US Pilots Labor Discussion

[AWA320]

I don't expect the company to be indemnified, either. I expect that the DJ will be thrown out, post haste. Then, the company will have a decision to make, either do the LAWFUL thing and negotiate with USAPA, or try some other kind of end-around, and maybe get sued by USAPA or other east entities. They would stand alone in that lawsuit, and would most certainly lose it. Now, according to the SCOTUS, the ONLY thing that would allow another lawsuit is a ratified contract, and then the burden of proof will be whether the union negotisted a method which is fair FOR ALL IT'S MEMBERS, and WITHIN A WIDE RANGE OF REASONABLENESS.

WAWAW320, better shut up while you're ahead. You just look more stupid with every post. If this is just a hobby for you, why not find something new like beekeeping or stamp collecting and quit. You and a couple of others are really making the westies look bad.

The decision that has BEEN made is to ask the courts for help. The court will be unable to provide indemnity which places the company square in the middle of a lawsuit for violating or rather breach of contract and that one has teeth. Now you can make all the arguements you can and do all the name calling in the world but that will not change the overall effect of what LCC will have to do. They will honor that TA or suffer being sued and that much should have already be obvious to you.

If you could get to DOH then you would have by now.

AWA320/David/Tania/ Ray/whoever is next

 

[exB717Flyer]

... its all about you, and your precious NIC isn't it?...

We're not that selfish. It's OUR (East and West) Nic. You paid for it too! Feel free to claim your new seniority list anytime you like. Sooner is always better.

 

[fatherabraham]

...oh please....forgive me Father Abraham...for I have sinned. Have you? haha

Trevrep,
Human fingers here typing....so yeah.

Just seems a bit ironic that you pick such a handle. BTW.....it is obvious to all i come into contact with concerning NIC. He wrongly awarded a windfall to you. My $ says you will not collect.

FA

 

[Sadstateofaffairs]

Doesn't make sense to agree to a contract that harms us and then sue for failure to DFR. Any other questions?

Yea, do you think the NIC will ever see the light of day at this company without it being imposed by the courts? I assume it will not. If that is the case how do you harm yourself by putting pressure on the company along with your east brethren to encourage the company to finally speed up negotiations (and possibly get a better contract to boot) by showing a little unity. Then your DFR will be ripe and you can sue away. You don't even have to vote yea for the contract (the east majority will take care of that) just help put pressure on the company to come to the table. Or are you so venomous towards the East that it's simply "if we don't get the NIC the east has to work under #93 for punishment" ?

I understand that you feel slated by us reneging on the binding arbitration. I actually agree with you. As distasteful as the NIC is we agreed to a process and we should have honored that agreement. But, I am not naive enough to ever think the majority of east pilots will ever let the NIC on the property till all avenues of legal recourse have been exhausted and if the courts uphold DOH even though you did everything fair & square you will never see the NIC (but you will have a better contract and in the not to deem distant future most of us awful easties will be gone).

Ah, never mind I am wasting bandwidth....

Sad

 

[Zone5]

CJ I agree.....but do you think you can count on the West if it comes to self help? If we were ever released to do that?

This scotus thing today was no big deal, no cause for high fives or dancing in the crew room......only relates to ripeness.

Ground hog day.

As I stated earlier, how a self-help scenario would play out is anybody's guess. As dysfunctional and divided as this pilot group is, I suspect that the company would prefer watching us all self destruct over it, rather than having the pilots accept their imposed contract terms. How many East or West pilots would participate? Who knows. It would have to get down to the "nut cutting" to find out for sure. It would be interesting to see who indeed would turn out to be SCABS.

I doubt if there will ever be any dancing in any crew rooms here at UseLessAir. The SCOTUS ruling today merely put a period on the DFR-I saga.

On with the show.

seajay

 

[Zone5]

Ok sense you began this with some sense of intelligence I will respond in like manner. The company is obligated to negotiate with the bargaining agent as per RLA. The company is also under contract via the transition agreement which is the major sticking point for these negotiations. The company would like to move on however they are stuck because of this agreement. Seham has the emotional east pilots thinking they can change the name and walk away from an agreement. In short you cant.

