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

[nic4us]

Long time lurker with two quick observations:

1) Here's a quote from page 8004 paragraph 2:

"Five months after certification, USAPA presented a seniority
proposal to the airline. The proposal incorporated date-ofhire
principles. Although the proposal contained some protections
for West Pilots, it was not nearly as favorable to West
Pilots as the Nicolau Award..."

(that should put an end to the West assertion of the Nic fairness, the math, the rhetoric...)

Not following you here newbie.

How does the courts observation that usapa put out a proposal that is "not nearly as favorable to the West Pilots as the Nicolau Award..." put an end to the West assertion of fairness?

I read that as an affirmation that usapa is trying to gain something more than what was awarded them in arbitration, and cram down something that is "less favorable to the West". i.e. take something from the West, and the court is aware of that fact.

Keep reading things into it though, you will figure it out eventually.

All the 9th said was "sorry west pilots, not yet".

Oh, by the way, they also documented that the 9th circuit has conflicting precedence on this matter of primacy.

 

[e28]

Sure, "Pretzle" I can explain the difference of opinion. You have "devolved" through this process to taking potshots at people with snarky remarks and low-brow'd mental gymnastics over all this. I'd agree, the west have said too much, fought too hard, spent too much money...and completely destroyed any possibility of pilot group cohesiveness to stop now.
That said:
Carry on...man the torpedoes, lock and load, and shoot 'em all "hot, straight and normal".
Its all you can do at this point, so I applaud your tenacity, but question the sanity.

As you were.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Not following you here newbie.

How does the courts observation that usapa put out a proposal that is "not nearly as favorable to the West Pilots as the Nicolau Award..." put an end to the West assertion of fairness?

I read that as an affirmation that usapa is trying to gain something more than what was awarded them in arbitration, and cram down something that is "less favorable to the West". i.e. take something from the West, and the court is aware of that fact.

Keep reading things into it though, you will figure it out eventually.

All the 9th said was "sorry west pilots, not yet".

Oh, by the way, they also documented that the 9th circuit has conflicting precedence on this matter of primacy.

SORT OF LIKE YOU WILL YOU'LL FIGURE IT OUT , DISMISS, that was one expensive memo, you get to pay BOTH sides.! GO FIGURE! MM!

 

[nic4us]

"It is, however, at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated..."

(-9th ruling page 8007 paragraph 7)

They didn't have to verbalize all of this...particularly the bold text. In fact, if the 9th believed that the Nic was inviolate and must be used going forward, this was their chance to say just that...

-thats not what the 9th said.

that is all for now

Yeah, when I read this it was somewhat troubling because they called the Nic the "West Pilots' preferred seniority system", when in reality, if the West got to decide how to merge seniority it would not have been the Nic. We did not ask Nic for this solution. The Nic was a compromise between what the West asked for and the east's unobtainable DOH mandate.

Also, this paragraph highlights a certain hypocrisy in the 9th ruling. Here, they are saying, we have a pretty good bead on and can predict the future, and a contract containing the Nic really does not stand a chance of passing. While in other parts of their opinion they are firmly stating, although usapa, was formed, campaigned and elected, wrote a constitution, and even has already passed a DOH non-Nic proposal at the table, nobody can say if they would do it in the future, and what a future proposal might look like until it gets ratified. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

It is either not certain what would happen until a ratification vote takes place for either circumstance, or it is at least equally foreseable for each of the two.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Yeah, when I read this it was somewhat troubling because they called the Nic the "West Pilots' preferred seniority system", when in reality, if the West got to decide how to merge seniority it would not have been the Nic. We did not ask Nic for this solution. The Nic was a compromise between what the West asked for and the east's unobtainable DOH mandate.

Also, this paragraph highlights a certain hypocrisy in the 9th ruling. Here, they are saying, we have a pretty good bead on and can predict the future, and a contract containing the Nic really does not stand a chance of passing. While in other parts of their opinion they are firmly stating, although usapa, was formed, campaigned and elected, wrote a constitution, and even has already passed a DOH non-Nic proposal at the table, nobody can say if they would do it in the future, and what a future proposal might look like until it gets ratified. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.

It is either not certain what would happen until a ratification vote takes place for either circumstance, or it is at least equally foreseable for each of the two.

So, you wanted a "staple job" and wound up with slightly less. That's commendable. Gee, I guess you are standup guys after all. Standup, as in comedians.

You know, that crap about USAPA and why it was formed, let me ask you this: What difference does it make? It's NOT illegal to form a new union with concrete goals, no matter what they are, as long as they are legal and fair. So, You can just give up that "USAPA was formed to get around nthe NIC" BS.

 

[Barrister]

Not following you here newbie.

How does the courts observation that usapa put out a proposal that is "not nearly as favorable to the West Pilots as the Nicolau Award..." put an end to the West assertion of fairness?

I read that as an affirmation that usapa is trying to gain something more than what was awarded them in arbitration, and cram down something that is "less favorable to the West". i.e. take something from the West, and the court is aware of that fact.

Keep reading things into it though, you will figure it out eventually.

All the 9th said was "sorry west pilots, not yet".

Oh, by the way, they also documented that the 9th circuit has conflicting precedence on this matter of primacy.

He is saying that the NIC favors the West....even the Court saw that!!!!!!!!!!
Stay alert!!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[e28]

From nic4us:
"Not following you here newbie.

How does the courts observation that usapa put out a proposal that is "not nearly as favorable to the West Pilots as the Nicolau Award..." put an end to the West assertion of fairness?

I read that as an affirmation that usapa is trying to gain something more than what was awarded them in arbitration, and cram down something that is "less favorable to the West". i.e. take something from the West, and the court is aware of that fact.

