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

[ROACLT]

Did you just write 5 long paragraphs supporting the exact same arguements that got you sued and found liable the first time?

I did catch that part about Wake and our lawyers do not understand the law. Maybe that is why they asked Bob Siegal, when they had access to him in court.

Again, it does not matter how you change the seniority, it only matters why you changed it. Your arguement that a Nic contract could not pass is entirely speculative, and does not merit abandoning an arbitrated decision.

But go ahead and waste another $4-5 million persuing your disciminatory DOH dream, damages from an "unquestionably ripe DFR" will unquestionably be paid.

A single seniority list has never been created. Read the opinion, please. ALPA through its internal union process came up with a "seniority proposal". It really won't matter as to what is speculative but what is ratified and how it measures to that standard of good faith as defined by the 9th Circuit as well as SCOTUS. Any claim that an agreement could be reached with Nicalou, will be considered just as speculative then as it is now. Read the opinion, it is now precedent after all.

You are correct, that it will be unquestionably ripe for a claim. That is all the statement said, it does not infer that there will be a breach, nor does it infer any success in a claim whether with merit or whithout. It does however say USAPA has a "good faith" responsibility to both East and West pilots and further cites cases decided by SCOTUS that iterate when ripeness occurs and what behavior constitutes a breach of "good faith". USAPA won't be spending the money to sue, they as any person, entity, or corporation will be defending itself from Addington or any other plaintiffs suits, even if they are frivolous or inconsistent with the law. Who would expect anyone or any organization not to defend itself against a lawsuit? They aren't the ones suing.

 

[nic4us]

A single seniority list has never been created. Read the opinion, please. ALPA through its internal union process came up with a "seniority proposal". It really won't matter as to what is speculative but what is ratified and how it measures to that standard. Any claim that an agreement could reached with Nicalou, will be considered just as speculative then as it is now. Read the opinion, it is now precedent after all.

You are correct, that it will be unquestionably ripe for a claim. That is all the statement said, it does not infer that there will be a breach, nor does it infer any success in a claim whether with merit or whithout. It does however say USAPA has a "good faith" responsibility to both East and West pilots and further cites cases decided by SCOTUS that iterate when ripeness occurs and what behavior constitutes a breach of "good faith". USAPA won't be spending the money, they as any person, entity, or corporation will be defending itself from Addington or any other plaintiffs suits, even if they are frivolous or inconsistent with the law. Who would expect anyone or any organization not to defend itself against a lawsuit? They aren't the ones suing.

I have read the opinion.

ALPA did not come up with the proposal. ALPA merely supplied the method by which the proposal would be reached. The east pilots, the west pilots, and the company contractually agreed to use that method, which ended in binding arbitration. The TA was a contract outside of our repsective CBAs, that layed ground rules for how the merger would be handled. The TA is not an "internal union matter", but a tripartite contract between the unions seperate pilot groups as represented by their MECs and the company. Per the TA, the arbitrator came up with the proposal, and ALPA (now usapa) was contractually obligated to use and defend that proposal.

You are arguing what everyone knows and the 9th affirmed. A union has the right to negotiate on behalf of its members. That is not in question here. The question here is why did usapa abandon the arbitrated award? I got campaign videos, e-mails to Bradford, letters from the company, testimony in open court, an an entire boatload of evidence that says, usapa abandonded the award because the east pilots did not think it fair and wished to gain status greater than what was afforded in the arbitrated award.

So go ahead and try to pass something other than the Nic, usapa will lose again, as predicted by the 9th.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

So go ahead and try to pass something other than the Nic, usapa will lose again, as predicted by the 9th.

Done deal, dude. Time to move on. NIC is DEAD!

 

[nic4us]

NIC, pleez got sued and found liable the first time? TRY never happened "DISMISS" try reading the order, "YOUR CASE HAD NO MERIT!" MM!And was flying UPWIND!

Actually, our case was not ripe. 2 out of 4 judges say so.

No mention of the merits of the case in the 9ths opinion.

 

[ROACLT]

I have read the opinion.

ALPA did not come up with the proposal. ALPA merely supplied the method by which the proposal would be reached. The east pilots, the west pilots, and the company contractually agreed to use that method, which ended in binding arbitration. The TA was a contract outside of our repsective CBAs, that layed ground rules for how the merger would be handled. The TA is not an "internal union matter", but a tripartite contract between the unions seperate pilot groups as represented by their MECs and the company. Per the TA, the arbitrator came up with the proposal, and ALPA (now usapa) was contractually obligated to use and defend that proposal.

You are arguing what everyone knows and the 9th affirmed. A union has the right to negotiate on behalf of its members. That is not in question here. The question here is why did usapa abandon the arbitrated award? I got campaign videos, e-mails to Bradford, letters from the company, testimony in open court, an an entire boatload of evidence that says, usapa abandonded the award because the east pilots did not think it fair and wished to gain status greater than what was afforded in the arbitrated award.

