US Pilots Labor Discussion 8/25- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[cleardirect]

I didn't spin anything. That is the beloved NIC award in all it's glory. NIC said West was not entitled to those slots because they had NOTHING to match it.

Gotta take the bad with the good. What did you expect? Instant A-330 Captain slots?

Nay Nay...


driver B)

This is what Nicolau said.

In our view, these competing considerations result in a list that has the effect of reserving a certain number of positions in present wide-body international aircraft to US Airways pilots, thus giving consideration to both their longer service and the fact that America West pilots did not have an immediate expectation of such flying, However, the placement of a number of US Airways pilots on the top of the list as a means of accomplishing that is not the 900 to 1100 they seek, but 423, which is equal to number of Captains and First Officers flying the A330 and B767 International. This would give those senior US Airways pilots the opportunity to bid into such vacant positions if they so chose for an additional period of four years, making a total of six years since the merger unless, as we said before, Age 65 legislation or rule-making were to change the retirement age.

I do not see the word "entitled" anywhere in that paragraph. You will also read closely that he said present positions. He did not say that WB position were for ever the east. He did not say that every new WB was an entitlement for the east. A little more reading said that the west did not have an "immediate" expectation. He did not say the the west should NEVER expect to fly WB. He saw 6 years as a pretty good bonus for the east. I don't think that Nicolau would consider a 10 year fence on top of the 6 year delay to be fair and equitable for the west.

 

[luvn737s]

"Bullies" is probably the wrong word, "ignores" would be closer, but not exactly correct either.

I got an idea! Why don't you make a contribution to AOL, get a badge backer, and wear it at work. Then compare the amount of "bullying" you recieve while wearing it, to the amount of "bullying" you endured without it.

What about those who refuse to be defined by their badge backer, regardless of who puts it out?

 

[Captain Underpants]

Even Seham knows it is a loser. His response to all of this was, "DFRs are loser lawsuits". His whole defense revolved around the difficulty, and length of time it normally takes to prosecute a DFR. Well guess what? DFRs are easy when the union is guilty.

Bottom line, if you think you will get a DOH contract implemented,.....you'll be sadly mistaken!

Nic4,

What all the parties will do is follow their mandates as required by law. USAPA is required to negotiate towards a ratifiable contract within the bounds of their duty of fair representation to all the pilots as defined by the Supreme Court. The lower courts are now required to follow the mandate of the 9th circuit to allow USAPA to negotiate free of court interference. Judge Wake has followed the mandate of the 9th circuit by dismissing the DFR case and associated injunction thus preventing court interference with contract negotiations. The law prevents union members from suing their own unions to try to change negotiating proposals. The company will negotiate in good faith towards a ratifiable contract as they are required to by the Railway Labor Act.

The 9th circuit has stated that "any contract containing the Nic award would undoubtedly be rejected by the membership". The union and the company are required by law to negotiate towards a ratifiable agreement which can logically only mean a contract without Nic. The NMB has a mandate to avoid economically damaging and wasteful transportation strikes by mediating negotiations with the goal of reaching a ratifiable agreement. Once the NMB assumes its role the Federal Courts are essentially blocked from interfering in the process.

USAPA has a mandate to reach a fair and equitable seniority integration. Fairness is subjective but equitable is objective and can be measured by hard data using only what is certain. What is certain is what has already occurred to date and what is guaranteed to occur such as age mandated retirement which has and will always have a perfect 100% statistical correlation. A list based on DOH with C&R's to protect all pilots relative position is the only reasonable and ratifiable solution that protects both the East pilots DOH and the West pilots relative position and preserves the objective certain status and earnings. It is the only solution that meets all the mandates and is legal and can be ratified into a new contract that benefits all pilots. It is also straight down the middle of the wide range of reasonableness mandated by the law for duty of fair representation.

The West has two tools to try to force the Nic. The first is a contract interpretation challenge. Judge Wake correctly ruled that contract interpretation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the system board and grievance process. The West pilots grievance was denied by the system board since the contract clearly states the Nic list cannot be used during the period of separate operations. When a new contract is ratified the system board can only interpret compliance with the new agreement and not the old agreement which will have been superseded.

