US Pilots Labor Discussion

[CactusPilot1]

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.

Glad you have it all figured out BS.

Save it for the jury.

See you back in court, hopefully sooner than later for DFR part deux.

 

[Zone5]

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.

It's not about what was "agreed to or not". It's about how the RLA deals with the written verbiage of LOA-93 and how that language comports with the underlying LOA-84 and associated prior CBA.

You have no idea what the arbitrator thought of Butkovic's testimony. Safe to say, at this point, it would be presumptuous in the least to say it was "a complete waste of time".

Time......will tell.

seajay

 

[Zone5]

It should be painfully obvious to everyone by now, that when you deal with the company, what you might think they thought you meant, doesn't necessarily turnout to be what you thought they were saying to you meant and probably vise-versa. :blink:

seajay

 

[CallawayGolf]

It's not about what was "agreed to or not". It's about how the RLA deals with the written verbiage of LOA-93 and how that language comports with the underlying LOA-84 and associated prior CBA.

You have no idea what the arbitrator thought of Butkovic's testimony. Safe to say, at this point, it would be presumptuous in the least to say it was "a complete waste of time".

Time......will tell.

seajay

Yes, time will tell. However I'm not sure that Kasher will bother to tell us if he found Butkovic's testimony valid or not. You will have to make that determination for yourself by reading the transcript. The minimal redirect from SSMP indicates to me that that had no ability to restore the validity of his testimony after Siegel proved that he could have had no knowledge of the final product of the LOA93. Linking training freezes to pay freezes is a big stretch in light of the body of evidence presented by Siegel. Its just an hanging chad that must be interpreted in light of the overall content of the letter and the certified documents that arose from the same.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Thanks, but actually it WAS 151mph. (About 244KPH) Notice that it's a US spec car, taken delivery in Munich, so the primary numbers on the speedo are mph and the secondary are kph. It was shipped to the US about 8 weeks after my trip to Germany.

u


Well it's like the Lady from Frankfurt said regarding the autobahn. Her words were "You know on the Autoban you can drive as fast as you like or untill you get scared! I had this piece of crap rental and 200KPH was all the testosterone I had.

 

[Zone5]

Yes, time will tell. However I'm not sure that Kasher will bother to tell us if he found Butkovic's testimony valid or not. You will have to make that determination for yourself by reading the transcript. The minimal redirect from SSMP indicates to me that that had no ability to restore the validity of his testimony after Siegel proved that he could have had no knowledge of the final product of the LOA93. Linking training freezes to pay freezes is a big stretch in light of the body of evidence presented by Siegel. Its just an hanging chad that must be interpreted in light of the overall content of the letter and the certified documents that arose from the same.

Kasher will let everybody know the testimony he eventually found valid, when he issues his ruling.

seajay

 

[Black Swan]

$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.

Honestly, what can she really say? THe 9th is the controlling judicial entity. She can attempt to clarify, and that alone. If she attempts to usurp the 9th, there is going to be a problem. So far her discussion has been extremely interesting,

 

[Black Swan]

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.

Then you obviously missed the importance of Butkovic in all facets of this case. Probably missed out on the fact Butkovic and Kasher have been involved in several arbitrations. They seem to work very well together, mutually respecting each others positions. I am sure Kasher gave a lot of thought to Donns' testimony. They have very similar backgrounds.

 

[Pilot692]

Well off the top of my head, USAPA has:
Wasted millions on fruitless legal endeavors:

• RICO
• LOA93 grievance
• PBGC
• Addington and Addington appeals
• Declaratory Judgment (far more to be wasted at $eham’s urging if Silver takes the case)​

Have deprived every pilot a meaningful raise and have no strategy or intention of ever negotiating one

Embarrassed the pilot profession by taking out a failed USA Today ad

Yielded all negotiating leverage to Management

Shown itself to be corrupt, morally bankrupt, and is perhaps in the initial stages of total implosion


Optical Rectitus at it's finest..........

 

[mikey60]

Hey clown, RTFQ. Then get back to me with the right answer

Yea I'm right you need help.

 

[Pilot692]

Internal USAPA Officer Messages. Troubling Details Emerge about Cleary’s Struggle for Absolute Power.

See Story

Can I have a hit off your bong...?

 

[mikey60]

Says the pilot group that has been known to run the APU whilst flying "over the pond" & largely refusing to do single engine taxi procedures.......

Oh yea, that economic window for a more lucrative contract (regardless of the seniority "issue") has now been slammed shut. Thanks USAPA, you just keep on giving (???)......

Maybe in your next job if you get to fly a "big airplane" you will understand that both procidures are required.

 

[Bear96]

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.

"Different" =/= less binding.

Even "unique" =/= less binding. All arbitrations are factually unique and different in some way. The bottom line is that the U.S. legal system encourages and supports arbitration as a final way to resolve disputes.

Yes Nic is factually different than a dispute between a union and the company. But it is still binding arbitration. And still no one has provided anything to support that Nic is somehow less valid or binding than other arbitrations. You can repeat "internal union dispute" all you want. It is meaningless. People decide all the time to decide all sorts of disputes through binding arbitration. Most have nothing to do with the RLA. Yet they are still binding.

I will conclude that no one can produce a single cite to legal authority supporting that binding arbitration to decide an "internal union dispute" is somehow less binding or less valid as a matter of law than other types of binding arbitration.

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[CactusPilot1]

"Different" =/= less binding.

Even "unique" =/= less binding. All arbitrations are factually unique and different in some way. The bottom line is that the U.S. legal system encourages and supports arbitration as a final way to resolve disputes.

Yes Nic is factually different than a dispute between a union and the company. But it is still binding arbitration. And still no one has provided anything to support that Nic is somehow less valid or binding than other arbitrations. You can repeat "internal union dispute" all you want. It is meaningless. People decide all the time to decide all sorts of disputes through binding arbitration. Most have nothing to do with the RLA. Yet they are still binding.

I will conclude that no one can produce a single cite to legal authority supporting that binding arbitration to decide an "internal union dispute" is somehow less binding or less valid as a matter of law than other types of binding arbitration.

Except for the internal union dispute argument.

Very well said.

 

[fodase]

"Different" =/= less binding.

Even "unique" =/= less binding. All arbitrations are factually unique and different in some way. The bottom line is that the U.S. legal system encourages and supports arbitration as a final way to resolve disputes.

Yes Nic is factually different than a dispute between a union and the company. But it is still binding arbitration. And still no one has provided anything to support that Nic is somehow less valid or binding than other arbitrations. You can repeat "internal union dispute" all you want. It is meaningless. People decide all the time to decide all sorts of disputes through binding arbitration. Most have nothing to do with the RLA. Yet they are still binding.

I will conclude that no one can produce a single cite to legal authority supporting that binding arbitration to decide an "internal union dispute" is somehow less binding or less valid as a matter of law than other types of binding arbitration.

Thanks for the confirmation.

The problem is that question wasn't answered by the 9th at all,. The east chooses to ignore the court didn't get into the "thorny" issue whether it's binding or not. Judge Silver corrected seeham when he said the 9th said they could negotiate whatever they wanted, Silver says and it is in the transcripts, " I am very familiar with the 9th's ruling and they say no such thing, they say only the case is not ripe for adjudication until a contract is ratified"