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

[john john]

Which pilots don't go by, and haven't gone by for many years.

DOH doesn’t exist in CAB for pilots
Pilots contract base on merit sounds like managements dream

 

[john john]

unless the controlling union merger policy states otherwise.

You answered your on question

 

[aquagreen73s]

You answered your on question

BOTH pilot groups. Only then does a union merger policy control.

How many other major airlines does USAPA represent?

Answer: None.

What are the odds of USAPA ever representing any other airlines?

Answer: Zero.

So DOH in a merger policy is about as useless as mammaries on a bull. So, you can stop trying to sell the West a bull with mammeries. Thank you.

 

[Heretic]

..

 

[Al Legheny]

You seem to misunderstand the basic effect of McCaskill-Bond: it removes the choice to arbitrate and mandates arbitration (edit: arbitrations are mandated when both sides cannot agree as to how the seniority list should be integrated AND when both parties are not under the same union). Those arbitrations take place under the same rules as between AWA and the old US Airways, with the same enforceability. Once both sides agree to arbitrate, McCaskill-Bond is really unnecessary. MB guarantees both sides equal leverage in a merger. The situation MB was designed to guard against was the AMR-TWA merger where there wasn't equal leverage. There, the majority got to short shrift the minority . . . which is exactly what you are trying to do now (and quite unsuccessfully too!).

One more tidbit: all the bluff that the AFO's use to try to convince the West that DOH is in our best interests for a future merger, those proponents are just plain moronic. Anyone with half a brain understands what MB stands for: arbitration unless the controlling union merger policy states otherwise. USAPA is a lone wolf and it's pure insanity to think that any other pilot group would join USAPA. Being a lone wolf, USAPA's DOH merger policy has ZERO effect in a future merger. Zero. None. Nada. LCC merges with anyone and we're right back to arbitration under rules that will be nearly identical to what we had under ALPA, which is Allegheny-Mohawk.

Keep smoking the ClearyCrac. Parker is loving it that you're saving him hundreds of millions a year on a goose chase that will end no differently than your pension investigation.

“insofar as the merger affects the seniority rights of the carriers’ employees, provisions
shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner,
including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the
carriers and representatives of the employees affected. In the event of failure to agree,
5 Published at 59 C.A.B. 45.
House Research Department June 2008
Airline Mergers and Labor Integration Provisions Under Federal Law Page 5
the dispute may be submitted by either party for adjustment in accordance with section
13.”6
Section 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk order directs that when a dispute or controversy cannot be
settled by the affected parties within 20 days, either party may refer it to an arbitrator selected
from a panel of seven names furnished by the NMB.

Section 13 of the Allegheny Mohawk labor protective provisions are NOT The SAME as ALPA merger Policy. The US Airways and AWE dispatchers merged under Allegheny Mohawk and it went DOH. This happened just weeks before the ALPA Nicolau award. Mohawk was shut down when it merged with Allegheny. It still went DOH.

 

[cleardirect]

“insofar as the merger affects the seniority rights of the carriers’ employees, provisions
shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner,
including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the
carriers and representatives of the employees affected. In the event of failure to agree,
5 Published at 59 C.A.B. 45.
House Research Department June 2008
Airline Mergers and Labor Integration Provisions Under Federal Law Page 5
the dispute may be submitted by either party for adjustment in accordance with section
13.”6
Section 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk order directs that when a dispute or controversy cannot be
settled by the affected parties within 20 days, either party may refer it to an arbitrator selected
from a panel of seven names furnished by the NMB.

Section 13 of the Allegheny Mohawk labor protective provisions are NOT The SAME as ALPA merger Policy. The US Airways and AWE dispatchers merged under Allegheny Mohawk and it went DOH. This happened just weeks before the ALPA Nicolau award. Mohawk was shut down when it merged with Allegheny. It still went DOH.

But A/M does not say that it has to go DOH. Would you care to post the requirements for integration?

I notice that whenever the dispatchers are used you never give the reason why the arbitrator used DOH.

Because the AWA dispatcher were going to get a better contract. That was the trade off for using DOH. Less seniority better contract. A balance. What the east wants is a better contract and seniority. Everything for the east pilots nothing for the west.

 

[cleardirect]

So the companies response to USAPA’s motion to dismiss has been out for a couple of days and no comment from the east. Why not?

I suggest that you all take the time to read those documents. Remember that the company wrote those not west pilots or Addington plaintiffs.

Count up the number of times that the company tells usapa that they are wrong. It’s a lot. Notice that the company says that the agreement was between the east pilots and the west pilots. Understand that the company knows that the ninth only ruled on ripeness and nothing else. Yes they lay out the east and west position from the ninth. The company tells the court that usapa thinks they are free to negotiate but then tells the court that the ninth only ruled on ripeness.

The best part is also the very clear and unambiguous explanation of the companies position on the seniority list.