The other tool the West has to try to force the Nic is a DFR lawsuit. This would be like trying to cut down a tree with a pocket knife. The question is what is the likelihood of success and if successful how long will it take. 96% of DFR suits are dismissed for various legal reasons. The DFR law heavily favors unions when sued by their own members. Of the 4% of successful DFR suits almost all fall into two categories. One is if the union refuses to provide representation to a member such as refusing to file a grievance on behalf of a member. The other is if the union violates a federal law such as ratifying a contract that pays black members or female members less than white or male members. There is no federal law requiring old agreements to be carried forward into new agreements. Binding arbitrations are routinely renegotiated and abandoned in new agreements. There were no successful DFR suits against unions I could find where the union represented the members by negotiating for them and the members ratified the agreement but some members claimed it to be unfair. ALPA has never lost and been convicted in a DFR suit although they have voluntarily reached settlements through their insurance company. It would not be unusual for a Federal DFR case to last 10-15 years including all appeals before finally reaching a resolution or settlement of the case. Every DFR case was filed thinking it had superior merits and would successfully beat the long odds but history shows the odds of a successful lawsuit against USAPA for unfair represention are near zero.

The new contract will contain a DOH seniority list as there is no other legally and politically viable alternative. The most rational action the West pilots can now take is to participate in the process to finalize and improve the C&R's which USAPA has stated are still flexible.

underpants

 

[A320 Driver]

This is what Nicolau said.


I do not see the word "entitled" anywhere in that paragraph. You will also read closely that he said present positions. He did not say that WB position were for ever the east. He did not say that every new WB was an entitlement for the east. A little more reading said that the west did not have an "immediate" expectation. He did not say the the west should NEVER expect to fly WB. He saw 6 years as a pretty good bonus for the east. I don't think that Nicolau would consider a 10 year fence on top of the 6 year delay to be fair and equitable for the west.

I really don't care what NIC or you think about anything. The posters math was fuzzy and spun to look like he had been disadvantaged by the NIC...he was NOT. Now that is MY opinion, and I am "ENTITLED" to it.

Driver B)

 

[Freebird]

Nic4,

What all the parties will do is follow their mandates as required by law. USAPA is required to negotiate towards a ratifiable contract within the bounds of their duty of fair representation to all the pilots as defined by the Supreme Court. The lower courts are now required to follow the mandate of the 9th circuit to allow USAPA to negotiate free of court interference. Judge Wake has followed the mandate of the 9th circuit by dismissing the DFR case and associated injunction thus preventing court interference with contract negotiations. The law prevents union members from suing their own unions to try to change negotiating proposals. The company will negotiate in good faith towards a ratifiable contract as they are required to by the Railway Labor Act.

The 9th circuit has stated that "any contract containing the Nic award would undoubtedly be rejected by the membership". The union and the company are required by law to negotiate towards a ratifiable agreement which can logically only mean a contract without Nic. The NMB has a mandate to avoid economically damaging and wasteful transportation strikes by mediating negotiations with the goal of reaching a ratifiable agreement. Once the NMB assumes its role the Federal Courts are essentially blocked from interfering in the process.

USAPA has a mandate to reach a fair and equitable seniority integration. Fairness is subjective but equitable is objective and can be measured by hard data using only what is certain. What is certain is what has already occurred to date and what is guaranteed to occur such as age mandated retirement which has and will always have a perfect 100% statistical correlation. A list based on DOH with C&R's to protect all pilots relative position is the only reasonable and ratifiable solution that protects both the East pilots DOH and the West pilots relative position and preserves the objective certain status and earnings. It is the only solution that meets all the mandates and is legal and can be ratified into a new contract that benefits all pilots. It is also straight down the middle of the wide range of reasonableness mandated by the law for duty of fair representation.

