US Pilots Labor Discussion

[BoeingBoy]

"the company has a legal obligation to negotiate with USAPA" True

"and a legal obligation to stick with the Nic." False, sez who?

Maybe someday you'll get a clue RR. Try the TA...without the selective picking of which parts apply.

Jim

PS - Did Nos leave his proof at your house? He seems to have lost it.

 

[Phoenix]

Whenever someone of authority can come forward and state in plain, uncoded, on a first grade reading level, "you have to use____ List" then hopefully we can move forward................I really don't know.

All the plain language necessary (perhaps that we are going to get) was very straight forward in the 9th, for those who can read and realize that the two parties responsible for negotiating are simply USAPA and the company. The only thing both parties (USAPA and the company) have to do is negotiate. Once that is ratified anybody can paper the walls with lawsuits to their heart's content. Speculation about how such hypothetical lawsuits might turn out is entertaining, especially when speculators ignore the plain language of the SCOTUS.

 

[nevergiveup]

Anyone got a link to the RLA in what a new union is required to inherit?

 

[BoeingBoy]

All the plain language necessary (perhaps that we are going to get) was very straight forward in the 9th, for those who can read

And yet so many on the East misread it, try to read something into it that isn't there, etc...

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Anyone got a link to the RLA in what a new union is required to inherit?

The RLA is on the NMB's site if you want to wade through it, but in short a new CBA inherits all agreements made by the old CBA.

Jim

 

[Freebird]

You are entitled to your opinion in regards to USAPA. No matter what List gets used, I never want to see ALPA on this property again. Their expertise has cost the East Millions of $$$$ and I'm not talking about the Nic Award. The ALPA National Quality Assurance is a joke....ALPA should have been launched the day the Defined Benefit Plan was given away.

I actually agree with you. ALPA is also a poor example of a union. They have let many pilots down. I don't care for them either. I'd support USAPA if they werent trying to screw the West. Accept the Binding Arbitration and you will have the support of the West. USAPA will then have the leverage they need to squeeze Parker.

As for AAA ALPA, you have to take responsibility for the decisions made by those you elected. They were to represent you. Like USAPA. Both failed. As for your Defined Benefit Plan, I agree 100%. But I am not willing to make you whole by sacrificing my career expectations because your airline was in dire straits and forced to downgrade your benefits. The West didnt screw you. Look around at those in charge who are taking advantage of you now.

USAPA = Woodlawn? Lets debate that...

 

[Zone5]

You are entitled to your opinion in regards to USAPA. No matter what List gets used, I never want to see ALPA on this property again. Their expertise has cost the East Millions of $$$$ and I'm not talking about the Nic Award. The ALPA National Quality Assurance is a joke....ALPA should have been launched the day the Defined Benefit Plan was given away.

I agree and it's more like BILLIONS!

seajay

 

[nevergiveup]

I actually agree with you. ALPA is also a poor example of a union. They have let many pilots down. I don't care for them either. I'd support USAPA if they werent trying to screw the West. Accept the Binding Arbitration and you will have the support of the West. USAPA will then have the leverage they need to squeeze Parker.

As for AAA ALPA, you have to take responsibility for the decisions made by those you elected. They were to represent you. Like USAPA. Both failed. As for your Defined Benefit Plan, I agree 100%. But I am not willing to make you whole by sacrificing my career expectations because your airline was in dire straits and forced to downgrade your benefits. The West didnt screw you. Look around at those in charge who are taking advantage of you now.

USAPA = Woodlawn? Lets debate that...

Unfortunately, one's career expectations change whenever there is a merger. My hat is off to the lucky guy or gal that gets hired at the right place at the right time.

 

[Reed Richards]

Maybe someday you'll get a clue RR. Try the TA...without the selective picking of which parts apply.

Jim

PS - Did Nos leave his proof at your house? He seems to have lost it.

All the parts of the TA apply...just don't forget to replace ALPA with USAPA wherever you find it. USAPA Merger policy applies now, not ALPA's

"What's the frequency Kenneth?"

RR

 

[Pi brat]

The one clear thing in the T/A is that the Nicolau Award would be Final and Binding on all parties. Live up to your agreements. You'll feel better about yourselves. Integrity Matters.

USAPA = Anybody have another scheme?

It does not say that.

 

[Reed Richards]

Yeah, Right. They are going to bring it on, soon.

Your CBL is B.S. and it was created after the Nic Award. Specifically to circumvent the award. The courts arent as stupid as USAPA. Nice try.

USAPA = Does anybody support our cause anymore? Anyone? Where did everyone go? (They followed the money).

