US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/13- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[jetjok1]

What you and your ilk continue to completely ignore is the NIC WAS AN INTERNAL UNION BARGAINING POSITION... Any union may alter its bargaining position and strategy, allowing them to modify what was previously proposed based upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the company's position on various other sections of the contract. THE NIC IS BINDING ON NO ONE UNTIL IS IT PART OF A RATIFIED CBA! GET IT YET????

However, it is reasonable to believe, the company would not accept a list that is a definite "windfall" for either side... well... uh...maybe they would...

Ah.....they did!

 

[Black Swan]

The company is under no obligation to negotiate a new TA with you, only a unified CBA, did you miss the day in school when the RLA was taught?

How many contracts and negotiating committees have you been on?

And how many please tell us does it take to make a cleaner an authority on the RLA? And just because you went to the quickie school a lot of us have been to also hardly makes anyone an expert. Most of us realized it was a basic indoc to just familiarize one and a lesson to learn/If you believe that quickie IAM school made you an expert, then it explains a lot of your posts.

 

[700UW]

When you get past being a victim call the company to tell them to stand by Wake's injunction. 😉

Sorry not a victim, not a pilot and why cant you answer the questions with facts like I have instead of trying to attack me?

You cant answer one question poised to you, no knowledge of what your talking about?

And how many please tell us does it take to make a cleaner an authority on the RLA? And just because you went to the quickie school a lot of us have been to also hardly makes anyone an expert. Most of us realized it was a basic indoc to just familiarize one and a lesson to learn/If you believe that quickie IAM school made you an expert, then it explains a lot of your posts.

I was an IAM rep for years, shop steward, other positions, went to every class at Placid Harbor for leadership and contract negotiations, and others, they are college accredited classes, (Placid Harbor is an accredited school) was on the IAM NC at US for M&R and at CO for the Flight Attendants.

Can you say the same?

And once again, if you think I am wrong, disprove me with facts and not attacks.

And one's classification, has nothing to do with their level of education and knowledge, how many jobs did you save?

I have saved many from being fired.

And PS when I left US I was a stock clerk, not Utility, see you cant even get the proper terms down.

 

[767jetz]

You cant answer one question poised to you, no knowledge of what your talking about?

And once again, if you think I am wrong, disprove me with facts and not attacks.

Don't waste your breath. They always play from the same book. If they can't answer a question they turn into attack dogs and then attempt to redirect the conversation.

And one's classification, has nothing to do with their level of education and knowledge

Isn't that the truth. I first worked for UA as ramp service, smashing bags in the pit, years before I became a pilot.

Hey, maybe I should go back and get them to honor my original DOH! 😀

 

[700UW]

Sign a usapa card for UA, lol!!!!!

 

[ROACLT]

When you get past being a victim call the company to tell them to stand by Wake's injunction. 😉

That injunction will soon be vacated when the 9th Circuit denies the motion for stay and issues their order for dismissal to the district court. It's sad they don't see the wasted time and money, their attorney's and the District judge cost them.

When you look at the motion for stay, and the response from USAPA, it could easily be deduced that the Addington lawyers are just going through the motions. USAPA hammered their motion in its response and while initially one might think it wordy at 16 pages, it was very to the point citing both case and rules supporting the denial. I am no lawyer but a very sharp judge that I know well and a lawyer I am acquainted with that has worked for both major Longshoreman unions seem to think a little CYA is going on. They said the motion for stay was one of the weakest they have seen and pardon the pun was probably just going through the motions. ITHO, maybe a little placating the plaintiffs by counsel. Not that the Plaintiffs could ever mount a malpractice suit against their counsel at this point. Sadly, they drew an activist judge that for reasons that may never be known, manufactured a results oriented trial. Whatever favor he thought he was doing cost the Addington plaintiffs 2 million and 2 years, and gave them no recourse for the counsel received by their attorneys to prematurely seek adjudication or the bills run up. It would be easy to see why they would just go through the motions at this point. For all the attacks plaintiffs have leveled at the competence of SSM&P it's pretty clear their ability of knowing and understanding labor law is showing and at least the people I know in the legal business have expressed which sides counsel they would want representing them, and its not plaintiffs.

The filing of a Writ of Certiorari is a complete waste of time. The rules require a writ conference within 90 days and by process for clerks to make recommendations on the wirts filed but their is no time line for the judges to see or act on the recommendations and their are thousands. It could be well beyond 2011 before a yea or nea was ever heard. It's why SCOTUS reserves its time for matters of a Constitutional issues(I.e. ruling on the Chicago handgun law. ), or when they see apparent conflict in interpretation of the law between the various circuits. There were two cases brought against USAPA over DOH seniority, one Addington and the other Breeger. Both have now been found not ripe, one after an unneeded costly trial and the other pre trial. Consistency amongst circuits has been found on the issue and as it pertains to this specific set of events. The fact that no Judge polled for the En Banc petition voted in the affirmative would normally be a loud message for someone with the exception of plaintiffs, that no chance of the SCOTUS hearing the case is likely, unless one is just going through the motions.

