US Pilots Labor Discussion 3/26- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[hp_fa]

What piques my interest is exactly how much "pilots" rely on outside "legal" counsel to help guide their future.

I have no way of knowing the answer to that. Ask the pilots yourself. I suspect answers to range from not at all to it's interesting to see what I have to say. I will say that in regards to what has actually occurred in the courts that I have been correct far more times than I have been incorrect. Quite a few posters have previously stated that on these boards and not all of them are based west of the Mississippi.

I come here for my reasons as a pilot, you come here for yours???.

I come here because it is a unique legal case and it combines my past career in law with my past employment in the airline field. This case will potentially affect labor law for all unions in the years to come. It also might affect the wide-ranging topic of whether or not binding arbitration will actually be full and final, or if the courts are going to establish a precedent that harms that principle.

Finally, last that I knew this was not a "pilots only" message board. Are you telling me that it is? If so request that Richard or Edward send me a PM to that effect and I will honor the contents of that message.

You're "truth" doesn't add up. No amount of lawsuit is going to do do anything but ultimately bankrupt what's left of the unity (NOT UNION), which is what the West is doing to the group as a whole. Blame? I call it as WE, the EASt pilots, see it. Bankrupt USAPA, their is no such thing as "individual" damages. Won't get a nickel out of me. I know there doing it out of ignorance, my burnng question is, WHY YOU???

If you notice I have spent very little time discussing the damages phase other than in passing or discussing legal procedure related to the damages phase. I have discussed the injunctive portion of this case as well as the appeal.

Now, why do you care what I post? Also why do you post here instead of posting solely on some US Airways "pilot only" message board?

Fly safe and have a good day.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

FAWZY vs FAWZY, ADR not always final and binding hey it's the law, thats why theres plenty of em! MM! They THOUGHT they were correct too, most of the time.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

DID you see the Q & A sheet sent to the AA employees about the JBLU deal ? That NY market stats caught my eye and % of revenue, and USWEST wonder why? MM.

 

[Poug Darker]

There are so many holes in this company attempt at regaining past pay errors, which may or may not even exist, that this will probably go away once the higher ups get wind of all the circumstances.

First, West pilots training pay is governed by an loa that expired 12-31-07, due to the failure of reaching a joint contract by that time. Short story, if the company persues this, West pilots will no longer have to do distance learning, and the company will have to reopen the school house to provide for 3 days of recurrent, and 3 sim events per year and AQP goes away as well, since the West will not have to participate in that either. We go back to our contractual training, and get paid the same amount that the company now claims is an overpayment. Ouch!!!! not only do we not owe them the money, they will have to rehire training staff to meet our contract, and redo the entire curriculum for the West's training back to the 2004 methodology.

Second, the company has a past practice precedent of not seeking repayment of pay errors for east pilots who were overpaid when returning from furlough. To now treat West pilots differently opens a whole can of worms as to when and how pay errors are properly corrected, and why east pilots are treated differently than West pilots.

Third, if it is in any way shown or even percieved, that this is retaliation for the West winning the loa-10 grievence, all bets are off as to how the West will respond.

An LOA that expires....hmmmm.....very interesting. Very differing opinions on how LOA's expire, or become amendable, or revert to past agreements.
A certain other LOA comes to mind....currently awaiting a decision from an arbitrator.
This might be an uphill climb since the company does not believe that LOA's can expire, unless it is beneficial to them....
Cheers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

An LOA that expires....hmmmm.....very interesting.

That's a surprise? LOA's can expire, be incorporated in the contract, be superceded by contract changes or later LOA's, or live long after the contract has been renegotiated. It just depends on how the term of the LOA is defined. Take LOA 93 - the LOA became amendable when the East contract became amendable. The arbitrator isn't going to rule on the entire LOA, but just a small section of it. If the arbitrator rules for USAPA, one section of LOA expired while the rest of it is still in effect.

Jim

 

[pilot]

Then why are YOU here. "Einstein".

Didn't you read the disclaimer Helen Keller?

 

[Freighterguynow]

A quote from the West pilots PHX domicile update of April 3rd.

They both must help with the AOL communications - it has the same '8th grade study hall' feel, kinda like 'KIT' the talking Trans Am.

 

[Poug Darker]

That's a surprise? LOA's can expire, be incorporated in the contract, be superceded by contract changes or later LOA's, or live long after the contract has been renegotiated. It just depends on how the term of the LOA is defined. Take LOA 93 - the LOA became amendable when the East contract became amendable. The arbitrator isn't going to rule on the entire LOA, but just a small section of it. If the arbitrator rules for USAPA, one section of LOA expired while the rest of it is still in effect.

Jim

Very well stated, thank you sir for restating the obvious. I thought it was ironic that most west posters here are of the opinion that the LOA93 pay grievance will be denied, but when it comes to their own wallets, vis a vis this LOA concerning training methodology and pay for such, the shoe is on the other foot, and the tune eminating from the great desert southwest changes dramatically.
Interesting indeed!
Cheers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I have no idea what the West LOA being discussed says - expires, amendable, lives till negotiated away, whatever. Without that knowledge it's difficult to tell if this is a "shoe on the other foot" deal or not. LOA 93 is explicit - it has an amendable date of 12/31/2010, not a "drop dead" date. What's less clear is the language in the pay section, and that's what an arbitrator will decide. Having read the opening statements of both sides, if the evidence claimed is presented USAPA has a pretty steep hill to climb.

