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

[BoeingBoy]

This makes the case perfectly clear, "in its sole discretion" BoeingBoy- You make it sound like it is more than this, and that is stretching the truth.

Did you actually read Boeing Driver's quote? It's hard to believe you did and still continue to hold on to the belief that LOA 93 gave complete freedom to the union to determine how to split up the profit sharing.

Read that quote again, especially the words "allocation of equity participation." For those that still have even a tenuous grasp on reality, equity is stock and NOT profit sharing. So yes, the union had a choice (with SOLE DISCRETION as B.S. likes it) to accept all/partial/no equity participation. Unfortunately for you, that has absolutely nothing to do with profit sharing allocation under LOA 93.

On 2nd thought keep believing that LOA 93 gives USAPA SOLE DISCRETION in determining the profit sharing distribution. Forget all about the transition agreement and make the LOA 93 argument to the grevience arbitrator. That would be poetic justice.

This makes no sense. The clock was running out on a case that had no merit...

Merit was determined once and only once so far - in District Court. The 9th said in it's ruling that it didn't look at the merits - they said that they didn't even get to the "thorny" issue of whether USAPA had to accept the Nic - but ruled only on ripeness. Because the 9th ruled "not ripe" Seeham can't argue that the statute of limitations for bringing a DFR suit has passed (which he would surely have argued if the West had waited for a ratified contract before filing the DFR suit). So better to spend whatever to insure that the statute of limitations didn't run out than spend that money on a suit that gets thrown out due to the statute of limitations.

Jim

 

[cleardirect]

This makes no sense. The clock was running out on a case that had no merit, so you pursue it for 2 million for nothing. Unbelievable. How could Jacobs look you in the eye, and take your money? What did Koontz and Vasin say? Weren't they the legal braintrust?

What did ALPA the defendant in the MDA case have to say about their motion for summary judgment?
Why does this sound oddly familiar? Oh yeah it is exactly what Seham said. How did the case turn out?
The clock on limitations could reasonably be argued against usapa on April 18, 2008. The west had until Oct. 18, 2008 to file. That is when the west reasonably knew that usapa was not going to use the Nicolau. We filed Sept. 2008.

Not ripe? Maybe the MDA boys found a lawyer that can change facts and a friendly judge. So why were the west pilots wrong about our case but the MDA pilot are right about theirs? The hypocrisy is pretty think in here.

First, all of the MDA pilots knew by no later than January 24, 2006, that their information would be listed in the way they now claim was “erroneous.” The limitations period for duty of fair representation claims is six months, so any claims based on “erroneous” data would have to be filed by July 24, 2006. The Plaintiffs first raised this claim in a June 22, 2007 letter to the Court requesting a pre-motion conference; accordingly, the claim is time-barred.

Second, the undisputed evidence clearly shows that the merged seniority list has not been implemented. Indeed, the primary goal of the new union for the US Airways pilots is to prevent that list from ever being implemented, and the matter is currently the subject of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Thus, Plaintiffs have not suffered any injury and the case is not ripe for judicial review.

Aside from these procedural and doctrinal bars that mandate dismissal of the Supplemental Complaint, the undisputed facts further show that ALPA did not act arbitrarily, with bad faith, or discriminatorily toward the MDA pilots, as required to establish a breach of ALPA’s DFR. To the contrary, the US Airways Merger Committee vigorously advocated on behalf of the MDA pilots, and indeed sought to have the Arbitration Board credit them for their service at MDA.

Finally, the undisputed record evidence also shows that the Arbitration Board did not rely on any “erroneous” list, and understood precisely what MDA was, as well as the employment situation of the MDA pilots. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot establish the requisite causal link between the alleged “erroneous” list and their place on the integrated list generated by the Arbitration Board.

What did Seham have to say about statute of limitations? Guess he got it wrong too.

