US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/10- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[ROACLT]

Then why did they mention that if it wasn't their contention to restate the precedent? They clearly didn't need to for a ripeness determination.

You're clearly wrong again, just as you have been in this entire case. Just keep spinning! Your ALPAfiles will love you for it.

Just so other readers can judge for themselves, Here's the quote( page 8010, second paragraph of the Addison decision):

...Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been
reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)))...

It stands on it's own. I don't even need to put in any highlights.

Remember the ALPA motto: "All for one, as long as that one is me!"

I was referencing the paragraph Jim was citing from but you are absolutely correct. ALPA uses arbitration, the AFA uses constitution and by-laws to ensure DOH, and to my knowledge like unions I am more acquainted with, it obviously has been found to be within a wide range of reasonableness.

Sadly, Oldie, I think you guys will probably get another chance to say I told you so after the Army fruitlessly shells out another few million dollars.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Oldie,

So it has been just over 3 years since Nicolau layed this rotten egg. So far, I have never had any pilot from the east tell me they want anything from the west side of this operation. It is funny to watch the west try to position themselves for all of our east attrition.

The MDA guys and gals are closing in on ALPA with Haber at the controls. Haber as we all know has been there done that with ALPA in the past. Should be fun to watch.

Hate

I concur 100%, and wish good luck to the MDA guys. I think that a DFR against ALPA might be winnable due to their "moving target" of what constitutes a fair seniority list. They have no policy. I think that alone may fail the "reasonableness" test. I'd like to see some NWA guys or, in the future, CAL guys go after them.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Then why did they mention that if it wasn't their contention to restate the precedent? They clearly didn't need to for a ripeness determination.

Apparently you haven't read many court rulings. Almost never is part of a sentence from another ruling quoted. The 9th just quoted the entire sentence.

You, like many, are reading into the ruling what you want the result to be. Grasping at a few words in a quote from another case is such a reading. Just like the "even if it doesn't contain" the Nic - reading into that that the Nic is dead. All they said there was that it's theoretically possible that a contract could be devised that the West doesn't see as disadvantageous enough to file a DFR over.

The bottom line is that the whole ruling says nothing but that the suit was unripe. Reading anything else into it is wishful thinking - including your and my reading into it.

Jim

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Apparently you haven't read many court rulings. Almost never is part of a sentence from another ruling quoted. The 9th just quoted the entire sentence.

You, like many, are reading into the ruling what you want the result to be. Grasping at a few words in a quote from another case is such a reading. Just like the "even if it doesn't contain" the Nic - reading into that that the Nic is dead. All they said there was that it's theoretically possible that a contract could be devised that the West doesn't see as disadvantageous enough to file a DFR over.

The bottom line is that the whole ruling says nothing but that the suit was unripe. Reading anything else into it is wishful thinking - including your and my reading into it.

Jim

JIM, So we get it, in your ret you read plenty of court cases, have coffee with JUDGE WOPNER (PEOPLES COURT) and hate your ALMA MATTER , DISMISS is DISMISS bottom line, someone paid tons of money only to be told to knock it off! Ruling published ,DFR's VERY HARD TO PROVE, MCcASKILL, BOND the standard! GO FISHIN HAVE FUN, BUT GO! MM!

 

[BoeingBoy]

MCcASKILL, BOND the standard!

So you agree arbitration results are the standard?

Dismiss isn't dismiss - the reason for dismissal is important. The 9th only dismissed for filing to early - that's what "not ripe" means. They could have dismissed on other grounds - like no DFR existed - but they didn't.

I do love that those that can't take disagreement always attack the person. Welcome to that club.

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Apparently you haven't read many court rulings. Almost never is part of a sentence from another ruling quoted. The 9th just quoted the entire sentence.

You, like many, are reading into the ruling what you want the result to be. Grasping at a few words in a quote from another case is such a reading. Just like the "even if it doesn't contain" the Nic - reading into that that the Nic is dead. All they said there was that it's theoretically possible that a contract could be devised that the West doesn't see as disadvantageous enough to file a DFR over.

The bottom line is that the whole ruling says nothing but that the suit was unripe. Reading anything else into it is wishful thinking - including your and my reading into it.

Jim

Absolutely not. The ruling is ONLY on ripeness. It says so in the opening. Period. It is how they framed the argument which is being discussed. If they had agreed with Judge Wake, all they would have had to say is "we concur". Little or no discussion would have taken place. In this case, however, they elected to overrule him due to ripeness, as well as frame an argument for why the ENTIRE case was without merit. They cannot and did not make such a ruling, only framed a "possible" argument. Just like they're saying that a case may, in the future may be "unquestionably ripe" doesn't necessarily equate to "unquestionably guilty". That paragraph makes perfect sense and does not need to cite a second precedent, but they chose to, and use that particular one, as well.

I guess you could say that is "stretching" the point a little, and it may be. I am not a lawyer, or a sitting judge. But it is clear that an argument is being framed by this decision. I agree with ROACLT that these documents are never intentionally "wordy" or bloated. They state their case and end. Any nebulous statements are there for a reason.

 

[Phoenix]

Then why did they mention that if it wasn't their contention to restate the precedent? They obviously didn't need to for a ripeness determination.

You're clearly wrong again, just as you have been in this entire case. Just keep spinning! Your ALPAfiles will love you for it. You said it wasn't mentioned in the decision. Again, you may need some new readers.

Just so other readers can judge for themselves, Here's the quote( page 8010, second paragraph of the Addison decision):

...Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been
reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953)))...

It stands on it's own. I don't even need to put in any highlights.

Remember the ALPA motto: "All for one, as long as that one is me!"