Jim

 

[hp_fa]

As far as "correct", it was clear where "Honorable" Wake was heading.

I was discussing the equities of this case long before it was ever filed in federal court.

He own contraditions throughout the case really proved only one thing that I have that YOU don't: A VOTE.

You're entirely correct. Approximately 0.0192307692% is greater than 0.00%.

Bob's your uncle! Past "career" in law and a "past career" in the airline field. You must be.....wait for it....
MANAGEMENT!! I'll bet you you work either in management somewhere OR management hired you to "participate" on this forum to read the "tea leaves" and bring them information.

You would lose that bet. But then you won't believe that could be possible.

Intra-union labor matters are cured by....again, wait for it...the MAJORITY VOTE!! The courts aren't harming arbitration "principles" just because ALPA called it that. If I call a marriage an arbitration, does that make it so? If you know so much about the law, you will KNOW the courts don't read the titles of the statutes or the clauses, they look at the INTENT of congress.

Intra-Union labor disputes are cured by a majority vote up until the union is found liable for having committed a violation of the duty of fair representation. Gee didn't that happen in this case?

 

[nic4us]

Very well stated, thank you sir for restating the obvious. I thought it was ironic that most west posters here are of the opinion that the LOA93 pay grievance will be denied, but when it comes to their own wallets, vis a vis this LOA concerning training methodology and pay for such, the shoe is on the other foot, and the tune eminating from the great desert southwest changes dramatically.
Interesting indeed!
Cheers.

You are correct, I think the LOA 93 grievence will be denied, and I have read the LOA, but admit it is confusing to say the least. However, I am mostly persuaded by the 13 page letter from Hemenway and the companies arguements stating their case.

There is a huge differences between LOA 93 and the Training LOU. First, the LOU is signed by Hemenway, post merger, this is not an inherited document, the players are all still here. Second, the LOU unambiguously states, "and shall remain in full force and effect until such time as: (a) A joint pilots' agreement is executed between the AirLine Pilots Association, and USAirways, Inc, and Pilots attending recurrent training actually begin recieving training compensation in accordance with that joint pilots'agreement, or; December 31, 2007, if a joint pilots' agreement is not executed by December 31, 2007.

Not very confusing at all. Perhaps it does just become amendable and that is why the company continued to pay us and not revert to our old training curriculm. What is confusing is why the company made the mistake it claims, why it took them over two years to realize their mistake, how their mistake totals up to $2200 per west captain, and why this follows sooo close on the heals of the block hour arbitration that the company lost to the West pilots.

However, bottom line is very straight forward. If the West has been overpaid, the company will get their money back, via our contracts provisions for pay errors.

 

[veritasaequitas]

Intra-Union labor disputes are cured by a majority vote up until the union is found liable for having committed a violation of the duty of fair representation. Gee didn't that happen in this case?

You act like you are some kind of law professional, then you should mention the future 9th and Supreme court findings on this. It has to work its way through the court system.

A professional in the legal system normally is aware of such. Very unprofessional post by someone who leads others to believe that they are some kind of authority on legal matters.

 

[BoeingBoy]

What's left to say about possible 9th actions that hasn't already been said over and over? Supreme Court? First there must be a ruling by the 9th, and only then can any intelligent comments be made about possible points of law that might be presented to the Supremes. Then the Supremes have to accept the case - not a small hurdle to overcome. So there'll be plenty of time to hash out possible Supreme Court rulings over and over if this case makes it that far.

Jim

 

[hp_fa]

You act like you are some kind of law professional, then you should mention the future 9th and Supreme court findings on this. It has to work its way through the court system.

A professional in the legal system normally is aware of such. Very unprofessional post by someone who leads others to believe that they are some kind of authority on legal matters.

I have already opined on what I think the 9th will do with this. The Supreme Court likely doesn't even know this case exists.

As for the unprofessional conduct:
1. You guys employ Seham correct?
2. I have no client and I have no legal or ethical responsibilities. I take no money and I surely don't ask anyone to accept what it is I have to say. That is your decision, as is using your ignore button to send me away forever.

Is there anything else that a professional such as myself should be aware of?

p.s. - Thanks for acknowledging my "professional" status. I guess school was worthwhile.

 

[spike99]

DFR damages and attorney fees to be paid by USAPA in all likelihood. The cost of defeating despotism can be temporarily high, but the rewards of doing so are far more beneficial to both the cause of freedom and to tangible finances. It's an investment rather than an expense. The same cannot be said for USAPA's total waste of pilot funds on futile personal vendettas and delaying the inevitable.

"In all likelihood" there will be no DFR damages. How do you ever expect to prove ther has been any loss under seperate operations? There aren't, and there's no way anyone is going to say there is with the current Transition Agreement. Even if the NIC was the list as you say, when would it have been implemented? Only with an approved CBA would it have any legs, and no one knows if that would have, or ever will happen. I for one will continue to wait, but will never vote for any contract which contains the NIC.