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

[MyJ4JjobSucks]

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.

The Transition Agreement states that it {May be modified by written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively}. So with that being said and following the logic of your above post, wouldn't the Union and the Company be free from DFR and Lawsuit, respectively, simply by agreeing to modify the TA?

 

[hp_fa]

The Transition Agreement states that it {May be modified by written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively}. So with that being said and following the logic of your above post, wouldn't the Union and the Company be free from DFR and Lawsuit, respectively, simply by agreeing to modify the TA?

I don't have a copy of the TA to review. However, assuming the truth of what you say it says and in the context of which you refer, it would ** appear ** to me that such a move by the company would bring about a lawsuit by the West pilots. That is just another possible reason why the company made a smart move if filing for declaratory relief.

However, there is a second thought that basically smacked me in the face when I re-read your question before submitting the above paragraph as my answer. DUH. The TA was signed by three parties. While it can be argued that the West no longer exists the company is not betting on a court seeing it that way. The Addington class is the closest thing to a group that represents west at this point yet I suspect that there are at least a few West USAPA MIGS who will claim that the Addington class does not represent them. If USAPA was really smart they would do something to undo their assimilation of the West as a group because there may be a need for USAPA to negotiate with the West, if anyone can now figure out who the West is.

 

[ROACLT]

I don't have a copy of the TA to review. However, assuming the truth of what you say it says and in the context of which you refer, it would ** appear ** to me that such a move by the company would bring about a lawsuit by the West pilots. That is just another possible reason why the company made a smart move if filing for declaratory relief.

However, there is a second thought that basically smacked me in the face when I re-read your question before submitting the above paragraph as my answer. DUH. The TA was signed by three parties. While it can be argued that the West no longer exists the company is not betting on a court seeing it that way. The Addington class is the closest thing to a group that represents west at this point yet I suspect that there are at least a few West USAPA MIGS who will claim that the Addington class does not represent them. If USAPA was really smart they would do something to undo their assimilation of the West as a group because there may be a need for USAPA to negotiate with the West, if anyone can now figure out who the West is.

East or West the signatory was singular, the "Association", the legal CBA recognized by the NMB at the time.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I would think that the three parties still exist since the TA is between the company and "the pilots of" HP and US separately, as represented by "ALPA". The problem is that there is no longer any entity with standing to negotiate separately for each pilot group since the separate MEC structures were eliminated. So that leaves USAPA with the responsibility of fairly negotiating for both sides. Depending on what change was negotiated in the TA - saying that seniority integration would be done following USAPA's merger policy, for example - it could become the basis for another hybrid DFR suit.

As hp fa intimated, the company seems to think that there's a big enough chance the West will be successful in a DFR suit over the Nic to seek the declaratory relief.

Jim

 

[cactusboy53]

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)

Driver;
Regardless of the final outcome, there will be some upset people. To say that one side will be unable to fly with the other "unless some middle ground is found" is your opinion only (perhaps mirrored by the dozen or better regular posters. I would like to think that I can FLY with anyone. If that person decides to "slam click" after the conclusion of the flight(s), then so be it.

Regarding the "some middle ground" comment: We have re-hashed this to death, haven't we? The AAA pilot group was told that "It's gonna be date of hire, don't worry." That was the unaltered position of the AAA Merger Committee from nearly day one. The AWA merger committee tossed around the idea of stapling the AAA group to the bottom of the list (so as to be at the near polar opposite position of DOH). We then came to the negotiations, mediation and arbitration with a relative seniority position (essentially). Arbitrator Nicolau warned the AAA merger committee that there would be no way that DOH would even be considered.

If any (third party) reader were to completely digest the Nicolau Award in its entirety, that person would realize that the Nicolau Award IS THE MIDDLE GROUND of the merger process. Do I think the Nicolau Award is fair? For the most part, yes. It bothers me that the first AWA pilot got slotted at #518, BUT we agreed to this process. Further, overall you will see that the middle part of the group (those that held positions at the two main airlines) arel largely relatively slotted.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. You don't think it's fair. Your position (and others here) have been stated regularly. The fact is this will be decided by the courts because one side fails to accept final & binding arbitration, and the other side refuses to roll over and give you everything that you think you are entitled to.

 

[mikey60]

The Addington plaintiffs will not have to worry about a statute of limitations in their case, although other unions down the line may have that question arise in any case they may be considering. Since the 9th has ruled that Addington is not yet ripe and has set the threashold for them to be a point in time when a contract has been ratified, the statute of limitation for the Addington plaintiffs will begin at that point. Of course if the SCOTUS steps in and modifies the ruling of the 9th then the chance exists that the Addington plaintiffs claims are now ripe and the 9th can consider the merits of the Addington case rather than the jurisdictional issue that barred further consideration of the Addington trial.

hp

I think in a previous post you stated that about 4% of the cases involving the SCOTUS are overturned, is that correct? Were they on the 9th level?