The West has two tools to try to force the Nic. The first is a contract interpretation challenge. Judge Wake correctly ruled that contract interpretation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the system board and grievance process. The West pilots grievance was denied by the system board since the contract clearly states the Nic list cannot be used during the period of separate operations. When a new contract is ratified the system board can only interpret compliance with the new agreement and not the old agreement which will have been superseded.

The other tool the West has to try to force the Nic is a DFR lawsuit. This would be like trying to cut down a tree with a pocket knife. The question is what is the likelihood of success and if successful how long will it take. 96% of DFR suits are dismissed for various legal reasons. The DFR law heavily favors unions when sued by their own members. Of the 4% of successful DFR suits almost all fall into two categories. One is if the union refuses to provide representation to a member such as refusing to file a grievance on behalf of a member. The other is if the union violates a federal law such as ratifying a contract that pays black members or female members less than white or male members. There is no federal law requiring old agreements to be carried forward into new agreements. Binding arbitrations are routinely renegotiated and abandoned in new agreements. There were no successful DFR suits against unions I could find where the union represented the members by negotiating for them and the members ratified the agreement but some members claimed it to be unfair. ALPA has never lost and been convicted in a DFR suit although they have voluntarily reached settlements through their insurance company. It would not be unusual for a Federal DFR case to last 10-15 years including all appeals before finally reaching a resolution or settlement of the case. Every DFR case was filed thinking it had superior merits and would successfully beat the long odds but history shows the odds of a successful lawsuit against USAPA for unfair represention are near zero.

The new contract will contain a DOH seniority list as there is no other legally and politically viable alternative. The most rational action the West pilots can now take is to participate in the process to finalize and improve the C&R's which USAPA has stated are still flexible.

underpants

Time to clean your underpants. Cleary has been feeding you to much B.S.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The 9th circuit has stated that "any contract containing the Nic award would undoubtedly be rejected by the membership".

Nice job of selective quoting. That was in a footnote addressing the dissenting opinion. In the actual ruling, the majority said this:

We conclude that this case presents contingencies that could preclude effectuation of USAPA's proposal and the accompanying injury. At this point neither the West pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA. Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new, single CBA.

Much less definitive than your one quote - "contingencies that could preclude ...USAPA's proposal", neither side "can be certain" what seniority scheme the company will accept (although it's pretty obvious that the company has already accepted the Nic and would again) and "it is not certain" that a contract would be ratified even if USAPA's seniority proposal were accepted by the company. The 9th majority obviously anticipated the possibility that USAPA's seniority proposal wouldn't be in the negotiated contract, or even if it were that the contract still wouldn't be ratified.

The 9th majority also said:

It is, however, at best speculative that a single CBA incorporating the Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union's membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise between the two pilot groups, and the East pilots had expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the Nicolau Award, it is uncertain that the West pilots preferred seniority system ever would be effectuated.

Again, not the definite statement that was in the footnote addressing the dissent - "speculative" and "uncertain" that a contract containing the Nic could be ratified, but no "undoubtedly be rejected".

To paraphrase the 9th majority's ruling, no one can know with certainty whether a contract could be ratified regardless of which seniority list it contains - Nic's or USAPA's.

Also, by ruling on the narrow issue of ripeness, the 9th majority left undetermined the question of whether USAPA is free to negotiate for it's seniority proposal without violating it's DFR responsibilities.

I will give USAPA and it's supporters one point. Claiming to be so sure of USAPA's ability to legally negotiate and get ratified whatever it wants for seniority, USAPA is fighting awfully hard to keep the court from ruling on the merits of it's position. What's that saying....."Watch what they do, not what they say"?

Jim

 

[A320 Driver]

Nice job of selective quoting. That was in a footnote addressing the dissenting opinion. In the actual ruling, the majority said this:



Much less definitive than your one quote - "contingencies that could preclude ...USAPA's proposal", neither side "can be certain" what seniority scheme the company will accept (although it's pretty obvious that the company has already accepted the Nic and would again) and "it is not certain" that a contract would be ratified even if USAPA's seniority proposal were accepted by the company. The 9th majority obviously anticipated the possibility that USAPA's seniority proposal wouldn't be in the negotiated contract, or even if it were that the contract still wouldn't be ratified.

