US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
My point is that the Air Wisconsin situation was quite different than the US AWA case. I don't know how it will play out but I do think had the East and West agreed to a joint contract an East driven DFR to address the Nic would go no where. I guess your talking about the transition agreement.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #12,333
In a sense I guess, but only peripherally. I'm really talking about binding arbitration. It was agreed to by both sides, both sides made their case, the arbitrator ruled and the company accepted the results. I just see very little chance of the courts overturning the result of the binding arbitration just because one side disliked it more than the other. Binding arbitration has become the way all kinds of disputes are settled and is too valuable to let a few thousand pilots bring it down.
Most arbitrated disputes are more winner/loser than those in pilot integrations - one side wins or loses. That would be like the arbitrator only having one choice - which sides' pilots to put on the top of the list while the other side's pilots went on the bottom. The courts haven't overturned that type of arbitration so I don't expect they'll overturn one where the arbitrator had nearly a free hand to tailor the outcome.
Jim
Most arbitrated disputes are more winner/loser than those in pilot integrations - one side wins or loses. That would be like the arbitrator only having one choice - which sides' pilots to put on the top of the list while the other side's pilots went on the bottom. The courts haven't overturned that type of arbitration so I don't expect they'll overturn one where the arbitrator had nearly a free hand to tailor the outcome.
Jim
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
What I'm getting at is due process. Just because it's not "ratified" does not mean the seniority list is up for renegotiation. The East, has not ever, under ANY circumstance been free to "adjust an arbitrated award" as you state. It was never an option. $e$ham lied. If you had three WILLING partners...ie East, West, Company...no problem. That kind of thing happens all the time. When you have the majority East, using their numbers as a weapon against a minority you're talking an entirely different thing.
It would be. To bad we have irrefutable proof that usapa was created to get around an arbitration, no one questions that fact, the 9th in fact states that usapa could come up with something better than the nic and that is why it is not ripe until a contract (finality) is done, but if usapa does something worse than the nic., well then what words did the 9th use?
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
1542 pages of:
You suck
No you suck
No you suck more
I'm patiently waiting for "Yo Mama"
You suck
No you suck
No you suck more
I'm patiently waiting for "Yo Mama"
im back..!!
Senior
- Mar 26, 2011
- 499
- 504
..........................................................................................................................
Jim,
Alow me, if you will, to propose a scinerio(sp) that i thinks mimics the feelings of the east about the award...
For the sak of example, lets say you have a home, youve invested in, spent time trying to improve, even spent time with your children (thats what this is really all about, you'll see later) sprucing up the family home. even planted a tree on the obvious property line(on your side, you play nice with the neighbor, you share drinks(read corp profit sharing..etc)...
One morning you wake up to find your nice neighbor stakin off a fence line, (its necessary, hes building a pool, wants to look out for your kids) you elect to help with the labor, (good neighbor policy, ie: profit sharing...etc.)
while laying out the stakes for said fence, you notice its on your side of the tree that you and for children had planted..obviously something is wrong here...
You ask your neighbor about lot survey lines, he states its the obvious line, different from your assumed obvious line...hhmmmm, what to do?
neither of you are surveyers, yet you educated men, that can rationally see there must be a solution to this that will adjust this lot line somewhere between these two houses, maybe your tree planting was wrong, maybe the neighbor is off on his fence projections......so to ease the tension, and obviously not clogg up the court system, you both agree to an Arbitrators decision, (since you to guys couldnt agree, you to guys asked a federal arbitrator who arbitrates legally binding contracts to do a "Favor for you to guys who couldnt find common ground and play nice" to do you a "Favor"......
And determine where the lot line should be...since you couldnt decide for your selves, because this is an in house problem of two parties that now cant decide, they ask a federal arbitrator, to "act as arbitrator in a civil dispute, both him and yourselves knowing it is just an opinion and holds no legal weight, until implemented...
Now the said arbitrator weighs all the different issues and options, you were in bankruptacy and having troubles, had some of you family members living abroud, since you couldnt house them, money was tight....
So...after what always seems an eternity....the arbitrator finally rules, you and your neighbor are both excited to get along with his yard project and you lookin after your kids
Mr arbitrator rules that, lo and behold he puts the property line smackdab in the middle of your house, rt thru the middle. effectifly making your house worthless for your family to live in, as a matter of fact, said neighbor who you wanted to help (substitute profit sharing, with fence building) says he likes the arbitration....)
The fact that your whole investment is virtually usless now, he agrees to allow you to live in his basement, as long as you do all the grunt work( read fly f/o for him, and be his gear pullin ####, if your lucky, and you'll like it...) because he is going to tear down your house and use it for himself, a bigger pool etc....
Now, you have to ask your self, 1) would you lie down and take this or 2) would you see right thru this one sided scharade and apeall it to the court system.....
