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

[767jetz]

Jetz

Any chance you remember where you saw that? Someone mentioned it to me several days ago.

Delta's Moak Sets Agenda for Pilot Labor

But Moak said he believes ALPA can play a role in reconciling them. "There's absolutely a fix," he said. "It will take all parties coming together with an open mind and addressing issues. ALPA can help with that."

 

[767jetz]

Hey 76, how's the United/Continental merger going? a little birdie tells me not so well.

Your little bird is wrong. He/She probably spends too much time on the ALPA forum and does not attend council meetings. Since you asked, last update I personally got from my LEC Chairman was that The union and company agreed to move the date for requesting mediation from October 14th to December 17th because they felt that negotiations were progressing well and mediation would actually slow the process down. I also heard the Joint Negotiations committee have not reached a consensus on pay yet, but are making progress. One sticking point is whether the 777 and 747 should have different pay scales. CO pilots think it should be the same (as with Delta). UA pilots have always had a higher scale for the 747 until our last concessionary contract that brought the 747 down to 777 rates, and we are looking to "unhook" those rates once again.

edit:
I'd be happy to continue this discussion in PM or on the UA forum.

 

[A320 Driver]

So what you think that the president of ALPA should be the decider of what seniority should be? Maybe you want a written policy that defines exactly how a list should be put together. Let me guess DOH is the only way to do it.

How about if the written ALPA policy says that mergers will be done relative seniority everytime? Does that fix the problem?

I think you guys have already admitted that straight DOH is unfair in anybodies world. So that leaves C&R. Who gets to decide those? The majority, the minority, the ALPA president? The problem here is not the method that we used. The problem is that one party refused to abide by their agreement. Contracts and deals don't work when one side fails to follow through.

I've read enough of your posts to know where you stand. You and AOL supporters believe the Nic is the ONLY fair way. USAPA and it's supporters believe DOH is the ONLY fair way.

I don't agree with either one of you and see you both the same way.


Driver B)

 

[nic4us]

Question for anyone.

I have an answere for everyone.

Nicolau award, unmodified, to its terms, otherwise, waste money, get sued, lose "unquestionably ripe DFR".

And BTW, for the company, it is lose hybrid DFR claim, pay very large sums of money to damaged West pilots, and eventually end up implementing Nic award at great cost.

I also have a question for anyone. Any idea as to why the company filed their request for declaratory judgement?

I will give my opinion. The company filed, because after the 9th ruled, the west's legal team reiterated our intention to sue the company if they use any seniority scheme other than the Nic. I would even venture to say that M. Harper met with Parker, and itemized the damages for the company's breach if it should occur. Mr. Parker, knowing what the company agreed to, knowing what the TA says, knows the company will lose that lawsuit and filed for the declaratory judgement.

The Addington case was between the West pilot class and usapa. Nowhere in the 9ths opinion does it give usapa the right to force the company to break its contractual commitments and make itself liable by colluding with usapa to commit an "unquestionably ripe DFR".

The company is asking for relief from that liability, and here is the kicker, I agree with ROACLT, their request is ludicrous.

The court is going to tell them there is no way to grant them relief from liability when there is yet to be a determination of what that liability entails.

So we come full circle. Nicolau, unmodified, to its terms, otherwise, get sued, waste money, lose "unquestionably ripe hybrid-DFR".

 

[Ames]

So, the company could say that they reread the TA and have decided they cannot accept anything but the Nic in section 22. and the Addington would still be ripe? I can see how you can reach the conclusion that the union's failure to represent the interests of the west pilots was still there, but in that case how are they damaged? Maybe I could see that if section 22 was the only section open, and it could be proved that USAPA delayed the entire contract, but I don't believe that is true and would be near, if not completely, impossible to prove.

I've always admitted that I don't know much about law,and it's been a while since I've read the 9ths ruling, but I thought they said there were many possibilities that would make the west pilots worst fears not come true and that's why it wasn't ripe. It seems to me that the company's actions may be one of those reasons, but maybe not.

Thanks for your input here.

The company already accepted the Nic as of Dec. 20, 2007. It will be implemented with a combined contract. Watch the last PHX crew news where Kirby tap dances all around this subject. Bottom line: if Parker needs to move on all he has to do is look your side in the eye and say, "done deal, move on". He hasn't done that so far because he enjoys the savings during our little war. He then does the cowardly thing by going to the court asking them what to do. When they finally tell him that he already accepted this thing and that he can't weasel out of it he will have to go back, look your side in the eye, and say "done deal, move on" . With the court telling him so he can then blame them and hope to avoid the east meltdown that we all know is coming.


I believe that in asking for declaratory judgement the company has reason to get this over with. I also believe that they are afraid of an east meltdown when the inevitable happens. They will either use the court as an excuse to avoid your meltdown or craft the next merger so as to utilize your meltdown as an excuse to get rid of you. I am not trying to be antagonistic here, just adding to the discussion.

