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

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Looks like 80 pilot recalls 40 East and West.

220 Flight Attendant too.

Great news 330's will pick up min block hrs on EAST(3 coming before end of year) West will get more of EAST to cover schedule, 330 short now looks like more pilots will be going to that equipment, great BPR meeting yesterday C&R's discussion was interesting! MM!

 

[nic4us]

The courts have held the majority can't do that simply to advance one group over another but legally USAPA is just adopting another proposal in an ongoing an uncompleted contract negotiation. However, there is legal precedent for changing seniority list as I stated above. It involved retroactively changing the seniority list so less tenured employees would be laid off first. The court found that using longevity wasn't advancing one group over another because the same criteria was being applied to everyone and it was within the wide latitude for union members with less time to be laid off first. That is the funny thing about longevity, it just isn't a pluck out of they sky, it is the basis for almost every labor union as it became the objective measurable replacement to meritocracy.

When USAPA became the legal signatory, you may as well just insert their name where it says ALPA. Until there is a contract it is a "proposal". Just as any other proposal being negotiated in the course or reaching a joint contract, it can be retracted, renegotiated, and passed numerous times as long as the conditions and restrictions meet the criteria within the Transition Agreement. Even those can be changed through negotiation between USAPA and US Airways and through membership ratification. USAPA has already negotiated a change to the West contract and had it voted on and approved by all MIGS, East and West. Funny that US Airways let East pilots vote on the west contract. Oh, that right, East or West, all members, agency fee payers, or objectors to USAPA, the only collective bargaining agent, lawfully elected through the NMB process. That is the law and obviously US Airways understands that or they wouldn't have allowed USAPA to alter the West contract.

The 9th articulated these points within the majority opinion. There were no review of the merits of the trial, because the lack of jurisdiction negated the fact the trial ever took place. It begs the question why several of the key arguments were commented on by the majority. What Nicalou is(Seniority proposal arrived through internal union process), what USAPA responsibility is("Good Faith"), and citation of the preeminent SCOTUS case where DFR and "Good Faith" obligations were defined. If you were to ask one of your mighty ALPA lawyers in private, they would tell you the majority was commenting and clarifying some legal standards and how the 9th Circuit views them if a similar cases should find itself in front of another circuit judge. Clearly the intended audience wasn't USAPA. USAPA from what I gather always held that it was an ALPA created "proposal", consequently the same argument Jeff Freund(America West Merger Counsel) argued in D.C. federal district court. USAPA has always said it intends to bargain in "Good Faith", a defense it tried to present in district court, but a definition arrived out of a SCOTUS trial, that the District judge wouldn't instruct the jury on. Lo and behold, in their published opinion, which is now 9th circuit precedent, they make sure the definition and precedent is included. You can ignore these things and it won't cost you a penny, but the Addington plaintiffs you obviously go to bat for have paid a pretty penny, or have a pretty bill that is still running. One they are funding on both sides but keep on giving them poor legal advice. You are probably helping USAPA by encouraging them to waste money and senselessly beat their heads against a wall. If the 9th had to review USAPA's other 4 complaints in the appeal, venture to guess based on the District judges handling of ripeness, how they would have been ruled on? If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be taking a bet on the side of plaintiffs. It was clear that the judge in the District Court made rulings from ripeness, evidence, to the argument defense could make to manufacture a result. I would be leery of anyone hanging their hat on anything out that trial.

ROACLT,

What is up with the ignore of my questions? How were the San Juans? How was the crabbing? Why did Granath file the responses to the request for stay?

I am betting man, and I would certainly lay odds that usapa will be found guilty a second time if they try to rearrange the already completed seniority integration that was accepted by the company as meeting all the criteria of the Transition Agreement.

It is not a question of who is the NMB elected union, we all know the answere to that. It is also not a question of can the union alter the seniority list. It is a question of why would they want to? The answere to that question is an "unquestionably ripe DFR", for the reason you cite in the first sentence of your above post.

Hope all is well on the docks.

 

[ROACLT]

ROACLT,

What is up with the ignore of my questions? How were the San Juans? How was the crabbing? Why did Granath file the responses to the request for stay?

I am betting man, and I would certainly lay odds that usapa will be found guilty a second time if they try to rearrange the already completed seniority integration that was accepted by the company as meeting all the criteria of the Transition Agreement.

It is not a question of who is the NMB elected union, we all know the answere to that. It is also not a question of can the union alter the seniority list. It is a question of why would they want to? The answere to that question is an "unquestionably ripe DFR", for the reason you cite in the first sentence of your above post.

