US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Bear96]

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.

From what I have seen here, the East isn't choosing merely to ignore this but to actively twist and misinterpret it.

The East supporters continually imply and read into the decision that the 9th not only addressed the substantive validity of the Nic and the merits of the DFR suit, but also that the 9th sided with the East on these issues!

Amazing stuff.

 

[Bear96]

Oops dupe.

 

[nic4us]

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,

Well, for starters, she could say, the company would certainly be liable in a future hybrid DFR claim, knowing full well the past history and disregarding their contractual obligations to the West pilot group, then cooperating with usapa in its DFR DOH cramdown.

The company's DJ is not about what the 9th said, it is about what the 9th did not say. The 9th said, not ripe, do it again and lose unquestionably ripe DFR. How usapa and Seeham can be so obtuse is simply beyond me.

Further, she could say, no Mr. Seeham, that is not what the 9th said, just like she did the other day in the courtroom.

 

[crazystnic]

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

*******************************
Cleary has been consistent..

Senority and Contract...

non of the other BS matters....
He has my support, this is an undurance contest.. and he understands that, to bad many of our pilots don't.

 

[Metroyet]

*******************************
Cleary has been consistent..

Senority and Contract...

He is forever incapable of delivering either. Get used to that idea.

 

[767jetz]

I looked into that program with BMW back in 2000/2001. At the time, I was making about $150,000.00 flying the 767 across the pond. I was contemplating getting an M5. Those were the days! Great BMW museum in Munich. You get the car at a discount, spend a week or two driving it around Europe and then ship the car back to the US.

That plan was "overtaken by events".

seajay

M5. NICE!!! Sorry about the "events." You should see Welt now. I believe the new building with museum, VIP area, interactive exhibits, etc. opened in 2007 or so. They actually put us in a driving simulator and had what amounts to a fixed based sim or procedures trainer for the Nav system. Very high tech! If you ever have the opportunity again I highly recommend it. And then make sure you also do the Performance Center Delivery when they ship the car back. You get classroom and real track time with instructors on their facility in Spartanburg.

 

[Zone5]

Well, for starters, she could say, the company would certainly be liable in a future hybrid DFR claim, knowing full well the past history and disregarding their contractual obligations to the West pilot group, then cooperating with usapa in its DFR DOH cramdown.

The company's DJ is not about what the 9th said, it is about what the 9th did not say. The 9th said, not ripe, do it again and lose unquestionably ripe DFR. How usapa and Seeham can be so obtuse is simply beyond me.

Further, she could say, no Mr. Seeham, that is not what the 9th said, just like she did the other day in the courtroom.

And she could also rule in one of the other two manners the company's DJ asks for. Actually, she has three other choices if you count the final DJ request, "For such other, further, and/or different relief as the Court may deem just and proper".

You are correct that the 9th ruled DFR-I not ripe. They did not however rule that if you do it again you will unquestionably lose a ripe DFR-II. Had they so ruled, the company would not need to file the DJ at all. The outcome of a future DFR-II remains to be seen, if that were not the case, then it would be a simple matter of filing an anti-DOH injunction and a motion for Summary Judgment. Neither one are very likely considering the historical reluctance exhibited by the SCOTUS to muck around too much with the RLA.

seajay

 

[Captain Underpants]

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.

Bear,

The Nic award is not final and binding because it is not enforceable. The only legal authority able to enforce the award are the USAPA members in good standing through a ratification vote and they overwhelmingly refuse to do so for obvious reasons.

underpants

 

[Zone5]

M5. NICE!!! Sorry about the "events." You should see Welt now. I believe the new building with museum, VIP area, interactive exhibits, etc. opened in 2007 or so. They actually put us in a driving simulator and had what amounts to a fixed based sim or procedures trainer for the Nav system. Very high tech! If you ever have the opportunity again I highly recommend it. And then make sure you also do the Performance Center Delivery when they ship the car back. You get classroom and real track time with instructors on their facility in Spartanburg.

Yes, those events! It's amazing what the combination of a divorce, real estate meltdown and choosing the ABSOLUTE worst airline to go to work for can do.

seajay

 

[767jetz]

Yes, those events! It's amazing what the combination of a divorce, real estate meltdown and choosing the ABSOLUTE worst airline to go to work for can do.

seajay

That sucks. How does the old saying go?... "The formula for retiring rich as an airline pilot is to only have one airline and one wife."

 

[cactusboy53]

*******************************
Cleary has been consistent..

Senority and Contract...

non of the other BS matters....
He has my support, this is an undurance contest.. and he understands that, to bad many of our pilots don't.