Now let me tell you why with an example. The name of my company changed however I am under my same contract. If that were true then it would possible to eliminate any contract with a simple name change and change of a few principles. Contracts are there for a reason. They are there to protect the parties and their interests. LCC is unwilling to breach that contract on the say so of usapa because it is LCC that would suffer the most in litigation.

I think the easy way would have been to breach and then let the DFR take hold however some one counted the beans and figured that it would cost far more to go that route. Now many on this forum are completely clueless as to the purpose of the Declaratory judgement. If usapa really wanted an end game they would support this action to finally get the answer to the questions they seek. Usapa is begging for a dismissal which does not get them to the end game at all. All that really needs to happen for the west is for the courts to say no indemnity and frankly thats really all thats going to happen. The courts are not there to offer indemnity to parties of law suits.

AWA320

So far all the Courts have done is kill DFR-I over ripeness. The merits of a DFR-II can only be heard and adjudicated at the conclusion of a new JCBA, period. I'm not making this stuff up here, below is the verbatim pertinent language from the 9th Court of Appeals ruling affirmed by the SCOUS.

"[5] We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent 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. Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.

[9] Our conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claim is not ripe is consistent
with our DFR decisions, which have found DFR violations
based on contract negotiation only after a contract has
been agreed upon.

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’
DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to
the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED."

The DFR-I party is over, turn out the lights. You can start planning the festivities for DFR-II but I wouldn't have the invitations printed up just yet. Better to decide who the "DJ" is going to be first.

seajay

 

[exB717Flyer]

Yea, do you think the NIC will ever see the light of day at this company without it being imposed by the courts? I assume it will not.

The courts don't have to impose it. The company can simply refuse to negotiate away from the Nic list and that's where the declaratory judgement suit is headed.

If that is the case how do you harm yourself by putting pressure on the company along with your east brethren to encourage the company to finally speed up negotiations (and possibly get a better contract to boot) by showing a little unity. Then your DFR will be ripe and you can sue away. You don't even have to vote yea for the contract (the east majority will take care of that) just help put pressure on the company to come to the table.

You presume the West is the source of the disunity. If the East were to simply drop it's efforts to change the seniority list we could re-unite. The East started this dispute so the East should end it.

Or are you so venomous towards the East that it's simply "if we don't get the NIC the east has to work under #93 for punishment" ?

Now why in the world would the West feel venomous towards the East? Sarcasm aside, the West wants what we entered arbitration for. Compensation for the millions we've been forced to spend towards that goal would be nice but our priority is preserving the integrity of the arbitration.

I understand that you feel slated by us reneging on the binding arbitration. I actually agree with you. As distasteful as the NIC is we agreed to a process and we should have honored that agreement. But, I am not naive enough to ever think the majority of east pilots will ever let the NIC on the property till all avenues of legal recourse have been exhausted and if the courts uphold DOH even though you did everything fair & square you will never see the NIC (but you will have a better contract and in the not to deem distant future most of us awful easties will be gone).

Thank you for your candor but you answer your own question. The East knows they're doing the wrong thing, they're doing it anyway, and the West has suffered greatly because of it. We don't seek vengeance, we seek justice. Before Nicolau ruled we were working together towards a joint contract then the East stabbed us in the back. There's every reason to believe that's exactly what the East would do again, given the chance. (Witness the recent attempt to steal our profit sharing.)

So yes, I'm afraid you're wasting bandwidth.

 

[Sadstateofaffairs]

So yes, I'm afraid you're wasting bandwidth.

Finally, something we all can agree on. Thanks for the respectful reply.

Sad

 

[CallawayGolf]

Yea, do you think the NIC will ever see the light of day at this company without it being imposed by the courts? I assume it will not. If that is the case how do you harm yourself by putting pressure on the company along with your east brethren to encourage the company to finally speed up negotiations (and possibly get a better contract to boot) by showing a little unity. Then your DFR will be ripe and you can sue away. You don't even have to vote yea for the contract (the east majority will take care of that) just help put pressure on the company to come to the table. Or are you so venomous towards the East that it's simply "if we don't get the NIC the east has to work under #93 for punishment" ?

