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

[hp_fa]

The appeals court in this case is trying to do a job that was sloppy at best in the trial court. I see two issues: Ripeness and the vote (attrition, per the judge). In short, YOU CAN'T MAKE ME VOTE FOR YOUR PROMISES!!

MY LOGICAL TAKE: "Reversed and remanded".

I disagree. The trial court, through the 53 page Findings, laid out the case as the judge saw it. I have no doubt that the 9th will address ripeness and will also address the binding arbitration issues.

I personally don't see see it being reversed and remanded for any fundamental flaw. They may provide instructions for how to proceed moving forward, but if I had to guess the substance of Judge Wake's rulings will stand.

 

[Real tired]

This was part of the "pad" when you had the mechs. parking. They then had to check the logbook to justify them being there. Just like the 737 Flight engineers had to do the walk around, get the ATIS, and a few other jobs that were actually F/O jobs on any other jet. I am having a problem with the pilots at the airline being tagged as the cause of this pretty big shift in the way mechanics were used, or shall I say not used. It really made no sense when you were going up against any other airline. It was a dying practice. There were few or no other airlines with this many mechanics sitting around, waiting to park jets and check logs.

You weren't the cause.

We were. We are our own worst enemy, and "Yes" voted ourselves out of those jobs.

But I do have a problem with the "sitting around" part.

Back when we did R&D, there were no MEL's that left the gate, especially when we had 3 Mechanics. Each plane was required to be walked around and serviced. Something that is only done once a day now, and now your plane is walked around by the bag handlers. Believe me, there wasn't all that much "sitting around".

 

[Real tired]

You should use this argument to sell Doug on expanding the use of RJ's, or jettisoning scope altogether. You're a man ahead of your time! This might impact getting those furloughees back though

Mechanics were used for ground handling in the early days of jetways to ensure the doors were closed , so as to not rip them off, and to insert and remove steering pins.

Technology and experience has negated some of these requirements (i.e. the Supertug negates the need for brake riders), but there was a time when there was a legitimate need for their expertise.

Thank you.

 

[aquagreen73s]

And NO WHERE IN THE HISTORY of RLA has any union incurred the DFR until AFTER the CBA was ratified and voted into existence.

Ummm, perhaps you should bother to educate yourself on the case which is most relevant and on point:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/037798p.pdf

MY LOGICAL TAKE: "Reversed and remanded".

Well, considering your track record so far in regards to, oh, just about everything . . . .

 

[cleardirect]

OTOH, logic would prevail that, since contract negotiations are stalled anyway, NO CBA talks could prevail unless this issue was resolved. ERGO, the 9th is more than likely making sure the clerks leave NO STONE UNTURNED before they rule on ripeness. And NO WHERE IN THE HISTORY of RLA has any union incurred the DFR until AFTER the CBA was ratified and voted into existence. The appeals court in this case is trying to do a job that was sloppy at best in the trial court. I see two issues: Ripeness and the vote (attrition, per the judge). In short, YOU CAN'T MAKE ME VOTE FOR YOUR PROMISES!!

MY LOGICAL TAKE: "Reversed and remanded".

Really! That’s your logic. First, the court has no idea nor do they care where negotiations are or how they are progressing.

Second using your own words: NO WHERE IN THE HISTORY of RLA has any union incurred the DFR until AFTER the CBA was ratified and voted into existence.

What stones do they have to turn over? If that is indeed the history and the case law and the precedent, what more research or investigation do they need to do? The stones have all been turned over according to you. If the trial court was so sloppy than it should be an easy thing to fix all of the mistakes.

So I ask, where is this slam dunk ruling? Now could it be that since this is going to be the first time in history that a union was so egregious and so unfair that we do not have to wait for a ratified contract but the arbitration itself serves as the ratification.

My logic is the court is struggling with the language to find this case ripe but to leave the rest of case law in tack, also firming up the ninth’s opinion of arbitration being truly FINAL and BINDING.

AFFIRMED

As far as voting, however you want to vote. But part of a union’s duty is to allow a vote on an improved contract. Two years ladies and gentlemen and not even close to having an agreement. Two years and this union has not even bothered to ask the pilots what we want in a contract. So much for the line pilots directing this new union.

 

[cleardirect]

Ummm, perhaps you should bother to educate yourself on the case which is most relevant and on point:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/037798p.pdf


Well, considering your track record so far in regards to, oh, just about everything . . . .