And where exactly in the process ahead do you think "why USAPA or its CBL was created" comes into play? The AZ State case, The AZ Fed case before Wake, the appeal to the Ninth, the En banc appeal, the appeal to SCOTUS? Judge Silver? Let me answer..none of the above. Addington is dead, and if Judge Silver sends anything out that ends up in SFO with the words "Addington" it’s going to be a legal laugh riot. She can do a lot more, but Addington is DOA, no matter how it is supposedly resurrected.

So the next time you sue..that would be DFR II, the Ninth has already told you can sue as to the contents of a ratified contract. No dragging Bradford or anyone else from early USAPA on the stand (that is if your underpaid lawyers can even properly summon him.) The Ninth at least advanced the game to the point of ratification, not the creation of the union.

RR

 

[fodase]

You might be right there. Why do you think the company didn't just say they would only use the Nic right off the bat? Do you think if AOL had only sued USAPA and left the company out of this we might be further along? What will the west pilots do if this is dismissed? Try to get to a joint contract so they can proceed with DFR II or just delay and live with what you've got?

The company's lawyer said that they would not negotiate seniority, it was either Nic. or something else. He went on to explain that to be something else than Nic. they would have to amend the TA to DOH and that the company believes that it would then be held in collusion with usapa. This is when the judge told the company that they knew what they needed to do to avoid litigation from the west. So based on what the company said I believe that if the case is dismissed the company will fall back on the Nic. as the only way to protect the corporation. I think this is the company's plan, it will park negotiations indefinitely and the compny can operate with a huge cost advantage until the next merge.

 

[Pi brat]

The company's lawyer said that they would not negotiate seniority, it was either Nic. or something else. He went on to explain that to be something else than Nic. they would have to amend the TA to DOH and that the company believes that it would then be held in collusion with usapa. This is when the judge told the company that they knew what they needed to do to avoid litigation from the west. So based on what the company said I believe that if the case is dismissed the company will fall back on the Nic. as the only way to protect the corporation. I think this is the company's plan, it will park negotiations indefinitely and the compny can operate with a huge cost advantage until the next merge.

Thanks, that might happen, maybe it's what the company wanted all along. Do you know if transcripts will be available, I'd like to see/hear them.

 

[MyJ4JjobSucks]

The company's lawyer said that they would not negotiate seniority, it was either Nic. or something else. He went on to explain that to be something else than Nic. they would have to amend the TA to DOH and that the company believes that it would then be held in collusion with usapa. This is when the judge told the company that they knew what they needed to do to avoid litigation from the west. So based on what the company said I believe that if the case is dismissed the company will fall back on the Nic. as the only way to protect the corporation. I think this is the company's plan, it will park negotiations indefinitely and the compny can operate with a huge cost advantage until the next merge.

The TA plainly states that it is amendable by the company and the CBA. A contract with the nic is not ratifiable. It has nothing to do with collusion, stealing jobs or trying to screw anyone on the West. We're just not going to ratify a contract that puts over a thousand pilots, who are mostly younger than us, senior to us. That has nothing to do with reneging or not honoring our word. It's simply our right to vote not to ratify a contract that we feel harms our career. Therefore if the company really wants a contract, which I personally don't think they do, then they need to amend the TA and bargain in good faith with the democratically elected CBA.

 

[fodase]

Thanks, that might happen, maybe it's what the company wanted all along. Do you know if transcripts will be available, I'd like to see/hear them.

BTW, I didn't answer your first question of why the company hasn't used the Nic. I think it was clear to all that the company is using this to delay the negotiation process and happy to see us fight it out. They got a nasty surprise when the 9th punted and didn't rule on the merits. The Judge was very annoyed that the company wanted her to do the company's job for them. Another thing was that Seham argued the 9th addressed all questions and the company was free to negotiate, the judge told him that no, the only thing that the 9th ruled on was ripeness. Also the company's lawyer explained the collusion bit by saying that usapa has been convicted of dfr on merits and the company believes that to be the likely outcome in dfr2, he then state to the judge " How can the company defend it's actions when we knew that the union had already been convicted on merits and we colluded with them to harm the west? Your honor I am an expert in labor law and believe the Adington class would have a very strong case against the company if we are not granted immunity."
I attended, and my layman's take was that the company won't move off the Nic. without the courts clearing it to do so. Also Lee Seham made a good point, that negotiations under rla can go on indefinitely, meaning the company or union never have to accept an offer . Look the company has the perfect situation set up, no contract until we get our crap together, however long it takes you easties to to it.