US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/20- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[A320 Driver]

That's exactly what happened.

We could have gotten credit for our retirement attrition but due to our own stupidity we never asked for it.

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

While all this is true, it doesn't help where we find ourselves today. John Prater, president of ALPA walked into the PHL crew room and stated that he found the award "problematic" the first time he saw it, but his ultimate solution was for the East to take one for the team. Now, if you will consider the posts, doing that very thing is not even enough. Now, it is "we want equal pay raises" which in effect makes the disparity between pay rates permanent for the life of any future contract. Also, West was very insistent in the beginning about their positions in PHX being protected. Now it's "don't lock us in PHX" and "we want access to the wide bodies".

I guess it comes down to everyone protecting their own interests, but it bothers me that neither side seems interested in finding middle ground anymore. Nothing less than a total win is acceptable.

I find that unacceptable personally.

Driver B)

 

[john john]

So the unions have to look forward to 93 86 seat express A/C and umpteen RJ's for ever
Because the Pilots TA/contract says so

 

[Piedmont1984]

While all this is true, it doesn't help where we find ourselves today. John Prater, president of ALPA walked into the PHL crew room and stated that he found the award "problematic" the first time he saw it, but his ultimate solution was for the East to take one for the team. Now, if you will consider the posts, doing that very thing is not even enough. Now, it is "we want equal pay raises" which in effect makes the disparity between pay rates permanent for the life of any future contract. Also, West was very insistent in the beginning about their positions in PHX being protected. Now it's "don't lock us in PHX" and "we want access to the wide bodies".

I guess it comes down to everyone protecting their own interests, but it bothers me that neither side seems interested in finding middle ground anymore. Nothing less than a total win is acceptable.

I find that unacceptable personally.

Driver B)

Career expectations - a moving target adjusted for inflation.

 

[Al Legheny]

Taken from the TA


VI. Operational Pilot Integration
A. Except as provided in paragraph B. below, the airline operations of America West
and US Airways, with respect to pilots, shall be merged no later than twelve (12)
months following the later of (i) completion of the integrated pilot seniority list
and (ii) negotiation of the Single Agreement provided that if by that date a single
FAA operating certificate has not been issued, the airline operations, with respect
to pilots, will be merged effective with the first bid period following thirty (30)
days after the issuance of such certificate. The Airline Parties will make every
reasonable effort in good faith to secure a single FAA operating certificate for
America West and US Airways as promptly as practicable. The merger of the
airline operations, with respect to pilots, under this paragraph A. is defined as the
“Operational Pilot Integration.”

Take a look back at all the posts by usapa supporters on this board and also in a federal court of law. They state words to the effect that (ii) will never happen to prevent (i) that already has happened which is the NIC and was accepted by lcc. This letter ACCEPTING the NIC by meeting all the criteria in the TA was signed and dated by lcc ceo doug parker.

Just emailed a copy of this letter to doug and company officials to help refresh their memories.


The 9th's opinion has not changed the TA and or our contract. Single Agreement/contract between lcc and the pilots of uairways means the NIC is the list.

Well I guess it is until USAPA changes the TA.

XII. Effective Date, Modification, Status of Letter of Agreement, and Duration
This Letter of Agreement:
A. Will take effect on the date of execution set forth below;
B. May be modified by written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties
collectively;
C. Does not alter or modify any term of any agreement between the Association and
an Airline Party, which remain in full force and effect in accordance with their
terms, except as set forth herein.
9-20-05
15
D. Governs in case of conflict between one of its terms and a provision of a
collective bargaining agreement between the Association and an Airline Party;
E. Will remain in effect in accordance with its terms until each of the provisions
herein has been fulfilled, unless sooner terminated by
1. Written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively;
or
2. Termination of the Merger Agreement;
3. At the discretion of the Association, failure of consummation of the
Merger Agreement prior to October 31, 2005.


E.1. Written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively;


The devil is in the details. USAPA has the right to modify or terminate the TA, with the agreement of the company of course. When the time comes for a contract the necessary changes will be made.

 

[nic4us]

Well I guess it is until USAPA changes the TA.

XII. Effective Date, Modification, Status of Letter of Agreement, and Duration
This Letter of Agreement:
A. Will take effect on the date of execution set forth below;
B. May be modified by written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties
collectively;
C. Does not alter or modify any term of any agreement between the Association and
an Airline Party, which remain in full force and effect in accordance with their
terms, except as set forth herein.
9-20-05
15
D. Governs in case of conflict between one of its terms and a provision of a
collective bargaining agreement between the Association and an Airline Party;
E. Will remain in effect in accordance with its terms until each of the provisions
herein has been fulfilled, unless sooner terminated by
1. Written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively;
or
2. Termination of the Merger Agreement;
3. At the discretion of the Association, failure of consummation of the
Merger Agreement prior to October 31, 2005.