Thanks for posting that. Great read the famous Ramey case. That should increase the pucker factor in the east. You guys might want to read the entire thing in context before you get to excited about the long pause from Dr. Jacob. This is where the question came from.

OBTW take a look at who sat on this panel. For all of you east folks that are thinking SCOTUS is going to pull your stuff out of the fire.

B e f o r e: MESKILL, POOLER and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges.

Recognize that name?


Another little gem that I like.

Seham was unsuccessful in persuading IAM to reconsider its position

. That would be Lee Seham.

 

[cleardirect]

More from the Ramey case

The substance of Seham’s testimony at trial was that he had been subject to hostility and animus from IAM as a result of his representation of AMFA. Seham testified that beginning roughly in 1991, IAM officials repeatedly and publicly accused him of being a liar and of being “in it [just] for the money” for no reason other than his relationship with AMFA. In addition, he testified that meetings at which he spoke were frequently interrupted by catcalls from IAM representatives. He also testified that various written materials produced by IAM had depicted him as a liar who was controlling AMFA for his own financial gain.

Here is a surprise. A group of people did not like Seham and thought that he was only in it for the money and that he was controlling the union. Where ever would they get that idea? I guess a persons reputation is truly earned.

Imagine a lawyer with thin shin that works with unions.

Maybe he should have filed a RICO suit against them. That would have show those nasty union guys who was boss.

 

[Freebird]

Bubba, he had a job in in PHX yet chose to retire.

Yes, I'll get right on Mike "to vote on our resolve"

Oh wait, that would require I care about you and your opinion.

Get lost...


Recall MC - go for it!

Are you afraid a contract would pass? If not, put one up for a vote, and prove to us your resolve back east. Either way its just a matter of time.

If Mr. Integrity could have bid Phoenix, he would have. As well as other former PSA guys. Instead, well, you know the story.

You wrote "Oh wait, that would require I care about you and your opinion"., that sounds like a comment you've heard before on past East contracts...The trouble is, that your union is trying to underhandedly circumvent binding arbitration. You made an agreement. Live up to it.

 

[nic4us]

Bubba, he had a job in in PHX yet chose to retire.

Get lost...

Recall MC - go for it!

Pretty good timing on his part. The company offers the early out and he can take it and be gone before the NTSB releases its report.

 

[hp_fa]

Pretty good timing on his part. The company offers the early out and he can take it and be gone before the NTSB releases its report.

Hang on, this sounds like flame bait. I am not aware of anything that he reasonably could or should have done under the circumstances. Even more than that how on Earth can we stop the stupid sniping if you post this where at least the public isn't aware of any wrongdoing or what it could possibly have to do with this thread.

 

[nic4us]

Hang on, this sounds like flame bait. I am not aware of anything that he reasonably could or should have done under the circumstances. Even more than that how on Earth can we stop the stupid sniping if you post this where at least the public isn't aware of any wrongdoing or what it could possibly have to do with this thread.

I am just saying his fifteen minutes are pretty much up. Best to go out on top, and the company early out( even though it is not that much) ends up being a small bonus for doing it now.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I disagree. The trial court, through the 53 page Findings, laid out the case as the judge saw it. I have no doubt that the 9th will address ripeness and will also address the binding arbitration issues.

I personally don't see see it being reversed and remanded for any fundamental flaw. They may provide instructions for how to proceed moving forward, but if I had to guess the substance of Judge Wake's rulings will stand.

53 page findings "as the judge saw it". And there is the rub.

Secondly, your poor choice of words again leads you to an "illogical" conclusion. Remember, you have little clue how appeals WORK as I have pointed out to you many times. The appeals court does not "rule" as to "findings of facts and conclusions of law". Appeals courts (and our SCOTUS) usually have formatted their opinions as such:

1. History of the case
2. Pertinent case law as to the motions and procedural rules
3. Explanation of their views as the case law supports it
4. Affirmation, partial affirmation and partial reversal or Reversal.

What again has picked MY interest is WHY YOU HAVE SUCH AN INTEREST in this case and participate on a forum that HAS NO MEANING TO YOU IN YOUR WORLD. If you wish to practice law, why don't you apply your acumen in court and PROVE YOUR validity before a jury instead of trying to convince the numerous electrons on this webboard of your plethora of wisdom???

