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

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

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

Jim

WELL YOU SAID IT NOT US! MM!

 

[traderjake]

So far, I have never had any pilot from the east tell me they want anything from the west side of this operation.

Another USAPA lie.

They want to furlough 1000 West pilots before the first East pilot is furloughed.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Another USAPA lie.

They want to furlough 1000 West pilots before the first East pilot is furloughed.

I've NEVER heard an East pilot talk about wanting ANYONE furloughed. How about we all work to make sure it doesn't happen?

The East side brought the minimum aircraft guarantees. Why should folks that have been here 17 years be furloughed before guys that were on probation at merger time? You guys make NO sense. It's too bad for you that your beloved ALPA finally got called on the carpet for it's incompetence. I mean ALPA National, the worst high priced advice you can get.

ALPA SUX!

I hope the Spirit guys succeed. ALPA won't wait a second to throw them under the bus.

 

[luvn737s]

A contract need not be ratrified before a DFR occurs. Simply the act of presenting supporting and defending the TA which has the potential to harm the west pilots is enough.

While some like to say that Nic will stay in a drawer never to see the light of day, any DOH TA will be right there alongside it.

Sorry to break it to you this way.

But the Champagne was pretty good, wasn't it?

 

[nycbusdriver]

The only reason that the court and lawyers refer to the Nic. as a "proposal" is because the two sides can change it together mutually. But since the east pilot group has eliminated the west union leadership, the change can not be done mutually. There for like it or not both sides are stuck with the Nic and if usapa comes off the Nic you have yourself a DFR.

Maybe this can be used in the future as a prime example of tortured logic.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

A contract need not be ratrified before a DFR occurs. Simply the act of presenting supporting and defending the TA which has the potential to harm the west pilots is enough.

While some like to say that Nic will stay in a drawer never to see the light of day, any DOH TA will be right there alongside it.

Sorry to break it to you this way.

But the Champagne was pretty good, wasn't it?

Yup, because YOU LOST! NIC is done! WAAAAH! I know, why not keep making stuff up to make yourself happy?

Talk about tortured logic!

 

[Phoenix]

A contract need not be ratrified before a DFR occurs. Simply the act of presenting supporting and defending the TA which has the potential to harm the west pilots is enough.

While some like to say that Nic will stay in a drawer never to see the light of day, any DOH TA will be right there alongside it.

Sorry to break it to you this way.

But the Champagne was pretty good, wasn't it?

9th circuit, Reason #5 that it is not ripe, pg. 8007, para. 1 (emphasis added)

"Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately is."

 

[traderjake]

Why should folks that have been here 17 years be furloughed before guys that were on probation at merger time?

Because the 17 year guy was the last pilot on the East seniority list and the first on that list to be furloughed.

The bottom pilot from each respective list should be the first two pilots furloughed.

You want to give that East pilot a wind fall by furloughing more than half of the West pilots before him.

By the way, I'm an East pilot.

 

[Barrister]

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

You are truly amazing....do you wear those cool shades
when your head is up your....oh sorry....stuck in the ground!!!!!

NPJB

 

[Barrister]

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.

Yea, and if you Westies want to strenthen your case you better pass up those 330 left and right seats
that you can hold in a year or two with DOH....better not take ANY left seat on the new bids....lest you
weaken your case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NPJB

 

[Phoenix]

Because the 17 year guy was the last pilot on the East seniority list and the first on that list to be furloughed.

The bottom pilot from each respective list should be the first two pilots furloughed.

You want to give that East pilot a wind fall by furloughing more than half of the West pilots before him.

By the way, I'm an East pilot.

That's a narrow view (of a very small portion of the seniority range) and probably falls within the wide range of reasonableness spoken of by the Supreme Court. But it is just one narrow view, and by definition, there are many narrow views that will fall in that Supreme Court wide range. I suppose USAPA will come up with something.

 

[traderjake]

NIC is done!

Wrong again. The NIC, under our present contract, is the only seniority list until a different one is negotiated and a new contract is ratified.

The courts are probably not going to allow that new list to stand.

 

[Phoenix]

Wrong again. The NIC, under our present contract, is the only seniority list until a different one is negotiated and ratified in a new contract.

The courts are probably not going to allow that.

No probably about it. The 9th just made it impossible for a DFR suit until USAPA's proposal is ratified.

 

[Barrister]

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.

...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)))...

The Court of Appeals is quoting case law to you that contains the standard
Thats what courts do. So slice it and dice it anyway you want to. The last
sentence will be the test USAPA has to meet when they propose a TA that is ratified.
The 9th did not cite that case because IT WAS A SLOW DAY AND THE CLERKS
NEEDED TO STAY BUSY. Open your eyes and check your bank balance.
This is going to get even more difficult and more expensive. Chances are the
NIC or even it's mention will not be a factor in the next case.

NIC DOA
NPJB

 

[usabusdriver]

... In their opinion, they cited the very argument that Seham made in district court that ALPA's own agreements and "seniority proposal" created the potential for an indefinite veto and impasse. It isn't coincidence when Jurists are precise in that way, and it was a very gentle but not to subtle redressing of what happened in Wake's court.

As discussed numerous times, the legal standard if a DFR claim is made toward USAPA in the future will have nothing to do with the Nicalou Award, it will be the standard of "Good Faith" pursuant to a unions DFR responsibilities. USAPA will only have to show that its seniority integration methods fall within a wide range of reasonable behavior and the litmus will be the comparison to the vast body of evidence, mountains and mountains of it, showing that unions historically integrate similarly skilled individuals in the same craft by DOH. They could produce 1000s of examples if necessary including the other labor unions on the property...

Good post. Sound logic. Just two comments.

First off I think that your arguement about an impasse is misplaced. The only impasse that would be created is between the company and the pilot group for getting enough economics to accept the Nic and vote in a TA. There is no impasse between or amongst the pilot group just between the union and the company, because the dual process was eliminated with the new union.

Second is the issue as defined during trial, namely that the west pilots charged that the union was created exclusively for the express purpose of avoiding the Nic but are nonetheless still bound to use the Nic. The question that the ninth failed to answer was the “thorny” issue of the union’s obligation to the “process” which produced the Nic. That process is “contractual”, meaning part of the Transition Agreement, an amendment to the east and west contracts and signed by east, west, and company. That is the $64,000 question, whether or not the union’s obligation to negotiate in good faith includes complying with the terms of the Transition Agreement concerning seniority integration and using the Nic.