B ) Plaintiffs’ DFR Claim Would Nonetheless Be Barred By The Six Month Statue Of
Limitations.
It is well settled that the time to bring a DFR claim under the RLA is six (6) months. DelCostello v Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983); West v. Conrail, 481 U.S. 35 (1987); Kelly v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 896 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 1990). The six month limitations period begins to run when the employee knows, or should have known, of the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation by his union. Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502, 1509 (9th Cir. 1986).

In the present case, Plaintiffs’ State Court filing demonstrates that they knew or should have known of the alleged DFR breach in July, 2007. (State Compl. ¶¶ 88-94). It was this date upon which Plaintiffs allege, in their state court filing, that the July 25, 2007, meeting minutes of the US Airways ALPA MEC demonstrate “concerted action ... to breach [the] obligation to treat the Nicolau Award as final and binding.” (Id. at 89).4 4 Paragraphs 88-94 of Plaintiffs’ state court Complaint allege numerous incidents between July-August 2007 in which the US Airways ALPA MEC expressed intent to stall implementation of a single CBA, which under the terms of the Transition Agreement, is a

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 36 Filed 10/01/2008 Page 15 of 24 SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN LLP 10
Plaintiffs make this exact allegation against USAPA in their Complaint in this matter. (Complaint ¶ 105).

The basis upon which Plaintiffs’ alleged DFR claim is centered – not treating the Nicolau Award as binding and final – was known to Plaintiffs in July 2007. This was at a time when ALPA, not USAPA, was the certified bargaining representative of Pilots at US Airways. Furthermore, ALPA, unlike USAPA, was obligated under its internal merger policy, to “use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list.” (Compl. Ex. C; ALPA Merger & Fragmentation Policy, p. 8, § I(1)). Plaintiffs had six months, until January 2008, to bring an alleged DFR claim against ALPA on this basis. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not only time-barred in bringing this DFR claim against USAPA, but they have sought it against the wrong union.

So according to the great and powerful Seham the west was time barred. But the ninth circuit says that it was not ripe yet. Did Seham get it wrong too?

 

[767jetz]

We merged under the same merger policy as you did. As you know, ALPA National has nothing to do with the management of the local union. I know you guys like to blame others for all of your self-generated problems, but it just doesn't cut it in my book. The success of the Delta merger came from a plan completely generated within the Delta MEC. The Northwest MEC bought in to a certain degree, but at times wanted to start the merger death match. We refused to engage in that behavior, it takes two to fight so there never was a fight. We came up with our own merger process that became the model for the new ALPA merger policy.

So you can try to foist off your problems on ALPA National. Who is to blame for the last two years? Is there any statute of limitations where you guys take responsibility for your own actions or do you give yourselves a free pass for the rest of your careers? This whole mess could be over quickly, you guys just have to decide to end it. But blame me if it helps you sleep at night. As for me, I choose to take control of my own affairs and avoid finger pointing.

Well said, Oscarjazz. Thanks to you and your Delta leadership for paving the "right" way. Hopefully we at UA will be able to repeat your success, and avoid the pitfalls that have lead the USAirways pilots to this mess.

 

[exB717Flyer]

At least Seham delivered good advice on the 9th.

What 'advice' would you be referring to? His advice is what caused the DFR suit which ended up in appeal. You basically got off on a technicality. So be it -- for now.

Too bad Wake gave the West the false hope and bravado.

Has your wet-dream list been implemented yet? Can we expect the NAC to present it once again at the next meeting with the Company? What do you anticipate the Company's response would be if it did? It remains to be seen if our hopes for justice are false.

Jacobs, on the other hand made a colossal misstep on the ripeness issue. One a first year law school student most likely wouldn't miss.

Your comment reminds me of a comment a sportscaster made during a football game yesterday. Regarding the wisdom of a particular play call, if it's successful we consider the call a good one but if it isn't we consider it a failure. Of course that's a fallacy in human perception. A good play call might succeed or might not depending on a its execution or even a referee's decision to make a particular call on the play. So judging how good the play call is can't necessarily be made based on the end result alone. In other words, sometimes you just get lucky. Keep up your supreme confidence in $eham versus our team. Luck usually runs out at some point.

