US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

We can cut and paste too.......what's the bill 2.8 million now????


[8] Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3

3. We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the
Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA,
is binding on USAPA. See Diss op. at 8021-22.

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))).

[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.

 

[AWA320]

Hardly choking. Realizing that within most bad things, there is always hope. And in this case HOPE is a little diamond in the rough. And that little diamond is called LOA 93 discussion of LOA84 pay restoration. And that fine little unpolished nugget that you just don't see the value of and passed by has a certain date on it, Dec 31, 2009. And why on Gods' green earth would there even be a discussion of LOA84 pay rates, let alone the date, Dec 31, 2009 if there never was any intention of it EVER being an issue? Why would you even draw up a LOA that talks about it when you had no intention of even discussing it? Seems you and your esteemed leader Doug Parker feel the same way. You just don't even want to go there, because you know, in you heart of hearts, that in that LOA is some serious coin coming Eastward if Kasher sees fit..................Now you can go on and deny it, just like you deny the 9th and that you, are a USAPA member, just like the rest of your little brotherhood. That, is reality.

Ok you keep missing it and I firmly believe that its on purpose now. What did the 9th actually say Swan??? Wouldnt the compnay be better served to just negotiate a contract today if the issues were so clear as you think they are? Oh i know that most of you are ignorant to the laws and civil procedure and its more than obvious that contract law really escapes you. Did you know that contracts dont expire they become amendable? Did you further know that the east did NOT have a snapback provision within its contract with AAA?? Now based on those two items can you resonably reach a conclusion that favors the east pilots?? Yeah neither could Kasher

The end result is no NIC no contract and we have in the west decided that status quo is just fine with Min fleet and PHX protection. Go on knock yourselves out with attrition and that lovely LOA93 suit. Its choking you to death which is why your're on here begging for a contrat now. It stings like an SOB that horizon RJ captains make $2.00/hr less than east narrow body capts huh?

AWA320 says NO to UBS

 

[Barrister]

I don’t think the west is nearly as troubled by hearing/reading comprehension as the east. The list of those who understand that the NIC is not only alive, but stands as a significant impediment to the nefarious schemes of USAPA is long and distinguished – Parker, Kirby, Isom, Kerr, Bular, Hemenway, Johnson, and the rest of the officers and BOD I’m sure would hold this position. Add to this list the opinions and rulings of two federal judges who actually looked at the merits of this case (not just the ripeness question) and your claim that the west is deaf and ignorant of the facts is way off base. Judge Silver will weigh in sometime this year and I wouldn’t hold out much hope for east celebrations when she does.

As for the 9th and the majority ruling and opinions, these are most accurately viewed in the context of 1) Tashima and Graber didn’t evaluate the impact of the TA on this situation, and 2) their generic warnings were aimed directly at USAPA – i.e. you cannot negotiate a seniority system that harms the west without risking another DFR claim so whatever you do it cannot result in bringing the harm the west “fears”. Translation it either give the west the NIC or give them something that is more desirable than the NIC and USAPA might just avoid another DFR. Conversely, if USAPA takes seniority status from the west and gives it to the east – then their actions will be very ripe for another claim. Even in these warnings it is evident that Tashima and Graber failed to recognize the effect of the TA which is why Management filed the DJ because of the sizable gap between what the 9th said and what USAPA has been trying to push with regards to section 22.

This is far from over so you can stop projecting your failed understanding of the situation onto the west as if they are the ones who don’t get it. That distinction is mostly reserved for USAPA supporters. Comparing the west to Custer’s lack of situational awareness and connection to reality shows just how far gone many in the east really are.

More desirable than the NIC??

You funny guy!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Barrister]

Are you sure? I checked and it seemed the PHL lines are better. No?

You don't have enough seniority to drive the tug!! But dreaming never hurt!!

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[aquagreen73s]

You don't have enough seniority to drive the tug!! But dreaming never hurt!!

NICDOA
NPJB

Well, on the combined seniority list I do. Here, see for yourself: http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/attachments/article/76/Nicolau_Award_Seniority_List.pdf

 

[AWA320]

Nos since you like posting links I thought I would take the liberty to post something of value for you and the rest of the UBS's. YOU LOST AGAIN!!!

