US Pilots Labor Discussion

[CallawayGolf]

Quite a bit of that list is premature. The RICO I agree with 100%, the leverage I agree, the ad I would have taken a different tack, but believed something needed to be done and the rest is to be seen. I really disagree with the PBGC because that is being paid for by an assessment of only those involved. Why do you worry about that? I imagine if you were in our shoes you might think the amount of money is worth it, even if just for closure.

I don't worry about that or much of anything else for that matter. However, it's just another example of $eham extorting the pilots for every penny he can. Did you read how badly he ($eham, SSMP, and USAPA) came off in the transcripts of that proceeding? He is the epitome of every stereotype ever uttered about a money-grubbing, unscrupulous, self-serving, morally bankrupt attorney who seeks out a cash cow to be milked dry until she dies of abuse and poor health. Three legal teams argued before judge Silver and only one of them ($eham) wants to redo the whole $4M process all over again. That pretty much puts to rest any notion that the west attorneys only want to steal money from AOL.

Addington premature? What favorable outcome for east pilots do you realistically expect prior to your retirement? Management says NIC or nothing unless they get released from all liability (not going to happen). Even if a DOH-based JCBA comes to pass, it will not live long before an injunction is filed to remove it from implementation, even before the DFR II trial gets underway. The NMB isn’t going to offer assistance to USAPA who cannot wiggle out of the terms of the TA, so don’t expect much to happen there before you retire. If a stalemate is all you hope to accomplish, then you might get your wish. However, that could have been accomplished for many millions less than $eham is pilfering from this pilot group.

I think if you read the 726 page transcript from the Kasher arbitration, you would have a very, very low expectation that pay restoration is likely to occur when he finally makes his ruling. Siegel hit on point, after point after point to show just how out of line this whole grievance is. He completely discredited Mowrey’s testimony and at best left the whole pay freeze question out there as a dangling chad for some fool to take his glasses off and stare at it to see if he can determine the original intend behind the document. I don’t see Kasher as one who is going to overanalyze that dangling chad in light of a preponderance of evidence that says something completely different than what USAPA says it means.

 

[Pi brat]

Did you read how badly he ($eham, SSMP, and USAPA) came off in the transcripts of that proceeding?

Which one? A PBGC one?

As for the rest, if you want to lay odds that's one thing, but to say for certain something will or will not happen, I'm not interested. Remember the picture of Truman holding up the paper that screams "Dewey Defeats Truman"? Remember the discussion of how there was no way SFO would reverse Wake? It's not over until it's over.

I've got over 15 years to go(Lord willing), but we might still be having this at my retirement!

BTW, what did you think of Donn B's letters posted here last night?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Which one? A PBGC one?

As for the rest, if you want to lay odds that's one thing, but to say for certain something will or will not happen, I'm not interested. Remember the picture of Truman holding up the paper that screams "Dewey Defeats Truman"? Remember the discussion of how there was no way SFO would reverse Wake? It's not over until it's over.

I've got over 15 years to go(Lord willing), but we might still be having this at my retirement!

Yes, the PBGC transcript. ClearDirect posted excerpts from that one a while back. Embarrassing.

I think you missed my point on the other issues. I wasn't predicting a specific outcome only suggesting that USAPA & $eham have made some very poor decisions that look like reckless and irresponsible leadership regardless of outcome. For example, I could pull $20k out of my checking account to buy that same number of powerball lottery tickets (do they still cost $1?; it's been so long since I participated in the tax on the poor and ignorant lottery scheme), and even if I won, that wouldn't justify that, based on the odds, that was a very poor decision to risk a substantial amount of money on exceedingly unfavorable odds.

Bradford had to attorney shop until he found someone to take his money and his new union cause. Not many other legal professionals have rallied around that decision, but if you wave enough money around the cesspool , eventually a low-class attorney will pop out and lead you by the nose ring.