Keep reading things into it though, you will figure it out eventually.

All the 9th said was "sorry west pilots, not yet".

I say this:
nic4us, this may help bring some clarity to your thinking and/or understanding of the english language:

fa·vor·a·ble   /ˈfeɪvərəbəl, ˈfeɪvrə-/ Show Spelled[fey-ver-uh-buhl, feyv-ruh-] Show IPA
–adjective
1. characterized by approval or support; positive: a favorable report.
2. creating or winning favor; pleasing: to make a favorable impression.
3. affording advantage, opportunity, or convenience; advantageous: a favorable position.
4. (of an answer) granting what is desired.
5. boding well; propitious: The signs are favorable for a new start.


I pick number 3 for what the 9th meant, which one of these definitions fits in your world? Now, remember, you must use ONLY the exact wording of the 9th text in forming your decision. All of that blather I just quoted from you above?...which number was that from 1-5?....

Good luck

 

[Barrister]

Long time lurker with two quick observations:

1) Here's a quote from page 8004 paragraph 2:

"Five months after certification, USAPA presented a seniority
proposal to the airline. The proposal incorporated date-ofhire
principles. Although the proposal contained some protections
for West Pilots, it was not nearly as favorable to West
Pilots as the Nicolau Award..."

(that should put an end to the West assertion of the Nic fairness, the math, the rhetoric...)

2) So-called legal pundits such as hp-fa have gone totally underground since this ruling....for over two years he/she has been very quick to proffer opinion on merits, outcomes, and probabilities...as has aquagreen73's....both currently NORDO.

that is all for now.

Don't be too hard on HP-Fa she/he was doing ok just could not grasp the injustice
to the 17 year guy who gave up his pension and a left seat and 40% of F/O wages
just so newbie could be senior to him. Yea thats fair. She obviously has company!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Using that logic any original us air pilot should not be allowed in CLT. If you were PIT, LGA, BOS, SYR or any other base that has closed over the years. No job for you I guess.

If we merge with AA are you going to demand a fence around CLT,PHL and DCA too. No in or out. That is not what a merger is about. Because of a merger companies move assets around. If we had not merged this company would not have sent a ton of CORPORATE assets to PHL to clean up the pig sty. That is money that could have been used to grow PHX.

5 years have passed we are one company and the company decides where those assets go. Locking the west in PHX is not a merger. Would any of you accept being locked into your current base for the rest of your career? Why should we?

PHL a PIG STY, PHX great hub , can you send me what your on because that rocks ! MM!

 

[BoeingBoy]

just could not grasp the injustice
to the 17 year guy who gave up his pension and a left seat and 40% of F/O wages
just so newbie could be senior to him.

An admission that the East wants to make up for the years of stagnation/concessions on the backs of the West. Thanks.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

He is saying that the NIC favors the West....even the Court saw that!!!!!!!!!!
Stay alert!!!

NICDOA
NPJB

"the jury found that USAPA had violated the DFR because it abandoned the Nicolau Award in favor of a date-of-hire list solely to benefit the East Pilots at the expense of the West Pilots."

Did the 9th agree with the jury? Doesn't appear so.

Did the 9th acknowledge there is ample reason to abandon the Nic to protect all pilots, both East and West? Definitely.

Will the lawyers take more West money to keep the lottery dream alive? Definitely.

 

[nic4us]

SORT OF LIKE YOU WILL YOU'LL FIGURE IT OUT , DISMISS, that was one expensive memo, you get to pay BOTH sides.! GO FIGURE! MM!

I have already figured it out.

We are going to go round and round until the east accepts the arbitrated Nicolau award, the company goes out of bussiness, or a future merger occurs.

That is what you east pilots want is it not? Seperate ops and all. Capture your attrition. Permanent fence. Loa 93 til retirement. I AM ABSOLUTELY OKAY WITH THAT. You had that right under the TA and ALPA, in my book you should still have that right.

What I am not okay with...Reneging on binding arbitration. Cramming down a unilaterally imposed DOH seniority list. Stealing from your fellow pilots. Hurting the corporation and your fellow employees. Giving false testimony under oath. Seeking pilot terminations to further your agenda. Filing RICO lawsuits with maliscious intent. Paying 1.95% of income to a fake union...etc...etc...etc...

 

[e28]

An admission that the East wants to make up for the years of stagnation/concessions on the backs of the West. Thanks.

Jim

Ah yes...
I'm still unclear as to how you fit into this Jim...I know there was a lot of ALPA in your blood (still is)..are you on some kinda payroll from Herndon? AOL? AWAPPSA? Havent figured out how a retired schedule puppet has a dog in this...Odd.

Anyhow, I think it's easy to see that over the years of gives by the East group, they drew a line in the sand at seniority.
Yeah, I said it...a line in the sand. Lets look at that for a second. Drawing a line means NO MORE GIVING. Thats all it means. It does NOT mean "making up" for anything as you incorrectly and bitterly assert.
No more giving? "Making up for?
I see the difference...do you?
Of course not.

 

[Phoenix]

I have already figured it out....

I see the light too, bro. Its a fake union.

Nothing going on here... move along.

 

[nic4us]

Sure, "Pretzle" ................. I'd agree, the west have said too much, fought too hard, spent too much money...and completely destroyed any possibility of pilot group cohesiveness to stop now.

Yep, it is all the Wests' fault.

The completely innocent east pilots, who stormed out of contract negotiations, fired off a volley of lawsuits, fired the union and then sought West pilot terminations, have been working feverously toward pilot cohesivenss.

mmmmm......"pretzles"

DOH is DOA