US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

Oh, I will NEVER forget that little ole jury verdict! The one that cost 2 million and got erased! Why, would Leonidas even bring that debacle up? How you get the tribe to ante up again after that classic misfire is a mystery, but pony they do. "KEEP THE DONATIONS COMING!!!!"

Erased? Swan, you really ought to consider the 9ths ruling a precedent, I know any future court will.

Lets see how Judge Silver views the 9ths ruling, what was it she said (I don't have the transcript to quote-so I paraphrase) "It is obvious the 9th embraced the concept that harm is being done to the West"

Addington v. USAPA, just like the Nicolaua seniority arbitration, is not going away. It is very much alive as the trial ruled upon by the 9th. Get a TA passed with DOH, suffer "PAIN of unquestionably ripe DFR". So says the 9th, and far from being "erased", you can quote them on that in any future trial.

 

[767jetz]

Of all the people on this board, the last one I care to believe me is you.

V

I'm surprised there is ANYONE on a public web board that you would care to believe you. But if that's your cup of tea, fyi I'm not the only one. Nobody outside of your little clique here believes that Cleary is responsible for Crew Pass. In the real world it is a ludicrous suggestion. In USAPA's backward world of lies, deceit, and denial... well like I said...

Riiiiight. We believe you. (lol doesn't do it justice. Where's the emoticon for LMFAO?)

 

[USA320Pilot]

West Perspective From Inside the BPR

Dear Subscriber,

Back of The Trip Sheet Update: April 14, 2011: West Perspective From Inside the BPR. Underscoring the overwhelming challenges of building USAPA into an effective representational "Union" to further our careers.

Link to BofTTS Update

Recent Back of The Trip Sheet Updates

Site: http://www.unbiasedfacts.org

Fraternally,

[email protected]

Share The Facts! We encourage you to forward this email to friends who want to know what's really going on with USAPA.

To subscribe, send a reply message with subscribe in the subject line.

To unsubscribe send a reply message with unsubscribe.

 

[USA320Pilot]

ITT News Update: April 14, 2011

See Story

 

[autofixer]

I got mine, I got mine, I got mine, I got mine!!!

 

[nic4us]

A proof reader would cut down the rambling.

Yes, Eric's letter was a little long. I do not know if he actually supports Cleary, or is trying to use some sort of reverse psychology tactic, not his usual MO.

I can cut the letter down to one sentence.

The hole usapa has dug is so deep, it is time to simply push the dirt back in, burying those with the shovels at the bottom.

 

[Pi brat]

Lets see how Judge Silver views the 9ths ruling, what was it she said (I don't have the transcript to quote-so I paraphrase) "It is obvious the 9th embraced the concept that harm is being done to the West"

As serious question, not a jab or bait.

I don't have the transcript in front me of either, but I took the above quote to mean Judge Wake's court since it is in the 9th circuit. Is that right? What did you take from her statement that the court was hesitant to intervene in collective bargaining, or words something like that?

 

[Metroyet]

S.O.S. ........... Different Day, Month ...... Year!

Same pay rate and horrible contract too!! Year, after year, after year. No end in sight.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I don't have the transcript in front me of either, but I took the above quote to mean Judge Wake's court since it is in the 9th circuit. Is that right?

Verbatim:

What would you have argued to the Ninth Circuit had you been a party? You're in front of the Ninth Circuit now. What would you have argued that would change the complexion of the case? It seems to me, as I've read the case again and again, that the majority opinion was -- they were adamant about taking the position, which is supported by the case law, that they are to defer where there are collective bargaining agreement negotiations. So they were just going to keep away from that no matter what. No question the Court embraced the issue that there was harm to the West Pilots. That was clear. Nonetheless, they were not -- still, this was something that could be negotiated and they felt it would be negotiated and even though US Air was not present, that it still could be negotiated so why is it any different?

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

Verbatim:

What would you have argued to the Ninth Circuit had you been a party? You're in front of the Ninth Circuit now. What would you have argued that would change the complexion of the case? It seems to me, as I've read the case again and again, that the majority opinion was -- they were adamant about taking the position, which is supported by the case law, that they are to defer where there are collective bargaining agreement negotiations. So they were just going to keep away from that no matter what. No question the Court embraced the issue that there was harm to the West Pilots. That was clear. Nonetheless, they were not -- still, this was something that could be negotiated and they felt it would be negotiated and even though US Air was not present, that it still could be negotiated so why is it any different?