In fairness, if it is BoeingBoys contention that the Supreme court case was cited primarily to prove the present case is not ripe, then he is correct, but of course one cannot accept the first part of the the Supreme court case that identifies a "final product" and at the same time reject the Supreme court's "only" standard by which the final product can be judged.

Yes and ALPA sux.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

In fairness, if it is BoeingBoys contention that the Supreme court case was cited primarily to prove the present case is not ripe, then he is correct, but of course one cannot accept the first part of the the Supreme court case that identifies a "final product" and at the same time reject the Supreme court's "only" standard by which the final product can be judged.

Yes and ALPA sux.

Excellent point!

 

[Barrister]

Allow me to bold the correct part ...

"Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award."

In other words, USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but if USAPA's integration method disadvantages the plaintiffs (West) as they fear (more advantageous to the East than Nic) there is a "ripe DFR" waiting. The 9th was indeed very careful in their choice of words - they certainly could have said that USAPA was entitled to negotiate a seniority integration within a "wide range of reasonableness" but didn't. They said "does not work the disadvantages that the plaintiffs fear". What disadvantages is and was it clear that the plaintiffs fear? Anything based on DOH and not the Nic. So stray much and USAPA faces that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

In dismissing for ripeness, all the 9th was saying was that the future outcome of USAPA/company negotions is unknown at this time. The end result could be one that doesn't "disadvantage the [West] as much as feared" and there will be no refiling of a DFR suit as a consequence. Or the end result could be one that "disadvantages" the [West] as feared and USAPA will face that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

Jim

Courts oftentimes leave a road map for the litigants.....
I told you this before........9th coulld have just ruled not
ripe and been done with it. They provided a roadmap.....
can you see it yet!!!!!!!!!

NPJB

 

[BoeingBoy]

In fairness, if it is BoeingBoys contention that the Supreme court case was cited primarily to prove the present case is not ripe, then he is correct, but of course one cannot accept the first part of the the Supreme court case that identifies a "final product" and at the same time reject the Supreme court's "only" standard by which the final product can be judged.

True, but "a wide range of reasonableness" is not defined by East or USAPA in a DFR suit. In this case, it's what a neutral 3rd party found to be reasonable. As I said, courts have found that an arbitrated result is within that "wide range of reasonableness" AND that courts are loathe of overrule an arbitrator. Since no one has pointed to an RLA DFR case that exactly matches this one, the end result of USAPA abandoning Nic (assuming that's what will happen) is anyone's guess. The 9th's ruling really does give no guidance either way.

Jim

 

[luvthe9]

Apparently you haven't read many court rulings. Almost never is part of a sentence from another ruling quoted. The 9th just quoted the entire sentence.

You, like many, are reading into the ruling what you want the result to be. Grasping at a few words in a quote from another case is such a reading. Just like the "even if it doesn't contain" the Nic - reading into that that the Nic is dead. All they said there was that it's theoretically possible that a contract could be devised that the West doesn't see as disadvantageous enough to file a DFR over.

The bottom line is that the whole ruling says nothing but that the suit was unripe. Reading anything else into it is wishful thinking - including your and my reading into it.

Jim

Nothing could be farther than the truth. There was a wealth of information in the 9th ruling. This is the most far reaching and definitive document that has been yet produced on the Nic and the entire seniority dispute. Say what you want, this put a lot of issues to rest. For the East.

 

[BoeingBoy]

They provided a roadmap.....

What you call a roadmap I call supporting their ruling of not ripe by citing previous case law.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

There was a wealth of information in the 9th ruling.

Whatever you believe, it's an opinion like everyone else's, including mine.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

True, but "a wide range of reasonableness" is not defined by East or USAPA in a DFR suit. In this case, it's what a neutral 3rd party found to be reasonable. As I said, courts have found that an arbitrated result is within that "wide range of reasonableness" AND that courts are loathe of overrule an arbitrator. Since no one has pointed to an RLA DFR case that exactly matches this one, the end result of USAPA abandoning Nic (assuming that's what will happen) is anyone's guess. The 9th's ruling really does give no guidance either way.

Jim

So yes it appears you accept that a DFR suit can be brought once a contract is ratified and that the standard by which it will judged will be whether or not it is within a wide range of reasonableness. And yes, a court will determine if it "can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ It would seem to me that the Supreme court not only sets up a theoretical wide-range but even stretches the wide-range by saying "so far outside" and "wholly irrational". Can one shoot a barn door if one is surrounded by barn doors, and standing on barn doors?

I suppose that if the Nic were ratified by USAPA, even the Nic would be found (in a court) to be within that extended wide range of reasonableness and would not be wholly irrational and arbitrary, except perhaps that USAPA's constitution mitigates against it (so it would likely be irrational).

But more importantly, the 9th has made it clear that a DFR suit will not certainly succeed on the question of whether or not USAPA could use the Nic, or even whether or not it had to (the 9th has ruled on that), but instead it will solely be on whether or not USAPA's system of seniority integration (and not ALPA's) is unfair because it is so far outside a wide range of reasonableness that it is wholly irrational or arbitrary. Added to that, the 9th has made clear reference (and acknowledged) to the facts that neither ALPA or USAPA had any expectation that the Nic would pass, thus it is entirely rational that something other than Nic will be necessary to protect all pilots.

In summary, Nic is not the standard. It is not even a guidepost. It is merely a fix point that ALPA came up with in its internal process, and it may or may not fall within that wide range of reasonableness. But frankly, Nic won't matter because Nic will not be on trial, it will be whether or not the USAPA solution falls within that wide range.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Well said!

I'll bet the guys that almost got stuck below someone hired 17 years later would want their 17 years of ALPA dues back. You'd have a retirement nest egg. Certainly more than you have now, since ALPA gave the rest of it away!