I think you meant this is an ENDURANCE contest. While that may be partially true, this is more of a series of civics lessons:

1. If I am a dues paying member of an organization that agrees to a final and binding arbitration, am I also bound by that same pledge?
2. I vote out my old CBA and start a new independent CBA. Am I constrained to follow ALL tenents of the former CBA's, or can I pick and choose the ones that I want?
3. If all of the lawyers that my new CBA interviewed said that this was not a viable legal move, save one.....should I select that law firm based soley on the promise that they can most assuredly deliver?
4. If I cry foul to enough judges & juries, will someone eventually feel sorry enough for me to rule in my favor that "the Nic isn't fair"?
5. While Doug Parker says many things, is it right for me to choose only those statements that support my claims?
6. While I have seventeen years since my DOH, I only have X years length of service. Is it right for me to constantly waive the DOH flag in the hopes that no one will remember that I had no mainline job when AWA Holdings acquired US Air?

...........

Not winded, not hungry, not thirsty. Feeling great at mile 21 of a 26 mile marathon. The crowd is cheering me & my team mates on, and continues to fund our cause at the finish line. My opponents are puffing behind us. Blisters on thier feet & laces are untied. The crowd has witnessed my opponents cut down the hill in the park on a hair-pin turn in the hopes of regaining some ground. The crowd in the know, "boos" as my opponents pass by.

Cleary sits on the sideline pulling down just under $200K a year screaming on a bull horn. He is chugging his last Red Bull, and just can't understand how his side is behind. The possible win is only a few miles away. We are vigilant for more underhanded moves by our opponents. Patience is one of many virtues that I and my team mates exude. Pace..pace..pace..pace..

 

[cactusboy53]

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

Es klingt wie Sie vielleicht "kleine Flugzeug" Syndrom aus sich selbst.

Guten Abend.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Bear,

The Nic award is not final and binding because it is not enforceable. The only legal authority able to enforce the award are the USAPA members in good standing through a ratification vote and they overwhelmingly refuse to do so for obvious reasons.

underpants

When was the ratification vote on a NIC-inclusive JCBA? Oh, that's right, never mind.

 

[CactusPilot1]

When was the ratification vote on a NIC-inclusive JCBA? Oh, that's right, never mind.

I think you just gave underpants a cyber wedgie.

Good one

 

[nycbusdriver]

I believe Parker knew the entire issue, but thought he would have transacted long, long ago.

That's the real kicker in all of this. Parker expected to have a joint contract long before the expiration of the LOA 93 pay rates (which are plainly there in the LOA.) He figured the date was irrelevant in the grand scheme of his time line. Had he been a bit more forthcoming in his contract negotiations BEFORE Nicolau ruled, it might have worked. But, as the management of Delta and United have demonstrated, getting the pilot contract settled BEFORE the seniority issues are addressed is crucial.

Had Parker and Kirby been more realistic with the two Negotiating Committees, we might have had a ratified joint contact before Nicolau and then this PARTICULAR entire mess would have been avoided. Stingy, although a popular tactic in Tempe, certainly worked against them, and continues to do so.

The 9th said, not ripe, do it again and lose unquestionably ripe DFR. How usapa and Seeham can be so obtuse is simply beyond me.

Well, not quite. Although they did use the terminology "unquestionably ripe DFR," they didn't quite use it the way you characterize it. They said nothing about "losing" a DFR. They didn't even broach the subject of the merits of Addington. You are projecting that "loss" where there is no legal basis. Had the Ninth not found a ripeness issue, there were a myriad of other issues before them regarding the way the trial was conducted. They did not deal with those issues simply because the suit was not ripe, so those other issues were immediately made moot. Once a contract is ratified, then those issues are no longer moot, and they will likely (IMO) have to rule on some, or all, of them if the new trial judge conducts him/herself the way Wake did. Not allowing the jury to hear legal precedent from the rulings of higher courts, as well as giving instructions to the jury counter to those legal precedents, seems enough prejudice to allow the appeals court to hear it again.

Bottom line: If after a new contract is ratified the west decides to file another DFR suit, then the Ninth ruled that is it then "unquestionably ripe." The Ninth did NOT say that the DFR suit would be won or lost, but that it would be ripe.

Es klingt wie Sie vielleicht "kleine Flugzeug" Syndrom aus sich selbst.

Guten Abend.

Good for you. You either speak German, or know how to use Babelfish.com.

For the life of me, I don;t understand WHY using German in your answer is relevant to the question, or your answer. Or, are you simply trying to impress us with your "multilingual" abilities, or internet skills?