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

[767intl]

Versus the ever-popular: "It was mine before, and I won't ever let you have it (no matter what I said, signed or promised)!!"

Now that made a lot of sense, 53. Truth is, courts seldom give advisory opinions or engage in "what-ifs." Normally it's not their job to tell you you should have gone in head first, not hook slide. They just call you out or safe. In this case, you were out. But the Ninth did read all the testimony, ALL the objections, and understood all the history, dating back to ALPA's failed attempts to MODIFY the NIC (Think Wye River, big guy). They understood Wake's limiting testimony. So while ALL Wake testimony is now irrelevant, the Ninth left a lot of parting shots about what a union can do. Maybe they just wanted to set out the ground rules so they wouldn't have to deal with another Wake-type trial.

e28 got it right with: "We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-
nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA."

ALPA didn't get DFRed for Wye River or any of its other stunts. The Ninth put in writing they understood and believed a NIC contract didn't stand a chance, affirming ALPA's behavior and USAPA's right to negotiate a contract that will pass, as long as it doesn't go over the line into DFR territory. NO-NIC doesn't arise to DFR, at least that's what the court clearly stated. You just aren't getting that and it isn't being passed on to your AOL membership.

The Ninth has often been labeled as an activist court that goes too far and gets reversed. Maybe that's true. If you don't like their decision, find some legal grounds and appeal. Best of luck to you. But keep in mind the Ninth used a lot of SCOTUS language in their decision. Also keep in mind, the Ninth has no history in its latest liberal/activist mode of being overturned by the SCOTUS on a labor issue. Lastly, keep in mind that unless overturned, what the Ninth said about internal union dealings is now legal precedence. It can and will be used against you in a court of law. Nothing in the Wake trial is relevant or can be ever used again unless both sides agree. The SCOTUS can only reverse the decision, not comment on the Ninth's wording or "advice," except in a reversal. You're going to have to live with it.

But there's hope for you, 53. Maybe West Legal Maven HP_fa will re-appear on the board with another sweeping legal pronouncement to give you all hope and get you to re-open your check books. I'm sure he's just been on vacation.

 

[BoeingBoy]

From page 8008-8009 of the 9th decision-

"We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-
nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA.

There is is, right in front of everyone.

Maybe both of you should have been more familiar with ALPA's merger policy - must have both been among the apathetic majority that let the LEC's and MEC get away with about anything they wanted. You'll see how "free" ALPA was to abandon the Nic. As luvthe9 says, the answer is right there in front of everyone.

Jim

I see we can add 767intl to the club.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Maybe both of you should have been more familiar with ALPA's merger policy - must have both been among the apathetic majority that let the LEC's and MEC get away with about anything they wanted. You'll see how "free" ALPA was to abandon the Nic. As luvthe9 says, the answer is right there in front of everyone.

Jim

I see we can add 767intl to the club.

What club is that? I know, you mean the WINNERS CLUB!

Only one other question. WHAT MERGER POLICY? Sending your disputes to an arbitrator is NOT a merger policy. It's a cop out!

 

[Freighterguynow]

Right now they're all screaming "Fences" from the roof tops. Back in the attempted 2000 merger with UA, the UA pilots suggested fencing them into their little regional airline and out of the cockpits of our 747's and 777's. Guess what? They screamed bloody murder!

The United Merger Committee proposed a PERMANENT fence - the US Airways pilots could never bid those positions yet, some years down the road, some newbie flying for the regionals who happened to get hired at the airline could.

Yet another winning the battle but losing the war moment. Good luck with the group hug at CAL.

 

[BoeingBoy]

WHAT MERGER POLICY? Sending your disputes to an arbitrator is NOT a merger policy.

Yeah, anything other than mandating whatever outcome suits you is not a policy in your little world...

Jim

 

[767jetz]

Wait till Continental measures your airline up.

They already have. Things are looking pretty good so far for both sides. Just heard the company and new management want a contract in place before the deal is consummated by the end of the year. Much like NW/DL. Will you eat your words if that happens and everyone at the new UA is working together as one under an industry leading contract?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Yeah, anything other than mandating whatever outcome suits you is not a policy in your little world...

