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

[767intl]

What is Woody up to these days, since his name was just brought up recently. In the past we out west would see some diatribe of Woody waxing eloquent on something or other, but we haven't seen anything for the longest time.

What a difference a few weeks makes. Woody was one of your poster boys for insults. Now he's chosen sides backing DC against MC and TP and now you want to "hear" from him?

If this Domestic pilot might be so bold as to address you directly. I would point out that actually the actions of usapa have already "disadvantaged" a decent group of our Former America West pilots. Unless in usapaland it is an "advantage" to be Furloughed or Downgraded.

"Disadvantaged?" HOW?

Not to mention that in FACT Judge Wake has said that Damages are accruing. That indicates to most rational folks that Damages have occurred and are accruing right now. IE the longer you all drag this out the larger the bill gets.

Don't remember reading that. How about an exact quote. I guess the 9th will determine rationality. But damages will be shared by all pilots, members or not, if any are established. Kind of like suing yourself, except your paying your own legal bills, too. Your paying ours as well in germane expenses.

As a pilot prepares as best as possible for every eventuality, This lowly A-320Domestic pilot suggests you explore exactly what you are really at risk for. usapa doesn't seem to be telling many pilots. Have they told you the risk they have put the new union in by continuing the RICO suit after seham said to drop it????? Why else do we now see usapa wanting a settlement??? Flip

RICO "risk" on both sides is being settled by rational people working toward a common goal. BPR resolution to do so. If you elect the Goat man in your upcoming election and all will be well. Your cast of characters running for the two vacancies reads like YOUR old leadership. And you guys complain about us?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Which group stands a better chance of being heard at SCOTUS?

My layman's opinion remains the same - as long as both are within the 9th circuit it's six one, half a dozen the other. If there were very similiar cases decided differently by different circuits, it would increase the odds that SCOTUS would take it, but only slightly given how few cases SCOTUS hears.

 

[700UW]

Just remember all the way back to 1992 the East Pilots have never met a concession they didnt like, they were always the first group to agree and ratify concessions before anyone else and even settled before US filed bankruptcy in both cases.

Put the threat to their head and they caved every time.

 

[767intl]

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.

I think you're right on the ripeness, oldie. I'm not sure we'll get much "advisory" input on the rest of the case, but ripeness puts it back in the West's court. The injunction will be gone and the whole concept of the NIC will be up for debate another day, IF they can find a new lawyer willing to accept the case without getting the money up front. You're also right on the damages trial. No way Wake can move on that until he knows Addington had a case. It's all boiling down to the 9th.

Don't hold your breath on that "come together" idea. If it's an "east victory," it will likely mean nothing more than an extension of the misery due to the finding that the Addington case was not ripe and Wake should not have heard it in the first place. Somewhere down the line, this whole scenario may likely be repeated.

If it's a "west win," there are still the huge hurdles of getting the company to bargain in good faith for a combined contract (they haven't done so yet.) And, if a tentative agreement does actually see the light of day, there is little likelihood that enough votes can be found to ratify it with the Nicolau award attached (despite what the west's uneducated, misguided spin is on how the east pilots "really" feel.)

Good post, NYC. If it's on the strict issue of ripeness, which I think will be the main issue, then the west will have to figure out how to pay their current lawyers on their own before any other firm will take the case in the future. But as said before, if they lose on ripeness, they have a lot of folks to blame: Wake, their own attorneys and themselves. As bad as LOA93 is, all it will take is a win on 84 to guarantee there will never be a NIC-based contract until LCC comes up with more pay or the remaining West pilots have the majority. But with higher pay back East, new hires will never vote for the NIC. They'll want to stay separate, or they lose their seats to west pilots with earlier DOHs. As fast as our guys will be retiring, a 2012 new-hire could bid the left seat (granted, on reserve) by 2017 on attrition alone.

Ripeness is the win. All-out dimissal is the landside. LOA84 is the Trifecta. Do I expect we'll win all three? No. But a win on any one will work for me. It guarantess no Nic/Kirby will pass. That keeps me right where I am for the rest of my career.

On company, "good faith," the May 2007 Kirby proposal isn't even on the table any more. Once we got back to negotiating, they watered down the offer with restrictions and other changes. Now we're down to NMB mediation once or twice a month due to the company's "availability." Any question about whose bargaining in "good faith?"

 

[Barrister]

By what hard data do you make this statement or come to this conclusion?

If we merge with AA how long do you think CLT would hang around? Or how big would PHL be with all those competing bases on the east coast?

Just because you say it often enough does not make it true. State your case or move along.

Oh, I dunno being here for 29 years maybe!!

VNIIMN
NPJB

 

[Piedmont1984]

If we merge with AA how long do you think CLT would hang around? Or how big would PHL be with all those competing bases on the east coast?

I won't speculate about PHL.

But regarding CLT I'll say this. AA made two attempts to build a hub east of the Mississippi. They were BNA and RDU, and for any number of reasons they did not succeed.

I think CLT would hang around.

 

[hp_fa]

My friend can answer for himself, but I understood it to be in the context of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court and PHX District Court disagreeing. For example if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remands because of jury instructions and USAPA still loses at the District Court retrial, would SCOTUS be more likely to accept the case?

Probably not. However, a district court is obliged to follow instructions from its mandatory authorities. In this case Judge Wake must follow legal precedent from both the 9th and the SCOTUS. The same holds true for the 9th, they must follow precedent from the SCOTUS.

