More like CACTUS INTERVENTION! MM!
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
How's that attrition going on out west? at least there is a chance of getting our pay back, I think I might bid the 76 school soon and try to get off those "food stamps" .BLAH, BLAH, BLAH
USAPA is a total failure. Scabford forgot to mention the fact that to obtain separate ops, East pilots would forever remain on LOA93....FOOD STAMPS ANYONE??
USAPA rocks the west world!!!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/united-pilot-insults-sull_b_169737.html Was this our man JETZ? MMHow's that attrition going on out west? at least there is a chance of getting our pay back, I think I might bid the 76 school soon and try to get off those "food stamps" .
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #9,589
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you guys even read and understand what you post. It has been said many times that "Freund warned you" OK he did. But what did he warn us about? About getting a TRANSITION AGREEMENT. He was not warning us about the Nicolau or neg. it after the fact. We took his advice and did not push for a no furlough clause.Take a look at the date on that e-mail. August 2005. Almost 2 years before the award and a year before arbitration even started.
Guess what we took his advice and got a TRANSITION AGREEMENT. So it would seem that the risk was managed.
Now what was the point that you were trying to make here?
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #9,592
I will ask for proof. Show us where Freund "practically begging the west MEC to come off it"
Show us where the 9th said that the Nicolau "can be easily discarded".
You need to get back to reality and stop making up stuff.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #9,593
The BS is the conditions and restrictions.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Then pursue it, a----ole. See how far the DA want to take it for you.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,894
- 5,045
Hate remember this Arbitration Update published by our PHL Reps. Bob Kirch did a good job and laid it out very clearly for the West, but then again, so did Freud when he said: "I think the pressures and risks are all on your side of the transaction, not the US Airways side. Here are my thoughts....The judge who has been sheparding US Airways along for the last three years and two bankruptcies will not let it collapse." I wonder what else JMAC, MV and KS were told and didn't disclose and acted contrary to their attorneys' counsel and advice. The question has to be asked: Did the West MEC breech their duty of fair representation (DFR) to the West Pilots??? Really doesn't matter since they have a knack for not listening to the the facts, look what Parker and Kirby has told them repeatly during the Crew News sessions.
Just think how many senior West Captains could be occuppying Wide-Body seats. These guys have been sold a bill of goods by the army, maybe they should take the time to read the Picher Award. Here is a little hint: internal policy, ALPA Merger Policy, a product of the Constitution and By-Laws.
Where have we heard these words before? Hmmm, let me see, AWA Merger Attorney Jeffrey Freud, Judge Sullivan, RLA Attorney William Wilder, the Ninth Circuit..the list goes on!!!
On a different note, I see we are flying across the pond together, looking forward to catching up.
"Following two different “final and binding” arbitration awards in Air Canada-Connectors (Picher 1995), the Air Canada pilots abandoned their effort to bring the Connector pilots under their collective agreement and opted for representation through the Air Canada Pilots Association as CALPA dissolved upon their departure. The Picher Award was never implemented and the Connector pilots never gained anything from it."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Everyone was astounded in how, by the time the combined seniority lists are fully implemented (using “Date-of-Hire” methodology) pre-merger America West pilots will be holding wide-body, international captain positions in less than 1½ years from today without fences.”
Council 41 Update
December 5, 2006
Fellow Council 41 pilots,
We will be meeting with the AWA MEC tomorrow during day three of our 4th
quarter MEC meeting in Charlotte. We may even have a visit from one of our
Management “Deal Makers”. We will keep you posted. Timely information is
available on the MEC Code-A-Phone at 1-800-FOR-ALPA.
Day two of the seniority Arbitration in Washington DC is
completed. Philadelphia First Officer Rich Wargin has written another synopsis
of today’s events that we would like to share with all of you.
****************************************************************
"ARBITRATION TODAY"
This is Rich Wargin with the Arbitration update for Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2006.
Arbitration hearings continued today in Washington, D.C. with 6 observers in attendance.
NOTE: USAirways Merger Committee is currently in their case presentation phase.
Tuesday morning, Presiding Arbitrator George Nicolau, and two pilot neutrals (Capt. Stephen Gillen of UAL & Capt. James Brucia of CAL) resumed case presentation of the USAirways Merger Committee team.
The day began with USAirways’ presentation of a video of Mr. Parker’s “Brown Bag Lunch Meeting with America West employees on Jan 25, 2006. Merger Committee member Kevin Barry's continued testimony in cross-examination and concluded with Mr. Katz's redirect. After clarifying issues contained within the Shuttle Integration, he concluded by reflecting proper characterization of many current issues. Kevin’s testimony could best be described as open, honest and to the point.
During cross-examination, the America West counsel attempted to call into question Mr. Parker’s honesty concerning his responses to his own employees during the above mentioned meeting. He asked if Kevin was aware of the need for, or lack of, legal requirements of Mr. Parker in any statements to his employees in attendance.
We find it striking that any counsel for an America West employee group would infer dishonesty in Mr. Parker’s discussions with his own employees, or call into question Mr. Parker's character or integrity.
Next, Dean Collelo was sworn and testified relating to furloughed pilots, including the C. E. L. (Combined Eligibility List of furloughs) group, forecasts for recall and methodology of probability modeling of pilots accepting and/or declining recall. He briefed the group on both pilot and company responsibilities and venues to bypass recall. He also detailed the longevity of service concept, furlough time(s) and the recall process and probabilities.
In summary, his modeling demonstrated the company will experience a probability of less than 33% of our furloughed pilots expected to accept recall, since a majority of these highly qualified pilots have found other, better, less repressive, non-harassing and nonemployee- victimizing employment at such carriers as SouthWest and FedEx. Working conditions, salaries, benefits and retirement within such companies are so far superior as to understandably generate little, if any, desire to forfeit such. We believe everyone understands this concept all too well.