AWA320 says NO to UBS's


VIAFEDEX

Richard R. Kasher, Esquire
430 Clairemont Road
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085-1707

August 27, 2010

Re: US Airways and USAPA - Case Number BPR 09-06-02 East (Snap Back wage case)

Dear Arbitrator Kasher:

This will respond to the August 23,2010 letter sent by Union Board member Theresa Murphy. Ms. Murphy's letter requests that you delay issuing to Board members a draft Opinion in this case, instead issue only a draft Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions, and then "allow for the possible opportunity for a follow-up face-to-face executive session prior to issuing the draft Opinion." We oppose this request, for the following reasons:

1. The process suggested by Ms. Murphy will cause an additional significant delay in the conclusion of this case. This delay will occur due to her belated request for a two-step bifurcated preparation of the Opinion, and due to the request for a "face-to-face meeting." In fact, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that delay is her motive for making the request. This is not acceptable to the Company or to the many pilots affected by this grievance. As you will recall, the completion of this case has already been delayed by USAPA's prior requests. Although we finished the evidentiary hearing on February 4, 2010, we could not close the record until April 28, due to USAPA's desire to submit additional expert testimony (eventually via offer of proof, but only after counsel was required to schedule a conference call with you on April 8, to ensure that the case would be concluded without further delay). This is a grievance over staggering sums of money that USAPA chose to publicize to all the pilots. That publicity has an obvious impact on the Company and its pilots. In that circumstance, we respectfully request that USAP A not be permitted to cause any further delay to the final resolution of this case.

2. The process suggested by Ms. Murphy has the effect of allowing for a second round of advocacy, even after counsel for each party submitted extensive written briefs to you on June 11. That is inappropriate. In this regard, we note that Ms. Murphy is a lawyer in the same law firm as Ms. Edwards (counsel for USAPA in this case), and has frequently represented USAPA as its advocate in other system board hearings involving US Airways.

3. To the extent Ms. Murphy is .concerned about the accuracy of your draft Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions, she -- and all Board members -- will have a full opportunity to review and offer corrections when you circulate your full draft Opinion. That is the conventional and appropriate process. Of course, in this case, it is highly unlikely that correction will be needed as to the Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions because you have received extensive, well-written briefs from counsel for each side.

Thank you for your consideration of our opposition to Ms. Murphy's request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jones
Company Representative to the System Board of Adjustment

Beth Holdren
Company Representative to the System Board of Adjustment

Cc (via email): Theresa Murphy, Esquire
First Officer David Ciabattoni

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Oldie,

Please explain and post in great detail a second opinion usapa obtained to verify the founders of usapa/lee seham's illegal scheme is based on CONTRACT LAW?

I have, along with lcc and I don't think usapa/seham will like the answer.

Oldie, that's the joy of being called a union for ALL us airways pilots and collecting MY dues.

Otter

YOU don't know what YOU are talking about.

This is NOT about contract law, it's about the RLA, and YOU DON'T GET IT.

Yup, YOUR dues are paying Seham and the BPR for a contract with seniority based on DOH with C&R, get used to it.

 

[Black Swan]

Nos since you like posting links I thought I would take the liberty to post something of value for you and the rest of the UBS's. YOU LOST AGAIN!!!

AWA320 says NO to UBS's


VIAFEDEX

Richard R. Kasher, Esquire
430 Clairemont Road
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085-1707

August 27, 2010

Re: US Airways and USAPA - Case Number BPR 09-06-02 East (Snap Back wage case)

Dear Arbitrator Kasher:

This will respond to the August 23,2010 letter sent by Union Board member Theresa Murphy. Ms. Murphy's letter requests that you delay issuing to Board members a draft Opinion in this case, instead issue only a draft Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions, and then "allow for the possible opportunity for a follow-up face-to-face executive session prior to issuing the draft Opinion." We oppose this request, for the following reasons:

1. The process suggested by Ms. Murphy will cause an additional significant delay in the conclusion of this case. This delay will occur due to her belated request for a two-step bifurcated preparation of the Opinion, and due to the request for a "face-to-face meeting." In fact, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that delay is her motive for making the request. This is not acceptable to the Company or to the many pilots affected by this grievance. As you will recall, the completion of this case has already been delayed by USAPA's prior requests. Although we finished the evidentiary hearing on February 4, 2010, we could not close the record until April 28, due to USAPA's desire to submit additional expert testimony (eventually via offer of proof, but only after counsel was required to schedule a conference call with you on April 8, to ensure that the case would be concluded without further delay). This is a grievance over staggering sums of money that USAPA chose to publicize to all the pilots. That publicity has an obvious impact on the Company and its pilots. In that circumstance, we respectfully request that USAP A not be permitted to cause any further delay to the final resolution of this case.

