US Pilots Labor Discussion 9/23- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Phoenix]

... The "internal" stuff that gets mentioned won't fly because either through the declaratory action or a future USAPA action this pile of feces will ripen and, besides being ripe feces, will provide a court with lots of free amusement.)

Before you discount the importance of the 9th's repeated referral to "internal", you should consider that it is the necessary premise to any future DFR lawsuit. Because it is internal, it is the union that has both the authority and the responsibility for the outcome of that internal union dispute. (Unlike ALPA, USAPA does not have a scheme that outsources the responsibly, neither does USAPA force the members to sign an agreement to hold the union faultless regardless of the outcome, as ALPA did.)

Merely being internal (which the 9th has already settled) is not evidence of guilt or exoneration, it is merely a necessity for any future DFR lawsuit to have any possibility of merit. The 9th cited the standard by which the merits may be judged, as published by the SCOTUS. Others will probably propose alternate standards.

 

[hp_fa]

You have misread the 9th. In the context, it is clear they refer to the possibility of acceptable outcomes as a result of negotiations between USAPA and the company.

The 9th "held" that the case was not ripe. Everything else was "dicta".

 

[Pi brat]

No, the Addington class only exists in courts because USAPA did away with any representation of west pilots in any way as far as the TA or merger is/was concerned. USAPA can't negotiate because there is no one to negotiate with who represents anyone.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I don't get this statement. Maybe you could rephrase it. How do I have any more representation than a west pilot? I have one vote like they do. They union could come up with a new seniority proposal tomorrow that would damage me and the only recourse I would have would be a a DFR, right? What group is representing me with USAPA? Nobody, one pilot one vote. The west pilots have their voice through their reps just like I do.

As the court goes, did the class action make the Addington plaintiffs represent all west pilots? I would say that their views do represent the vast majority of west piltos, but I'm thinking there are few that would rather let the Nic go. Who represents them?

 

[hp_fa]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I don't get this statement. Maybe you could rephrase it.

You're right, it probably was badly phrased.

Under the TA, both East and West pilots had the opportunity to vote yes or no to any agreement arising out of collective bargaining as their respective MEC's. However East chose to decertify ALPA as the bargaining agent and its successor lumped both East and West together and effectively nullified the West's ability to vote as a unit under the rights granted both East and West under the TA. The West's rights were effectively and deliberately squashed at that point by USAPA's BPR, no doubt under the advice of SSM&P, so that there no longer is any entity that represents West other than the Addington class.

If a court were to try any compel USAPA to resolve the issues that arose between East and West after the Nicolau Award who would USAPA negotiate with to resolve the dispute? Yet the TA has the West pilots, as having been represented by their ALPA MEC, as signatories to that agreement. They still have legal rights under the TA. USAPA claims they don't and the TA is effectively moot as to the terms that were contained within the TA. IF USAPA's logic is correct what is to stop the company from saying many signed agreements that were signed with ALPA MEC's are moot because they no longer exist?

The law says that any successor union steps into the shoes of its predecessor. That would mean that USAPA has to accept Nicolau for the pilots that were under the respective authority of both MEC's at the time of the transaction and USAPA's bid to retroactively cramdown DOH as part of its Constitution and By-Laws in order to rid the West of their already awarded rights is improper as to that group as it existed at that time. I don't think that anyone would disagree that once the Nicolau list seniority list provisions were implemented and in force that USAPA could then make DOH it's standard for future merger and acquisition scenarios. It simply cannot choose to nullify what had already occurred prior to USAPA becoming the bargaining agent.

Is that any clearer?

 

[Ames]

After being corrected by pi I looked at it and it doesn't break out the 4th quarter of 2004 (but it does show a loss for 2004). Just as now, the 4th quarter was reported separately via press release instead of via form 8K like the other quarters.

Jim

I believe there was a fourth quarter gain even if the overall year was a loss in 2004. Regardless, there is no need to quibble. AWA was growing, plain and simple. US Airways was shrinking.

Bottom line: AWA pilots would gladly spin the clock back and undo this "merger" How many US Airways pilots can honestly claim the same desire.

 

[Ames]

Jim and Nic4us-thanks. Ames?

I'm not trying to make a case for who-saved-who, what would have been or anything else. My point is that after May 19 2005 we don't know what would have happened absent a merger, only what did happen with it.

I think most of us agree that career expectations are a huge guess in this business. My thought is that you can guess the worst for a carrier, or the best but you will never know, so why not take what you do know-it's present seniority list and fleet, run it out to the required retirement age and slot the list so that most come close to that line. Put some short time fences up to protect those that slip on the initial list and move on. I think that had Nic done this we would be done now.

But he didn't. He didn't have to, but we are living with the consequences. It is what it is and the road we have taken is a winner-take-all approach and we will see how that turns out. No amount of back and forth can change that now.