Hope all is well on the docks.

Vacation was awesome, thanks for asking. Why wouldn't USAPA counsel file a response? 9th referred to Nicalou as a proposal arrived through an internal union process but take whatever you like from that. The 9th used the term "unquestionably ripe" in relation to when a claim becomes actionable, not whether a claim would have merit or any success in court and yes their comments on the merits, helped USAPA tremendously.

Didn't mean to ignore you, I know you are an important person and all. There was a lot of posts to read through and it take a little to get back into the normal swing of life and work after being gone for 4 weeks.

Life is good on the docks but that is what happens when you are part of a profession that understand unionist ideas and principles.

 

[nic4us]

... and yet we're down to 2 of you here on the main US Airways forum. Even your AOL buddies and HP have evaporated.

AOL = 7 guys and some you tube videos - you bought into it.

And once usapa adopts the Nic as its bargaining proposal, you will have one less on this forum, as there will be no need for me to comment anymore.

Kind of funny how there are more OAL people commenting now against usapa, than there are West pilots.

7 guys and some YouTube videos have the support of some 1300+ donors. Not only did I buy into it, so did 2 federal judges, 9 jury members, and the company.

usapa=1 little lawyer on the fringe, promising to advance your career at others expense-you bought into it.

 

[cleardirect]

The courts have held the majority can't do that simply to advance one group over another but legally USAPA is just adopting another proposal in an ongoing an uncompleted contract negotiation. However, there is legal precedent for changing seniority list as I stated above. It involved retroactively changing the seniority list so less tenured employees would be laid off first. The court found that using longevity wasn't advancing one group over another because the same criteria was being applied to everyone and it was within the wide latitude for union members with less time to be laid off first. That is the funny thing about longevity, it just isn't a pluck out of they sky, it is the basis for almost every labor union as it became the objective measurable replacement to meritocracy.

When USAPA became the legal signatory, you may as well just insert their name where it says ALPA. Until there is a contract it is a "proposal". Just as any other proposal being negotiated in the course or reaching a joint contract, it can be retracted, renegotiated, and passed numerous times as long as the conditions and restrictions meet the criteria within the Transition Agreement. Even those can be changed through negotiation between USAPA and US Airways and through membership ratification. USAPA has already negotiated a change to the West contract and had it voted on and approved by all MIGS, East and West. Funny that US Airways let East pilots vote on the west contract. Oh, that right, East or West, all members, agency fee payers, or objectors to USAPA, the only collective bargaining agent, lawfully elected through the NMB process. That is the law and obviously US Airways understands that or they wouldn't have allowed USAPA to alter the West contract.

The 9th articulated these points within the majority opinion. There were no review of the merits of the trial, because the lack of jurisdiction negated the fact the trial ever took place. It begs the question why several of the key arguments were commented on by the majority. What Nicalou is(Seniority proposal arrived through internal union process), what USAPA responsibility is("Good Faith"), and citation of the preeminent SCOTUS case where DFR and "Good Faith" obligations were defined. If you were to ask one of your mighty ALPA lawyers in private, they would tell you the majority was commenting and clarifying some legal standards and how the 9th Circuit views them if a similar cases should find itself in front of another circuit judge. Clearly the intended audience wasn't USAPA. USAPA from what I gather always held that it was an ALPA created "proposal", consequently the same argument Jeff Freund(America West Merger Counsel) argued in D.C. federal district court. USAPA has always said it intends to bargain in "Good Faith", a defense it tried to present in district court, but a definition arrived out of a SCOTUS trial, that the District judge wouldn't instruct the jury on. Lo and behold, in their published opinion, which is now 9th circuit precedent, they make sure the definition and precedent is included. You can ignore these things and it won't cost you a penny, but the Addington plaintiffs you obviously go to bat for have paid a pretty penny, or have a pretty bill that is still running. One they are funding on both sides but keep on giving them poor legal advice. You are probably helping USAPA by encouraging them to waste money and senselessly beat their heads against a wall. If the 9th had to review USAPA's other 4 complaints in the appeal, venture to guess based on the District judges handling of ripeness, how they would have been ruled on? If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be taking a bet on the side of plaintiffs. It was clear that the judge in the District Court made rulings from ripeness, evidence, to the argument defense could make to manufacture a result. I would be leery of anyone hanging their hat on anything out that trial.

