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

[BoeingBoy]

Oldie,

I think you're both saying the same thing - Oldie said "5 or more years as captain at the end of their careers", not "5 more years as captain at the end of their careers."

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Oldie,

Luv ya man, & I agree with most of your posts and have enjoyed reading them all. But, I have to set this one straight.

All F/O's at US Airways....East & West (absent any growth....and we all know the odds of that).....will not get 5 more years in the left seat at the end of their careers. For the most part, they will get the same years in the left seat as they would have got under age 60, just 5 years later. What they do get is 5 more years in the right seat. Think about it.

Yes, very true. The main gist of what I was trying to say really didn't need the age 65 thing in it. The idea is that before the NIC, through attrtion, most of the East F/Os would have been captains for 5 or more years before retirement. Under the NIC, almost none would likely ever make captain again (I say again, since pretty much all the current East F/Os had been one in the past). Oh, I see what you're getting at. This, of course, assumes that the F/O has 5 or more years left BEFORE they retire. Got it. Many are retiring now from the right seat. Hopefully an improving economy can correct some of this.

NIC actually used the age 65 rule to eliminate ALL the fences that protected East positions. And those Westies that were griping about not being in the top 500 don't have a clue. Those guys had the top paying jobs already and weren't going anywhere. That "top 500" thing is a red herring.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Windfall is in the eye of the beholder - an opinion, in other words. My opinion is that putting an East pilot who was furloughed at the time of the merger ahead of a West 757 Captain is a windfall.

Jim

Except that it isn't happening, with or without the NIC. No furloghed guy is taking the job of a Captain. They keep saying it, but it's NOT TRUE.

You know how you know it's a windfall? By the fact that the West guys sued to keep it. If it was an equal deal they wouldn't have considered it worthwile. Oh, the NIC was a windfall for the West alright. No doubt about it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Do ya see the bold word "ever"

Yes, and I see it modified by "uncertain" - "it is uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated". I other words, no one knows what the future would hold if Nic were in the combined contract - including the 9th.

Any more gems of wisdom from stirring the tea leaves and thinking you then know what was in the 9th's judges minds?

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Except that it isn't happening, with or without the NIC. No furloghed guy is taking the job of a Captain. They keep saying it, but it's NOT TRUE.

You know how you know it's a windfall? By the fact that the West guys sued to keep it.

The East guys sued to get out of it preferring DOH - I guess that proves the windfall in DOH then...

Jim

 

[oldiebutgoody]

The East guys sued to get out of it preferring DOH - I guess that proves the windfall in DOH then...

Jim

HUH? When did the East guys sue, except for Breeger, which was dismissed, or the AWAPPA RICO thing? In the Breeger case the ex empire guys want their DOH, which was denied them by the PI MEC. I happen to agree with them.

I also agree with USAPA, in that they, as CBA, cannot be held liable or responsible to correct ALL of ALPA's injustices, in this case dating back over 20 years.

 

[767intl]

OK, a few questions:

How free was ALPA to abandon the Nic award? Could they just toss it aside or did they need concurrence from both sides to alter it?

I'd really like an honest and thoughtful answer. Whenever these questions were posed in the past I only got the standard "I'm not having some young new hire ahead of me" response. Or I was answered with more questions, rhetoric, and attacks. I'd really like to know the unemotional answers to these questions to challenge my own point of reference to this whole situation. And if you or anyone else decides to give me some rational answers, please, for the sake of conversation, leave out union politics, anyone's age or slants on fairness. I'm only interested in the facts.

ALPA obviously thought they were free enough to abandon it. That's what they tried at Wye River. It's hard to tell if the East MEC would have gone along with the great Wye River compromise, but the East's 3 delegates there were ready to accept ALPA's proposal. The West wouldn't have anything to do with it. Those tough guys said no. Now they're going to pay for it for the rest of their careers. The Wye River Compromise (followed by the ALPA/Kirby cramdown) would have gone more LOS than DOH or NIC. With LOS, not a single West pilot would be on furlough now. But they turned it down, even after their own merger attorney Freund told them they better get something on the River or risk getting screwed. But those West "Men Of Genius" said no. Freund was either asked to leave or left in frustration after only 2 days at the conference.

Now ALPA's long gone. They thought Wye River would keep them from being voted off the island and get a new contract. They failed at both. Those are facts. No union politics here.

Now some opinion mixed in fact. According to the West point of view (Westies, please correct me if I'm overstating), anything less than the NIC is DFR material. Any modification, no matter how slight, amounted to an abandonment of the entire award and slam-dunk DFR. ALPA didn't see it that way. USAPA doesn't either. They both viewed the NIC (paraphrasing West's own merger attorney) as merely a negotiating tool/proposal. That's what Freund said in his reply to East MEC's lawsuit against the West. You obviously haven't seen those quotes from what Freund told the court. Obviously the D.C. district Court agreed with Freund. They threw out the suit. But for Freund, those words came back to haunt him. Well, they would have come back to haunt him if the Desert Judge had allowed USAPA to present their entire case. Maybe in the next trial, if there ever is another one.