 

[hp_fa]

hp

I think in a previous post you stated that about 4% of the cases involving the SCOTUS are overturned, is that correct? Were they on the 9th level?

No. I said, or should have said, that about 4% of the cases that seek to be heard by the SCOTUS are accepted for briefing and resolution by the SCOTUS. Of that 4%, most of the cases that are heard are overturned.

EDIT: I went back and looked at the statement that I had previously posted. It reads as follows:

"The historic amount of cases accepted by the SCOTUS is 4%. That is probably about right and I would have answered that same question the same way whether it was the Addington plaintiffs or USAPA attemtpint to get the case heard. If the case is heard then it is also historically correct that the rulings of the Court of Appeals is overturned."

 

[BoeingBoy]

hp

I think in a previous post you stated that about 4% of the cases involving the SCOTUS are overturned, is that correct? Were they on the 9th level?

hp fa said that historically 4% of the cases submitted to SCOTUS are heard, with 96% not accepted by SCOTUS thus leaving the lower courts ruling standing. She only said that historically the appeals court ruling is overturned by SCOTUS.

I would think that all cases heard by SCOTUS would have been ruled on at the appeals court level with possibly a few very rare exceptions.

Jim

 

[mikey60]

I don't have a copy of the TA to review. However, assuming the truth of what you say it says and in the context of which you refer, it would ** appear ** to me that such a move by the company would bring about a lawsuit by the West pilots. That is just another possible reason why the company made a smart move if filing for declaratory relief.

However, there is a second thought that basically smacked me in the face when I re-read your question before submitting the above paragraph as my answer. DUH. The TA was signed by three parties. While it can be argued that the West no longer exists the company is not betting on a court seeing it that way. The Addington class is the closest thing to a group that represents west at this point yet I suspect that there are at least a few West USAPA MIGS who will claim that the Addington class does not represent them. If USAPA was really smart they would do something to undo their assimilation of the West as a group because there may be a need for USAPA to negotiate with the West, if anyone can now figure out who the West is.

.....or was there 4 sides to the signing of the TA. The association, the company, east and west. While the association changed form ALPA to USAPA we still

have east and west and the company.

 

[hp_fa]

hp fa said that historically 4% of the cases submitted to SCOTUS are heard, with 96% not accepted by SCOTUS thus leaving the lower courts ruling standing. She only said that historically the appeals court ruling is overturned by SCOTUS.

I would think that all cases heard by SCOTUS would have been ruled on at the appeals court level with possibly a few very rare exceptions.

Jim

She?

 

[hp_fa]

.....or was there 4 sides to the signing of the TA. The association, the company, east and west. While the association changed form ALPA to USAPA we still

have east and west and the company.

I thought that I had said three sides, The Company, East and West. However, I also admitted that I hadn't seen a copy of the TA in a long time and could have been wrong about that.

 

[cynic]

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.

Thanks. I find the mechanics of the process to be interesting and just wanted to see if my thoughts were more or less correct. I'm looking forward to the declaratory relief judgement so things can finally start moving forward.

 

[mikey60]

No. I said, or should have said, that about 4% of the cases that seek to be heard by the SCOTUS are accepted for briefing and resolution by the SCOTUS. Of that 4%, most of the cases that are heard are overturned.

EDIT: I went back and looked at the statement that I had previously posted. It reads as follows:

"The historic amount of cases accepted by the SCOTUS is 4%. That is probably about right and I would have answered that same question the same way whether it was the Addington plaintiffs or USAPA attemtpint to get the case heard. If the case is heard then it is also historically correct that the rulings of the Court of Appeals is overturned."

Thanks , that happens when I don't get any sleep.

 

[mikey60]

She?

That happened because he's OLD.

 

[BoeingBoy]

.....or was there 4 sides to the signing of the TA. The association, the company, east and west. While the association changed form ALPA to USAPA we still

have east and west and the company.

If you want to be technically correct, there were 6 parties to the TA, with 7 signatories. The parties were US Group, US Inc, AW Holdings, AW Airlines, the pilots in the employ of US Inc, and the pilots in the employ of AW Airlines. Signatories were the 4 "airline companies", the 2 MEC chairmen (as the representatives of the two pilot groups) and the ALPA President (as the legal CBA).

Then USAPA was elected CBA. That left effectively 4 (technically 5) signatories to the TA - the company (US Group and US Inc), the two pilot groups and USAPA (as the legal CBA) and 3 (technically 4) parties - the company (both Group and Inc) and the two pilot groups.

Jim