The 9th majority also said:



Again, not the definite statement that was in the footnote addressing the dissent - "speculative" and "uncertain" that a contract containing the Nic could be ratified, but no "undoubtedly be rejected".

To paraphrase the 9th majority's ruling, no one can know with certainty whether a contract could be ratified regardless of which seniority list it contains - Nic's or USAPA's.

Also, by ruling on the narrow issue of ripeness, the 9th majority left undetermined the question of whether USAPA is free to negotiate for it's seniority proposal without violating it's DFR responsibilities.

I will give USAPA and it's supporters one point. Claiming to be so sure of USAPA's ability to legally negotiate and get ratified whatever it wants for seniority, USAPA is fighting awfully hard to keep the court from ruling on the merits of it's position. What's that saying....."Watch what they do, not what they say"?

Jim

Hard to say what USAPA's reasoning was for opposing the company's suit except it might undo what little bit of legal momentum they built up overturning Addington, but one thing is for sure: the company has assured themselves cheap pilot labor by keeping the East pilot group on LOA93 pay rates for a long time. Their job is to make money and it doesn't matter to them how they do it. This thing could meander through the courts for months, even YEARS and at the end of the day, not render a ruling any more definitive than the 9th did. So, who is the winner? LCC.

I read the outrage people have for USAPA for their misdeeds and lack of integrity, but where is the outrage for the company cheating us out of our pay with fake times in the ACARS and contract misinterpretations that have generated hundreds or grievances. As bad as our contract is, and the obvious cost savings that it provides this company, you would think they would at least pay us what they are contractual bound to...but they don't.

You think for one second that if the East pilot group just gave up and ate the NIC that the company would sign onto a reasonable contract. Forget it. You get those like Spirit did. But that takes unity, and there hasn't been any of that around here since 1989.

Regardless of what you might think, DOH did NOT lead to unity. Neither will NIC.

Driver B)

 

[BoeingBoy]

Regardless of what you might think, DOH did NOT lead to unity. Neither will NIC.

Driver B)

Neither will continued fighting within the pilot group nor court battles. Since USAPA made reaching a middle ground impossible when it eliminated separate representation of each side, someone is going to have to give up their fight or the courts will decide. That won't eliminate the animosity but it will be the first step down that path.

Jim

 

[767jetz]

The 9th circuit has stated that "any contract containing the Nic award would undoubtedly be rejected by the membership". The union and the company are required by law to negotiate towards a ratifiable agreement which can logically only mean a contract without Nic.

This is a HUGE assumption based on a flawed interpretation of what the 9th actually said, which is "not ripe." You are selectively snipping a quote out of context to support your opinion. As BoeingBoy already pointed out, the crux of their opinion is that no one knows with any certainty what can or cannot be ratified.

Binding arbitrations are routinely renegotiated and abandoned in new agreements.

I don't buy that at all. But even if you are correct, USAPA has eliminated the ability to negotiate with anyone. There is no one to "renegotiate" with. Your last chance to legally negotiate with the west was during the arbitration that lead to the Nic award. Binding arbitration cannot be abandoned without mutual agreement of the parties involved. (ie. the pilots of America West and the pilots of US Airways.)

 

[Pi brat]

AOL would be nothing if not for the voluntary financial support from the Westies. So if you're going to label AOL "extremists" you'd better label all the Westies as well. And if all us Westies are "extremists" it's purely a defensive reaction to the Easts attempt to renege on binding arbitration. Perhaps you could say extremism begets extremism.Here's an even crazier idea: admit that millions of dollars and months of effort weren't expended just to get a seniority "proposal". Real grown-ups abide by their agreements. Might want to get that figured out before you condescend to telling us to grow up.