That was a 2 million lesson Jacobs gave to everyone. How he could take your money after that is reprehensible.

How much has it cost you since you quit negotiations during the summer of 2007? I understand you feel it was worth it. Well guess what? What we've spent preventing you from cramming your wet dream list down our gullets has been worth it as well. You haven't succeeded, have you?

 

[767jetz]

Pilots have vastly different pay scales that depend upon your relative standing within your group and only slightly upon your years of service. For example, using the East pay scales, a 5 year Airbus Captain makes almost 50% more than a 20 year E-190 F/O. The ability to hold one pay scale or the other depends not upon your years of service, but on your relative standing within your group.

Again, very well said. This is a point not emphasized often enough, and the East prefer no one else pays attention to this fact.

 

[767jetz]

What isn't fair about bringing the 190 F/O group up to living wages, then equalizing the two employee groups so the pay is fair across the board?

You are talking about using profit sharing to do it, that's what. Bringing the 190 f/o wages up should be accomplished through a new contract, not through a disproportionate share of the profit. Tell me, how much profit to the company does a 190 create compared to a 320, 757, 767, or 330?

 

[cleardirect]

Then ponder this my "no skin in the game friend" if we go with the NIC and
then merge with you how do you feel about 2000 guys coming in senior to
you who are way younger than you??? Naw didn't think so.....
and besides....I thought WE were the model for the new ALPO merger policy???/
Well??

NICDOA
NPJB

I can always count on east guys to over- exaggerate. Oh the horror 2000 younger guys come flooding to your list.

Reality check. There were 1800 west pilot to start not 2000. Not every west pilot is younger than east pilots.

There is an average of 5 years difference between the east and west. Try and stick within the realm of reality shall we. 2000 younger pilot coming in senior to you. Please!

How about furloughed pilot coming in senior to captains? Any problem with that?

 

[nic4us]

I can always count on east guys to over- exaggerate. Oh the horror 2000 younger guys come flooding to your list.

Reality check. There were 1800 west pilot to start not 2000. Not every west pilot is younger than east pilots.

There is an average of 5 years difference between the east and west. Try and stick within the realm of reality shall we. 2000 younger pilot coming in senior to you. Please!

How about furloughed pilot coming in senior to captains? Any problem with that?

Barrister's over exaggeration makes me believe he was a furloughed east guy, maybe MDA, and yes I have a huge problem with furloughed east pilots who have less LOS than me forming a union to renege on binding arbitration for the sole purpose of stealing my captain seat. BTW Clear, you forgot to mention those east furloughees are likely much younger than the West captains whose jobs they wish to steal.

Damages coming usapa's way. Get out your checkbooks usapa supporters.

 

[nic4us]

This makes no sense. The clock was running out on a case that had no merit, so you pursue it for 2 million for nothing. Unbelievable. How could Jacobs look you in the eye, and take your money? What did Koontz and Vasin say? Weren't they the legal braintrust?

Try to keep up here 9. The case has merit, 2 federal judges and 9 jurors agree. It would have cost less but usapa ran up the bill trying to defend agaisnt their guilt. They have spent some 7 million defending against a claim that is about to cost them a whole lot more than the 7 mil.

Koontz and Vasin???? Vasin's name anywhere on the Addington list? Vasin does happen to be a RICO defendant, so I guess you could say he whipped usapa's rear, but he was not in favor of the ST&K approach to prosecution.

 

[Barrister]

I can always count on east guys to over- exaggerate. Oh the horror 2000 younger guys come flooding to your list.

Reality check. There were 1800 west pilot to start not 2000. Not every west pilot is younger than east pilots.

There is an average of 5 years difference between the east and west. Try and stick within the realm of reality shall we. 2000 younger pilot coming in senior to you. Please!