I thought (or assumed) that the Appeals Courts were the primary means of resolving disagreements among the District Courts within their Circuit, while SCOTUS resolved differences between Circuits.

That is true.

Did these two responses answer your questions?

 

[BoeingBoy]

I won't speculate about PHL.

But regarding CLT I'll say this.

I agree with you concerning CLT. As for PHL, it would largely be toast. Just look at what has happened to STL. I know some maintain that STL was too close to ORD (258 sm) and that PHL would be different, but PHL is only 94 sm from JFK. I can see much of PHL's TA service moved to CLT when the new international terminal is completed, but even with that CLT would need only a fraction of the East employees, and even less of the total employees.

Jim

 

[CallawayGolf]

On company, "good faith," the May 2007 Kirby proposal isn't even on the table any more. Once we got back to negotiating, they watered down the offer with restrictions and other changes. Now we're down to NMB mediation once or twice a month due to the company's "availability." Any question about whose bargaining in "good faith?"

So USAPA's negotiating prowess is yielding ever-decreasing offers in comparison to what the pilots could have had under ALPA. Sounds about right for the wins vs. losses of this outfit. Negotiating backwards works as a perfect delay technique, which is of course what USAPA is really all about.

 

[hp_fa]

BB and HP

Two hypothetical scenarios:

The East is shot down at the 9th Circuit and decides to pursue an appeal at SCOTUS.

The West is shot down at the 9th Circuit and decides to do the same.

In scenario one, the 9th Circuit rendered the same ruling as the 9th District. In scenario two the rulings are at odds.

Which group stands a better chance of being heard at SCOTUS?

You mean the ** Federal ** District Court of Arizona instead of 9th District, correct? (** Federal ** District courts are federal trial courts and the Federal Circuit courts are an appellate court.) (This can become confusing because some state trial courts are called circuit courts and unless you understand the difference it can be confusing.)

I'm not aware of any statistical evidence one way or the other although I would expect that there is some treatise or other scholarly work somewhere that answers your question.

That said, trial courts get it right more often than they get it wrong. Inferior (lower) appeals courts get it right more often than they get it wrong. Accordingly it would be far more likely that if both the trial court and the lower appellate court ruled one way that the SCOTUS would find both in error. (That is also assuming that the SCOTUS would even accept certiorari, which happens +/- 5% of the time.)

If USAPA were to lose its best argument to get the SCOTUS to even hear the case would be that there is a conflict between the various federal circuits and that the question is significant enough to be of national importance. If the Addington party were to lose, but not be ordered dismissed, the case would return to the trial court for proceedings pursuant to whatever instructions were provided by the 9th Circuit. If the Addington party were to lose and the case was ordered to be dismissed, then the Addington plaintiffs would likely appeal to the SCOTUS.

Does that make any sense to you and answer your questions?

 

[Waketurbulence]

Ripeness is the win. All-out dimissal is the landside. LOA84 is the Trifecta. Do I expect we'll win all three? No. But a win on any one will work for me. It guarantess no Nic/Kirby will pass. That keeps me right where I am for the rest of my career.

Problem for you is, your going to lose all three...

 

[cleardirect]

Oh, I dunno being here for 29 years maybe!!

VNIIMN
NPJB

Does that come with data or just opinion?

 

[nycbusdriver]

Problem for you is, your going to lose all three...

...in which case your problem is that you're going to lose any chance of getting a new contract voted in before about 2020.

 

[Flippin43]

I think you're right on the ripeness, oldie. I'm not sure we'll get much "advisory" input on the rest of the case, but ripeness puts it back in the West's court. The injunction will be gone and the whole concept of the NIC will be up for debate another day, IF they can find a new lawyer willing to accept the case without getting the money up front. You're also right on the damages trial. No way Wake can move on that until he knows Addington had a case. It's all boiling down to the 9th.



Good post, NYC. If it's on the strict issue of ripeness, which I think will be the main issue, then the west will have to figure out how to pay their current lawyers on their own before any other firm will take the case in the future. But as said before, if they lose on ripeness, they have a lot of folks to blame: Wake, their own attorneys and themselves. As bad as LOA93 is, all it will take is a win on 84 to guarantee there will never be a NIC-based contract until LCC comes up with more pay or the remaining West pilots have the majority. But with higher pay back East, new hires will never vote for the NIC. They'll want to stay separate, or they lose their seats to west pilots with earlier DOHs. As fast as our guys will be retiring, a 2012 new-hire could bid the left seat (granted, on reserve) by 2017 on attrition alone.

Ripeness is the win. All-out dimissal is the landside. LOA84 is the Trifecta. Do I expect we'll win all three? No. But a win on any one will work for me. It guarantess no Nic/Kirby will pass. That keeps me right where I am for the rest of my career.

On company, "good faith," the May 2007 Kirby proposal isn't even on the table any more. Once we got back to negotiating, they watered down the offer with restrictions and other changes. Now we're down to NMB mediation once or twice a month due to the company's "availability." Any question about whose bargaining in "good faith?"

/quote]

767intl,

NMB mediation has not started. What you are referencing is the Private mediation provided for in the TA. Application for the NMB process has happened. Later this month the Private mediator will interview with the NMB. As usapa has reopened every section, do you think they will ask her just who is Negotiating in good faith.

Clearly you are not following very closely, maybe you should call a rep.


Flip

 

[700UW]

Better go read the RLA, US will impose a contract on you when your done with a 30 cooling off period once your in Section 6 Negotiations.