US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Bear96]

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

Company A and Company B agree to resolve a business dispute through binding arbitration. The arbitrator decides Company B owes Company A $5M. Company B's bylaws require that any payment for anything over $1M requires a majority vote of the board of directors. The directors do not like the arbitration decision and so overwhelmingly refuse to vote to authorize payment "for obvious reasons" . . .

Is the arbitration decision therefore "unenforceable"?

Can you please define "enforceable" in the way you mean it? Because if I am understanding you, under your definition, no arbitration decision is really enforceable if one side refuses to live up to its obligations under it.

Yes, I know my analogy is not identical. Just trying to simplify things to show how ridiculous the East's position is. Now go ahead and start the logical contortions to discount it and explain how a binding arbitration is not really binding.

Your reasoning essentially comes dow to this: Type A arbitrations are enforceable. Nic is a Type B arbitration. Therefore it is not enforceable.

See something missing there?

Still waiting for some cite to support that Type B arbitrations (involving "internal union disputes") are not enforceable. Just saying, "well, it is not a traditional employer/employee dispute under the RLA," really doesn't do anything to further that argument. It is still missing that crucial something.

 

[N924PS]

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

If USAPA could produce a reasonable tenative agreement to vote on [including the Nic award] it would pass.

The fact that we are nowhere near that event speaks volumes for USAPA's strategy.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If USAPA could produce a reasonable tenative agreement to vote on [including the Nic award] it would pass.

The fact that we are nowhere near that event speaks volumes for USAPA's strategy.

I would never vote for a contract with the Nicolau in it.

But I think your conjecture is a bit premature.

If Kasher rules in favor of the pilots, a contract with Nicolau will not pass for at least 5 to 10 years, if ever.

If Kasher rules for the company, I think you THEN MAY be correct.

But I still wouldn't vote in favor of it. In fact, with the exception of medical benefits for furloughees, I have not voted in favor of anything that came from ALPA in over ten years. And since the Nicolau abomination came from ALPA, I will continue voting NO.

 

[CactusPilot1]

If USAPA could produce a reasonable tenative agreement to vote on [including the Nic award] it would pass.

The fact that we are nowhere near that event speaks volumes for USAPA's strategy.

Delay,Delay,Delay

Because they are running scared. They don't want to see a contract proposal come to a vote. The UHL's have cushy jobs feeding off of our hard earned dues money. There is always a chance it won't go their way and lose their cushy positions.

USAPA is a dictatorship, not a democracy.

 

[CactusPilot1]

I have not talked out of both sides of my mouth. It is my money that is included in this INVESTMENT, even though I voted against it, and had quit paying ALPA dues long before the Nic came out.....mainly over pension termination.

Like I said, it doesn't matter how it got there, it's money that we gave up and brought to the table. Call it an investment.....a screwin', or whatever you want.....it's still our monies on the table.

I'm curious. You were not happy with ALPA, you stop paying dues to YOUR union. Did Bular ever send a note threatening you with termination for not paying union dues?

 

[Zone5]

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..

Look at the bright side, you definitely have a future in creative writing after this company self-destructs!

seajay

 

[Hate2fly]

If we want a merger you guys better read this



In case you haven't figured it out yet, PHL and DCA are in bed with PHX and working with a group of Mike Cleary haters to unseat Cleary and replace him with EVP Gary Hummel. If this happens you can kiss your seniority goodbye and thank Dave Ciabattoni, Gary Hummel, Mark King, Woody Menear, Rob Streble, and Eric Rowe along with their unlikely buddies from the Army of Leonidas for it (and PHL and DCA Reps.)

A cog in the machinery of this plan was revealed to you with a betrayal of your trust when on February 19th, PHL and DCA published a joint update wrought with harsh public criticism of the man in charge of defending your seniority, President Mike Cleary. If you are not outraged by the action of PHL/DCA you should check your pulse because you are about to have the knife twisted in your back by the Reps. from these two domiciles. Rest assured that their take on what has been going on behind the scenes in their update is far from accurate. The process of unseating Cleary has been slow and methodical and this is just the latest blow to the nail in the coffin of your career courtesy of the out going PHL reps and DCA.

Here is another tidbit of betrayal by the PHL/DCA Reps. you have never heard before:

At 1900 on January 20th, there was an “Informal” conference call conducted by some members of the BPR. The request for the call was sent out January 19th by PHL Chairman Doug Burke presumably at the behest of Eric Ferguson and was quickly supported by all PHX, PHL, and DCA Representatives. CLT Representatives objected to the meeting because it was in violation of the Union Operating Manual's requirement to notify the membership of any call as well as the planned subject matter of such 48 hours in advance. No Officers were invited to participate and no minutes were taken and you will not find any record of the proceedings on the USAPA website. In short, the meeting never happened - it was behind closed doors, sound familiar?