In addition, the east can still pretty much get their way. If they finally accept that the Nic is not going away - assume that the court mandates this - they can still negotiate a contract with the Nic, which virtually circumnavigates the Nic, with fences and restrictions. The east's majority numbers can vote it in and the only recourse is another DFR for the west to file, which would put us all back on the merry go round but it would pretty much get the company off the hook and take years to settle. But, we would move on....for what it's worth.

 

[Ames]

The nature of declaratory judgment would preclude the company from making any such decision. Remember, the company is going to the court asking for help because it anticipates that it needs helps or, forget about anticipates, and just say the company needs help now. The nature of the help is that the company is in a legal bind and needs to take action, but if it takes any action it exposes itself to a lawsuit. Therefore Judge please tell us how we must proceed to avoid springing a mousetrap of potential litigation.

Because the company is asking the court to potentially take action which could potentially fully and with finality end their rights to their arbitrated result in the merger of America West and US Airways, the West pilots claims against the East may have been ripened because of the nature of the potential remedy to be provided to the company.

Did this help at all? If not let me know and I will try again tomorrow, and after some sleep.

You must be tired. Your posts are usually articulate but this one is all over the place. PS: I have never seen the word "potential" used so much in one sitting and I am a bit confused.

 

[nic4us]

I've read enough of your posts to know where you stand. You and AOL supporters believe the Nic is the ONLY fair way. USAPA and it's supporters believe DOH is the ONLY fair way.

I don't agree with either one of you and see you both the same way.


Driver B)

Driver,

Here is the catch. Lets say you are right and there is a way to negotiate a settlement. Why would the West be the least bit interested in negotiating with a group who has already proven itself incapable of negotiations?

One of the scenarios that the company has expressed is that the Addington class might be able to legally represent the West and negotiate something other than a straight Nic. My point is, why would they bother to do that, knowing the group they are negotiating with has no intention of living up to any settlement.

 

[Ames]

Where there is a will...

There are three camps here. The DOH or nothing camp. The NIC or nothing camp. And a camp that wants a solution and believes there is one if the right people took the lead. I'd vote for ALPA in a New York minute if I thought their leadership had the courage to lead. It was a lack of leadership that got us here in the first place. Two ALPA carriers shouldn't have to go to an outside third party to settle their differences. They are forced to do that when their national union takes a hands off approach to seniority integration.


My OPINION Jim...

Driver B)

The alpa merger policy, which both sides agreed to use, included going to an outside third party to settle their differences if negotiations should fail. Your side should not have agreed to use the alpa merger policy if you thought it was so wrong. You would vote for alpa in a New York minute if you thought their leadership had the courage to lead? Are you sure?

If they had the courage to lead they would say that the AAA/AWA seniority integration was done in accordance with the alpa merger policy at the time. An investigation followed when the AAA mec cried foul and it was determined that the policy was flawlessly followed and the arbitration was done in accordance with all applicable standards. In addition, the result of said policy is no different than the result of a subsequent alpa merger, that of DAL/NWA and it would also fall under the standards of the McKaskill/Bond legislation.

Would vote in a New York minute still be for alpa?

PS: I believe that Moak has the stones to make such a statement.

 

[hp_fa]

I have an answere for everyone.

Nicolau award, unmodified, to its terms, otherwise, waste money, get sued, lose "unquestionably ripe DFR".

And BTW, for the company, it is lose hybrid DFR claim, pay very large sums of money to damaged West pilots, and eventually end up implementing Nic award at great cost.

I don't see how the company can be a real-party-in-interest in a DFR claim. The is strictly internally union. The company does not have a duty to fairly represent. It doesn't exist.

The company does have a duty to abide by its contracts and the Transition Agreement was a contract. The company also accepted the Nicolau Award pursuant to its obligations under the TA. Since then the pilots union has changed bargaining agents. USAPA, when it took over, stepped into the shoes of ALPA as to all prior agreements and that includes the Nicolau Award, the TA and everything else. USAPA cannot pick and choose what agreements it will honor and which agreements it accepts. It stepped into the existing situation on the day it became the pilot's bargaining agent. What USAPA can do is accept the Nicolau seniority award, since it existed prior to USAPA becoming the bargaining agent, and then institute its DOH/LOS provisions for any merger or acquisition in the future.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I've read enough of your posts to know where you stand. You and AOL supporters believe the Nic is the ONLY fair way. USAPA and it's supporters believe DOH is the ONLY fair way.

I don't agree with either one of you and see you both the same way.


Driver B)

Fair is only in the eye of the beholder, but this issue left the arena of “fairness” when the process exited mediation and went to arbitration. During negotiations and mediations either side could have tried to achieve to a fair and equitable solution, but again fairness is a subjective measure and not easlily achieved to majority satisfaction in such an emotional situation. Once the matter went to arbitration, the only person who needed to be convinced that the outcome was fair, was Nicolau. Either or both sides could brand the award as unfair, but that doesn’t mean a thing when it comes to final and binding arbitration. The fact is that the award stands absent anyone’s perception of fairness.