In all honesty: Why do you CARE??? You don't have a vote NOR a qualifying pilot certificate. You know you won't change my vote NOR those of at least 2,500 other pilots here. I happen to KNOW that the overwhelming MAJORITY of East pilots don't even come to this forum. They even quit going to pilotloop.com and hardly ANY East pilots participate on the Cactus forum, unless maybe they were former ALPA. In short, no matter what the outcome the court decides, East pilots KNOW that West pilots wil S--B if USAPA fails to get a CBA with the company to vote on.

I have a VOTE, an ATP, a first class medical, I am typed (as PIC, not SIC) and +18,000. Ultimately it's MY choice whether the company picks ME to lead a flight or any other equally qualified pilot in the world to fly THEIR airplanes. I can tell you the court CANNOT ORDER ME to support a strike if the West pilots don't get their contract with a seniority list that THEY think I should honor.

I WON'T. Make no mistake...It is not your decision NOR will YOUR "insightful" legal diatribe change my mind. Neither will the courts.

Answer me this: Can the court ORDER ME, JUST ME, NO ONE ELSE, to support a CBA by if I don't want to?

I support employment at will. The rest will take care of itself.

 

[hp_fa]

Then the bit about getting out before the NTSB report is superfluous and misleading. Hell, if I took it that way I am sure that others will or did.

 

[end_of_alpa]

More from the Ramey case


Here is a surprise. A group of people did not like Seham and thought that he was only in it for the money and that he was controlling the union. Where ever would they get that idea? I guess a persons reputation is truly earned.

Imagine a lawyer with thin shin that works with unions.

Maybe he should have filed a RICO suit against them. That would have show those nasty union guys who was boss.

I've noticed that rival unions always attack each others lawyers. Its a natural labor union "thang". The Ramey appeals court didn't buy that tripe argument. Get over it.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Ummm, perhaps you should bother to educate yourself on the case which is most relevant and on point:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/037798p.pdf


Well, considering your track record so far in regards to, oh, just about everything . . . .

I've briefed Ramey extensively. It does NOT support YOUR case as much as you may wish to believe. In fact, Seham briefed that case very well before the appeals court. The IAM did something USAPA didn't do: threaten punishment OR promise you super seniority. USAPA gave you NO promises OTHER than what the Constitution gives you. A vote as a member in good standing. They have NEVER denied you participation if you voted against them OR even if you express your opinion about them. If you are a pilot for US Airways YOU will have the ability to join, WITHOUT PUNISHMENT, and get ONE VOTE. The Constitution gave you full faith and credit for YOUR time in service just like mine.

The Ramey jury ruled CORRECTLY:

"The jury found in favor of plaintiffs, concluding that IAM breached its duty because it had stripped plaintiffs of their seniority out of animus." In particular, the jury found that, had IAM not been hostile toward plaintiffs as a result of their decision to be represented by AMFA, IAM would have sided with them on the seniority issue.

The IAM threatened punishment. USAPA never did that. ALPA "promised" and promoted a solution, but, again, were back to the VOTE. I'll tell you this: I'll cross a picket line before I'll support any CBA with the "award" in it. I have the support of at least 2000 pilots, and whether you believe it or not, I'll tell you this: Hemmenway believes it, the BPR believes it, the membership of USAPA believes it and MAYBE you believe it. Hold out for that pay raise and see what happens.

Look, let me just say this. I have spoken to Skip Pate in the Chief pilots office many times. I have told him that the company has all the cards. I told him to tell Bular and Hogg that if the East pilots do not get recognized for their years of service like all other pilots get as well as the remaining employee groups, expect a large block of pilots will not strike (including me) and an EEOC filing to protect the EAST pilots from discrimiatory disparate tratment once the back of unionism is broke here at the airline.

We have learned the lesson's from AOL/AWAPPA. We are forming our own corporation and will bring EEOC claims against the company to enforce equal treatment based on OBJECTIVE standards if and when employment at will occurs.
Our argument is simple and logical: a day at AWA is no longer and carries no greater value than a day at US AIRWAYS.

Your "Piedmont" position simply cheapens the piloting profession.

Remember, as employees at will, ALL PRIOR CBA's, LOA's dissolve and you and I compete against each other. Remember, NO USAPA, no legal entity left to sue OR collect from.

FINE BY ME, I'M READY TO COMPETE!!!