US Pilots Labor Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the official ruling by the 9th, what they really said was:

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. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated.

But you're right, nic - the 9th did not say that the Nic could not be ratified. Phoenix is flat out wrong - another eastie that sees what he wants to see and nothing else...

Jim
 
I read the west as saying that the east's DOH hope will take it in the shorts but that the west is fine with some sort of relative position...

Jim

Maybe so. Maybe I'm too biased to see it, but I've picked up more of a "it's your turn to get screwed" vibe.
 
Maybe so. Maybe I'm too biased to see it, but I've picked up more of a "it's your turn to get screwed" vibe.

Speaking of absolutes.

The absolute stupidest thing usapa could do in representing east pilots, would be go into a future SLI with the APA and demand the use of three lists. West...east and APA.

The reason being is, if granted, the arbitrator could easily hand usapa their rear in a "fair" integration that would place east pilots on the combined list in positions less favorable than if usapa just used the Nic as the LCC list. It is even somewhat likely that West representation at any SLI threeway arbitration would ask for just that, and have a very good chance of getting it.
 
Really? Have you followed AA's history on SLI's? The west seems to think the east can take it in the shorts and not them. Despite their cactus love, we are one group. AA pilots will do what is best for THEM. All this love fest will fade when it comes to a SLI.

The AA pilots will do what's best for them with guidance from Parker and M/B.

Their previous way of doing things is now illegal.
 
The AA pilots will FO what's best for them with guidance from Parker and M/B.

Their previous way of doing things is now illegal.

Yeah, I guess they will have a harder time with a prenup way around MB than SW did.

Why do you still have a picture of Jamie as your avatar?
 
Maybe so. Maybe I'm too biased to see it, but I've picked up more of a "it's your turn to get screwed" vibe.

"Screwed" by not getting DOH...the Nic and APA lists integrated by relative position/equip/seat is a far cry from the DOH the east has been seeking for 6-1/2 years...and almost no change from the Nic for the west...

Jim
 
Speaking of absolutes.

The absolute stupidest thing usapa could do in representing east pilots, would be go into a future SLI with the APA and demand the use of three lists. West...east and APA.

The reason being is, if granted, the arbitrator could easily hand usapa their rear in a "fair" integration that would place east pilots on the combined list in positions less favorable than if usapa just used the Nic as the LCC list. It is even somewhat likely that West representation at any SLI threeway arbitration would ask for just that, and have a very good chance of getting it.

It would be a risk. You never know what an arbitrator might do...........
 
According to the official ruling by the 9th, what they really said was:

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. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated.

But you're right, nic - the 9th did not say that the Nic could not be ratified. Phoenix is flat out wrong - another eastie that sees what he wants to see and nothing else...

Jim

I just cut and pasted like you did, straight from the PDF document published at the 9th circuit.

So, we have two places straight from the documant itself that makes no mention of "wide range of reasonableness", while at the same time reminding usapa of its DFR and the "pain" that awaits for failure of that DFR.
 
Yeah, I guess they will have a harder time with a prenup way around MB than SW did.

Almost certainly - WN, as the acquirer, was as if not more responsible for the WN/FL integration than SWAPA. Different situation with AA where US would be the acquirer.

Now, if AA emerges from bankruptcy as a stand-alone carrier then buys US it could be a different story...

Besides, the WN/FL seniority integration didn't conflict with M-B. The two sides (three if you count WN as a party) agreed to an integrated list/contract and it was ratified - it didn't go to mediation or arbitration. That is the M-B process unless mediation/arbitration is required because no agreement can be reached.

Jim
 
It would be a risk. You never know what an arbitrator might do...........

Yep....and going in front of an arbitrator as a group designed specifically to renege on an arbitration, and also owing West pilots seats as a result of other arbitations, while at the same time using the first arbitration to stay seperate and also renege on those arbitrations would likely cost the east very dearly in a threway.
 
Almost certainly - WN, as the acquirer, was as if not more responsible for the WN/FL integration than SWAPA. Different situation with AA where US would be the acquirer.

Now, if AA emerges from bankruptcy as a stand-alone carrier then buys US it could be a different story...

Besides, the WN/FL seniority integration didn't conflict with M-B. The two sides (three if you count WN as a party) agreed to an integrated list/contract and it was ratified - it didn't go to mediation or arbitration. That is the M-B process unless mediation/arbitration is required because no agreement can be reached.

Jim

Yeah, seems they put a gun to the FL head. Plenty of talk about APA and Parker walking around USAPA.........
 
So, we have two places straight from the documant itself that makes no mention of "wide range of reasonableness", while at the same time reminding usapa of its DFR and the "pain" that awaits for failure of that DFR.

Actually, the 9th's ruling does mention SCOTUS' "wide range of reasonableness." But is was in explaining their "not ripe" ruling.

Indeed, the Supreme Court case that clarified that the DFR
was applicable during contract negotiations articulated its
holding in terms that imply a claim can be brought only after
negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been
reached. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S.
65, 78 (1991) (“[T]he final product of the bargaining process
may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be
fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’
that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ” (quoting
Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953))).


But if you're keeping score, the 9th mentioned "wide range of reasonableness" one time, that USAPA's proposal harmed the west twice and that USAPA had a duty to fairly represent BOTH sides a number of times. Even in the portion of their comments that Phoenix misrepresented the 9th mentions "USAPA's proposal and the accompaning harm" to the west.

Jim
 
Did the 9th make any statements that the Nic was "unfair"?

So, there you have it. Phoenix has proven the Nic to be a "fair" award, as the most obvious reasoning for ripeness offered by the 9th would be,,,"hey, usapa could still use the Nic".


When an employee tells me that something is not fair, I tell them "Life is unfair, but it's unfair for everyone, and that makes it fair"

What part of "Binding Arbitration" do they not get? The binding part, or the arbitration part?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top