You guys should really hope that unions can not just redo seniority at the will of the majority. Otherwise in about 10 years when the west has the majority what do you think will happen? When the next contract comes up we will determine that for the good of the entire bargaining unit seniority would have to be negotiated to put it back to the agreed to arbitrated list.

I sure hope you junior east guys enjoy your moment in the sun now. that will go away when your older pals bail out leaving you with this mess. Once again they are going to get there's at the expense of yours. And you know after 10 years of dealing with the east we may want a little repayment and interest. retire on reserve but at least the old guys got some.

 

[nic4us]

I didn't realize we still had pilots in the service of America West and US Airways represented by ALPA by and through their respective MEC's on the property? How many pilots do we have here in the service of America West represented by ALPA?? For that matter, how many US Airways pilots do we have here represented by ALPA?? I beleive both of these parties to this agreement are gone!

Of course this is what Seham would like you to believe, and you fell for it.

The West pilot group still has a contract here. We already know it is the east pilot groups intention to renege. Time to ask the company if they intend to breach. I do not think you are going to like the answere to that question.

I highly doubt the company is willing to hitch its wagon to a group of malcontents, elected for the specific purpose of attempting to negate said contract, and violate its DFR. In other words, you are asking the company to rely on Seham's interpretations, and bet the airlines future on faulty advice he used to take advantage of the emotionally unstable east group, when the answeres to his shaky hypotheticals are very much in question, most likely wrong, and already been found liable once in a court of law.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You guys should really hope that unions can not just redo seniority at the will of the majority. Otherwise in about 10 years when the west has the majority what do you think will happen? When the next contract comes up we will determine that for the good of the entire bargaining unit seniority would have to be negotiated to put it back to the agreed to arbitrated list.

I sure hope you junior east guys enjoy your moment in the sun now. that will go away when your older pals bail out leaving you with this mess. Once again they are going to get there's at the expense of yours. And you know after 10 years of dealing with the east we may want a little repayment and interest. retire on reserve but at least the old guys got some.

If I were to guess I would say Rjet will buy whats left of the WEST and make a 96 hire junior to a 2009 hire and NIC you too! MM! PHX won't be around as a hub my guess!

 

[ROACLT]

You guys should really hope that unions can not just redo seniority at the will of the majority. Otherwise in about 10 years when the west has the majority what do you think will happen? When the next contract comes up we will determine that for the good of the entire bargaining unit seniority would have to be negotiated to put it back to the agreed to arbitrated list.

I sure hope you junior east guys enjoy your moment in the sun now. that will go away when your older pals bail out leaving you with this mess. Once again they are going to get there's at the expense of yours. And you know after 10 years of dealing with the east we may want a little repayment and interest. retire on reserve but at least the old guys got some.

A seniority list is not being juggled, as your own merger counsel framed it, a "seniority proposal" derived through a predecessor union's "internal process" has been replaced by an alternative "seniority proposal" arrived through the successor union's "internal process." If it concludes negotiations on a single contract then it becomes the integrated seniority list.

The majority cannot juggle the list simply to advance one groups position ahead of another but there is no integrated list and won't be until a single collective bargaining agreement is reached and the 9th circuit made it clear USAPA is free to bargain without interference as long as it negotiated in "Good Faith". Anyone can sue, but your suit would be that a longevity based seniority integration was a breach of good faith, not that the Nicalou "proposal" wasn't the position advanced by the union. Good luck with the legal challenge to DOH, it has never been found in breach of good faith.

But for the sake of legal discourse, seniority lists have been successfully changed retroactively but always from some other system to DOH. Imagine that. You infer that the fact you refer to Nicalou as an "arbitrated" list gives it some extra value. As the court indicated, it was an internal process. You might as well make that threat to go back to the "ALPA proposal".

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

The last part of Marty's filing was interesting in the fact he talks about USAPA being unconstrained to negotiate a DOH list, seems he does understand it is an" internal union bargaining position"! MM!

 

[cleardirect]

A seniority list is not being juggled, as your own merger counsel framed it, a "seniority proposal" derived through a predecessor union's "internal process" has been replaced by an alternative "seniority proposal" arrived through the successor union's "internal process." If it concludes negotiations on a single contract then it becomes the integrated seniority list.

The majority cannot juggle the list simply to advance one groups position ahead of another but there is no integrated list and won't be until a single collective bargaining agreement is reached and the 9th circuit made it clear USAPA is free to bargain without interference as long as it negotiated in "Good Faith". Anyone can sue, but your suit would be that a longevity based seniority integration was a breach of good faith, not that the Nicalou "proposal" wasn't the position advanced by the union. Good luck with the legal challenge to DOH, it has never been found in breach of good faith.