So, I’m saying those are all very bad decisions, even if an east victory can be claimed in some fashion in the end. A wise man calculates the cost and the odds of success before he risks his hard-earned money; a fool chases after every promise of utopia and only has empty pockets to show for it.

Now that that’s settled. What odds would you place on USAPA achieving an industry-average JCBA that is able to withstand a DFR challenge before you retire?

 

[Pi brat]

Yes, the PBGC transcript. ClearDirect posted excerpts from that one a while back. Embarrassing.

I think you missed my point on the other issues. I wasn't predicting a specific outcome only suggesting that USAPA & $eham have made some very poor decisions that look like reckless and irresponsible leadership regardless of outcome. For example, I could pull $20k out of my checking account to buy that same number of powerball lottery tickets (do they still cost $1?; it's been so long since I participated in the tax on the poor and ignorant lottery scheme), and even if I won, that wouldn't justify that, based on the odds, that was a very poor decision to risk a substantial amount of money on exceedingly unfavorable odds.

Bradford had to attorney shop until he found someone to take his money and his new union cause. Not many other legal professionals have rallied around that decision, but if you wave enough money around the cesspool , eventually a low-class attorney will pop out and lead you by the nose ring.

So, I’m saying those are all very bad decisions, even if an east victory can be claimed in some fashion in the end. A wise man calculates the cost and the odds of success before he risks his hard-earned money; a fool chases after every promise of utopia and only has empty pockets to show for it.

Now that that’s settled. What odds would you place on USAPA achieving an industry-average JCBA that is able to withstand a DFR challenge before you retire?

Thanks for clearing that up, because that is not what you originally said.

As for the odds, with those parameters, I'd give them 10%.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Thanks for clearing that up, because that is not what you originally said.

As for the odds, with those parameters, I'd give them 10%.

A 1 out of 10 chance, that's pretty good considering where USAPA is with all of this. For me I think a 1 out of 100 chance is exceedingly generous, but I guess we we are much closer in our views than an hopeful optimist that might give them a 50/50 chance. Personaly though I wouldn't be very satisfied if I thought there was a 10% chance that I might get a raise in the 15 years before I was set to retire (not counting all the other factors of course).

 

[Pi brat]

A 1 out of 10 chance, that's pretty good considering where USAPA is with all of this. For me I think a 1 out of 100 chance is exceedingly generous, but I guess we we are much closer in our views than an hopeful optimist that might give them a 50/50 chance. Personaly though I wouldn't be very satisfied if I thought there was a 10% chance that I might get a raise in the 15 years before I was set to retire (not counting all the other factors of course).

I'm not happy with where we are and I can assure you that if I was King, we wouldn't be here. But, I'm not and it looks like we are all along for the ride at this point. Who knows what will pop up between now and then. World events may make all these thousands of pages of argument and theory moot.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

I don't disagree with your statement. But that does not answer my question at all, unless you are saying that only RLA arbitrations are binding / valid, and all other types are not. Lots of disputes are resolved through binding arbitration in the absence of a federal law so requiring, and they are all as enforceable.



Yes, an "eeny meeny miny mo" methodology may be able to be challenged - UNLESS it was the result of an arbitration.

And again (and I am not trying to be rude, honest), that still does not answer my question:

What makes the result of an arbitration to settle an "internal union dispute," where all involved have agreed to submit to binding arbitration, less binding or less valid than an arbitration result between an employer and a union / employee?

Many, many client/broker disputes end up with both parties submitting to binding arbitration and a party, later suing over the result. This has happened hundreds of thousands of times over the last decade with the tech bubble burst, 9/11, and the housing meltdown, the financial meltdown etc. There have been cases where the judge completely threw out the arbitration result because the settlement for pennies on the dollar in the arbitration award did not accurately reflect the broker's responsibilities and liability.

This one goes even further because you are no longer members of the organization that utilized it as part of its rules and by-laws. Even your transition agreement required acceptance of "list" into a joint contract to complete the seniority list integration which has yet to occur.

