US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/28- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[PullUp]

The last paragraph and conclusion from a filing yesterday.

What a bunch of hooey. Has a contract been signed, ratified, huh?
Where's the injury? Probably hiding with 'waldo' somewhere. I can't see it...
Pretty bold to be telling the appellate court that they don't know what they are talking about!
But let me try to understand all this: since the DOH list is more imminent than it was before, the case is now ripe?
Whew. This reeks of frivolity...
Have a great day.

 

[PullUp]

If not for the merger you wouldn't have a job at US Airways and would be at the bottom of any list in the industry. The "screw everyone, I got mine" attitude is what is killing this company, industry and country.

There is and always has been big east money behind this company. From banking to investing to credit card companies, as well as aircraft and equipment leasing. Although not 'too big to fail', can you imagine the financial ramifications of this company ceasing operations and shutting down? Why do you think it has existed, sometimes on a wish and a prayer with little money in the bank, so long?
Think about the credit card float (400-500 million), the potential drop in aircraft resale/lease value with hundreds of airliners flooding the used market, not to mention the potential resulting ripple effect on the contract carriers and their employees. How about the tax revenue remitted to the Federal govm't? Airport leases/rent.
All of this occurring primarily in the northeast, home to investment banks, insurance firms, and corporate headquarters - all of which take a hit in this scenario.
I'm not saying a merger wasn't required, but I am saying if it wasn't with AW, then another partner would have been found.
As for your other assertion of "i got mine...", I would refer you to Mr. Parker and his merry band of execs who just cashed in on their employees hard work, and reluctantly threw them a measly $150 for their efforts.
Have a great day.

 

[aquagreen73s]

What a bunch of hooey. Has a contract been signed, ratified, huh?

The contract at issue is the transition agreement. The company spells that out clearly in its filing.

Where's the injury?

Ripeness considers hardship to parties as well as to the public. US Airways is asking for a decision in its declaratory action because it fears harm if it does the wrong thing. The company also makes the argument that the public interest is involved in getting a decision on whether using a non-Nicolau list for Section 22 constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice. Finally, USAPA needs to know that determination as well, although I suspect they aren't anxious to hear the result, especially if its Judge Wake making the call. USAPA's plan all along was not to win, but to get a contract and run out the clock against the West pilots. The last thing you/USAPA wants is to have a ripe determination of whether the Nicolau is binding. USAPA might be free to negotiate on behalf of its members (under the pain of a ripe DFR if it does the wrong thing and DOH was determined to be wrong by a unanimous jury, but I digress). The uncomfortable reality for you/USAPA is that they entered into a contract with the company via the transition agreement. That TA called for Section 22 to be determined by an arbitrator. Said arbitrator rendered his decision, was offered by your union and accepted by the company. Signed, sealed and delivered. Contract performance is complete.

 

[Pi brat]

Is it me or does AOL seem to be in let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks mode? First the absurd "Yeah, okay ,it's not ripe and it should never have gone to trial, but can you give us cash anyway?", then going to the SCOTUS even though they "know " they will win DFR II, and that will drag things out, and now yesterdays filing. To me the company's action proves the 9th was right and this wasn't, and still isn't, ripe. Addington was DFR and there is just as good(or better some say) chance that the company will not go along and so the alleged damage might no occur. Whatever.

 

[Pi brat]

Rule 60 b. USAPA isn't going to like this one. The company has fixed the "ripeness" issue for AOL

You tend to talk in absolutes, just like USAPA. Maybe you should be on the USAPA comm committee. It's just a motion, right? It has been ruled on, right? Yet you state it HAS been fixed. Not maybe, not could be. AOL's record on motions hasn't been too good lately.

I doubt anyone in USAPA could care less. They haven't even given a thought to losing and Seeham doesn't care, it's just more money for him!

 

[Phoenix]

The contract at issue is the transition agreement. The company spells that out clearly in its filing.

If the companies question is whether or not signatories to a contract can mutually change the terms of the contract without incurring liability for the hypothetical responsibilities of other signatory parties to the contract, then its a great question, with an easy answer.

 

[luvthe9]

but I am saying if it wasn't with AW, then another partner would have been found.

And for AWA it would have been "Project Zanzibar" how soon they forget!!

 

[traderjake]

I'm not saying a merger wasn't required, but I am saying if it wasn't with AW, then another partner would have been found.