E.1. Written agreement of the Association and the Airline Parties collectively;


The devil is in the details. USAPA has the right to modify or terminate the TA, with the agreement of the company of course. When the time comes for a contract the necessary changes will be made.

Almost true, and this is where the "thorny question" comes into play. usapa (as the "association") can modify the TA, but the "association" is a term used for the two seperate parties "pilots in the service of AWA" and "pilots in the service of AAA". You can find this in the header of the TA which states exactly who is entering into the agreement.

As usapa has no distinction or seperate representation for "the pilots in the service of AWA", and as we all know the desire of those pilots would be contradictory to what usapa would like to impose. So usapa actually cannot change the TA without commiting a breach of their DFR toward the West pilots.

We all know what happened here. The TA is a contract between Me, You, and the Company. You won the right to represent Me. Well, get on with it, I want the TA upheld in full force and to its terms, I am holding "the pilots in the service of AAA" and the "Airline parties" to their end of the agreement. Change my rights afforded by the TA, suffer pain of unquestionably ripe DFR.

 

[luvthe9]

Nice Job Al Legheny. It is taking a long, long time for the posters here to start figuring out the 9th and the T/A. All USAirways pilots are now represented by USAPA. There is no arbitration option anymore. There is no AWA pilot group, and no West contingent other than general reference used on this board, or in casual conversation. There is going to be no interference from the 9th. No DFR until harm, if ever. Most of all, there is no Nicolau requirement anymore. AWA pilots have a new successor- they are now USAirways pilots, so any reference to AWA pilots has been assumed by "pilots in the service of USAirways..."We are all one big, and happy family now. The pilots represented by USAPA have the right of T/A modification with concurrence of the employer, USAirways. The most important tenet of the collective bargaining process? In the case of this pilot group- the negotiation of seniority between the UNION and THE COMPANY. Internal union affairs at their best.

 

[luvthe9]

Even though that 17 year guy on the east had the same position as a new guy on the west? What makes the junior east position of reserve f/o one number from furlough, any more valuable than the the junior west reserve f/o position one number from furlough? What makes a furloughed east pilot with NO position, more valuable than any west f/o with a job, let alone a captain? According to you it's his DOH. Most people don't see it that way.

It doesn't matter what you want, or the unnamed most people don't see. We have a union, legally elected. It has DOH in it's contract. If you don't like it, being employed by UAL, resign from UAL, and try to be hired here, then change it. Give us one good reason why a UAL pilot has the authority and
forbearance to tell us how to conduct our business. By the way, when is the damages trial?

 

[Pi brat]

So usapa actually cannot change the TA without commiting a breach of their DFR toward the West pilots.

So you are saying they can't change it at all? What if the company wanted change the TA in an undeniable positive way for the west, they can't change it? That would violate your right to fair representation?

I agree that USAPA has a duty to represent you fairly, and I agree that the current position of DOH with C&R may fail that test, but I think you guys take that duty too far. The union has to balance the needs of ALL pilots, and for some reason you guys think that your needs trump all others. I really think you guys have read too much into the PHX and SFO rulings.

 

[luvthe9]

So you are saying they can't change it at all? What if the company wanted change the TA in an undeniable positive way for the west, they can't change it? That would violate your right to fair representation?

I agree that USAPA has a duty to represent you fairly, and I agree that the current position of DOH with C&R may fail that test, but I think you guys take that duty too far. The union has to balance the needs of ALL pilots, and for some reason you guys think that your needs trump all others. I really think you guys have read too much into the PHX and SFO rulings.

PI- hope you are figuring out what the 9th ruling meant. There is a real campaign by the west posters and UAL posters to try and confuse the issue. We are on our own now to determine our future. Wake was just a short term anomaly that the West construed for reality. All cleared by the 9th. Internal union affairs. There is no requirement for the Nic no matter what they say or imply. It is now between USAPA and the company to negotiate, modify etc. Seniority is negotiable. Their idea of harm is ridiculous when put in the context of all the other employee groups. Keep the faith. I guarantee this thing is coming to a close faster than they realize. The denial of en banc is the first hit they are going to take. More hits to follow soon.They will get protected in the normal context of labor relations. They will not get their massive windfall they plan on. That is assured. They have some very entitled thoughts that are going to go up against cold hard reality. Remember this when it all clears, and their entitlement plans go totally haywire. "All the risk is on the West......." They didn't listen. Nothing said by any side could have been closer to the truth...........

 

[cleardirect]

It doesn't matter what you want, or the unnamed most people don't see. We have a union, legally elected. It has DOH in it's contract. If you don't like it, being employed by UAL, resign from UAL, and try to be hired here, then change it. Give us one good reason why a UAL pilot has the authority and
forbearance to tell us how to conduct our business. By the way, when is the damages trial?

DOH is not anywhere in a contract. It is an "objective" in a union C&BL not a guarantee that has not bearing on the company. usapa could have put in the C&BL that they will be the highest paid pilots in the industry. Does that make it happen?

