US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

..................... The company cannot tell USAPA to "pound sand". The company must continue to negotiate until such time as a new JCBA is reached or the mediator declares an impasse. That's the process, I'm not making this stuff up, like it or not.

The "legality" of the NIC is not the issue at this point, as the 9th Court of Appeals has ruled & the SCOTUS has concurred, USAPA is free to negotiate a JCBA with the company until they reach agreement and a contract is ratified or the parties are released for self-help. The duty and responsibility is on USAPA to negotiate a contract that would survive DFR-II or suffer the consequences.

seajay

Yes the company can tell usapa to pound sand. And you left out part of the process, the part were the mediator parks the negotiations and calls for a recess.

The company is under no obligation to usapa or any other future union to break its contractual obligations to satisfy union demands.

Although it will never get this far, the company is also on the hook if it negotiates a CBA with usapa that does not have the arbitrated award as the system seniority list. They know it, and have never said anything to the contrary. In fact, they have gone out of their way to stay neutral, while vigorously claiming they have indeed "accepted" the list. Even testified to as much and got themselves released from the Addington trial. The company will not expose itself to the lawsuit that they know they will lose.

 

[mikey60]

America West Pilot update

" "Leonidas Update January 10. 2011

This morning the Supreme Court officially denied our Petition for Certiorari. Although not unexpected, the decision is of course disappointing. As a result of this decision, the big question on everybody’s mind is “What does this all mean?”

By denying our petition, the Supreme Court basically affirmed the Ninth Court of Appeals decision in regard to ripeness, without ruling or commenting on any of the other eight issues of the case raised by USAPA in its appeal. This, in turn, means that, from a judicial standpoint, the big questions surrounding the seniority dispute remain unanswered.

Depending on future developments in the company’s Request for a Declatory Judgement, the net result is that we are back at square one, where USAPA will have to negotiate a new Tentative Agreement after which we will go back to court for DFR round two (with the knowledge that DFRI was resolved in favor of the Addington Plaintiffs, and that this time around ripeness will not be an issue)

Through the Addington litigation, Leonidas has attempted from Day One to expediently resolve the seniority dispute, so that the pilot group as a whole can move on and obtain the industry-leading contract we all deserve. The sad truth is that today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a loss for ALL USAirways pilots as it means that there will be no definitive solution, and no joint contract for a long time to come.

Stand by for a more in-depth update coming soon.

Sincerely,

Leonidas LLC " "

p.s. Send money...lots of money.

 

[OTTER574]

Me too, it's all very confusing! I have to read all these legal documents/opinions/briefs several times to feel like I understand what is being said. That having been said, my take is that USAPA would just as soon the company had not filed the DJ. Primarily because it just makes for more delay in the JCBA negotiation/mediation process, which is just fine with the company. It is my understanding that USAPA has asked that the DJ be dismissed.

The fact of the matter is that USAPA is not a "rogue" union, regardless of ones opinion of them, they are the legally designated bargaining agent for the pilots of UseLessAirways. Any seniority list scheme that USAPA proffers in negotiations with the company would not be "illegal" unless either Judge Silver says it is or until a DFR-II is concluded ruling it so. The company really doesn't care for the most part, "Dougie" has even said it could be alphabetical for all he cares, as long as it doesn't result in dramatically increased training costs and embroil them in expensive future litigation, which is why they filed the DJ to shield them against liability.

Your guess is as good as mine, about the outcome of the DJ. The company cannot tell USAPA to "pound sand". The company must continue to negotiate until such time as a new JCBA is reached or the mediator declares an impasse. That's the process, I'm not making this stuff up, like it or not.

The "legality" of the NIC is not the issue at this point, as the 9th Court of Appeals has ruled & the SCOTUS has concurred, USAPA is free to negotiate a JCBA with the company until they reach agreement and a contract is ratified or the parties are released for self-help. The duty and responsibility is on USAPA to negotiate a contract that would survive DFR-II or suffer the consequences.

seajay

Nic has never been trial and never will be. NO REDO

9th ruled case not ripe against usapa and that's all.

Think you can get the company to follow along with usapa's illegal request?..please by all means. Unquestionable ripe DFR comes to mind.

usapa can negotiate all they want but they must abide by the current contracts already in place..including the TA. Please read ALL SECTIONS of TA.