Before you make you decision...remember, your family is ireparably ruined with this scenario.......
+And you thought you were being generous offering them there presumed lot line, with protections, that no one, not even another buyer could alter, yet when this arbitrator ruled.....you good neighbor say you and your family subbortant to his, and like a good (insert as you wish...thief, lottery winner, trust funder, vegas hot shot...etc) are worth less than his, ad demands to be in charge of you....
Does that pretty much put it in a perspective a man of your wordly forum perusing can grasp...maybe give me a spin i missed?
Thanks in advance for readin my rant.....may we all live in interesting times....cheers!!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #12,338
For starters, your example uses something that's easy to establish - a property line. A surveyor is needed instead of an arbitrator. The property line is in the deeds you and your neighbor have, you just need someone with the proper training and tools to tell you both where it is. Actually, unless you're talking about large or irregularly shaped tracts of land, the neighbors can establish the property line with a tape measure - at least within inches.
Second, either you both gave the arbitrator bad instructions or he overstepped his bounds. His job should not be establish how much of the combined properties one or the other of the neighbors deserves for one reason or another, but to determine what has already been established in the past - the line between each of the neighbor's property. So he should hire a surveyor if he unable to do it.
In this case, discussed for a few thousand pages at least, the object of the whole integration process is not to draw an artificial line but to reach a fair and equitable solution based on the facts in place on the PID (since the entire precess occurred while ALPA was CBA. Nic looked at those facts - every West pilot had a job while a significant portion of the East pilots didn't, the East was in the process of shrinking (meaning fewer captains/FO's and more furloughs while the West was in the process of growing, the West contract was better overall while gaining parity would be an improvement for the East pilots, etc. Nic looked at all that and produced what he thought was a fair and equitable solution. He dismissed DOH out of hand because it would have given the East pilots all the gains and the West pilots little but pain - hardly fair and equitable. He dismissed the West's plan because it favored the West too much - again hardly fair and equitable.
The big irony to me is that the East MC told the pilots that DOH was a loser but that they could protect the attrition and widebodies, and they said it long before going to arbitration. The pilot group, or at least the vocal minority, wouldn't stand for that. It was DOH or nothing. Now how much is attrition mentioned? That's a big ulcer to the East - "the West is getting our attrition". The East could have had that but it wasn't enough at the time. How often are widebodies mentioned? "They're going to step straight into the left seat of a widebody when they didn't have any expectation of that before the merger." The East could have had better widebody protection but it wasn't enough.
But the East got what they demanded - DOH or nothing. It just turned out to be the nothing (not really nothing but a lot less than DOH).
My perspective is the same as always - a pilot's combined seniority, if put into effect on the PID, should allow him or her to hold the same job they held before the PID. The East wanted pilots who didn't bring a job to the merger to have more seniority than a good number of West Captains, essentially stapling a large percentage of the West pilots. The West wanted to increase their seniority also, allowing a West pilots to be able to hold what they couldn't hold before - the top part of their list would have the seniority to hold a widebody, the top of the fo list would have the seniority to hold captain.
Let me ask you this - if the roles were reversed (the East was the younger group) would you be happy seeing a bunch of West pilots (even furloughed West pilots) come in on top of you?
Now, for those "protections" that are being offered to the West. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've never worked with C&R's. I am dead serious when I say that those protections are worth next to nothing. First, they're based on a snapshot in mid-2007 after the West had reduced their fleet to near minimum. Second, there way too many holes in those C&R's to make them effective in protecting the West. I honestly believe the only reason USAPA put them in was a hope that the courts would not dig into how much protection they really offered and assume that the West pilots were really being protected.
The final few sentences aren't worth going into - that's emotion driving you and not logic. What it boils down to is that the East is the side wanting everything - the added seniority at the expense of the West, the lions share of gains from a combined contract, all the attrition. They'll kindly let the West be furlough fodder if more furloughs are in the future. As I've said before, it's the Wimpy solution - the East will gladly let the West have whatever remains of the airline in 10-15 years if they can get all the goodies now.
You know, you really don't have to explain what the East feels about the award - that's been clear for what - 2-1/2+ years now. The East wants DOH because that will give them more seniority at the merged airline than it did at the old US, a lot more for some. That's it, pure and simple.
Jim
Second, either you both gave the arbitrator bad instructions or he overstepped his bounds. His job should not be establish how much of the combined properties one or the other of the neighbors deserves for one reason or another, but to determine what has already been established in the past - the line between each of the neighbor's property. So he should hire a surveyor if he unable to do it.