Usapa has convinced all of you that usapa can and is able to negotiate for DOH. Read the filing carefully. The company is telling the court that there is no way that they can negotiate anything other than the Nicolau list. Usapa likes to tell east pilots and have been desperate for west input into the magic C&R. The C&R will make it better. Read what the company has to say. They completely disregard the C&R. I had not thought about it this way but it makes sense. Either the seniority list is ordered by Nicolau or it is not. The company accepted the Nicolau list. They will be on the hook if they ignore their obligation. I guess Parker and the corporation have a conscience to live up to their agreements. Unlike east pilots.

So read carefully what the company is telegraphing to the court. They accepted the Nicolau, the company must live up to their agreement. DOH is not the Nicolau. C&R are irrelevant to the company.

Now you guys must think. Even if the company gets count II or III. They are going to use the Nicolau and the only negotiation are going to be maybe some short fences or a delayed system bid. So after 6 years, multi million dollars spent fighting the inevitable. Giving away millions of dollars in contract improvements, dividing this pilots group and destroying or confirming the east pilots poor reputation in the industry. You are going to end up right back where we stared. With the Nicolau.

Was it worth it?

When usapa finally presents that contract after 6-7-8 years of the merger and there is Nicolau. Are you guys going to sing the praises of usapa and Cleary, Mowery, Di Orio for wasting all of those years promising something that was never achievable?

 

[A320 Driver]

So read carefully what the company is telegraphing to the court. They accepted the Nicolau, the company must live up to their agreement. DOH is not the Nicolau. C&R are irrelevant to the company.

Even if the company gets count II or III. They are going to use the Nicolau and the only negotiation are going to be maybe some short fences or a delayed system bid.

LOL...YOU HOPE!!! You are SO SURE you know the future. So does USAPA. Neither of you can be sure what might happen. Why don't you just save a little credibility and stick to talking issues instead of predicting the future?

Driver B)

 

[cleardirect]

Document 61 the company’s filing to oppose USAPA motion to dismiss. I leave it up to you to decide where the company is going and what they think of usapa’s theory of negotiating for seniority.

USAPA has filed a motion to dismiss, principally relying on Addington v. US Airline Pilots Association, But Addington does not control the issue of ripeness in the current action filed by US Airways.

USAPA’s motion also makes Rule 12(B)(1) arguments based on the exclusive arbitral jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment, as well as arguments under Rule 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim, Rule 12(B)(7) for failure to join a necessary party, and Rule 12(B)(3) for improper venue. For the reasons set forth below, those arguments cannot be supported and should be rejected as well.

In connection with the merger, the East Pilots, the West Pilots, and the merging companies agreed, in a collectively-bargained Transition Agreement, that the pilot workforces of the two airlines would be combined.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of the West Pilots’ DFR claim against USAPA, but instead held that their claim was not ripe.

given the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on ripeness, that clarification was not provided.

USAPA has unequivocally confirmed that it will never depart from a strict date-of-hire seniority list (see id. ¶ 33), and therefore it will never propose the Nicolau list.

While the Ninth Circuit reversed on ripeness grounds, Addington is the lynchpin of USAPA’s ripeness argument, but it is not controlling here because it did not consider the harms to US Airways, which was not a party on appeal,

USAPA’s hypothetical indemnification provision would not diminish the threat of suit by the West Pilots.

USAPA’s delayed-integration scheme similarly would not diminish the threat of suit by the West Pilots.

USAPA’s argument is a non sequitur.

Here, however, it is undisputed that, while the ancillary details of its seniority proposal may change, USAPA’s demand for a non-Nicolau seniority list will not. (Mowrey Decl. ¶ 33.) The ultimate integrated seniority list will either be based on the Nicolau award (as the West Pilots insist) or it will not (as USAPA insists). There is nothing speculative about that.

In Count I, US Airways alleges, inter alia, that, under the circumstances of this case, USAPA’s continued insistence on a non-Nicolau seniority list would violate its duty under Section 2, First. (See Compl. ¶¶ 38-40.) That dispute could not be more ripe.

USAPA is wrong.

Even if USAPA has the contractual right under the Transition Agreement to abandon the “final and binding” Nicolau Award after it was presented to and accepted by US Airways (as required by the Transition Agreement), that does not mean USAPA’s alleged conduct in this case could never constitute a violation of Section 2, First.

“the seniority arbitration before Arbitrator Nicolau was conducted between the East Pilots and The West Pilots, represented by their own counsel, as a ‘final and binding’ arbitration under the ALPA constitution; the Transition Agreement signed by the East Pilots, the West Pilots, ALPA, and pre-merger US Airways, Inc. and America West Airlines, Inc. required ALPA to present and US Airways to accept the Nicolau Award; such tendering and acceptance of the Nicolau Award has occurred in accordance with the terms of the Transition Agreement;

Accordingly, USAPA’s Rule 12(B)(6) motion should be denied.