One has the weight of federal law behind it and the other membership in an organization that can be replaced.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Many, many client/broker disputes end up with both parties submitting to binding arbitration and a party, later suing over the result. This has happened hundreds of thousands of times over the last decade with the tech bubble burst, 9/11, and the housing meltdown, the financial meltdown etc. There have been cases where the judge completely threw out the arbitration result because the settlement for pennies on the dollar in the arbitration award did not accurately reflect the broker's responsibilities and liability.

This one goes even further because you are no longer members of the organization that utilized it as part of its rules and by-laws. Even your transition agreement required acceptance of "list" into a joint contract to complete the seniority list integration which has yet to occur.

One has the weight of federal law behind it and the other membership in an organization that can be replaced.

Hundreds of thousands of binding arbitration awards have been overturned by the courts? That is really very funny; detached from reality but very funny nonetheless. Care to cite the top five case examples where this has occurred where fraud collusion or other abuse of power wasn't the deciding factor?

Besides, since when has someone brought a legal challenge against the NIC award? I see USAPA trying to ignore it, but I haven't seen anyone on the east filing a suit in a federal court to have the NIC award vacated or overturned.

 

[Bear96]

Many, many client/broker disputes end up with both parties submitting to binding arbitration and a party, later suing over the result. This has happened hundreds of thousands of times over the last decade with the tech bubble burst, 9/11, and the housing meltdown, the financial meltdown etc. There have been cases where the judge completely threw out the arbitration result because the settlement for pennies on the dollar in the arbitration award did not accurately reflect the broker's responsibilities and liability.

So non-RLA arbitrations can be overturned for fraud or other egregious action not at issue here - just like RLA arbitrations.

I am still not seeing anything indicating that as a matter of law an arbitration to resolve an "internal union dispute" is less binding or less valid than an employee vs. employer arbitration, as many on the East keep implying.

This one goes even further because you are no longer members of the organization that utilized it as part of its rules and by-laws. Even your transition agreement required acceptance of "list" into a joint contract to complete the seniority list integration which has yet to occur.

"I" am not a member of any organization that is a party to this dispute, and it is not "my" transition agreement.

One has the weight of federal law behind it and the other membership in an organization that can be replaced.

Again, do you have a cite to any authority that supports your proposition that Nic is less binding than, say, a System Board of Adjustment decision just because it does not have the RLA behind it?

Are employee vs. employer labor arbitrations in the non-RLA setting less valid and binding because the National Labor Relations Act does not have a similar provision mentioning arbitration like the RLA does?

 

[Black Swan]

I have asked this before but (surprise!) have never received an answer. (Or maybe I missed it with all the detritus floating around this fetid cesspool.)

For the sake of argument, let's assume that your characterization of this being an "internal union dispute" is correct.

How is binding arbitration to resolve an internal union dispute legally less binding or less valid under arbitration or labor law than binding arbitration between a company and its employees?

I would be interested in seeing any cites you can provide, for my own education.

Here it is Bear: The arbitration that produced the Nicolau, was done between two labor groups, both represented by ALPA. This is a unique animal, as ALPA was removed and the integration was never completed. Seniority, like every other facet of your CBA , is negotiable. This is an internal union dispute. However, an arbitration between a union and the company it has the agreement with, is a different animal. An award in this venue is concrete, that is, unless both parties for some reason agree to modify the award between them. If one chooses not to? It sticks.

 

[Black Swan]

Hundreds of thousands of binding arbitration awards have been overturned by the courts? That is really very funny; detached from reality but very funny nonetheless. Care to cite the top five case examples where this has occurred where fraud collusion or other abuse of power wasn't the deciding factor?

Besides, since when has someone brought a legal challenge against the NIC award? I see USAPA trying to ignore it, but I haven't seen anyone on the east filing a suit in a federal court to have the NIC award vacated or overturned.