I didn't say they were extremists, I said they had traits of them. I've read a lot, if not most of their updates, and the vision I get is of a TV preacher in a blue leisure suit getting the audience fired up to send money. You are the audience, so you probably do see it differently. AOL fills your needs, just like the guy in the leisure suit does for the for a lot of people, so that's fine, it's just how I see it. At times I have thought that USAPA updates have had the tone of a banana republic dictator.

The grow up part was for BOTH sides, and at times it has been advise I needed to take myself, so I don't consider that condescending.

The whole point, I'm sure missed by most as they picked it apart to find out where I was wrong, was that this is at it's heart a disagreement, not war. Both sides should fight for what they believe in a civil manner, not take it out on individuals, and see what happens.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Regardless of what you might think, DOH did NOT lead to unity. Neither will NIC.
Driver B)

Driver, I don't agree with everything you say, but I think you outline some of the other factors that get hidden in the klieg lights of the seniority dispute. Good job, but East-West can't be spoken of without mentioning the RICO suit. That was a suit by the organizers of USAPA, using union resources, aimed at individual pilots and their families based on nothing other than a few internet posts. We can argue about seniority, but that is something that is work related and can left at work. USAPA sent process servers to private homes and then called the defendants at home, on a suit that was completely frivolous but required that the individuals muster the legal representation by themselves. Not a great display of unity if you ask me or anyone on the West or anyone outside of the airline. Show me anywhere in the history of the airline business where a union totally controlled by a majority used such despicable and underhanded tactics? Scabs aren't even retaliated against like that, and what was the West's offense? Just because we opposed the formation of USAPA which we all know from Addington was formed solely to get around the Nicolau and cram DOH down the West.

The problem for USAPA is that the RICO suit is the defining act of what USAPA was, is, and will be. As long as they stay around, then . . . I suggest everyone buckle down and get used to the status quo.

 

[aquagreen73s]

The whole point, I'm sure missed by most as they picked it apart to find out where I was wrong, was that this is at it's heart a disagreement, not war. Both sides should fight for what they believe in a civil manner, not take it out on individuals, and see what happens.

Filing civil suits against individuals for internet posts is a . . . .disagreement? Really?

Actually, it was a cowardly act by a union controlled by the East, while the East membership said and did nothing. Silence = ratification.

 

[Pi brat]

Filing civil suits against individuals for internet posts is a . . . .disagreement? Really?

Actually, it was a cowardly act by a union controlled by the East, while the East membership said and did nothing. Silence = ratification.

What part of I didn't support and fought against the C18 do you just not get?

 

[aquagreen73s]

What part of I didn't support and fought against the C18 do you just not get?

I didn't see anything in post 415, but if you said something earlier then I'll take your word for it. One thing we can agree on is that this pilot group needs to clean house and take aim at Parker instead of each other.

 

[nic4us]

Nic4,

What all the parties will do is follow their mandates as required by law. USAPA is required to negotiate towards a ratifiable contract within the bounds of their duty of fair representation to all the pilots as defined by the Supreme Court. The lower courts are now required to follow the mandate of the 9th circuit to allow USAPA to negotiate free of court interference. Judge Wake has followed the mandate of the 9th circuit by dismissing the DFR case and associated injunction thus preventing court interference with contract negotiations. The law prevents union members from suing their own unions to try to change negotiating proposals. The company will negotiate in good faith towards a ratifiable contract as they are required to by the Railway Labor Act.

The 9th circuit has stated that "any contract containing the Nic award would undoubtedly be rejected by the membership". The union and the company are required by law to negotiate towards a ratifiable agreement which can logically only mean a contract without Nic. The NMB has a mandate to avoid economically damaging and wasteful transportation strikes by mediating negotiations with the goal of reaching a ratifiable agreement. Once the NMB assumes its role the Federal Courts are essentially blocked from interfering in the process.