While Mr. Freund’s cross-examinations and comments continued to try to impugn our case presentation and substance, he made no secret of continuing attempts to limit as many exhibits as possible. We believe this course of action understandable given the type, preparation and presentation of supporting documentation in multiple formats to promote ease of comprehension.
Captain Robert (Bob) Kirch was the called upon to explain admission of various exhibits containing detailed information pertaining to multi-format list examples. Data contained in exhibits submitted during Bob’s testimony were all calculated identically to promote ease of use and contained substantial quantifiable detail.
Bob showed the difference between fundamental promotional opportunity concepts: growth probability vs. real attrition potential. He went on to illustrate exactly how growth is significantly less probable than accurately predictable attrition based promotional opportunities in both near and long-term scenarios - regardless of regulatory change potential. Given publicly available information, we believe everyone understands this.
The highlight of Bob’s testimony came when he clearly revealed, using a “Date-of-Hire list example, a substantial number of promotional opportunities for the America West pilots given the extraordinary attrition rate of the USAirways pilots over several time-periods. Almost everyone in the room was astonished by this revelation, as well. Further, supporting data clearly exposes how 80% of normal annual attrition expected within the next 10 years originates from within the pre-merger USAirways pilot ranks. “Date-of-Birth”sorting is one example of how this can be easily seen and functionalizes ease of quickly extrapolating information, for example how almost 90% of the pre-merger USAirways pilots will be retired within 10 years, presenting incredible opportunities for premerger
America West pilots as well. Adding to that are further probabilities for a
significant number of pre-merger pilots to leave early, and well… (You see the
implications.)
Everyone was astounded in how, by the time the combined seniority lists are fully implemented (using Date-of-Hire methodology) pre-merger America West pilots will be holding wide-body, international captain positions in less than 1½ years from today without fences.Bob Kirch discussed several issues during further testimony and avoided apples to oranges”comparisons with his extensive experience and expertise and, basically, skillfully avoided topics delving too far into minutiae to be of any significance.
On Wednesday the arbitration process continues, but will be slightly shortened due to prior travel obligations of Mr. Nicolau.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bapwild.com/blog/?p=454#comments
If that CBA also included a recognized seniority list, it would succeed to that seniority list (but not the Nicolau Award as it was not a party to that proceeding.) It is then free to negotiated changes to every part of that CBA including a seniority list, consistent with the DFR. The judge simply doesn’t understand successorship under the RLA and didn’t bother to consider either the statute or authority under the statute on that question. (NLRA successor theories are of only limited usefulness to that question.)
Comment by Bill_Wilder — August 14, 2009
No, what it "boils down to" is that parties enter arbitration agreements. They agreed to be bound to an award only if it conforms to that agreement. And, that award can only bind the parties to that agreement.
The East MEC sued because it viewed the Nicolau Award as not conforming to the arbitration agreement (ALPA Merger Policy) and it was not final and binding.
USAPA was not a party to the arbitration agreement between the East MEC and the West MEC, so it wasn’t bound by the arbitration award. This is black letter contract law.
As for the notion, "Both sides spent approximately 1.5 million each in the arbitration, because it was hugely important that this issue be resolved. That's why people go to arbitration.”, both sides undoubtedly spent a fortune on their lawyers.
But what was presented to the arbitrator was a long, mostly irrelevant chain of evidence. The cases put on by both sides were largely a waste of time and weren't intended to do anything more than pander to their pilot groups. They resulted in an absurdly long record of 3,000+ pages of transcripts and even more thousands of page of exhibits.
As Arbitrator Nicolau said succinctly in his award: “the proposals of the parties to the contest rarely meet [the fair and equitable standard].” He may have gotten other things wrong, but that was certainly the case in the seniority arbitration here with each side putting forth self-serving proposals based on dogma ("date of hire, distressed carrier").
As for the “neutrals” who reviewed the award, that’s irrelevant. First, the ALPA Executive Council isn't neutral, it's a political body. As for arbitrators and juries, they get things wrong. That’s why every arbitration statute, whether the RLA or the Federal Arbitration Act and every state arbitration act, has a procedure for overturning arbitration awards. And that’s why there are appeals courts.
Comment by Bill_Wilder — August 14, 2009 #
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #9,597
Judge Silver (discussing the 9th's ruling): No question the Court embraced the issue that there was harm to the West Pilots. That was clear."
Wonder who knows more about the law - BS, Hate, or Judge Silver? Wonder who has more experience with the 9th's rulings - BS, Hate, or Judge Silver? Wonder who takes the entirety of the record into account, not just carefully chosen tidbits -- BS, Hate, or Judge Silver?
Jim
Wonder who knows more about the law - BS, Hate, or Judge Silver? Wonder who has more experience with the 9th's rulings - BS, Hate, or Judge Silver? Wonder who takes the entirety of the record into account, not just carefully chosen tidbits -- BS, Hate, or Judge Silver?
Jim
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Maybe the westies need to explain "final and binding" to the legislators of every state and the federal government. How can these statutes possibly comply with the westie concept of "final and binding?"
Furthermore, appeals court judges need to be educated by the wesites, also. Obviously, they don't understand the book of law according to westies.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #9,600
You never heard of exceptions for fraud, etc. Those do exist in nearly all language calling for arbitration. And the courts can overturn binding arbitration if such exceptions are proven - within the statute of limitations of course. Your bible, that blog, seems to pick it's words carefully so as to give a false impression that anyone can walk away from the results of binding arbitration for any reason (which Easties fall for - a sucker is born every minute).
Jim
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