When you couple this with the fact that the 9th Circuit in the majority decision while not addressing the merits of the case commented on them, in ways favorable and supporting the very arguments of USAPA's counsel, a definite vortex for throwing money away now exists for the plaintiffs and their contributors. Citing Ford Motor v. Huffman, and the standard by which unions find themselves in conflict of its Duty of Fair Representation had nothing to do with ripeness. It was a comment, not a judgement, but a comment on the merits that anybody, except for plaintiffs could see was intended for a potential future district judge, what a wide latitude unions were given in setting policy and negotiation for a group. That and the fact the 9th considers the seniority issue and internal union process, with only a the normal "Good Faith" requirements really set the course for any future claim. I am sure the message was intended for plaintiff and attorney's as well but I don't see it getting through.

 

[cleardirect]

It was binding on the two MECs to accept it. It's a contract like any other. However, like any other contract, if either or both of the two parties cease to exist, so does the contract. On April 18, 2008, the AWA MEC and the AAA MEC disappeared from the face of the earth. IT WAS BINDING ON THOSE TWO PARTIES as representatives of their respective pilot groups. Had ALPA survived on the property, the two MECs would have had to accept the Nic as part of a new CBA (per the TA.)

The entities that were bound by the Nic arbitration are non-existent as separate entities.

would you like to try again? Start at the top of the page of the Nicolau award.

In the Matter of the Seniority Integration of
The Pilots of US Airways, Inc.
and
The Pilots of America West Airlines, Inc.

Those are the two parties to the seniority integration. Not the MEC it is the PILOTS.

 

[cleardirect]

Dudes,

Someone just sent me the courts ruling on the denial of the en banc hearing. There is some serious wakeup call contained in that ruling. The courts are getting tired of the Westies and their arguments. SOMEONE SOMEWHERE...has gotten word to then about the NIC and they ain't buying it. YOU WESTIES NEED TO SERIOUSLY READ THIS...if someone knows how please post it....read it a few times ...AND GET OVER IT. The Court says what we have been telling you....and they even make a point to mention that USAPA ws NOT EVEN AROUND during these arbitrations....which were not binding.....in the first place. DUDES YOU NEED TO READ IT...seriously. They even quote one of our guys saying the NIC will not pass....they further note that it has been 5 years since the merger and this continues...and even strongly suggests that you won't even get an injunction next time around. BALL GAME OVER.THE INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED THE FIRST TIME AND .......ARE YOU READY....THEY EVEN TALK ABOUT DOH....thats right...DOH......that dirty little 3 letter thing....AND YOU WON'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAY. A must read!!

NICDOA
NPJB

Hey “DUDE” before you launch into your next rant you really should figure out what you are talking about.

Here is the complete Ninth Circuit order on the en-banc hearing. Would you care to point out where DOH was mentioned? Where do you get the impression that the court is getting tired of the westies? That is it the whole ruling on the denial of the en-banc.

So sorry “DUDE” you have no idea what you are talking about. With a name like barrister I would think you might have a clue.

No. 09-16564
DC No. 2:08-CV-01633 NVW
D. Ariz.
O R D E R

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel voted to deny the petition for clarification and said petition is
denied.
Judge Graber votes to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Bybee
votes to grant the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Tashima recommends
that the petition for rehearing en banc be denied. The full court has been advised of
the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on
en banc rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(f).
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

 

[nic4us]

It's sad they don't see the wasted time and money, their attorney's and the District judge cost them.

Let me get this straight. The east piltot group has cost every pilot at this airline 10s of thousands of dollars. Wasted millions on legal proceedings chasing their tail for something that every person of authority has told them from the beginning they are not going to get, and you think it is "sad" the West does not see "the wasted time and money"?

You are so far off base it is laughable. The West has thwarted the usapa DOH cramdown for some time now, and will continue for the foreseable future, with full clarity of vision of how much this is costing.

Were you not going to the San Juans? How was the crabbing?

 

[nic4us]

, a definite vortex for throwing money away now exists for the plaintiffs and their contributors.

Since you seem bent on the financial aspect of plaintiffs ability to pay, I suspect you are of the opinion that usapa can merely out spend the West to win this case in which they cannot win on merit.

Here is another tidbit for you. If our captains put up one months difference in pay to that of which the east makes, and our f/o's contribute 2 months difference in pay, I am talking about the amount we make over what our counterparts in the east make, we are fully funded for DFRII. We could fund 6 trials a year with the difference and have millions left over for the "Seham is a slimeball" party we are going to throw when we send him packing.

Well, in the last 2 years, I had to get paid like an east captain for one month to make my contribution, looks like I will have to get paid like an east captain for another month to keep usapa at bay in the next round.

 

[nic4us]

What you and your ilk continue to completely ignore is the NIC WAS AN INTERNAL UNION BARGAINING POSITION... Any union may alter its bargaining position and strategy, allowing them to modify what was previously proposed based upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the company's position on various other sections of the contract. THE NIC IS BINDING ON NO ONE UNTIL IS IT PART OF A RATIFIED CBA! GET IT YET????