In this case, discussed for a few thousand pages at least, the object of the whole integration process is not to draw an artificial line but to reach a fair and equitable solution based on the facts in place on the PID (since the entire precess occurred while ALPA was CBA. Nic looked at those facts - every West pilot had a job while a significant portion of the East pilots didn't, the East was in the process of shrinking (meaning fewer captains/FO's and more furloughs while the West was in the process of growing, the West contract was better overall while gaining parity would be an improvement for the East pilots, etc. Nic looked at all that and produced what he thought was a fair and equitable solution. He dismissed DOH out of hand because it would have given the East pilots all the gains and the West pilots little but pain - hardly fair and equitable. He dismissed the West's plan because it favored the West too much - again hardly fair and equitable.
The big irony to me is that the East MC told the pilots that DOH was a loser but that they could protect the attrition and widebodies, and they said it long before going to arbitration. The pilot group, or at least the vocal minority, wouldn't stand for that. It was DOH or nothing. Now how much is attrition mentioned? That's a big ulcer to the East - "the West is getting our attrition". The East could have had that but it wasn't enough at the time. How often are widebodies mentioned? "They're going to step straight into the left seat of a widebody when they didn't have any expectation of that before the merger." The East could have had better widebody protection but it wasn't enough.
But the East got what they demanded - DOH or nothing. It just turned out to be the nothing (not really nothing but a lot less than DOH).
My perspective is the same as always - a pilot's combined seniority, if put into effect on the PID, should allow him or her to hold the same job they held before the PID. The East wanted pilots who didn't bring a job to the merger to have more seniority than a good number of West Captains, essentially stapling a large percentage of the West pilots. The West wanted to increase their seniority also, allowing a West pilots to be able to hold what they couldn't hold before - the top part of their list would have the seniority to hold a widebody, the top of the fo list would have the seniority to hold captain.
Let me ask you this - if the roles were reversed (the East was the younger group) would you be happy seeing a bunch of West pilots (even furloughed West pilots) come in on top of you?
Now, for those "protections" that are being offered to the West. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've never worked with C&R's. I am dead serious when I say that those protections are worth next to nothing. First, they're based on a snapshot in mid-2007 after the West had reduced their fleet to near minimum. Second, there way too many holes in those C&R's to make them effective in protecting the West. I honestly believe the only reason USAPA put them in was a hope that the courts would not dig into how much protection they really offered and assume that the West pilots were really being protected.
The final few sentences aren't worth going into - that's emotion driving you and not logic. What it boils down to is that the East is the side wanting everything - the added seniority at the expense of the West, the lions share of gains from a combined contract, all the attrition. They'll kindly let the West be furlough fodder if more furloughs are in the future. As I've said before, it's the Wimpy solution - the East will gladly let the West have whatever remains of the airline in 10-15 years if they can get all the goodies now.
You know, you really don't have to explain what the East feels about the award - that's been clear for what - 2-1/2+ years now. The East wants DOH because that will give them more seniority at the merged airline than it did at the old US, a lot more for some. That's it, pure and simple.
Jim
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
I understand and can't argue that statement but I think it is important to keep reminding everyone that they are getting all the help they need in this endeavor from the company. If I had to compare, I'd say USAPA wants a contract more than the company does.
$40 million in merger synergies left vs. $120 - $150 minimum to resolve a pilot contract. Now, if you DON'T agree with that, just look at the math and ask yourself, "why would management want to spend that much money with such a small benefit?"
Food for thought...
Driver B)
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
You've summed up my conversation with a member of the East MC before the East MEC short circuited the process with DOH or nothing. ALPA national didn't do that, members of our pilot group did it. Had the East MC been left alone to do their work, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now (IMO).
That being said, Nic could have worked harder to find middle ground instead of using a pocket calculator to accomplish seniority integration. Even Prater stated in the PHL crew room that he found the award "problematic".
"DOH or nothing" and "Nic or nothing"...two camps that leave us with no means to move forward.
Driver <_<
Nic,
That is correct. I did receive the first mailer but nothing since that.
Regards,
Bob
Prechill,
Yes I have been a captain for decades. I also spent almost 5 years as the last pilot on the list. I had 2 furloughs and got my 3rd furlough notice when the controllers struck in 1981 (that one never actually came true).
I don't really see supporting my fellow pilots as a sacrifice and as far as resting easier in my retirement years I expect to work somewhere either for money or as a vounteer. For some retirement is a blessing and for others it is a curse.
Regards,
Bob
Parker officially accepted the list. A contract is needed for implementation. Eventually we will get one because even eastholes aren't stupid enough to stay on LOA 93 indefinitely. We're all just waiting for the courts to tell you there is no other choice.
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
Brochure 3 con't....
US Airways Declaratory Action
Lawsuit - What is USAPA Worried
About?