SECTION 8. OBJECTIVES OF USAPA

D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.

There are now two parties to a new contract. The company still has to agree with your "objectives" to put DOH in a contract. WWUD if the company says no?

No one from UAL is telling you how to do anything relax. People that have no dog in this fight are giving you their opinion that what the east pilots are doing is wrong.

 

[Pi brat]

PI- hope you are figuring out what the 9th ruling meant.

I don't know if I do or not, because I tend be a literal person and I'm finding out that the law is not as literal as I thought. It seems to be more of what "is" is.

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I do think USAPA has shown a willingness to ignore the rights and needs of the west. The C18 case is the most glaring case, but there are others. I believe in PHX AOL was able to take the failure to abide by the letter of the TA and the other evidence of poor treatment of the west to come to the conclusion that USAPA failed their DFR. The union and company absolutely have the right to negotiate and change our contract, but the union has to take all pilots in consideration. I think that if the leaders of USAPA don't change their way of handling the west, we will be right back where we were in PHX.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't know if I do or not, because I tend be a literal person and I'm finding out that the law is not as literal as I thought. It seems to be more of what "is" is.

Case law is literal, which is why Clinton got away with what became a joke - the answer to the question he was asked really did depend on the definition of "is". Or when he had the press conference and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" - look up the first definition of "sexual relations". It gets into interpretation when courts, including appeal courts and SCOTUS, use or disregard prior precedent because the underlying facts aren't exactly the same as the case at hand (and they very rarely are the same). So read the 9th's words literally, keeping in mind that they decided which prior DFR rulings were most applicable and which weren't.

When you said "I think that if the leaders of USAPA don't change their way of handling the west, we will be right back where we were in PHX" it was the truth. The 9th's ruling literally says what it says, no matter how much some want to believe they said something else.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

I don't know if I do or not, because I tend be a literal person and I'm finding out that the law is not as literal as I thought. It seems to be more of what "is" is.

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I do think USAPA has shown a willingness to ignore the rights and needs of the west. The C18 case is the most glaring case, but there are others. I believe in PHX AOL was able to take the failure to abide by the letter of the TA and the other evidence of poor treatment of the west to come to the conclusion that USAPA failed their DFR. The union and company absolutely have the right to negotiate and change our contract, but the union has to take all pilots in consideration. I think that if the leaders of USAPA don't change their way of handling the west, we will be right back where we were in PHX.

As usual your moderate stance has allowed you to consider both sides of the arguement. Rather than go back and quote each post I would like to comment on some of your recent posts.

First, the pre-merger state of the financial condition of AWA was somewhat dubious. However, AWA's condition was head and shoulders above that of AAA, and as Nicolau reasoned, the AAA pilots had much more to gain from the merger than the AWA pilots. What would have happened absent the merger is irrelevant, speculative at best and really has no place in the discusson outside of its context of how the Nic was arrived at.

I am not saying usapa cannot change the TA "at all". What I am saying is if they change it, the reason behind that change had better be acceptable to all parties who entered into the agreement, otherwise they will face legal challenge. Changing from an arbitrated award to a unilaterally imposed solution, that obviously favors the east pilot group at the expense of the West, simply does not pass the DFR smell test, and obviously is not in the best interest of the West pilots who were the originaly seperate signatories of the TA.

In the above quote, you come closer to the situation we are now in. Since its inception, usapa has been about getting out of the Nic award and promoting the interest of the east pilot group. Unless they change the goal of "uniform principles of seniority based on DOH" they are going to face legal challenge.

In the original agreement we had seperate ratification, in effect we still do. However, now it requires that the West seek their impediment to a joint contract through the court system. I think we have a good case, Wake thought we had a good case, Bybee thought we had a good case, the jury thought we had a good case, so I believe the West pilots will file again if usapa and the company put anything other than the Nic in section 22.

 

[767jetz]

Give us one good reason why a UAL pilot has the authority and
forbearance to tell us how to conduct our business.

Ummmm... excuse me, but it's called an opinion. Mine happens to be shared by the west and others, just like yours is shared by... well... many east pilots.

No one is forcing you to do anything. Can you say the same?

 

[767jetz]

... so I believe the West pilots will file again if usapa and the company put anything other than the Nic in section 22.

What if (and I know this is a big "what if"), but what if USAPA changes it's C&BL, and then includes Nic in section 22, but adds some adjustments for LOS, and true attrition, (the one that comes from their retiring captains and maybe 330 f/o's) and then some small short fences to ease the transition?

I realize changing the C&BL would probably require recalling the MEC or maybe even a new representative election. But I'll bet there are moderate voices on the east that would like to change the stalemate and save everyone time and money and get on with life. I know the west doesn't have to change a thing, and probably IMO has a good legal argument to win in the end after more wasted years and money. I'm just wondering if the west is now so entrenched in their position due to events that have taken place, that even a slight modification, seen as a type of plea bargain to end the stalemate, is even possible.