US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/13-- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[traderjake]

Held:


The Nicolau award was not awarded nor was it determined pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. It was the result of the internal process of a de-certified bargaining agent.

Not true.

The Nicolau award is the seniority list unless a different one is negotiated and ratified.

Read the contract.

 

[CallawayGolf]

And, that "process" resulting in presenting that "bargaining position" to management who in turn accepted the same and Perhaps we also shouldn't forget that when the former, now decertified, bargaining agent was replaced by USAPA, that USAPA inherited all of the rights, responsibilities and contractual agreements made by the former agent. That includes the TA which wasn't purely an internal matter or agreement within ALPA.

This latter point is where, IMO, the 9th made its biggest misstep in their majority ruling and opinion, and thus exposes their shoddy work. Tashima and Graber made no mention of a three-party agreement which included the company’s rights and responsibilities pursuant to the terms of the Transition Agreement. They made no mention of the fact that the NIC was accepted and consideration was paid for by the company to the former CBA in exchange for the same. They failed to acknowledge that, because the NIC was the result of a three-party TA, this issue cannot be classified as an internal union matter. They should have acknowledged that the TA put further stipulations on the “wide range of reasonableness” standard that might otherwise be present in a more common DFR claim, but they didn't. For whatever reasons (political, apathy, incompetence), the 9th got it wrong because they failed to see this. Judge Silver will not be afforded the opportunity to be so blinded since the Company requested the DJ and their rights cannot be ignored this time around.

 

[nic4us]

imo, your holes.
1) Never claimed separate ops permanancy. It is likely for a long time and possibly end result favoring new hire. East wages going forward will not remain stagnant for much longer than 6 mos. imo. Longer than that and LCC will see major traffic losses imo. I do not post threats or advise such on a forum. That would be stupid.
2) your second point is zero sum in any discussion.
3) That 17 yr pilot had various career expectations throuhout carreer. Up and down as most airline jobs provide. Diference is that AWA expects to cash in on a particular snapshot of a particular date. Way to many unknowns/variables of "known" truth to justify that lottery ticket.

FA

1. east wages will remain stagnant until a new contract brings parity to all LCC pilots.

2.No comment

3. At no time during that 17 yr career did that pilot have the expectation of leapfrogging and entire pilot group of an aquiring carrier. The AWA pilots are not relying on a snapshot of a particular date, but on the seniority they came to the merger with as a result of their entire career at AWA. Whether that seniority was the result of 23 yrs or 23 months or 23 days.

The problem with the "lottery ticket" analogy is the "know truth" is that Dave Odell had a job and Dean Colello did not. So either Colello has stolen Odell's "lottery ticket", or usapa has a very strange understanding of what a being a "lottery winner" means.

 

[Ames]

767,

imo, your holes.
East wages going forward will not remain stagnant for much longer than 6 mos. imo. Longer than that and LCC will see major traffic losses imo. I do not post threats or advise such on a forum. That would be stupid.


FA

You had better rethink that statement.

In the words of a wise man, "stupid is as stupid does".

Looking forward to that little meltdown you guys are always alluding to. Got my popcorn ready....

 

[Bear96]

Held:

1. The Court of Appeals exceeded the limited authority possessed by a court reviewing an arbitrator's award entered pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement. Pp. 36-42. [484 U.S. 29, 30]

The Nicolau award was not awarded nor was it determined pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. It was the result of the internal process of a de-certified bargaining agent. The process was designed to arrive at a bargaining position for seniority to be presented to management during negotiations.

If we were still in ALPA I would agree with the assessment above.

Wow - I am smart! I predicted someone would try to imply that because the factual scenario in the case I cited was not exactly the same as the LCC pilot dispute, someone would try to discount the well-established principles of arbitration that were articulated in the decision. Right on cue!

The language I quoted above about judicial deference to arbitration decisions goes well beyond just the CBA world. It is true for all arbitrations in the U.S., even in the commercial / business world regarding disputes that have absolutely nothing to do with labor.

Feel free to research that.

 

[Phoenix]

B.S.

If it were "fair" you wouldn't be in court explaining it. A Jury already found once that you were no where near a "wide range of reasonableness". It isn't reasonable to evade binding arbitration. Deep down I think you all know that.

Deep down, eh?

Surely you don't even have to go "deep down" to find your citation where the jury was informed of and used the standard of "wide range of reasonableness." You do have that citation at the ready don't you? Well don't you?! Well....

 

[Phoenix]

Thank you Bear96. I don't have readilly available access to a complete law library nor do I want to pay online fees. I did know the principle and public policy, but folks keep contending that I am in error on that without ever answering the question of what would life be like without arbitration and the finality of arbitration. If it weren't for that courts would be hopelessly clogged and there would be no need for arbitration since a loser would always take the arbitration results to the nearest court.

Thanks again.