First, this is not a Federal arbitration. It is simply an internal union dispute. So there is no need or criteria to even begin to file a suit. And they cannot mess with it. The only issue that can be argued, at the other end, is DFR and harm.

 

[Black Swan]

Which one? A PBGC one?

As for the rest, if you want to lay odds that's one thing, but to say for certain something will or will not happen, I'm not interested. Remember the picture of Truman holding up the paper that screams "Dewey Defeats Truman"? Remember the discussion of how there was no way SFO would reverse Wake? It's not over until it's over.

I've got over 15 years to go(Lord willing), but we might still be having this at my retirement!

BTW, what did you think of Donn B's letters posted here last night?

Butkovics thoughts are epic. He knows this better than anyone. He has an extremely firm grasp on this issue, helped by his training as a contract attorney. He knows the entire context of the LOA 93 dealings better than anyone. Parker and Co. are very late to this issue, and it shows. Their dusting off of it is telling. It scares the pants off them, as much as the Middle East cratering and knowing Kirby bet wrong on oil. I believe Parker knew the entire issue, but thought he would have transacted long, long ago. Here we are now. Kasher looming like a demon in the shadows, potentially dealing Parker a Joker. The Middle East threatening to melt down has put Kirbys' credibility on the line as an airline exec. To not hedge fuel with India and China growing at the known rates they are, is the most foolhardy thing any airline exec could ever do.

 

[CallawayGolf]

First, this is not a Federal arbitration. It is simply an internal union dispute. So there is no need or criteria to even begin to file a suit. And they cannot mess with it. The only issue that can be argued, at the other end, is DFR and harm.

$eham sure has you well-trained BS. That internal union dispute mantra sure must resonate well in the halls of USAPA (when they aren’t getting into fisticuffs). Of course no one dares to mention the Transition Agreement or the fact that USAPA has been in federal court talking about seniority practically since the day of their certification, or at least preparing for that eventuality. Lawsuits brought against them by a sizable class of their constituents as well as the Company they are supposed to be working with to get a JCBA. Sounds very internal to me – said in jest while we all wait to hear what judge Silver has to say about an internal union dispute.

 

[CallawayGolf]

BTW, what did you think of Donn B's letters posted here last night?

Sorry PI, I didn't remember your asked me this question until I saw it repeated by BS.

I read the letter. To me it was way, way short on specifics. These guys are all coming in a saying what they think it was supposed to mean which carries very little weight in a contract dispute. What Management and Siegel came to Kasher with was a series of documents and proofs that unquestionably show that ALPA was fully aware that the end of the freeze period did not include any wage restorations, only the two $35M lump sum payments in lieu of the same. His respectfully discredited USAPA's witnesses because they could only offer up what they thought about LOA93 rather than facts. And frankly their memories were lacking; understandable since it was five years ago, but that's why courts and arbitrators don't rely on people's memories. They rely on facts, which is why Management is so very certain they will win this one.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Butkovics thoughts are epic. He knows this better than anyone. He has an extremely firm grasp on this issue, helped by his training as a contract attorney. He knows the entire context of the LOA 93 dealings better than anyone. Parker and Co. are very late to this issue, and it shows. Their dusting off of it is telling. It scares the pants off them, as much as the Middle East cratering and knowing Kirby bet wrong on oil. I believe Parker knew the entire issue, but thought he would have transacted long, long ago. Here we are now. Kasher looming like a demon in the shadows, potentially dealing Parker a Joker. The Middle East threatening to melt down has put Kirbys' credibility on the line as an airline exec. To not hedge fuel with India and China growing at the known rates they are, is the most foolhardy thing any airline exec could ever do.

Did you read the transcript? Siegel got Butkovics to acknowledge before the board that he was dismissed from the NAC well before any of the specifics of what would become of LOA93 and its many iterations were negotiated or codified. Butkovics proved to be a complete waste of time for USAPA’s case because he simply wasn’t there to know what was agreed to or not.