West loves to say East welched on the deal, East has no integrity, etc. Problem is, ALPA is gone. USAPA wasn't around when all this went down. So it's all angry rhetoric. USAPA has no legal or moral obligation to give the NIC the time of day. The Ninth disagreed. West can continue to throw all the nasty words, phrases at us they want. With the Ninth's ruling, we don't much care. If we get too far out of line with our final contract (like staple), then I'm sure we will have a potential DFR loss ahead of us. But just dumping the NIC, at least in the eyes of the Ninth, does not meet DFR threshold.

Jetz, I really don't get your interest in any of this, other than you are either an ALPA plant or you really don't get it or you just like attracting attention. We already have enough of our own Easties doing all three, anything to disrupt and get back on ALPA FPL. We've outlined, quoted what the Ninth wrote, ad nauseum. Is what the Ninth said so hard to understand?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Excellent Post! Hit it outta the park!

 

[BoeingBoy]

ALPA obviously thought they were free enough to abandon it.

Why the Wye River meetings then - ALPA could have abandoned it sitting at headquarters if they "obviously thought they were free enough to abandon it." No- ALPA couldn't abandon the Nic. All they could do was attempt to get the parties to agree to modify/abandon it. So how free did the 9th say USAPA was to abandon the Nic? "At least" as as free as ALPA, which could be anything between "USAPA can't" to "they can completely ignore it".

 

[john john]

The AFA agreed to EAL DOH for the FAs even before the merger took place. I vivdly remember those discussions.

Seemed kind of crazy then. Shows how well a group with scruples can function now.

The customer service agents gave full EA DOH from day one

 

[BoeingBoy]

HUH? When did the East guys sue, except for Breeger, which was dismissed, or the AWAPPA RICO thing?

You really need to keep up Oldie. Crew room BS isn't necessarily the whole picture or even factual...

Jim

 

[ROACLT]

Why the Wye River meetings then - ALPA could have abandoned it sitting at headquarters if they "obviously thought they were free enough to abandon it." No- ALPA couldn't abandon the Nic. All they could do was attempt to get the parties to agree to modify/abandon it. So how free did the 9th say USAPA was to abandon the Nic? "At least" as as free as ALPA, which could be anything between "USAPA can't" to "they can completely ignore it".

Again, the 9th Circuit Court made it clear they leave USAPA free to bargain for all it members in Good Faith both East and West with the knowledge the threshold for ripeness will be met at that time.

They couldn't have made it more clear that its a collective interest and by using "good faith", the standard that will apply. They cited SCOTUS in ALPA v O'Niel and Ford Motor vs Huffman to further emphasize what that standard is.

Pg 8010

(“[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.’ ”

As a published case, this will be precedent. One which a judge must follow and one if a trail should be granted will require proper jury instruction and the allowance of such an enormous body of evidence, plaintiffs will never be able to show "wholly irrational" behavior.

The 9th Circuit also made it clear that the facts are that two seniority lists and contracts exist and the whole of the claim was based on a "seniority proposal" arrived through an "internal union process" by a union that was replaced.

Appeals court tend be very deliberate with their opinions, creating as little legal precedent as possible while rendering their decision. What precedent was issued here, clearly identified USAPA's obligation and ability to negotiate the interest of all its pilots unfettered. It's amazing that the 9th took the opportunity to cite Ford Motor vs Huffman and the SCOTUS's definition of breach of good faith. It is clear that they kept the opinion as brief as possible, citing the legal issues in play. Partly to limit the range of the precedent they were setting, partly because it limits the possibility of an en banc review because there was already precedent for the issues. Something Seham painfully tried to establish in Wake's court. Just about everything the 9th did do, validates USAPA's legal position, is consistent with labor principles, and protects organized labor's legal rights and allows no narrowing of the standard in which it can defend its actions.

In any way you look at this, USAPA just came through the process with the ability to abandon the NIC, as longs as it acts in Good Faith for all of its members.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Now some opinion mixed in fact. According to the West point of view (Westies, please correct me if I'm overstating), anything less than the NIC is DFR material.

Not West opinion but that of the 9th. Send them something without the Nic in a contract and see what happens.

Any modification, no matter how slight, amounted to an abandonment of the entire award and slam-dunk DFR.

Correct.

ALPA didn't see it that way.

Yes they did, otherwise they wouldn't have leaned so hard on the West pilots to capitulate. They knew the organization couldn't unilaterally modify the Nic without facing an unquestionably ripe DFR.