Section 22 is complete and accepted by the company..waiting for a joint contract.

OTTER

 

[mikey60]

In case you didnt notice wawwaw320 got a new line" union busting scab". His last one was "fear", before that "integrity" and so on,so on. I will give anyone on the east side of this two (2) of my space positive passes if you can guess what the next "buzz word" from wawwaw will be. Contest expires when DOH is agreed with DP. Sorry , you guys from the west are excluded, some of you might actually know him although you probably wont admit it.

 

[nic4us]

I will give anyone on the east side of this two (2) of my space positive passes if you can guess what the next "buzz word"

You get "space positive passes"?

 

[usabusdriver]

I accepted a release from an agent the other day. It had the wrong (union?) tail number on it. I asked for a new one, but even that one was still not official until I (ratified?) accepted it via ACARS. So I in fact "accepted" it three times. Only the last time, the actual ratification was legal and binding.

Just out of curiosity (and I don't know the answer)...in which "court" did the company testify? Surely not Wake's..that never happened.

RR

Reed,

The company did accept the award, and they also did acknowledge that acceptance, like you do with the release via acars, with a letter and monies paid to the two MEC’s in accordance with the terms of the TA, which makes it legal and binding.

As far as testimony by the company, the only court I know about was in the Arizona Federal District Court in front of Judge Wake during the Addington trial. Robert Siegal represented the company in court during the Addington trial. While he did not testify per se, he did answer many specific questions from the judge during oral argument outside the presence of the jury, and Al Hemminway testified via deposition which was read in court to the jury.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Reed,

The company did accept the award, and they also did acknowledge that acceptance, like you do with the release via acars, with a letter and monies paid to the two MEC’s in accordance with the terms of the TA, which makes it legal and binding.

As far as testimony by the company, the only court I know about was in the Arizona Federal District Court in front of Judge Wake during the Addington trial. Robert Siegal represented the company in court during the Addington trial. While he did not testify per se, he did answer many specific questions from the judge during oral argument outside the presence of the jury, and Al Hemminway testified via deposition which was read in court to the jury.

Company has twice failed to pursue resolution of the alleged controversy before the
System Board. First, when – having won dismissal of claims against it by the Addington
plaintiffs – the Company acquiesced to the withdrawal of their grievance before the System
Board and chose not to pursue the matter itself; a tacit admission that there is nothing about this
matter that presents harm or any imminent crisis to the Company. Second, when the Company
sought this Court’s intervention instead of resorting to the System Board, which it knew from
its own successful motion to dismiss, to have exclusive jurisdiction. To the extent that the
Addington plaintiffs have not already waived their contract-based claims due to their prior
grievance withdrawal, they could be given notice of the arbitral proceedings and allowed
petition to be included as a party to the arbitral process. See Steward v. Mann, 351 F.3d 1338,
1346-47 (11th Cir. 2003).
Even more fundamentally, the TA, pursuant to section XII.B, is open for modification by
USAPA and the Company. (Doc. # 34-2 at 15). Indeed, pursuant to section XII.E.1 of the TA,
it is open for termination, hence it is no firm goal-post to hitch a case or controversy to. (Id. at
16).
6 The Company admits the dispute is contractual in nature by arguing that the West pilot
litigation threat is viable because the “Transition Agreement … required ALPA to present and
US Airways to accept the Nicolau Award [and that] such tendering and acceptance of the
Nicolau Award has occurred in accordance with the terms of the Transition Agreement …”
(Resp. 22:2). Of course, the ultimate goal under both the TA and Section 2, First of the RLA is
to reach a ratifiable collective bargaining agreement – not to extend the multi-year im

 

[nic4us]

O.K. I give in, I've looked at this but cant understand why if DOH is ratified LCC will go under.

I did not say go under, I said will not be around.

How long do you think Tempe will run an airline whose flight are on time 60% of the time with a completion factor around 80% while under injunction for a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions if not a cool billion.

 

[N924PS]

Excellent point. They most certainly are living in "mother goose land". Funny how the number of west posters on here pretty much equals the number of ALPA reps they had. Coincidence? I think not.