USAPA has a mandate to reach a fair and equitable seniority integration. Fairness is subjective but equitable is objective and can be measured by hard data using only what is certain. What is certain is what has already occurred to date and what is guaranteed to occur such as age mandated retirement which has and will always have a perfect 100% statistical correlation. A list based on DOH with C&R's to protect all pilots relative position is the only reasonable and ratifiable solution that protects both the East pilots DOH and the West pilots relative position and preserves the objective certain status and earnings. It is the only solution that meets all the mandates and is legal and can be ratified into a new contract that benefits all pilots. It is also straight down the middle of the wide range of reasonableness mandated by the law for duty of fair representation.

The West has two tools to try to force the Nic. The first is a contract interpretation challenge. Judge Wake correctly ruled that contract interpretation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the system board and grievance process. The West pilots grievance was denied by the system board since the contract clearly states the Nic list cannot be used during the period of separate operations. When a new contract is ratified the system board can only interpret compliance with the new agreement and not the old agreement which will have been superseded.

The other tool the West has to try to force the Nic is a DFR lawsuit. This would be like trying to cut down a tree with a pocket knife. The question is what is the likelihood of success and if successful how long will it take. 96% of DFR suits are dismissed for various legal reasons. The DFR law heavily favors unions when sued by their own members. Of the 4% of successful DFR suits almost all fall into two categories. One is if the union refuses to provide representation to a member such as refusing to file a grievance on behalf of a member. The other is if the union violates a federal law such as ratifying a contract that pays black members or female members less than white or male members. There is no federal law requiring old agreements to be carried forward into new agreements. Binding arbitrations are routinely renegotiated and abandoned in new agreements. There were no successful DFR suits against unions I could find where the union represented the members by negotiating for them and the members ratified the agreement but some members claimed it to be unfair. ALPA has never lost and been convicted in a DFR suit although they have voluntarily reached settlements through their insurance company. It would not be unusual for a Federal DFR case to last 10-15 years including all appeals before finally reaching a resolution or settlement of the case. Every DFR case was filed thinking it had superior merits and would successfully beat the long odds but history shows the odds of a successful lawsuit against USAPA for unfair represention are near zero.

The new contract will contain a DOH seniority list as there is no other legally and politically viable alternative. The most rational action the West pilots can now take is to participate in the process to finalize and improve the C&R's which USAPA has stated are still flexible.

underpants

Underpant, a well reasoned post, but you miss the boat many times.

First paragraph, "the company will negotiate in good faith towards a ratifiable contract. Are you saying the company will insist on a Nic inclusive contract? Because, they know anything else will not be implemented and therefore not in good faith?

Second paragraph, has already been taken apart by other posters.

Third paragraph, "fairness is subjective, but equitable is objective and can be measured by hard data using only what is certain", well there are more "certain" data points besides DOH. For instance, it is a measurable "certain" fact that the number 1 AWA guy was number 1. Also, it is a "certain" measurable fact that Odell was employed and Colello was not, it is also measureable how great a windfall DOH would grant Colello over Odell. Further, pay and benefits are "certain" and measurable, as is LOS, time as Captain, and on and on and on. That is why we have the Nic and not DOH in the first place.

Paragraphs 4 and 5. "The West has two tools to try and force the Nic". A very overly optimistic viewpoint. We may not get to a ratified contract and a DFR suit, because there are many many ways to tell usapa to pound sand. But, if things play out as you predict, that would mean no DOH for years to come, until enough of the east retires under LOA93 and we ditch DOH and implement the Nic without you. Cleary should still be around to witness this scenario if it unfolds.

Paragraph 6 "The new contract will contain a DOH seniority list as there is no other legally and politically viable alternative. The most rational action the West pilots can now take is to participate in the process to finalize and improve the C&R's which USAPA has stated are still flexible".

A very false conclusion for many reasons. First, and foremost, there will be no DOH contract, and the only legally implementable contract will contain the Nic. Second, there are West pilots obviously, and West pilots could concievably offer input towards the C&Rs, ( although usapa has in the past rejected all such offers in their illegal seniority theft cramdown, prior to Addington), but any West pilots who offer input are not the certified class that is suing usapa.

Get used to the word "acceptance". The company accepted the Nic, and eventually so will usapa.