I don’t believe the NIC is the only fair way to integrate the two pilot groups, but I do believe it is a very fair award to both sides. I would also guess that what most AOL supporters believe is that now that Nicolau has issued the award, the NIC is the only way that US pilots can integrate their seniority lists because that was the contractual agreement, independent of any subjective measures of fairness. Ever since the award it seems east pilots, extreme DOH’s and moderates alike, only want to talk about fairness rather than accepting the reality that there is only one list and the NIC is the list that the CBA and the company will have to recognize going forward. Everything else is just emotional and irrelevant fodder to the issue at hand.

 

[A320 Driver]

Driver,

Here is the catch. Lets say you are right and there is a way to negotiate a settlement. Why would the West be the least bit interested in negotiating with a group who has already proven itself incapable of negotiations?

To come out the back of this in one piece. Even if you win, you lose. These two pilots groups can't work together if either gets their way. Now that is my strong opinion, but there it is. This hostility is counterproductive to both sides. Unless some middle ground is found, there will forever be a line in the sand. If that is the way you want it, knock yourself out. I, on the other hand, think there has to be a solution that will make this a better place to work for our group...the WHOLE group. I am NOT afraid to look for it.

And AMES...YES. I voted ALPA before, I'd do it again under better leadership.

Driver B)

 

[cynic]

I don't see how the company can be a real-party-in-interest in a DFR claim. The is strictly internally union. The company does not have a duty to fairly represent. It doesn't exist.

The company does have a duty to abide by its contracts and the Transition Agreement was a contract. The company also accepted the Nicolau Award pursuant to its obligations under the TA. Since then the pilots union has changed bargaining agents. USAPA, when it took over, stepped into the shoes of ALPA as to all prior agreements and that includes the Nicolau Award, the TA and everything else. USAPA cannot pick and choose what agreements it will honor and which agreements it accepts. It stepped into the existing situation on the day it became the pilot's bargaining agent. What USAPA can do is accept the Nicolau seniority award, since it existed prior to USAPA becoming the bargaining agent, and then institute its DOH/LOS provisions for any merger or acquisition in the future.

Since there is no more west ALPA, who would have the standing to file against the company for the breach of contract? Would it be a class or would it be someone like AOL representing the pilots or would it have to be USAPA? I'm curious to get your take.

 

[BoeingBoy]

As I understand the law, and I could be wrong, an employee or group of employees can bring a suit against the company (for breach of contract in this case) if it can be proved that the union didn't fulfill it's DFR responsibilities. Assuming that the company and USAPA negotiated a contract with something materially different than the Nic without a court's blessing, AOL could fund the class action for the DFR claim against USAPA and the breach of contract suit against the company.

Note that AOL doesn't represent the West class - the legal team does that in legal matters and USAPA is supposed to in contract matters. AOL is merely the mechanism for funding the West's legal actions and has no standing otherwise.

Jim

 

[hp_fa]

Since there is no more west ALPA, who would have the standing to file against the company for the breach of contract? Would it be a class or would it be someone like AOL representing the pilots or would it have to be USAPA? I'm curious to get your take.

Good question.

I suspect it would be a class, probably the Addington class from the first case. The Addington class still exists as far as the first case is concerned only in the writ to SCOTUS. However that same class is a named defendant in the company's declaratory relief action and as a plaintiff in the cross-claim in the same case. So you can safely assume that that there will be motions and arguments as to their standing in the declaratory relief action and whether they have standing to file the cross-claim on the theory that their case against USAPA is now ripe.

If the company's declaratory relief action were to be decided in a way that USAPA's DOH/LOS formula was proper than I would assume AOL would have a long chat with counsel regarding their ability to sue the company. Any answer to what would be the result of that would be pure speculation and I don't have any indication as to how that discussion and future action would be decided or resolved. What I do expect is that the answer to your question will become clearer as the declaratory relief action proceeds.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I’m just pontificating on this, but it seems to me that since ALPA (west) signed the TA as the agent of the west pilots, that USAPA could be compelled via legal action to provide adequate legal representation to the west pilots in a suit against the company as their new Agent. Then, because USAPA is a co-signatory to the (supposed) JCBA that contained a seniority system other than the NIC, they would have to formally recuse themselves from any involvement in the west pilots’ actions other than providing financial resources to the suit against the company. If any of this is correct, then USAPA would be forced to fund the west pilots independent counsel in the matter but could have no say so in who and how the pilots were represented in the matter. In effect, USAPA would be funding the dismantling of the efforts that they spent years trying to accomplish as a means of sticking it to the west. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

Not that it matters since the probability of USAPA successfully implementing and ratifying a JCBA that contains anything other than the NIC is exceedingly small. Say a number very close to zero.