I understand that you feel slated by us reneging on the binding arbitration. I actually agree with you. As distasteful as the NIC is we agreed to a process and we should have honored that agreement. But, I am not naive enough to ever think the majority of east pilots will ever let the NIC on the property till all avenues of legal recourse have been exhausted and if the courts uphold DOH even though you did everything fair & square you will never see the NIC (but you will have a better contract and in the not to deem distant future most of us awful easties will be gone).

Ah, never mind I am wasting bandwidth....

Sad

You are not wasting bandwidth. I think you have a good grasp on what the situation is, though I seriously doubt that Management would accept any claim that the NIC is dead from the west. All it takes is one west pilot to file a DFR claim against USAPA and in a hybrid claim against the Company. If he wins, it would open the floodgates for litigation and legal expenses would grow astronomically. Because of this and because there is no one to officially and legal represent the interests of the west pilots who were a party to the TA, then Management will only accept the NIC per the terms of the TA or they will wait for a court to provide enough assurances that legal liability has been removed.

The quickest and most logical path is to decertify USAPA by having their officers fold up shop and leave the US pilots unrepresented. Management would be “forced,” or happy, to impose their terms on all the pilots as they quickly and decisively combine all operations and treat all pilots the same in terms of work rules and pay per equipment class or whatever scheme they decide is best. This arrangement may or may not be to the average pilot’s liking, but Management would likely be highly motivated to convince pilots through their actions that going without a CBA is better than going with one (ALPA, USAPA, whoever). If that doesn’t work, then the pilots can hold another representational election and bring in whoever wins the most pilot votes (or not if that’s the way it goes).

The beauty of this is that as soon as USAPA is decertified and the company imposes new rules and pay for all pilots, all of the old contracts with ALPA become null and void. No more LOA93, no more ALPA seniority list, no more arbitration award; no more anything left over for the pilots to be contentious over from a merger/integration perspective. If a new union were to arise from the ashes of this mess, they would be free, as the 9th correctly asserted in the wrong context, to develop a seniority system within a wide range of reasonableness so long as it didn’t overtly discriminate against one group of pilots in favor of another (male/female, short/tall, young/old). At any rate, if this would have been done in late 2007 or in 2008, then this chapter of strife and tension between the pilot groups with no real hope of attaining an improved contract would be ancient history. I know of no other solution that would remedy this so quickly, save for USAPA actually accepting the NIC, but that is not the reality they are willing to deal with.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You are not wasting bandwidth. I think you have a good grasp on what the situation is, though I seriously doubt that Management would accept any claim that the NIC is dead from the west. All it takes is one west pilot to file a DFR claim against USAPA and in a hybrid claim against the Company. If he wins, it would open the floodgates for litigation and legal expenses would grow astronomically. Because of this and because there is no one to officially and legal represent the interests of the west pilots who were a party to the TA, then Management will only accept the NIC per the terms of the TA or they will wait for a court to provide enough assurances that legal liability has been removed.

The quickest and most logical path is to decertify USAPA by having their officers fold up shop and leave the US pilots unrepresented. Management would be “forced,” or happy, to impose their terms on all the pilots as they quickly and decisively combine all operations and treat all pilots the same in terms of work rules and pay per equipment class or whatever scheme they decide is best. This arrangement may or may not be to the average pilot’s liking, but Management would likely be highly motivated to convince pilots through their actions that going without a CBA is better than going with one (ALPA, USAPA, whoever). If that doesn’t work, then the pilots can hold another representational election and bring in whoever wins the most pilot votes (or not if that’s the way it goes).

The beauty of this is that as soon as USAPA is decertified and the company imposes new rules and pay for all pilots, all of the old contracts with ALPA become null and void. No more LOA93, no more ALPA seniority list, no more arbitration award; no more anything left over for the pilots to be contentious over from a merger/integration perspective. If a new union were to arise from the ashes of this mess, they would be free, as the 9th correctly asserted in the wrong context, to develop a seniority system within a wide range of reasonableness so long as it didn’t overtly discriminate against one group of pilots in favor of another (male/female, short/tall, young/old). At any rate, if this would have been done in late 2007 or in 2008, then this chapter of strife and tension between the pilot groups with no real hope of attaining an improved contract would be ancient history. I know of no other solution that would remedy this so quickly, save for USAPA actually accepting the NIC, but that is not the reality they are willing to deal with.