The sad truth is that the west Merger Committee proposed many such ideas during the negotiation phase of the alpa merger policy. The east would hear none of it. Nicolau attempted to get the east MC to entertain such ideas - even after arbitration had begun. The east MC would hear none of it. DOH or bust.

NOW you propose negotiating? Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Ames]

clear you keep trying to claime that the mid to bottom of the east list is screwing the top of the AAA east list..

bottom line is the difference in CAPT and F/O at AAA is about 3 years. Many of us were hired in 86 and 87. vs 84 for those that are captains.
those Captains have benefited since 84 in the left seat vs us in the F/O seat since 87. We don't have to do anything to save there butt/s They have made 45 K or more per year more than us for over 20 years. WE OWE THEM nothing. If we hold out to not have the nic inflicted on us, it's the least they can do. ... the F/O's have taken enough in the shorts. So stop trying to guilt us that we are screwing the senior.

I sincerely hope that your captains read this. Not only are you attempting to regain your perceived losses from west pilots, you are doing the same from your own captains. Statements like this may really help to move things along. Any east captain who reads this and wishes to support east FO's is a moron.

 

[nic4us]

The 9th "held" that the case was not ripe. Everything else was "dicta".

[1] Although considerable time, effort, and expense have
been devoted to the merits of Plaintiffs’ DFR claim before
both this Court and the district court, we are without jurisdiction
to address the merits of the claim unless it is ripe. See S.
Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of L.A., 922 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir.
1990).

[2] No published case has expressly addressed when a
DFR claim based on a union’s negotiation of a CBA becomes
ripe. Thus, we apply the general principles underlying the
ripeness doctrine and take guidance from our decisions
regarding the related issue of when a DFR claim accrues for
statute of limitations purposes in the context of the administration
of a CBA.

This is why the 9th got it wrong and consequently did us all a disservice as I have stated before.

They stated flat out, we are not going to comment on the merits because we have no jurisdiction. They also say we have no precedent to follow in this case, so we are going to use a "general principle" in our determination of ripeness, even though that general priciple does not take the merits of this particular case into consideration, and is in reality irrelevant.

Well, the merits were considered before the district court. Consequently the district court determined the case was indeed ripe, and allowed it to proceed to trial.

The 9th puts all this weight on the formulation of a future CBA, but ignores the fact that a DFR is occuring based on the present CBAs that are currently in effect. usapa is violating the TA, an extension of our current CBAs. Further, their bad faith tactics are causing harm to the company and the entire pilot group, not just the West class.

 

[Ames]

I knew Seham would not have the backbone to show up in person. Damn I wanted to see that look on his face.

I'll bet Sleazham will show up..... more billable hours!

 

[Pi brat]

Is that any clearer?

Yes, thanks. Looks like this case will be clearing up a lot and will probably be wide reaching, we will see who is right. I've always wondered how other groups might use it in the future.

 

[Pi brat]

I believe there was a fourth quarter gain even if the overall year was a loss in 2004. Regardless, there is no need to quibble. AWA was growing, plain and simple. US Airways was shrinking.

Bottom line: AWA pilots would gladly spin the clock back and undo this "merger" How many US Airways pilots can honestly claim the same desire.

Me.

 

[nic4us]

I'll bet Sleazham will show up..... more billable hours!

Yeah, I thought about that some more after I posted, and Metro made a comment also.

The fact is, Seham really should show up, because he would better represent his client by doing so. I expect him to be there.

I think the reason the telephone call is offered is because the original date was going to be set for Oct 7th, and Seham declined and tried to push it later in the month or even next month. Well, there are motions being considered that are due on the 7th, the company's suit is moving forward, whether it gets transfered to Wake or not. Seham was just stalling, Wake knew it and said, "well if you can't be there, call me".

 

[hp_fa]

I'll bet Sleazham will show up..... more billable hours!

I personally doubt that, but I could be wrong. I think he will appear telephonically.

 

[Pi brat]

The sad truth is that the west Merger Committee proposed many such ideas during the negotiation phase of the alpa merger policy. The east would hear none of it. Nicolau attempted to get the east MC to entertain such ideas - even after arbitration had begun. The east MC would hear none of it. DOH or bust.

NOW you propose negotiating? Ain't gonna happen.

I recently talked to an early member of the east NC that said this isn't true. They did look at other proposals than DOH/LOS, but the west wasn't interested. What great compromise did the west come out with when Nic sent them back?

I 'm not proposing negotiating now, I've just said that I think we would all have been better served with a more fair list than what Nic produced. I don't see how anyone can argue with that after watching what he produced. You're right, it ain't going to happen and we will see who wins and what the aftermath of that is.

It was a 4th '04 quarter loss, did you not read the link?

 

[Ames]

Me.

....and you would be selling shoes, right along with Al Bundy.