USAPA doesn't either.

Which is why they got their a$$e$ handed to them by a nine person jury. Do it again in a contract and wait and see if there's any difference in the verdict.

They both viewed the NIC (paraphrasing West's own merger attorney) as merely a negotiating tool/proposal. That's what Freund said in his reply to East MEC's lawsuit against the West.

Two parties to an arbitration can always agree to modify the result. The problem for you and your fellow USAPIANs is that there is no one to negotiate with any more. You didn't think this through, did you? What Freund said was a 100% correct...at that time.

You obviously haven't seen those quotes from what Freund told the court. Obviously the D.C. district Court agreed with Freund. They threw out the suit. But for Freund, those words came back to haunt him. Well, they would have come back to haunt him if the Desert Judge had allowed USAPA to present their entire case.

Do you realize that what you just said is utter gibberish? You Easties withdrew your suit in the DC Court!

Well, they would have come back to haunt him if the Desert Judge had allowed USAPA to present their entire case. Maybe in the next trial, if there ever is another one.

It's up to USAPA. The West will be happy to do it again whether next year or in five years. We have the time to wait . . .

USAPA has no legal or moral obligation to give the NIC the time of day. The Ninth disagreed.

Do you see the obvious contradiction between the two sentences?

With the Ninth's ruling, we don't much care. If we get too far out of line with our final contract (like staple), then I'm sure we will have a potential DFR loss ahead of us. But just dumping the NIC, at least in the eyes of the Ninth, does not meet DFR threshold.

Go ask your NC what the status is of the Nic.

 

[Barrister]

Again, the 9th Circuit Court made it clear they leave USAPA free to bargain for all it members in Good Faith both East and West with the knowledge the threshold for ripeness will be met at that time.

They couldn't have made it more clear that its a collective interest and by using "good faith", the standard that will apply. They cited SCOTUS in ALPA v O'Niel and Ford Motor vs Huffman to further emphasize what that standard is.

Pg 8010

(“[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.’ ”

As a published case, this will be precedent. One which a judge must follow and one if a trail should be granted will require proper jury instruction and the allowance of such an enormous body of evidence, plaintiffs will never be able to show "wholly irrational" behavior.

The 9th Circuit also made it clear that the facts are that two seniority lists and contracts exist and the whole of the claim was based on a "seniority proposal" arrived through an "internal union process" by a union that was replaced.

Appeals court tend be very deliberate with their opinions, creating as little legal precedent as possible while rendering their decision. What precedent was issued here, clearly identified USAPA's obligation and ability to negotiate the interest of all its pilots unfettered. It's amazing that the 9th took the opportunity to cite Ford Motor vs Huffman and the SCOTUS's definition of breach of good faith. It is clear that they kept the opinion as brief as possible, citing the legal issues in play. Partly to limit the range of the precedent they were setting, partly because it limits the possibility of an en banc review because there was already precedent for the issues. Something Seham painfully tried to establish in Wake's court. Just about everything the 9th did do, validates USAPA's legal position, is consistent with labor principles, and protects organized labor's legal rights and allows no narrowing of the standard in which it can defend its actions.

In any way you look at this, USAPA just came through the process with the ability to abandon the NIC, as longs as it acts in Good Faith for all of its members.

Don't confuse them with what the 9th said....after all it's
only words and their OPINION....well DUH...especially
you oh wise one.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[nycbusdriver]

I'm so glad you brought that up! I did use other airlines. Trans States and several US Express operators.

On one particular commute I showed up in the cockpit before boarding to ask for a ride. All flights were running late with ground delay programs due to wx. SO I had some time to chat. First thing the captain said to me was not even hello. His EXACT words, while chuckling, were "OH! A United guy looking for a ride? Here, sign this piece of paper that says Date Of Hire!" I stared at him without a reaction. He said, "Oh you guys have no sense of humor." I responded by telling him I didn't think it was funny, and that DOH was not in the merger policy. He proceeded to tell me that it it will go DOH, it always goes DOH, and not to worry because he would "only" bid 767 captain on the west coast because that's where he's from. This, coming from what I later found out was a relatively junior 737 captain. We chatted a bit longer as I tried to make small talk and pretend this guy was not an J A.

Eventually, I politely thanked them for their time and told him I was going to find another way to NY. Picked up my bag, walked off the airplane without another word said. I ended up on express. But you should have seen the look on his face. It was priceless!

So don't talk to me about cajones my friend!

Ok. So you borrowed Hillary Clinton's one day.

What about all the other rides you spoke of. Something about hearing it so many times?

Most commuters always have a plan B and plan C to make their check-in. I guess one can indeed walk off in a huff when plan A looks mighty uncomfortable. I wonder if this had been plan C whether you would have been so bold?