So go ahead and try to pass something other than the Nic, usapa will lose again, as predicted by the 9th.

ALPA did come up with the proposal and it does say that in the 9th's opinion. Arbitration was part of an "internal union" process, ie. part of the ALPA process internal to it and governed by its policies. It was ALPA's method of ariving at a proposal, it does not guarantee success as stated by ALPA and shown by ALPA behavior in attempting to reconcile an impasse, as the 9th pointed out. Nor is it binding as the court clearly stated when it affirmed that USAPA is free to bargain without interference and the final product need not contain the Nicalou award.

What they did say USAPA had to do, is bargain in good faith. That is the legal requirement clearly stated by the 9th, in opposition to the question that Wake tried to legally frame in his court that was inconsistent with 9th Circuit and SCOTUS precedent. As the 9th Circuit rightly and corrected with its opinion. As far as the law is concerned, which obviously Wake was in error about, no status is gained or lost by a "proposal" that was never implemented and a process the predecessor union was unable to complete. USAPA only has to show that it uses acceptable union standards in seniority that falls withing a wide range of reasonable behavior, attempts to balance the needs of all it members(as much you hate the responsibility includes East pilots), is acceptable to the majority. Unions abandon proposal's all the time and for many reasons both to the delight of some and disappointment to others. USAPA abandoned the Kirby proposal. It has legitimate reasons for doing so, and it will contend that DOH with C & R is a legitimate pursuit in solving the seniority integration issues. You may not like but it won't be breach of "good faith" that they abandoned a proposal that was unacceptable to the majority. There were letters and videos from ALPA President John Prater that insured the East pilots that they had indefinite veto rights under the ALPA structure, were there not? How many years with independent votes, would that have taken to resolve? 10-15? Never? There is so much that ALPA said and did, your merger counsel said, along with case law, unions standards in establishing seniority, fact that longevity is a "gold standard" and widely used by a plurality of organized labor unions, that USAPA will have no problem defending when the question is framed by the precedents in the 9th's ruling not what Wake tried to do. Addington or any new plaintiffs might not even get it through the pre-trial petition and motions.

 

[ROACLT]

Actually, our case was not ripe. 2 out of 4 judges say so.

No mention of the merits of the case in the 9ths opinion.

You bring up 2 out of far 4 to infer something that is meaningless and make some positive point for your side. Only 2 judges counted. I bet GW or Al Gore could tell you exactly that. They personally went through numerous courts but the majority of the one at the top is the only one that matters.

Absent and En Banc hearing and a reversal, or the SCOTUS hearing your case and reversing, it looks like the opinion ofTashima and Graber is the only ones that matter.

While they didn't address USAPA's other 4 complaint's because of the lack of jurisdiction, they did iterate quite clearly some of the legal standards and arguments in relation to DFR, clearly to USAPA's benefit. Do you wonder why or how Wake would have fared in regards to the other complaints based on his understanding of ripeness, or good faith obligations of a union pursuant to DFR?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Actually, our case was not ripe. 2 out of 4 judges say so.

No mention of the merits of the case in the 9ths opinion.

2 out of 4 judges? And 2 million and climbing, EAST=DUES, WEST=DUES+ 2million and climbing! MM!DID YOU FIND THAT NOTICE OF REMOVAL? ASK.com is alot less expensive!

 

[cleardirect]

2 out of 4 judges? And 2 million and climbing, EAST=DUES, WEST=DUES+ 2million and climbing! MM!DID YOU FIND THAT NOTICE OF REMOVAL? ASK.com is alot less expensive!

Be a little more specific. What case was Freund removed from and when? What does it have to do with Addington

BTW where is the MDA filing?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Be a little more specific. What case was Freund removed from and when? What does it have to do with Addington

BTW where is the MDA filing?

MV, YOU KNOW I CAN'T POST IT BECAUSE I AM NOT THE AUTHOR BUT IF YOU GIVE US YOUR EMAIL, WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ENLIGHTEN THOSE MORE ENLIGHTEN THAN OURSELVES! MM! RESERVE MUST BE TOUGH!

 

[cleardirect]

MV, YOU KNOW I CAN'T POST IT BECAUSE I AM NOT THE AUTHOR BUT IF YOU GIVE US YOUR EMAIL, WE WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ENLIGHTEN THOSE MORE ENLIGHTEN THAN OURSELVES! MM! RESERVE MUST BE TOUGH!

Another none answer. I did not ask you to post it I asked what case you are talking about.

 

[luvthe9]

What you don't get is that you owe any seniority to the union and do not operate under free market conditions or a meritocracy. Whether it was ALPA's policy which outsourced determination of seniority, or USAPA's that mandates it of constitution & by-laws, it only exists because of the union and nothing else. The Union for all US Airways pilots is not ALPA, it is USAPA.

