complete. Or are you saying that because ALPA negotiated your last contract everything good must go included the bid sheet? That was ALPA not usapa.

Just for information the ninth usually takes about 4-6 months or more to release a ruling. so one month is not a long time for them to work on this ruling. The RICO case has been 18 months since it was filed with the fourth. Is there some big legal delemma going on there? Could they be thinking of re-writing RICO laws because of usapa?

 

[Piedmont1984]

I have a SCOTUS related question. Is my understanding correct that the SCOTUS would more likely listen to an appeal if it involved conflicting rulings from different courts, such as the District 9th versus the Circuit 9th - whereas it would decline to hear an appeal if both lower and upper courts supported each other's ruling?

Too lazy to do the research.

 

[luvn737s]

The issue is whether USAPA can negotiate a contract for all the pilots, or whether it is bound to non-contractual agreements made by ALPA.

Wasn't ALPA merely the agent for the pilots employed by USAirways? Isn't USAPA merely the agent for the pilots employed by USAirways? Regardless of who the agent is, the underlying party, the pilots of USAirways, hasn't changed. Shouldn't the pilots be obligated to honor their agreements regardless of who represents them?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Is my understanding correct that the SCOTUS would more likely listen to an appeal if it involved conflicting rulings from different courts, such as the District 9th versus the Circuit 9th - whereas it would decline to hear an appeal if both lower and upper courts supported each other's ruling?

HP FA can give a better answer but my understanding is that SCOTUS doesn't get into intra-district differences as much as they look at different rulings from different districts. In that latter situation, each district has a different interpretation of the law and SCOTUS resolves those differences. Of course, SCOTUS hears cases that involve important or fundamental legal issues where there's no disagreement within or between districts (and no, not just because they're important to the parties involved).

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

What are you going to do when you go through section 6 negotiations and reach an impasse and at the end of the 30 day cooling off period ends and the company imposes a CBA?

The pilots at US dont have the jewels to strike.

A general strike in the airline business is senseless given the legal and political climate. I have to give credit it to the AFA with their novel, court-tested CHAOS (Creatiing Havoc Around Our System...it's even trademarked) program.

Although the AFA tradmarked the name, they don't have exclusive rights to the technique. All the pilots at US don't need to strike to be effective. The company is well aware that the pilots control the thrust levers, the parking brakes, the logbook, the performance of the schedule, etc. During legal self help, pilots actually working can be quite effective., especially in conjunction with pilots willing to participate in CHAOS-type self-help.

Of course, as someone mentioned, all this a long way off. But LCC doesn't have the loyalty base to survive self-help by pretty much any labor group on its property. Their market (i.e. primarily, almost exclusively, leisure) is paper thin, and enduring legal self-help at this point would run them into Chapter 7 in short order.

So be it, if that is the case. The east side has been forced to psychologically prepare themselves for that eventuality over the last 8 years. We've all realized that there is life after USAirways, and the company ignores that fact at its peril.

 

[CallawayGolf]

The issue is NOT whether the NIC is fair. We all know it's not. The issue is whether USAPA can negotiate a contract for all the pilots, or whether it is bound to non-contractual agreements made by ALPA.

First, I suppose if you define fair as DOH or nothing, then by your definition the award was unfair. Of course the arbitration panel wasn't bound by your personal definition of fair, rather they had to issue an award that met with the pre-agreed upon terms of the transition agreement and ALPA merger policy.