But for the sake of legal discourse, seniority lists have been successfully changed retroactively but always from some other system to DOH. Imagine that. You infer that the fact you refer to Nicalou as an "arbitrated" list gives it some extra value. As the court indicated, it was an internal process. You might as well make that threat to go back to the "ALPA proposal".

You know there is always the first time for everything. Like a group of people trying to ignore arbitration.

Justify anything you want. But usapa C&R are nothing but made up with no basis in fact. An arbitrated list built by a third party after a hearing will carry more weight.

Beside what have all of you told us. Majority rules. The company does not care what the list is they will just accept it since it is an internal union dispute.

So when the west gets control we will put the list back to where we think it should be. Hand it to the company and expect them to accept it as an internal union dispute. If the now junior east pilots feel slighted then by all means go to court. But expect to bring a lot of money as you know DFR's are expensive. But at that time the west will have the power to tax dues from everyone.

So you east guys with more than 10 years left. Start saving now. Because it might be tough on reserve pay. The ironic part of this will be that we can cite Addington v USAPA to protect us that the majority can determine seniority. You all do think that you won that case right.

The BPR has the right to interpret the constitution and if we determine that the un-merged career expectation 15 years ago were not maintained by DOH then we could go and fix that little problem.

The law of unintended consequences is tough. And sitting in that right seat this time the captain is not going to be very sympathetic to your whining. so I suggest that you all be careful how you tread it could come back and bite you.

We could go into a merger with AA the bigger carrier and they determine that the majority gets to decide seniority. Internal union dispute right. The company does not care what the seniority list is right.

 

[cleardirect]

The last part of Marty's filing was interesting in the fact he talks about USAPA being unconstrained to negotiate a DOH list, seems he does understand it is an" internal union bargaining position"! MM!

How about quoting the entire paragraph?

In contrast, if the mandate is not stayed and the injunction is vacated, USAPA will be completely unconstrained. It might put a date of hire
seniority list in place before the Supreme Court can address certiorari. That would be difficult to undo if the Supreme Court were to reverse this Court
on ripeness. Surely, it would be much harder to protect West Pilots interests in that situation than it would be to protect USAPA’s interests if
the mandate were stayed.

He is not admitting an internal union dispute he is saying that if the SCOTUS gets involved (not internal union dispute) it would be difficult to undo the harm.

 

[fr8tmastr]

So you east guys with more than 10 years left. Start saving now. Because it might be tough on reserve pay. The ironic part of this will be that we can cite Addington v USAPA to protect us that the majority can determine seniority. You all do think that you won that case right.

In ten years you wont have to "re order" the list, look at the retirements the West will own the list anyway.

 

[nic4us]

Vacation was awesome, thanks for asking. Why wouldn't USAPA counsel file a response? 9th referred to Nicalou as a proposal arrived through an internal union process but take whatever you like from that. The 9th used the term "unquestionably ripe" in relation to when a claim becomes actionable, not whether a claim would have merit or any success in court and yes their comments on the merits, helped USAPA tremendously.

Didn't mean to ignore you, I know you are an important person and all. There was a lot of posts to read through and it take a little to get back into the normal swing of life and work after being gone for 4 weeks.

Life is good on the docks but that is what happens when you are part of a profession that understand unionist ideas and principles.

I was asking, not so directly, why Granath filed instead of Seham.

What I take from the 9ths "thorny question", is that yes the Nic is a proposal arrived at by an internal union process. That process was not only the unions methodology, but also contractually mandated by the TA. Further, that process was agree upon by all three parties involved, and had concluded prior to the election of usapa.

As I said before, Tashima specifically avoided the question of whether usapa is obligated to adhere to the Nic, but pointed out that Bybee certainly thinks so, and yes Wake certainly thinks the same.

It is usapa's intention to re-arrange an already agreed to seniority list. They do so at their own peril, or as Tashima put it, "under the pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR".

Why do you think he uses words like, "thorny" and "pain" when talking about usapa's future? I think it is because he realizes this as usapa's last chance to do the right thing, less they will suffer the consequences of their actions.

 

[ROACLT]

You know there is always t

 

[nic4us]

In ten years you wont have to "re order" the list, look at the retirements the West will own the list anyway.

Another total falicy. In 10 years from now, the 900 or so remaining West pilots would still be junior to the 1000 or so remaining east pilots that stole their career.