Funny, I was thinking that you and the other pathological USAPA supporters just about equal the number of USAPA reps on duty in the CLT Kommand Post. Another coincidence?

Finding time to type on this forum between writing checks to $eeham and wondering how you will ever reduce the backlog of grievances.

Keep up the good work.

 

[FL430]

Funny, I was thinking that you and the other pathological USAPA supporters just about equal the number of USAPA reps on duty in the CLT Kommand Post. Another coincidence?

Finding time to type on this forum between writing checks to $eeham and wondering how you will ever reduce the backlog of grievances.

Keep up the good work.

Writing checks to Seham has never been a problem, chalk that up to east pilot resolve over the NIC. Besides, we have you and the west boys and girls helping write checks for us too!

What color badge backers are next Tory?

 

[OTTER574]

Company has twice failed to pursue resolution of the alleged controversy before the
System Board. First, when – having won dismissal of claims against it by the Addington
plaintiffs – the Company acquiesced to the withdrawal of their grievance before the System
Board and chose not to pursue the matter itself; a tacit admission that there is nothing about this
matter that presents harm or any imminent crisis to the Company. Second, when the Company
sought this Court’s intervention instead of resorting to the System Board, which it knew from
its own successful motion to dismiss, to have exclusive jurisdiction. To the extent that the
Addington plaintiffs have not already waived their contract-based claims due to their prior
grievance withdrawal, they could be given notice of the arbitral proceedings and allowed
petition to be included as a party to the arbitral process. See Steward v. Mann, 351 F.3d 1338,
1346-47 (11th Cir. 2003).
Even more fundamentally, the TA, pursuant to section XII.B, is open for modification by
USAPA and the Company. (Doc. # 34-2 at 15). Indeed, pursuant to section XII.E.1 of the TA,
it is open for termination, hence it is no firm goal-post to hitch a case or controversy to. (Id. at
16).
6 The Company admits the dispute is contractual in nature by arguing that the West pilot
litigation threat is viable because the “Transition Agreement … required ALPA to present and
US Airways to accept the Nicolau Award [and that] such tendering and acceptance of the
Nicolau Award has occurred in accordance with the terms of the Transition Agreement …”
(Resp. 22:2). Of course, the ultimate goal under both the TA and Section 2, First of the RLA is
to reach a ratifiable collective bargaining agreement – not to extend the multi-year im

Seems your reaching deep into lee seham's pockets on this one jj..Don't worry, most Federal Judges will probably laugh so hard, they'll piss in their pants and or skirts...which ever the case may be.

 

[mikey60]

You get "space positive passes"?

Maybe I shouldnt have said that....delete...delete

 

[Reed Richards]

Reed,

The company did accept the award, and they also did acknowledge that acceptance, like you do with the release via acars, with a letter and monies paid to the two MEC’s in accordance with the terms of the TA, which makes it legal and binding.

Just between us chickens, my theory is the West 300k was a down payment to Marty and the gang. Seems those moneys were "lost in the shuffle." That is the only logic I have ever been able to come up with for the firm taking such a long shot case..300k up front. We will never know.

Membership ratification. It is the only thing that makes any contract, including Section 22, "legal and binding." That is a small point none of you seem to be able to grasp. Doug and Scott could juggle proposals and T/As all day long on the ninth floor..none matter until said ratification. That is a fact.

The Company "accepting" any type of proposal is news.....the pilots actually ratifying it is fact. That is unless you think a Federal Court, Federal Appeals Court, or SCOTUS is going to impose a list. Good luck.....how is that going?

Not going to happen.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

You get "space positive passes"?

Only for business travel - to/from training for example. Sometimes, one can wrangle space positive for their spouse/other for their last flight. No wonder the East pilots are easily confused when they know their own benefits so poorly.

Jim

 

[N924PS]

Writing checks to Seham has never been a problem, chalk that up to east pilot resolve over the NIC. Besides, we have you and the west boys and girls helping write checks for us too!

While I'm not pleased to see my dues monies spent on $eeham, I am pleased to be funding our non-poltical committees.

I wouldn't discount the West pilot's resolve over the Nic. They seem just as committed to prevail.