Yes, We get it!!! WE ALL GET IT!!!!!

And if that ratified CBA has something in it other than the Nic, usapa is going to find out what it means to be a union that fails its DFR.

Has anyone mentioned yet that the Nic was arrived at through binding arbitration?

 

[LSS]

Yes, We get it!!! WE ALL GET IT!!!!!

And if that ratified CBA has something in it other than the Nic, usapa is going to find out what it means to be a union that fails its DFR.

Has anyone mentioned yet that the Nic was arrived at through binding arbitration?

Duh... yes... the 9th did... ”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 recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA.”

You can rant all you wish if it makes you feel better... but fortunately... you are not the judge, nor will you be empanelled as a juror... so we'll just have to wait and see... now won't we???

 

[luvthe9]

That injunction will soon be vacated when the 9th Circuit denies the motion for stay and issues their order for dismissal to the district court. It's sad they don't see the wasted time and money, their attorney's and the District judge cost them.

When you look at the motion for stay, and the response from USAPA, it could easily be deduced that the Addington lawyers are just going through the motions. USAPA hammered their motion in its response and while initially one might think it wordy at 16 pages, it was very to the point citing both case and rules supporting the denial. I am no lawyer but a very sharp judge that I know well and a lawyer I am acquainted with that has worked for both major Longshoreman unions seem to think a little CYA is going on. They said the motion for stay was one of the weakest they have seen and pardon the pun was probably just going through the motions. ITHO, maybe a little placating the plaintiffs by counsel. Not that the Plaintiffs could ever mount a malpractice suit against their counsel at this point. Sadly, they drew an activist judge that for reasons that may never be known, manufactured a results oriented trial. Whatever favor he thought he was doing cost the Addington plaintiffs 2 million and 2 years, and gave them no recourse for the counsel received by their attorneys to prematurely seek adjudication or the bills run up. It would be easy to see why they would just go through the motions at this point. For all the attacks plaintiffs have leveled at the competence of SSM&P it's pretty clear their ability of knowing and understanding labor law is showing and at least the people I know in the legal business have expressed which sides counsel they would want representing them, and its not plaintiffs.

The filing of a Writ of Certiorari is a complete waste of time. The rules require a writ conference within 90 days and by process for clerks to make recommendations on the wirts filed but their is no time line for the judges to see or act on the recommendations and their are thousands. It could be well beyond 2011 before a yea or nea was ever heard. It's why SCOTUS reserves its time for matters of a Constitutional issues(I.e. ruling on the Chicago handgun law. ), or when they see apparent conflict in interpretation of the law between the various circuits. There were two cases brought against USAPA over DOH seniority, one Addington and the other Breeger. Both have now been found not ripe, one after an unneeded costly trial and the other pre trial. Consistency amongst circuits has been found on the issue and as it pertains to this specific set of events. The fact that no Judge polled for the En Banc petition voted in the affirmative would normally be a loud message for someone with the exception of plaintiffs, that no chance of the SCOTUS hearing the case is likely, unless one is just going through the motions.

When you couple this with the fact that the 9th Circuit in the majority decision while not addressing the merits of the case commented on them, in ways favorable and supporting the very arguments of USAPA's counsel, a definite vortex for throwing money away now exists for the plaintiffs and their contributors. Citing Ford Motor v. Huffman, and the standard by which unions find themselves in conflict of its Duty of Fair Representation had nothing to do with ripeness. It was a comment, not a judgement, but a comment on the merits that anybody, except for plaintiffs could see was intended for a potential future district judge, what a wide latitude unions were given in setting policy and negotiation for a group. That and the fact the 9th considers the seniority issue and internal union process, with only a the normal "Good Faith" requirements really set the course for any future claim. I am sure the message was intended for plaintiff and attorney's as well but I don't see it getting through.

Now this is the stuff I listen to, not a disgruntled former employee or ALPA shill. This guy has the knowledge on this case, hands down. Keep it coming. And thank you.

 

[nycbusdriver]

So who went away? Not any of the folks to whom the contracts apply. And since the contracts (and all things associated with such contracts) become inherited obligations of the new agent, USAPA has to stand by them.

The point is not who went away. The point is what went away.

What went away is the legal association of pilots known as the AWA MEC and the AAA MEC. These are the entities that entered the agreement to arbitrate. These entities no longer exists. The people who formed these entities are still around, but that's not the point.

If you belong to the Greater Phoenix International Garden Club, and it's officers enter a contractual agreement to rent the Convention Center, and before the event it disbands, do the people involved disappear? Do the members have to pay the rent even though the club is gone? No. The demise of the entity signing the contract negates the agreement.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Try to remember that the funds the West spends in its defense will likely be reimbursed, and my titanium badge backer is going to cost you around $1000 per east pilot.

Damages too. Don't forget the damages .....