The topic of discussion on the conference call was how to teach the USAPA President a lesson with regard to an email he had recently sent out that some members of the BPR took exception to. The action taken at the conference call - which is also a violation of the Union Operating Manual because no action is allowed to be taken at an information only conference call - was to task PHX Vice Chairman Eric Ferguson (the founder of Army of Leonidas) to write a letter of censure against the President to be signed by willing BPR members and emailed to the membership. Unbelievably, during debate it was the PHX Vice Chairman who spoke against such a public censure and DCA and PHL Vice Chairmen Pete Dugstad and John Dubarry who insisted that the letter be sent. At the end of debate, Dugstad and Dubarry prevailed and the letter was drafted by Ferguson but in the following days and after much emotional lobbying behind the scenes by certain members of USAPA, it did not see the light of day. However, on February 19th DCA/PHL published their own version of this devastating piece of gossip as their "joint update" you have probably seen.

If you think these actions are treacherous, you are correct. If you think that toppling Mike Cleary and replacing him with Gary Hummel (who will win with 1700 west votes right out of the gate) is the road to protect your contract aspirations and your seniority, you are sorely mistaken. There are two goals here...get a contract, and fix the seniority mess and we cannot accomplish either if every minute of every day of our Reps. and our Officers time is taken up with this nonsense. You, the line pilots must, and can make it stop. Let your DCA and PHL Reps. know that you are outraged and tell them to cease and desist. The PHL Reps. have just over one month left in their terms and this is their parting shot? - their legacy? Surely they can bridle their near sided urges for that long. And the DCA Reps? Well, that's another story. They are barely into their terms and they have betrayed you harshly so some brainstorming will need to be done to fix that problem.

Is there hope in the future? Yes. On April 1st three new PHL Reps. take office and two of them, Steve Szpyrka and either Mike Gillies or Brian Pflanzer (runoff) are committed to work in steadfast dedication with those who are focused on a contract with a fix to the seniority issue. That will greatly change the make-up of the BPR and hopefully help end this destructive behavior. Even if you have questions about the fitness of our leadership it should be clear that the forward looking decisions of the BPR should be made by those who will be charged to manage the outcome of those decisions - the incoming reps, not those who see their impending departure as an excuse to recklessly fire fatal shots with a perceived lack of accountability.


Call everyone you know now. Tell them to send a strong message to the BPR that this nonsense will not be tolerated and that they, all of them, will be held accountable.

Biggie,

You nailed this big time! Just read an email this morning confirming my suspicions. The PHL/DCA reps stepped way out of bounds. I will never trust anything they say in the future. Thank goodness my PHL reps term ends March 31st. For two years I have watched these guys go after Cleary and try to trash him. Where are the charges? Cleary was voted in by the majority and you guys couldn't wait until his term ends. Your hatred towards Mike made you make very poor decisions.

Hate

 

[Zone5]

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?

Come on give the guy a break, he is just getting geared up for that 330 bid, dreaming of those 4-day Winter layovers in Frankfurt and Munich. <_<

seajay

 

[CactusPilot1]

Come on give the guy a break, he is just getting geared up for that 330 bid, dreaming of those 4-day Winter layovers in Frankfurt and Munich. <_<

seajay

Naw, been there done that with a previous airline before enjoying a furlough. Nice places to visit but jetlag gets old.

I'll be in first class enjoying an adult beverage.

While you work.....

Cheers!

 

[Zone5]

If USAPA could produce a reasonable tenative agreement to vote on [including the Nic award] it would pass.

The fact that we are nowhere near that event speaks volumes for USAPA's strategy.

Spoken like a true former PSA pilot, who to this day has benefited greatly from a DOH based merger! I might be wrong, my characterization of you is based on my take of your posts here.

It doesn't surprise me to see that old senior ALPA pilot, "I got mine, where do I sign up to throw the junior guys under the bus" attitude is still out there.

I'm guessing that due to your relative seniority, the only real world effect the NIC would have on you, is the ability to bid PHX. That commute from the west coast must be getting really old!

seajay

 

[Barrister]

Company A and Company B agree to resolve a business dispute through binding arbitration. The arbitrator decides Company B owes Company A $5M. Company B's bylaws require that any payment for anything over $1M requires a majority vote of the board of directors. The directors do not like the arbitration decision and so overwhelmingly refuse to vote to authorize payment "for obvious reasons" . . .

Is the arbitration decision therefore "unenforceable"?

Can you please define "enforceable" in the way you mean it? Because if I am understanding you, under your definition, no arbitration decision is really enforceable if one side refuses to live up to its obligations under it.

Yes, I know my analogy is not identical. Just trying to simplify things to show how ridiculous the East's position is. Now go ahead and start the logical contortions to discount it and explain how a binding arbitration is not really binding.

Your reasoning essentially comes dow to this: Type A arbitrations are enforceable. Nic is a Type B arbitration. Therefore it is not enforceable.

See something missing there?

Still waiting for some cite to support that Type B arbitrations (involving "internal union disputes") are not enforceable. Just saying, "well, it is not a traditional employer/employee dispute under the RLA," really doesn't do anything to further that argument. It is still missing that crucial something.