Jim

Nope, wrong again. Getting to be a regular thing with you. A REAL merger policy would have a concrete formula, with only MINOR issues left to be dealt with. A union member should be able, from the day of the merger announcement (if both groups are represented by the same CBA), pick up both lists and KNOW where they fit in. No modifications to suit the majority. No unfair carve-outs. That's the way it should be. With USAPA, that's the way it WILL be. Of course, for groups NOT represented by the same CBA, the new McCaskill law will prevail, and it can end up in arbitration, but at least it will be by fair, long tested methods.

 

[BoeingBoy]

A REAL merger policy would have a concrete formula, with only MINOR issues left to be dealt with. A union member should be able, from the day of the merger announcement (if both groups are represented by the same CBA), pick up both lists and KNOW hwere they fit in.

So if ALPA had mandated relative position for active pilots with furloughees on the bottom (by relative position if both sides had furloughees) the last 3 years could have been avoided - it would fit your criteria. You'd have accepted relative position if it were the ALPA policy and it's just that it came from an arbitrator that caused the upheaval? You must have some swamp land you want to unload.

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

So if ALPA had mandated relative position the last 3 years could have been avoided - it would fit your criteria. You'd have accepted relative position if it were the ALPA policy and it's just that it came from an arbitrator that caused the upheaval? You must have some swamp land you want to unload.

Jim

You know (well, maybe you don't), that unions have used some form of DOH formula for merging labor groups since their inception. ALPA is the first and only that I know of that did not even have it as part of the formula. That's why they failed miserably. It was the final straw leading to their ouster from the property. I understand it's back in their formula. Gee, go figure. My assumption for a REAL WORKABLE merger policy is that it would include DOH as part of the formula, as ALL successful ones in the past, in ALL industries have.

As far as DL-NW goes, I'm not so sure there is some ugliness coming yet. As for UAL-CAL, I don't even know if it's gonna get gov't approval. I'll also predict some ugliness there, as well. At least ALPA tried to fix the issue they had with our merger. It won't be enough.

I remember just after the NIC was released. A friend of mine wrote an email to Prater, asking him to make public the instructions that ALPA gave to the arbitrator. He was concerned about the "no windfall" provision of the ALPA policy, which was not adheared to. Prater refused, saying, basically, that while ALPA was to abide by the "no windfall" provisions in negotiations, the arbitrator was under no such constraint. What a crock.

ALPA SUX!

 

[luvthe9]

They already have. Things are looking pretty good so far for both sides. Just heard the company and new management want a contract in place before the deal is consummated by the end of the year. Much like NW/DL. Will you eat your words if that happens and everyone at the new UA is working together as one under an industry leading contract?

I hope you get a good deal. If you don't get parity before the merge, you will regret it. Why do you think we don't want you to get a good deal?

 

[BoeingBoy]

As I suspected, it's back to DOH, with some mumbo jumbo about doesn't have to be DOH but just walk, talk, and look like DOH.

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

As I suspected, it's back to DOH, with some mumbo jumbo about doesn't have to be DOH but just walk, talk, and look like DOH.

Jim

Yes, it' s true. DOH is the winner! Even your beloved ALPA says so, now that is.

 

[luvthe9]

As I suspected, it's back to DOH, with some mumbo jumbo about doesn't have to be DOH but just walk, talk, and look like DOH.

Jim

Allegh- Lake Central, Allegh. Mohawk, USAir PSA, USAir Piedmont. All DOH. What are you talking about. This is how it is done.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Allegh- Lake Central, Allegh. Mohawk, USAir PSA, USAir Piedmont. All DOH. What are you talking about. This is how it is done.

If you remember, back in 1988, during the PI-U merger, PI wanted straight relative position and lost. Some folks just can't let go. Back then ALPA's merger policy had DOH in it, too. UAL got it taken out when it looked like they were going to merge with U in the early 2000s.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Shuttle? Merge by pay? The "gold standard" must have been in the shop being polished for that merger.

Jim