So merged seniority as you put it is at the determination of the union merger policy, an arbitration was not final and binding as you assert but part of an overall process of merger policy as so eloquently defined by the 9th Circuit. There is no merged, nor has there been merged seniority between US Airways pilots and America West pilots. There was an uncompleted attempt to produce an acceptable "seniority proposal" that might be incorporated into a single collective bargaining agreement. USAPA is now in control of that process to produce a seniority proposal to become a codified list if it completes a single collective bargaining agreement.

As traderjake or any other fails to point out, seniority only exists because of the union and his job performance, sick leave usage, training evaluations have nothing to with it, or yours, or any other pilot at US Airways. I'm sure all airline managements would clamor over the right to assign job placement as well as any of your other pay and working conditions. They can't because of the union and the contract. You live in an entitlement world, empowered by organized labor, yet you as well as many other poster can't seem to grasp that concept and it is probably why pilot unions have not had the strength they rightfully should and why your profession has suffered.

There is no concept of individual fairness in a collective, it is about serving the better interest of everyone through promoting the group, even at the expense of individuals or subsets within the group. Why do you think the DFR standards are defined by SCOTUS with terms like "wide range of reasonableness", "arbitrary" or "wholly irrational"? It so unions can create policies and negotiating tactics for the benefit of the majority without running afoul of or constant interference by the courts.

The 9th circuit, even through only addressing one of five complaints, the one pertaining to jurisdiction used the language and citations it did within the majority opinion. The majority opinion is the only one that counts and the only one that caries the weight of precedent and determination of law as George W. Bush and Al Gore could speak at length on.

You really have a grasp of the entire issue. Thanks for putting it so clearly. It is unfortunate, but an incredible number of posters on this board have really missed the role of unions, courts and judges in internal union affairs, and the responsibility of the union to its' members. Thank you for your input.

 

[luvthe9]

You bring up 2 out of far 4 to infer something that is meaningless and make some positive point for your side. Only 2 judges counted. I bet GW or Al Gore could tell you exactly that. They personally went through numerous courts but the majority of the one at the top is the only one that matters.

Absent and En Banc hearing and a reversal, or the SCOTUS hearing your case and reversing, it looks like the opinion ofTashima and Graber is the only ones that matter.

While they didn't address USAPA's other 4 complaint's because of the lack of jurisdiction, they did iterate quite clearly some of the legal standards and arguments in relation to DFR, clearly to USAPA's benefit. Do you wonder why or how Wake would have fared in regards to the other complaints based on his understanding of ripeness, or good faith obligations of a union pursuant to DFR?

Amazing. Bring up 2 of 4, when it is really Tashima and Graber against Bybee. Bingo. That is the right answer. 2 vs 1. The rest is just smoke being blown.

 

[luvthe9]

Be a little more specific. What case was Freund removed from and when? What does it have to do with Addington

BTW where is the MDA filing?

Grab the railing, your ship is going down........

 

[luvthe9]

Obviously Freund knew the merit of his own letter, where is he now? As the obvious best subject matter expert, why didn't he litigate your case? The 1.2 million spent annually by USAPA, most East pilots, I imagine would consider it well spent. Consider the fact that, ALPA has had as many as 7 DFR suits at any one time, and recently had 3 from US Airways pilots alone, 2 over the retirement issue and the MDA suit. They had 4-5 that had nothing to do with US Airways in any way, yet the East and West pilots for that matter were forced to pay for those legal bills through ALPA dues. I have heard that ALPA keeps 65% of dues at the national level, so in your particular case at US Airways, you guys are enjoying a 5.3 million dollar dues benefit over ALPA. The 6.5 million ALPA no longer keeps for its general use minus the 1.2 million in annual legal expense. Make no mistake, USAPA or any union is going to fact legal challenges. It is America after all.

Wake and Bybee were G.W Bush appointees. They would love to see union rights, and legal authority narrowed and the threat of constant judicial intervention. While you may adore them, I guarantee you if ALPA has any semblance of a union, their lawyers would completely disagree with your assessment of Wake and Bybee.

If the West pilots were ever to face Bybee and Wake in any other venue, other that one in which the opportunity was there for them to be used to crush a union- they would feel otherwise. Both are embarrassing in their lack of knowledge of union and RLA issues. Read about Bybee and the torture memos. Another desert nut job.

 

[luvthe9]

Did you just write 5 long paragraphs supporting the exact same arguements that got you sued and found liable the first time?

I did catch that part about Wake and our lawyers do not understand the law. Maybe that is why they asked Bob Siegal, when they had access to him in court.

Again, it does not matter how you change the seniority, it only matters why you changed it. Your arguement that a Nic contract could not pass is entirely speculative, and does not merit abandoning an arbitrated decision.

But go ahead and waste another $4-5 million persuing your disciminatory DOH dream, damages from an "unquestionably ripe DFR" will unquestionably be paid.

You will be paid as much as you were in the Wake damages trial. How much was that? How many times did we hear that threat?