Because you now have it on the record by the 9th that a NIC ontract will not pass.
Something Wake said was mere speculation. OK maybe it will pass in 5 years when
most of us are gone but maybe not even then. You may, in fact, be on sound legal footing.....BUT
what does that get you ANYTIME SOON??? Answer: Nothing.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[sumadarson]

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.

I hear the united f/a' are impressed with your car and they say you have a very big wrist watch too.

 

[N924PS]

Spoken like a true former PSA pilot, who to this day has benefited greatly from a DOH based merger! I might be wrong, my characterization of you is based on my take of your posts here.

It doesn't surprise me to see that old senior ALPA pilot, "I got mine, where do I sign up to throw the junior guys under the bus" attitude is still out there.

I'm guessing that due to your relative seniority, the only real world effect the NIC would have on you, is the ability to bid PHX. That commute from the west coast must be getting really old!

seajay

The PSA/PI/USAir seniority list integration in 1988 and 1989 complied with ALPA merger policy at the time. The USAirways/America West SLI, including binding arbitration. complied with ALPA merger policy in 2007.

You are correct, the commute is getting really old. But since the only way I will get a raise is to bid the A330. If Kasher sides with the company that is where you will see this old man finish his career, if world events don't cause USAirways to disappear into the sunset.

And yes, I would vote for an industry standard contract inclusive of the Nicolau Award. Just as I would vote against DOH with the current conditions and restrictions.

Moot point, since I will be long retired before you "youngsters" have anything to vote on. I truly hope the remainder of your career turns out for the best, but it will be shameful if you achieve it through a DOH cramdown throwing the West pilots under your favorite bus.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Company A and Company B agree to resolve a business dispute through binding arbitration. The arbitrator decides Company B owes Company A $5M. Company B's bylaws require that any payment for anything over $1M requires a majority vote of the board of directors. The directors do not like the arbitration decision and so overwhelmingly refuse to vote to authorize payment "for obvious reasons" . . .

Is the arbitration decision therefore "unenforceable"?

Can you please define "enforceable" in the way you mean it? Because if I am understanding you, under your definition, no arbitration decision is really enforceable if one side refuses to live up to its obligations under it.

Yes, I know my analogy is not identical. Just trying to simplify things to show how ridiculous the East's position is. Now go ahead and start the logical contortions to discount it and explain how a binding arbitration is not really binding.

Your reasoning essentially comes dow to this: Type A arbitrations are enforceable. Nic is a Type B arbitration. Therefore it is not enforceable.

See something missing there?

Still waiting for some cite to support that Type B arbitrations (involving "internal union disputes") are not enforceable. Just saying, "well, it is not a traditional employer/employee dispute under the RLA," really doesn't do anything to further that argument. It is still missing that crucial something.

Bear,

Most arbitrations are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. If one side refuses to comply it goes to Federal or sometimes State court where the court can confirm or overturn the decision and issue a court order to comply. On average 88% of these appeals are enforced and the arbitration decision confirmed. The West pilots have made no claims to enforce the Nic by having it directly confirmed in court.

This arbitration could have been somewhat enforced by ALPA by putting the East MEC in receivership and forcing a contract or by the system board through contract interpretation. ALPA did this in the Air Wisconsin seniority integration. ALPA no longer has any rights or authority and the system board ruled against the West pilots through grievance. The only other option for enforcement is indirectly through DFR law claiming USAPA is not representing the West pilots fairly. The Federal court through DFR law still can not enforce the Nic award because they do not have the authority now or in the future to change the pilot contract terms retroactively or force the USAPA migs to vote for and thus confirm the Nic award. The court can not eliminate voting rights. If courts had this power judges could control elections and contract terms.

ALPA set up a dead end. ALPA East and West both had veto rights to a Nic award implementation and now USAPA migs have those veto rights. USAPA may grant the West pilot veto rights to a DOH contract if USAPA chooses to in the future. Final and binding with veto rights is not enforceable. The 9th circuit clearly stated "any contract containing the Nicolau award would undoubtably be rejected by the membership".

The Nic award is not final and binding because it is not enforceable nor confirmable and the Nic award is not enforceable because it is not final and binding. It has been nearly 5 years and the Nic award has not been enforced as final and binding precisely because it is unenforceable. How many years would it take for you to concede the Nic award is not enforceable?

To put it another way, in most arbitrations courts through the Federal Arbitration Act have the authority to "confirm" and enforce awards. In this arbitration ALPA made the rules and the rules give the pilots the exclusive rights through a contract veto power to "confirm" and enforce the award. ALPA has since changed their arbitration rules to correct this dead end merger policy and the new McCaskill-Bond law now gives Federal courts the authority to confirm and enforce seniority arbitration awards. The Nicolau award remains however unenforceable under the laws in effect at the time of the award.

underpants

 

[BoeingBoy]

...

Here for your daily drive-by attack, Nos? I'm still waiting on your proof of the accusations you made...

Jim