Who?

It's clear that United, Delta, American, Northwest and Continental were waiting for us to disappear so who did that leave other than another small, financially distressed airline?

 

[aquagreen73s]

Is it me or does AOL seem to be in let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks mode? First the absurd "Yeah, okay ,it's not ripe and it should never have gone to trial, but can you give us cash anyway?", then going to the SCOTUS even though they "know " they will win DFR II, and that will drag things out, and now yesterdays filing. To me the company's action proves the 9th was right and this wasn't, and still isn't, ripe. Addington was DFR and there is just as good(or better some say) chance that the company will not go along and so the alleged damage might no occur. Whatever.

You're just starting to figure out that there is a lot more at play here than just a DFR against a union. That was Addington. You also have the company involved via the transition agreement and a future hybrid DFR claim. The reason the company wants to know what it can do is because an Unfair Labor Practice mimics a DFR in practice. So if something is a ULP, it's going to be a DFR and vice versa. Of course, the company cannot commit a DFR breach but a union sure can. As a contracting party, the union can also commit an Unfair Labor Practice. What the company's declaratory action should be telling everyone on the East that you just can't proffer a change in Section 22 as if you were negotiating crew meals. It took a jury a matter of minutes to decide that DOH is a DFR. Ergo, DOH can also be considered an Unfair Labor Practice which is exactly what the company wants a judge to determine. Phoenix has it all wrong - the signatories to a contract can agree to change, but there can exist third party beneficiaries which limit or eliminate the freedom to negotiate. That is exactly what is at play here. The West attorneys outlined this legal claim in the response to the company's motion to dismiss. Go ahead and pull it up and read it, because Dr. Jacob's explanation of the hybrid DFR claim is exactly what's driving the company's declaratory action now. You're free to keep your head buried in the sand, but sooner or later enough on the East will wonder why they are still on LOA 93. The Nic is not going to go away - ever. It can't. All we had to do on the West was assert out claim. We did, and now it's playing out as we thought. It's unfortunate Tashima and Graber got it so wrong, but even still there's the company's self-interest which we knew would rear it's head at some point. Even beyond the company, DFR II lurks out there. SCOTUS is minimal investment and worth the effort to get the bad law created by Tashima and Graber reversed. Think of the SCOTUS appeal as a public service AOL is doing for future DFR litigants.

As for the cash, the only way we're going to get it now is through DFR II. However, it's doubtful you guys have the stomach to live under LOA 93 much longer, let alone another 2-3 years to get to a joint contract that then triggers DFR II. Think about it: your stellar negotiating committee has TA'd all of 8 sections. 8! And those are the easiest ones. What's amazing is the number on the East who think they can get through a federally mediated process in a matter of weeks or months, when it's taken almost 30 months to complete nearly nothing.

 

[Pi brat]

You're just starting to figure out that there is a lot more at play here than just a DFR against a union. That was Addington. You also have the company involved via the transition agreement and a future hybrid DFR claim. The reason the company wants to know what it can do is because an Unfair Labor Practice mimics a DFR in practice. So if something is a ULP, it's going to be a DFR and vice versa. Of course, the company cannot commit a DFR breach but a union sure can. As a contracting party, the union can also commit an Unfair Labor Practice. What the company's declaratory action should be telling everyone on the East that you just can't proffer a change in Section 22 as if you were negotiating crew meals. It took a jury a matter of minutes to decide that DOH is a DFR. Ergo, DOH can also be considered an Unfair Labor Practice which is exactly what the company wants a judge to determine. Phoenix has it all wrong - the signatories to a contract can agree to change, but there can exist third party beneficiaries which limit or eliminate the freedom to negotiate. That is exactly what is at play here. The West attorneys outlined this legal claim in the response to the company's motion to dismiss. Go ahead and pull it up and read it, because Dr. Jacob's explanation of the hybrid DFR claim is exactly what's driving the company's declaratory action now. You're free to keep your head buried in the sand, but sooner or later enough on the East will wonder why they are still on LOA 93. The Nic is not going to go away - ever. It can't. All we had to do on the West was assert out claim. We did, and now it's playing out as we thought. It's unfortunate Tashima and Graber got it so wrong, but even still there's the company's self-interest which we knew would rear it's head at some point. Even beyond the company, DFR II lurks out there. SCOTUS is minimal investment and worth the effort to get the bad law created by Tashima and Graber reversed. Think of the SCOTUS appeal as a public service AOL is doing for future DFR litigants.