Speaking of always running to court... Where the H.E. double hockey sticks is ALPA? Didn't they pinky promise to always and forever defend the Nic in court? (Extra credit for anyone who is able to cite where they actually did promise to defend it in court.)

Why are they AWOL? Who excused their absence?

 

[exB717Flyer]

They did not just say not ripe. This is a total falsehood.

I think the confusion comes from the distinction between what the 9th RULED and what the 9th SAID. What they SAID has no legal relevance and in any case seems to be subject to interpretation. But don't take my word for it; read the company's filings in the suit for declaratory judgment.

 

[boeingplt]

I think the confusion comes from the distinction between what the 9th RULED and what the 9th SAID. What they SAID has no legal relevance and in any case seems to be subject to interpretation. But don't take my word for it; read the company's filings in the suit for declaratory judgment.

And you don't think that future rulings by PHX District will be influenced by what the 9th "said"? They were giving them hints my friend.

 

[Metroyet]

Deep down, eh?

Surely you don't even have to go "deep down" to find your citation where the jury was informed of and used the standard of "wide range of reasonableness." You do have that citation at the ready don't you? Well don't you?! Well....

Well, I guess you STILL need a little refresher course on exactly what the trial was all about. USAPA was sued for DFR. That's it. USAPA wanted to make this about "fairness" and their B.S. interpretation of "reasonableness" (seniority is like crew meals you know). So there was NEVER any need, or purpose for ever MENTIONING to the Jury anything about your fantasy of wide range of reasonableness. Just like 99.999% of all of USAPA's legal workings...it was irrelevant.

The jury was asked to decide if USAPA, (east pilots) decided their seniority proposal arbitrarily, with prejudice or hostility. Guess what. They found that USAPA did act arbitrarily and without a legitimate union objective. That's called a DFR. That's what the trial was about.

If the company some how wiggles out of their legal obligations to the West, you can be sure you'll get to revisit all of these issues in the future. BTW, take the time and read the companies filings responding to USAPA's motion to dismiss. I think you'll find it illuminating. Oddly enough, the companies understanding of the law mirrors that of the West's. Once again, it's Lee $e$ham alone on an island....raking in the cash from a bunch of criminal narrcissists.

I hope I've been able to provide some much needed clarity for you.

 

[hp_fa]

And you don't think that future rulings by PHX District will be influenced by what the 9th "said"? They were giving them hints my friend.

The 9th did not consider the ramifications of what would occur if the company had filed a suit for declaratory relief and how that would effect the issue of ripeness. The 9th, in their dicta that accompanied their holding, only discussed that many things could happen before the DFR became ripe. Something may have since happened that even they did not foresee.

 

[cactusboy53]

Good News!!! A 3% raise!!!!!!

Southwest Airlines Pilots Earn 3 Percent Raise Due to Company Profitability


DALLAS, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association (SWAPA) received official notice from the Company that the negotiated profitability-based raise in the pilots' contract has earned them a 3 percent raise for 2010. Originally valued during contract negotiations as a likely zero percent raise due to the economy and Company perf ormance at the time, this wage increase arrives as a minor surprise and a sign of a changing economic climate.

Following is a statement from Capt. Carl Kuwitzky, SWAPA President:
"This raise is good news for both our pilot group and Southwest Airlines. The pilots have been willing to tie our pay increases to the success of Southwest Airlines. Our pilots showed great leadership and confidence in our Company and we are excited about a future with an improving economy which allows our Company to maintain its profitability. The pilots, like all Southwest employees, hope that positive announcements such as the one from the Company today signal an end to difficult times and portend a bright, growth-filled future ahead."
Located in Dallas, Texas, the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association (SWAPA) is a non-profit employee organization representing the more than 5,900 pilots of Southwest Airlines. SWAPA works to provide a secure and rewarding career for Southwest pilots and their families through negotiating contracts, defending contractual rights and actively promoting professionalism and safety. For more information on the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association, visit www.swapa.org.
SOURCE Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association

Sorry. False alarm, this affects a union that knows how to negotiate (not that we were that great, but we had ALL but 6 or 7 sections of a contract completed before the AAA Negotiating team walked away)........Carry on with your "gold standard" diatribe.....

 

[john john]

Good News!!! A 3% raise!!!!!!

Southwest Airlines Pilots Earn 3 Percent Raise Due to Company Profitability

....Carry on with your "gold standard" diatribe.....

Doesn’t WN go by DOH in their contract?

The USAirways agents got a 4% raise in 2010 and will get another 4% in 2011
And they go by the gold standard

 

[traderjake]

Doesn’t WN go by DOH in their contract?

The USAirways agents got a 4% raise in 2010 and will get another 4% in 2011
And they go by the gold standard

You can have the gold or hold out for your gold standard.

You can't have both.

The last three seniority arbitrations prove that your gold standard is no more.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Doesn’t WN go by DOH in their contract?

Not necessarily in a merger. Let's see how the FL pilots are integrated - 4-0 in favor of relative position anyone?

Jim