How about furloughed pilot coming in senior to captains? Any problem with that?

None whatsoever....as long as there is an opening....no bump no flush remember...COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR
NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Metroyet]

None whatsoever....as long as there is an opening....no bump no flush remember...COMMENT DELETED BY MODERATOR
NICDOA
NPJB

Final and binding arbitration...remember? No? Don't worry, a little reminder is on the way shortly.

 

[767jetz]

Then ponder this my "no skin in the game friend" if we go with the NIC and
then merge with you how do you feel about 2000 guys coming in senior to
you who are way younger than you??? Naw didn't think so.....

That's pretty presumptuous. What makes you think the rest of the world lives by the same value system as you???

I for one am fine with the many CO pilots who will be placed in front of me, many of whom may be significantly younger than me. IMO their age and LOS is irrelevant since the slotting will keep everyone's seniority at the same relative level it is today. It won't affect anyone's ability to bid the fleet and seat they have now. My guess is oscarjazz and the Delta pilots feel the same way.

and besides....I thought WE were the model for the new ALPO merger policy???

You are the example of how NOT to merge.

 

[notsofast]

Everyone realizes that these issues are very emotional and people will always have differences of perspective. That is why we have neutral arbitrators to come in and settle these differences. If you go to court, you can lose, and if you go to arbitration, you can not get your way. Accepting those outcomes are a part of adult life, we lost our right to throw temper tantrums when we turned into adults. The East pilots have thrown an extended temper tantrum that has cost them, their families, their co-workers, and their company hundreds of millions of dollars in lost wages, revenue, and advancement opportunities. Their tantrum continues to hamper their company's ability to adapt to a vastly changing industry. So far they have nothing to show for it. If they simply adopted the Delta pay scale, their pilots would receive pay raises of 25% or more immediately. I won't even talk about work rules that allow me to complete my hours working many fewer days than an average LCC pilot.

The whole situation has transformed from sad to pathetic. As the damage continues, even your management team is trying to step in and force the East pilots to live up to their obligations. It is pathetic when the management team cares more about their pilots than the union does. I am sorry if you would have a hard time putting up with a disappointment if some fleet person with less years of service bumped you out of your shift. Life is not fair, get over it.

Delta NWA had three actual arbitrators. Usairways AWA had one arbitrator and John Praters friend for years and fellow Independent Continental Pilots Association Brucia, and United Pilot Gillen while Usairways was in talks with United about a merger, as pilot ""neutrals"".

Nice try. The whole situation is sad and pathetic because of ALPA's handling of this from the beginning.

By the way John Prater told the Midwest Pilots he was going to change is zip code to MKE if need be to help them. The ALPA scope clause they had was worthless and as soon as the dues stopped Prater has not been seen.

Life was not fair under ALPA so we dealt with it. The adults at USAPA are patiently and unemotionally undoing the years of ALPA damage, some ALPA supporters may have to get over this one day.

 

[notsofast]

Final and binding arbitration...remember? No? Don't worry, a little reminder is on the way shortly.

Is Lacey and his buddies playing patty cake with you guys again?

 

[nic4us]

This makes the case perfectly clear, "in its sole discretion" BoeingBoy- You make it sound like it is more than this, and that is stretching the truth.

9,

Again try to keep up. You are quoting LOA93 and trying to make an arguement about the West not getting any future profit sharing????

West profit sharing is granted via the TA. It was negotiated by West reps for West pilots as part of the TA in exchange for concessions to our contract and our support of the merger, not given to us by the east. LOA 93 has no authority on the West pilot group and/or our participation in profit sharing.

Further, the TA calls for the distribution to be at the discretion of the MECs. So since there is no longer a West MEC, I suppose usapa could take some sort of vote or have the BPR come up with a plan of dispersement that differed from the method that has already been used two times in the past.

All I can say about that is.....I triple dog dare usapa to change that method to exclude the West.