As for the cash, the only way we're going to get it now is through DFR II. However, it's doubtful you guys have the stomach to live under LOA 93 much longer, let alone another 2-3 years to get to a joint contract that then triggers DFR II. Think about it: your stellar negotiating committee has TA'd all of 8 sections. 8! And those are the easiest ones. What's amazing is the number on the East who think they can get through a federally mediated process in a matter of weeks or months, when it's taken almost 30 months to complete nearly nothing.

I really don't know who is more condescending, you or prechill. For about the hundredth time, I never thought what USAPA wanted to do would work, I just didn't and still don't know for sure. I'm not an attorney, and have no desire to be.

The 9th judges got it says a west pilot wannabe lawyer. Kinda like how east pilots say Nic got it wrong, huh? I'll wait on the final verdict instead of taking your word.

If you guys have it nailed, why the delays. Let it run it's course, and sue the company and union for millions!

 

[Boeing Driver]

For those who have access to Wings, you have got to go watch the latest pilot crew news in PHX.

Aside from the sophomoric "yuk yuk" by the 757 FO about not being drunk (not to mention in very poor taste considering the history), the west pilot's frustration at not being able to cash in on their lottery win is becoming very evident and palatable.

The AWA pilots are absolutely convinced that they have every right to steal each and every east pilot's job, and they can not believe that they are being prevented from doing it.

Watch it - it is very entertaining.

Boeing Driver

 

[A320 Driver]

I really don't know who is more condescending, you or prechill. For about the hundredth time, I never thought what USAPA wanted to do would work, I just didn't and still don't know for sure. I'm not an attorney, and have no desire to be.

The 9th judges got it says a west pilot wannabe lawyer. Kinda like how east pilots say Nic got it wrong, huh? I'll wait on the final verdict instead of taking your word.

If you guys have it nailed, why the delays. Let it run it's course, and sue the company and union for millions!

This has all the drama of a couple getting a divorce. They are held hostage to false hopes while their lawyers bounce the ball back and forth to each other until they squeeze all the money out of it that they can.


Ca-ching, Ca-ching, Ca-ching

Driver B)

 

[cynic]

There is and always has been big east money behind this company. From banking to investing to credit card companies, as well as aircraft and equipment leasing. Although not 'too big to fail', can you imagine the financial ramifications of this company ceasing operations and shutting down? Why do you think it has existed, sometimes on a wish and a prayer with little money in the bank, so long?
Think about the credit card float (400-500 million), the potential drop in aircraft resale/lease value with hundreds of airliners flooding the used market, not to mention the potential resulting ripple effect on the contract carriers and their employees. How about the tax revenue remitted to the Federal govm't? Airport leases/rent.
All of this occurring primarily in the northeast, home to investment banks, insurance firms, and corporate headquarters - all of which take a hit in this scenario.
I'm not saying a merger wasn't required, but I am saying if it wasn't with AW, then another partner would have been found.
As for your other assertion of "i got mine...", I would refer you to Mr. Parker and his merry band of execs who just cashed in on their employees hard work, and reluctantly threw them a measly $150 for their efforts.
Have a great day.

The geographical location of the investors is irrelevant All of that money was sitting on the sidelines, not going into US Airways until Parker came along. The fact that people with money had to come in and bail your ass out again shows that any expectations you had just prior to the merger were misguided, at best.

 

[A320 Driver]

The geographical location of the investors is irrelevant All of that money was sitting on the sidelines, not going into US Airways until Parker came along. The fact that people with money had to come in and bail your ass out again shows that any expectations you had just prior to the merger were misguided, at best.

Obviously you are sorry we survived. We did and now you are right here with us... like it or not.

Driver B)

 

[luvn737s]

I don't have my spreadsheet with me but there is a cross over point where it equals out. But either way it is a 50 pilot spread that guys are giving away millions of dollars for. As I said 1.5 years is the delay. That is if every west pilot commutes east to take every opening. Not going to happen.

Now take a look at the % of money that they east is going to get compared to the west. Who is stealing what? Do you think maybe Nicolau looked at all of those factors?

Clear-

Can you submit your analysis to USAPA for publication in the Iron Maiden, or whatever they call that house organ? Let us know the response.


USAPA - Built from the pilot up, right? RIGHT!