But as long as we're throwing around personal definitions of fair, I cannot conceive of a more objective and just method of integrating two separate seniority lists, especially considering the vast number of differences between the US & HP pilot groups. The new company had more planes, more routes, more pilots, more lines, etc. than either of the companies had or were likely to have prior to the merger. Each of these factors, along with a financially more stable combined airline, translates to more opportunities for the pilots to advance and progress than under their previous situations, especially as the merger successfully demonstrated in the 2006-2007 timeframe. Therefore, ratio integration is the best way to develop a new seniority list because it is all based on percentages. Save for the widebody protections for the east, a pilot who was in the 95th percentile before the NIC (5% away from the top and 95% away from the bottom) was in the 95th on the NIC. The same for every other respective position down to the furloughed east pilots who should only take a position on the new list once those actively on the list have their opportunity to work first. Setting emotions and greed aside, what could possibly be more just and fair? Certainly not DOH and certainly not anything the east proposed before binding arbitration because they didn't offer anything.

Second, to whom is the issue "whether USAPA can negotiate a contract for all pilots, or whether it is bound to non-contractual agreements made by ALPA" made? This was not an issue on the docket before the federal district court. The Addington case is a DFR lawsuit against USAPA. Neither Wake nor the 9th will rule that USAPA is not bound by the TA, the NIC, or the other contractual agreements that were inherited by USAPA. The question before Wake was did USAPA represent the west pilots fairly, and if not, what are the damages due to the prevailing party? The question before the 9th is whether or not Wake properly interpreted the law in his rulings and jury instructions. If USAPA wants to argue the questions you raise, they will need to bring a lawsuit against another party. Not sure who that would be, but using the Addington case will not accomplish that feat.

 

[East Hole]

Wasn't ALPA merely the agent for the pilots employed by USAirways? Isn't USAPA merely the agent for the pilots employed by USAirways? Regardless of who the agent is, the underlying party, the pilots of USAirways, hasn't changed. Shouldn't the pilots be obligated to honor their agreements regardless of who represents them?

A union should be allowed to do what it takes to keep the majority of its members happy. A simple concept.

 

[Freighterguynow]

They weren't...

...when we were negotiating. But that time has come and gone.

I can assure you it has not. Correct or no, the pervasive opinion on the East is that the West hubs are money losers.

So, in addition to the seniority award, another hurdle to a joint contract will be the thought of hoards of unemployed West pilots attempting to bid East taking jobs away from the East pilots.

 

[luvn737s]

All the pilots at US don't need to strike to be effective.

The pilots need to be unified to be effective. USAPA decided to choose sides in this dispute and survives on disunity alone.

CHAOS could easily be deemed an illegal work action by another court regardless of previous rulings. Those who participate could easily see their careers needlessly thrown away. Remember this and USAPA's legal track record when choosing whether or not to follow USAPA.

A union of equals stands a chance of serving all the interests of the US pilots. The west pilots are not, to use a Gilligan's Island metaphor, the Skipper's "little buddy".

 

[hp_fa]

I have a SCOTUS related question. Is my understanding correct that the SCOTUS would more likely listen to an appeal if it involved conflicting rulings from different courts, such as the District 9th versus the Circuit 9th - whereas it would decline to hear an appeal if both lower and upper courts supported each other's ruling?

Your question isn't totally clear because I think you are mixing up districts and circuits. However if the question which I think you are really asking is whether the SCOTUS is more likely to grant certiorari if two or more circuits are seemingly in conflict regarding interpretations of law, the answer is yes. But the percentage of cases in which the SCOTUS grants certiorari is +/- 5%.

 

[cleardirect]

I can assure you it has not. Correct or no, the pervasive opinion on the East is that the West hubs are money losers.

So, in addition to the seniority award, another hurdle to a joint contract will be the thought of hoards of unemployed West pilots attempting to bid East taking jobs away from the East pilots.

As you said it is the east "opinion" that the west is losing money. Any data to back that up? We are all one company now. Are you also afraid that the BOS guys are going to come take your jobs too? Do you consider them the unemployed hoards because their base was losing money and closed?

Parker said during a crew news that LGA was losing a ton of money. Does that agree with your opinion?

Besides if the east is where the money is why would the west be unemployed? That flying would just move to the land of high yield.

Unfounded fear my friends. Understand the facts and find out the truth, acceptance is much easier that way.