Jim

Thanks Jim. I read that as Wake's court, as it is obvious that they felt that way. It seems that a lot of people read that sentence to say that SFO clearly agreed. I didn't read it that way.

This was the line I was talking about:

" It seems to me, as I've read the case again and again, that the majority opinion was -- they were adamant about taking the position, which is supported by the case law, that they are to defer where there are collective bargaining agreement negotiations. So they were just going to keep away from that no matter what."

I haven't heard much comment on that.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks Jim. I read that as Wake's court, as it is obvious that they felt that way. It seems that a lot of people read that sentence to say that SFO clearly agreed. I didn't read it that way.

You're certainly free to take what you want from it, but Wake wasn't mentioned at all in the paragraph, just the 9th. Do you take the use of "they" several times as meaning the 9th or the jury in Wake's court?

How about the sentence after the one highlighted - you certainly take that to mean the 9th though the 9th isn't named. So you take one sentence in the middle of a paragraph and somehow interpret it to mean a different court than the one that made the ruling being discussed. Like I said, you're certainly free to interpret it that way just as your fellow Easties take the one sentence from the 9th's ruling and interpret it to mean USAPA can do whatever it wants with a seniority list, even though it explicitly says something like "does not do the harm the West fears".

Jim

 

[Metroyet]

Thanks Jim. I read that as Wake's court, as it is obvious that they felt that way. It seems that a lot of people read that sentence to say that SFO clearly agreed. I didn't read it that way.

This was the line I was talking about:

" It seems to me, as I've read the case again and again, that the majority opinion was -- they were adamant about taking the position, which is supported by the case law, that they are to defer where there are collective bargaining agreement negotiations. So they were just going to keep away from that no matter what."

I haven't heard much comment on that.

Uh, when Judge Silver mentions "the majority opinion" you're confused as to whom she is referring? Do I understand that correctly?

If there was a "majority" opinion it would stand to reason that there was a "minority" opinion as well, No?

Let's see. Two Judges said not ripe as USAPA might change their mind at the negotiating table, (majority) and one said the West deserved swift Justice as it was clearly being denied them, (minority).

Does that sound like Judge Wake to you?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Now the sentence you're talking about. Certainly courts are loath to intervene in contract negotiations. How many time has it been up to the company to negotiate seniority integration when it involves a merger of airlines where unions represent the affected workers? Does never come to mind?

Seniority integration has been pretty much the exclusive domain of the unions with at most the company laying out some fundamentals just as US did in this case. Historically seniority hasn't been negotiated by the company unless both sides in a merger were unrepresented, and then it's not really negotiations. So in that sense, seniority is rarely an issue that's negotiated when there's a merger in this industry.

Which brings us to what Silver said - the 9th wanted to stay out of negotiations. However, here we have a case where union/company negotiations almost never go. Also the company faces potential harm no matter which way it goes. USAPA doesn't seem interested in negotiating anything but their DOH seniority list, so if the company refuses to accept that an impasse could be announced by the NMB leading to a strike. If the company accepts USAPA's DOH list AOL will sue on behalf of the West pilots and have a pretty good chance of winning. So when it became evident that the courts weren't going to ultimately rule on the DFR issue till after a negotiated seniority list was in a ratified contract, the company filed for a DJ - asking for guidance from the courts. Does US have to insist on the Nic, can US agree with USAPA DOH list, can the company go whichever way it wants without facing potential harm? That is the question Judge Silver has to answer. If she doesn't, the company will have to decide which path minimizes the potential harm.

Jim

 

[Metroyet]

If she doesn't, the company will have to decide which path minimizes the potential harm.

Jim

That path with be the appellate court...then the Supreme Court where we are likely to start this multi-year cycle all over again. The NMB parks the "union" indefinitely and the earning power of all Pilots further erodes to more and more embarrassing levels.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That path with be the appellate court...then the Supreme Court where we are likely to start this multi-year cycle all over again. The NMB parks the "union" indefinitely and the earning power of all Pilots further erodes to more and more embarrassing levels.

I don't disagree other than that the SCOTUS doesn't have to take the case, so ultimately it may be the 9th that decides. After all, they're the one who said that the union must negotiate for both sides "...under penalty of an unquestionably ripe DFR."

Jim