Give it up already. It's over. And USAPA is here to stay, for a long time. Your dream of stealing from others is ending.

 

[Zone5]

Doesn't make sense to agree to a contract that harms us and then sue for failure to DFR. Any other questions?

Actually it does, assuming you are a proponent of a DFR-II. In fact, the more onerous the terms of a new JCBA in terms of the desires of the West pilots, the better. Also helpful with respect to the outcome of a West sponsored DFR-II would be a NO vote from every single PHX based pilot to a new JCBA. In essence the West would NOT be agreeing to anything and would be expressing their collective displeasure with the new contract being "imposed" on them by the majority and presumably would then move forward with an unquestionably ripe DFR-II. Which according to the SCOUS cannot be brought without a ratified contract.

I agree with you though, it doesn't make much sense, but there you have it. It also explains why there are more lawyers in the New York City phone book than the ENTIRE country of say, Canada.

seajay

 

[exB717Flyer]

Actually it does, assuming you are a proponent of a DFR-II.

I am never in favor of more litigation. I'm in favor of the most expeditious route to justice, aka, the arbitrated seniority list.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Why would that bother anybody? It's not about them. It's about LCC, no one else.

You may be finally getting it - it's about LCC, not how long someone waited at US or how quickly someone upgraded at HP. It's not "adding" the West pilots to the East list. That all disappeared when the separate airlines ceased to exist and what each pilot could hold when the two companies joined to form a new company.

Jim

 

[Barrister]

So far all the Courts have done is kill DFR-I over ripeness. The merits of a DFR-II can only be heard and adjudicated at the conclusion of a new JCBA, period. I'm not making this stuff up here, below is the verbatim pertinent language from the 9th Court of Appeals ruling affirmed by the SCOUS.

"[5] We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent 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. Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.

[9] Our conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claim is not ripe is consistent
with our DFR decisions, which have found DFR violations
based on contract negotiation only after a contract has
been agreed upon.

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’
DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to
the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED."

The DFR-I party is over, turn out the lights. You can start planning the festivities for DFR-II but I wouldn't have the invitations printed up just yet. Better to decide who the "DJ" is going to be first.

seajay

Don't confuse them with the law. After all BB or one of his imitators
said the 9th opinion is....well.....
just an opinion.......well ....yea it is!!!!!!!!!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[LSS]

No it's not all about me...review the evidence in the Addington case and you'll see why usapa was formed and it's intents and goals.

Guilty by a jury.

If usapa ever gets a contract we'll be back with dfr II.....

don't know why you say it's all about me.....you and I were both represented whether we liked it or not...alpa reps...they didn't come to an agreement so it went to final and binding arbitration....then along comes the angry f/o club dba usapa....and derailed the merger, thus a new contract.

I have a news flash for you...you aren't going to get your snap back...and the courts are not going to give doug a free pass to negotiate away from the nic...put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Well at least we agree on the DJ thing... The NIC arbitration was, for the one millionth time... AN INTERNAL UNION ARBITRATION TO ACHIEVE A SENIORITY INTEGRATION PROPOSAL TO SUBMIT TO THE COMPANY... Your little side show in Arizona with Judge Wake wherein you claim that USAPA was found "guilty by a jury" is irrelevant because not only was Judge Wake wrong on more than determining whether the case was ripe, but because how he oversaw the case, the evidence that he permitted to be heard and the instructions to the jury were all flawed from the get-go. The Ninth threw out the determination, and with it any finding of "guilt" (your word not mine) as well.

And the grievance isn't over a "snap back" as so many erroneously call it. It is the expiration of a "temporary" reduction in pay, upon a certain date, after which the pay would be restored to the previous level. I wouldn't give odds on whether or not that grievance will be won, but whether or not it goes the pilot's way... will not change one single thing in the East about the NIC. For us... it is an abomination and windfall for the west (thus their efforts to pay a law firm over $2m, and fight tooth and nail to have it implemented!)