2. The process suggested by Ms. Murphy has the effect of allowing for a second round of advocacy, even after counsel for each party submitted extensive written briefs to you on June 11. That is inappropriate. In this regard, we note that Ms. Murphy is a lawyer in the same law firm as Ms. Edwards (counsel for USAPA in this case), and has frequently represented USAPA as its advocate in other system board hearings involving US Airways.

3. To the extent Ms. Murphy is .concerned about the accuracy of your draft Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions, she -- and all Board members -- will have a full opportunity to review and offer corrections when you circulate your full draft Opinion. That is the conventional and appropriate process. Of course, in this case, it is highly unlikely that correction will be needed as to the Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions because you have received extensive, well-written briefs from counsel for each side.

Thank you for your consideration of our opposition to Ms. Murphy's request.

Sincerely,

Paul Jones
Company Representative to the System Board of Adjustment

Beth Holdren
Company Representative to the System Board of Adjustment

Cc (via email): Theresa Murphy, Esquire
First Officer David Ciabattoni

This is very interesting that the company has used the term, as you- "SNAP BACK WAGES" Nothing could be farther from the truth. I think their choice of words is telling, telling as they are trying to imply it is a snap back. Nothing could be more in error. Them terming it a "snap back" is key. As it means they are trying to smokescreen it and imply it is a different animal than specifically spelled out in LOA 83. Kasher will see right through this, as purely an attempt to imply the pilots are over reaching. We never over reached. We argued a very specific language, and that is the LOA language which NEVER stated SNAPBACK as the west pilots and company commonly and erroneously continue to cite. As much as you and Parker dust this one off, tell us this- why is there a specific addressing of pay and ONLY pay contained within LOA 93, AND NOTHING ELSE???? No vacation, no rigs, DH, vacation and on and on. Why did it specifically address and cite LOA 84 pay rates? Because the pilots negotiating it put it in as a fail safe position that the company agreed to. The company agreed to it because it was so far in the future, they most likely thought they would NEVER have to deal with it. And they WERE CORRECT! Siegal and Lakefield are not dealing with it!They got exactly what they wanted, and moved along. So they are long, long gone, with their money. But guess who is running the deal now, and I don't think I have to go on. DOUG PARKER! This is all, going to be very interesting. It has been almost a year. Now we all know what a careful scholar MR. Kasher is. I would imagine he is writing a very very interesting document that is taking a lot of thought and time. We shall find out........

 

[CallawayGolf]

More desirable than the NIC??

You funny guy!!

NICDOA
NPJB

How else can USAPA negotiate a contract that doesn't bring the harm the west "fears" (in the vernacular of the 9th)? We all know DOH +/- whatever USAPA dreams up does bring the harm the west “fears”, so the 9th’s warning to USAPA is to either use the NIC or develop a scheme (and get Management to agree to it) that isn’t the NIC but in fact goes even further towards protecting the west's seniority position already attained through binding arbitration.

In other words, one party makes it impossible for another party to sue for damages if the first party goes over and above what was already agreed to. If you make an offer to buy my house and I agree to it but then before we close offer to have you purchase it for 20% less than the already agreed upon price (because I’m such a nice guy), how would you go about suing me for breach of contract when I put you in a better position? What damage was done? This is exactly what the 9th was suggesting USAPA consider if they want to avoid the NIC. Anything less than the NIC equals a DFR and the judicial system already provided an answer on how that would work out based on the merits of the case.

 

[Black Swan]

How else can USAPA negotiate a contract that doesn't bring the harm the west "fears" (in the vernacular of the 9th)? We all know DOH +/- whatever USAPA dreams up does bring the harm the west “fears”, so the 9th’s warning to USAPA is to either use the NIC or develop a scheme (and get Management to agree to it) that isn’t the NIC but in fact goes even further towards protecting the west's seniority position already attained through binding arbitration.

In other words, one party makes it impossible for another party to sue for damages if the first party goes over and above what was already agreed to. If you make an offer to buy my house and I agree to it but then before we close offer to have you purchase it for 20% less than the already agreed upon price (because I’m such a nice guy), how would you go about suing me for breach of contract when I put you in a better position? What damage was done? This is exactly what the 9th was suggesting USAPA consider if they want to avoid the NIC. Anything less than the NIC equals a DFR and the judicial system already provided an answer on how that would work out based on the merits of the case.

Here we go again. You obviously do not understand what the 9th said. If they tell everybody that the Nic does not have to be in it as we quoted, and will quote again, how do you keep going up against them over and over? They, are the FINAL decision. Stuff like this is why your side continues to file, and LOSE time and again. Hint, read the RED PRINT, again.