Once again, USAPA is wrong.

after a jury trial, concluded that USAPA “‘cast aside the result of an internal seniority arbitration solely to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots,’” and “‘failed to prove that any legitimate union objective motivated its acts.’”).

USAPA’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.

First, USAPA argues, incorrectly,

As discussed in greater detail in US Airways’ opposition to USAPA’s motion to stay (Doc. No. 31), the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Addington does not even justify a stay of this action–let alone a dismissal.

Third, USAPA notes that the parties “have yet to bargain over seniority.” (Motion 16:7-22.) All “bargain[ing]” means in this context, however, is that US Airways either accepts or rejects USAPA’s proposal for a non-Nicolau seniority list–there is nothing else for US Airways to negotiate. No amount of bargaining will change the facts, as confirmed in USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss, that USAPA is inalterably opposed to implementation of the Nicolau Award,

None of USAPA’s arguments has merit.

on which USAPA relies, stands for the unremarkable proposition that it is not bad-faith bargaining to insist on one’s proposals and, therefore, the parties cannot be compelled to reach an agreement.

USAPA is wrong on both counts.

USAPA suggests no reason why they should be combined now, and its Rule 12(B)(7) motion should therefore be denied.

Thus, USAPA’s argument that the District of Columbia “would be a more appropriate venue” is wide of the mark.

 

[cleardirect]

LOL...YOU HOPE!!! You are SO SURE you know the future. So does USAPA. Neither of you can be sure what might happen. Why don't you just save a little credibility and stick to talking issues instead of predicting the future?

Driver B)

Third, USAPA notes that the parties “have yet to bargain over seniority.” (Motion 16:7-22.) All “bargain[ing]” means in this context, however, is that US Airways either accepts or rejects USAPA’s proposal for a non-Nicolau seniority list–there is nothing else for US Airways to negotiate. No amount of bargaining will change the facts, as confirmed in USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss, that USAPA is inalterably opposed to implementation of the Nicolau Award,

So it is either or. The company has told the court on several occasions that they have accepted the Nicolau award as the seniority list.

there is nothing else for US Airways to negotiate.

Let that statement sink in. There will be no negotiating C&R and DOH. DOH is not the starting point. Nicolau will be the ordered list. If the courts decide in usapa's favor the best east pilots can hope for is some fences from the Nicolau. Otherwise if this is dismissed or the court tells the company they have to use the Nicolau there will be NO fences or modifications.

 

[luvthe9]

So it is either or. The company has told the court on several occasions that they have accepted the Nicolau award as the seniority list.

Let that statement sink in. There will be no negotiating C&R and DOH. DOH is not the starting point. Nicolau will be the ordered list. If the courts decide in usapa's favor the best east pilots can hope for is some fences from the Nicolau. Otherwise if this is dismissed or the court tells the company they have to use the Nicolau there will be NO fences or modifications.

So much denial, what ashame.

 

[mikey60]

Didn't anybody in the west listen to Kirby at the 10/19 Phx meeting? Did he say or indicate that the company was going with the nic.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There are plenty on both sides that have selective hearing when it comes to what Parker or Kiirby say. They hear what they like and insist it's the absolute truth but are suddenly deaf when something they don't like is said.

While the company's filings in this latest court case makes it somewhat obvious that they believe that USAPA will be guilty of a DFR if it doesn't accept the Nic, what they want is blanket immunity from being the defendant in a suit regardless of which way negotiations go - Nic, DOH, or some hybrid.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

Didn't anybody in the west listen to Kirby at the 10/19 Phx meeting? Did he say or indicate that the company was going with the nic.

Let's see. Listen to what Kirby and Parker have to say with a targeted message to the group they are speaking to. Or believe a court filing that will have to be proven in court in front of a judge.

Decisions, decisions!!!!

Third, USAPA notes that the parties “have yet to bargain over seniority.” (Motion 16:7-22.) All “bargain[ing]” means in this context, however, is that US Airways either
accepts or rejects USAPA’s proposal for a non-Nicolau seniority list–there is nothing else for US Airways to negotiate. No amount of bargaining will change the facts, as
confirmed in USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss, that USAPA is inalterably opposed to implementation of the Nicolau Award, that USAPA’s Constitution prohibits any seniority
list that is not strictly based on date-of-hire,

 

[cleardirect]

{quote}DEFENDANT USAPA’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO REPLY TO DOC. NOS. 55 & 59
(FIRST REQUEST)


Pursuant to L.R. Civ. 7.3(a), USAPA moves for an extension of time to file and serve reply briefs to the Plaintiff’s response briefs (Docket Nos. 55 and 59), from November 1 to November 10. This is the first request for extension of time.[/quote]

So it is the company that is delaying the process according to usapa. Um! Interesting. All facts being contrary to that.