USAPA has essentially forced the company to choose
to either acquiesce to a DOH list with subsequent
Hybrid-DFR litigation, or be subjected to threats of
East disruptions of company operations should they
not yield to USAPA’s DOH demands. The trouble for
the company is that their liability under a Hybrid DFR
action is linked to USAPA through negotiations. It is this inconvenient truth that
has never been communicated to the East pilots, and it is false propaganda for
USAPA to maintain that the company has no preference for which seniority list
is ultimately adopted. By law, the company has liability and they clearly have
concern over not utilizing the arbitrated list, which they have already agreed
to use. Otherwise, they would not have filed the declaritory action in the first
place. USAPA’s insistence that the company’s lawsuit is only a “delay tactic”
belies either ignorance of the law, deliberate misrepresentation, or a combination
of both.
Together, Claims I and II of the Company’s lawsuit bring issues before a federal
court that are almost the same issues that were litigated under Addington.
Hence, the facts that are relevant in the company’s declaratory action are nearly
identical to the facts admitted into evidence in Addington. These facts include
the Nicolau Arbitration, the Transition Agreement, and USAPA’s illicit intentions
to ignore the Nicolau in lieu of DOH. The issues before the federal court in
the company’s declaratory action will essentially be the same issues that were
brought before a jury in May of 2009. The key difference is that the company is
seeking to clarify US Airways liability to the West pilots for abandoning its prior
agreements, whereas Addington pertained only to USAPA’s liability to fairly treat
all pilots it represents.
Leonidas also filed a "cross-claim" against USAPA. It is called a cross-claim
because it is against a party that is a fellow defendant. The cross-claim
resembles the original Addington complaint against USAPA for good reason –
the company’s declaratory action raises nearly the same issues as were litigated
in Addington. The reason we are filing the cross-claim before there is a ratified
contract is due to an important legal doctrine known as Issue Preclusion.
The idea behind Issue Preclusion is that claims should only be litigated once, and
like the statute of limitations, Issue Preclusion may prevent future litigation. This
doctrine applies regardless of whether an interested party chooses to litigate or
not. If a party has an interest in the issue being litigated and if the interested
party had an opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, then the Rules of
Civil Procedure compel non-litigants to at least attempt to intervene in the
lawsuit. Since the company’s declaratory action raises issues that are closely
related to what were raised in Addington, then we must assert our claims now in
the company’s declaratory action or we risk being barred from raising the claims
against USAPA in DFR II.
US Airways Declaratory Action
Lawsuit - What is USAPA Worried
About?
USAPA has essentially forced the company to choose
to either acquiesce to a DOH list with subsequent
Hybrid-DFR litigation, or be subjected to threats of
East disruptions of company operations should they
not yield to USAPA’s DOH demands. The trouble for
the company is that their liability under a Hybrid DFR
action is linked to USAPA through negotiations. It is this inconvenient truth that
has never been communicated to the East pilots, and it is false propaganda for
USAPA to maintain that the company has no preference for which seniority list
is ultimately adopted. By law, the company has liability and they clearly have
concern over not utilizing the arbitrated list, which they have already agreed
to use. Otherwise, they would not have filed the declaritory action in the first
place. USAPA’s insistence that the company’s lawsuit is only a “delay tactic”
belies either ignorance of the law, deliberate misrepresentation, or a combination
of both.
Together, Claims I and II of the Company’s lawsuit bring issues before a federal
court that are almost the same issues that were litigated under Addington.
Hence, the facts that are relevant in the company’s declaratory action are nearly
identical to the facts admitted into evidence in Addington. These facts include
the Nicolau Arbitration, the Transition Agreement, and USAPA’s illicit intentions
to ignore the Nicolau in lieu of DOH. The issues before the federal court in
the company’s declaratory action will essentially be the same issues that were
brought before a jury in May of 2009. The key difference is that the company is
seeking to clarify US Airways liability to the West pilots for abandoning its prior
agreements, whereas Addington pertained only to USAPA’s liability to fairly treat
all pilots it represents.
Leonidas also filed a "cross-claim" against USAPA. It is called a cross-claim
because it is against a party that is a fellow defendant. The cross-claim
resembles the original Addington complaint against USAPA for good reason –
the company’s declaratory action raises nearly the same issues as were litigated
in Addington. The reason we are filing the cross-claim before there is a ratified
contract is due to an important legal doctrine known as Issue Preclusion.
The idea behind Issue Preclusion is that claims should only be litigated once, and
like the statute of limitations, Issue Preclusion may prevent future litigation. This
doctrine applies regardless of whether an interested party chooses to litigate or
not. If a party has an interest in the issue being litigated and if the interested
party had an opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, then the Rules of
Civil Procedure compel non-litigants to at least attempt to intervene in the
lawsuit. Since the company’s declaratory action raises issues that are closely
related to what were raised in Addington, then we must assert our claims now in
the company’s declaratory action or we risk being barred from raising the claims
against USAPA in DFR II.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