 

[CallawayGolf]

This is very interesting that the company has used the term, as you- "SNAP BACK WAGES" Nothing could be farther from the truth. I think their choice of words is telling, telling as they are trying to imply it is a snap back. Nothing could be more in error. Them terming it a "snap back" is telling. As it means they are trying to smokescreen it and imply it is a different animal than specifically spelled out in LOA 84. Kasher will see right through this, as purely an attempt to imply the pilots are over reaching. We never over reached. We argued a very specific language, and that is the LOA language which NEVER stated SNAPBACK as the west pilots and company commonly and erroneously continue to cite. As much as you and Parker dust this one off, tell us this- why is there a specific addressing of pay and ONLY pay contained within LOA 93, AND NOTHING ELSE???? No vacation, no rigs, DH, vacation and on and on. Why did it specifically address and cite LOA 84 pay rates? Because the pilots negotiating it put it in as a fail safe position that the company agreed to. The company agreed to it because it was so far in the future, they most likely thought they would NEVER have to deal with it. And they WERE CORRECT! Siegal and Lakefield are not dealing with it!They got exactly what they wanted, and moved along. So they are long, long gone, with their money. But guess who is running the deal now, and I don't think I have to go on. DOUG PARKER! This is all, going to be very interesting. It has been almost a year. Now we all know what a careful scholar MR. Kasher is. I would imagine he is writing a very very interesting document that is taking a lot of thought and time. We shall find out........

Not that you would take my (or anyone's) advise, but you should be prepared to be very disappointed when the ruling comes out. Is there a chance it could go your way? Yes. Is it very high on the realm of probability? Not at all. As I’ve said before, 2011 could be a very interesting and disappointing year for USAPA and the east.

 

[Black Swan]

Not that you would take my (or anyone's) advise, but you should be prepared to be very disappointed when the ruling comes out. Is there a chance it could go your way? Yes. Is it very high on the realm of probability? Not at all. As I’ve said before, 2011 could be a very interesting and disappointing year for USAPA and the east.

Based on your absolute lack of understanding of what a bargaining agent means, and especially what the 9th said, clearly- I take that as meaning we have a heck of a lot better chance than you have any idea of. Your anger and closemindedness on the 9th is especially telling. It is right in your face, yet you continue to disregard it. I am really getting the badge backers more and more. It is absolutely astonishing it can be right in front of your faces what the 9th said, and you re- write it. You guys have a good night.

 

[Black Swan]

We can cut and paste too.......what's the bill 2.8 million now????


[8] Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3

3. We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the
Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA,
is binding on USAPA. See Diss op. at 8021-22.

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))).

[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.

I am going to make it really easy. It is the RED. Could it be any clearer? And these are DIRECT QUOTES!!!

 

[CallawayGolf]

I am going to make it really easy. It is the RED. Could it be any clearer? And these are DIRECT QUOTES!!!

Does changing the font color to red do anything to negate the Transition Agreement signed by Management, the agent for the east pilots and the agent for the west pilots? I can read and re-read the 9th's opinion over and over again and, just like Management's interpretation, can find nothing in the document that addresses the issue of the Transition Agreement being null & void or that Management is constrained to abandon the NIC even though it has legally accepted a list that was agreed to be provided according to the terms of the Transition Agreement.

You guys on the east put way too much stock in what the staff legal aides for Tashima and Graber wrote in that porous document. But of course I encourage you to negotiate for DOH al you like. Toss the C&Rs for all anyone cares, they are meaningless and really aren't worth the paper they were written on. So if you think the 9th’s opinions was definitive and beyond any interpretive reproach, then get Management to agree to DOH tomorrow. Just show them the words in red and I’m sure they will give you everything you desire.

 

[Pi brat]

You asked me on what date jobs were stolen, not how many active on each list. I gave an answere, but tried to point out that the exact date is a moving target.

I do not have the resources or the time to look up that info. I hope somebody else can come up with an accurate number. Here is what I do know.

Monda's PID east number was 2942. Odell's West number was 1884.

I am guessing prechill is getting 700 as the number who are employed on the east list below Monda, anybody have that number?

What I do know is that the West 1-1-11 seniority list Odell is 1710 and I believe recalls have reached 1650.

So to answere your original question, I would say jobs were stolen on the date Coello kept his job and Odell got a pink slip, while usapa abetted pilots junior to him to transfer back east and remain employed.

I conjunction with my question about when a joint contract would have been signed I believe I asked you how many pilots we had then vs. now. Let's just save us some time and say I didn't. Now, for your assumption that the 700 pilots on the east below Monda must be growth, did it occur to you that quite a few guys ahead of him left since May 19, 2005?