US Pilots Labor Discussion

[CallawayGolf]

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.

The question was asked to Siegel representing the Company's interests. Here are the main points of that response:

MR. SIEGEL: The Ninth Circuit decides that the West Pilots did not have a ripe harm that they could sue about until their union made a deal, and then the union would be acting at its peril for a then-ripe DFR claim harm to the West Pilots.

…

Unlike the Rakestraw case, as we get this threat, we're fully aware that the DFR argument that Mr. Harper's clients want to make was presented in a nine-day trial to a jury and to Judge Wake. We're fully aware that the facts that were presented caused a jury to find that the proposal made by the union breaches its duty of fair representation. On remand, we have that proposal on our negotiating table knowing full well that a jury has already found that in the jury's view, and per Judge Wake's follow-up remedial order, violated the DFR. We're now being asked by the union, being demanded to accept a non-Nicolau seniority list.
…

We accepted the Nicolau lis when the predecessor union presented it to us because we had promised we would in the transition collective bargaining agreement. A new union comes in. They want to amend the transition agreement. They want us to accept a non-Nicolau list, but we have a conundrum.

…

Those claims against us in that case is not the claim that is now being threatened against us, which is a statutory claim for collusion in the union's breach of duty.

…
We thought the legal issue would be resolved, Your Honor, which, up until the Ninth Circuit's ripeness ruling, it was resolved.
…

And thus we come to this court, as you see with this complaint, asking for at least some
clarification on our rights and obligations with regard to this proposal.

THE COURT: I gotcha.

 

[CallawayGolf]

The ninth's failure has always been that the majority didn't investigate the terms of the transition agreement which wasn't simply between the east and west pilots, but also with Management. This created the conundrum whereby Management cannot negotiate with USAPA for a non-NIC list without breaching its duties and obligations established by the TA. Had the Ninth taken the time to understand this, they may have come to a different conclusion on the Addington appeal. Management cannot accept USAPA's proposal unless Silver or the Ninth exonerates them from the hybrid DFR and collusion charges in advance of the JCBA ratification. This is not at all likely to happen.

 

[nic4us]

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?

Disclaimer-Again, I do not have anything in front of me to quote so everything is paraphrased as I remember it.

I took Judge Silver to mean the 9th is the court that, "certainly the COURT embraced the issue". No question. In their dicta, the 9th absolutely says the West is harmed, however, (again paraphrasing) " prematurely finding for the west could actually prolong the process, not give a quick remedy".

Which brings up an even bigger question, and I know Swan is going to love this. The non-erased, precedent setting 9th, said the West is being harmed. Is being harmed, not will be harmed once a JCBA is ratified, means damages started to accrue when usapa started harming. Now, the West can't win the suit until there is a joint contract, but, there is plenty of evidence, including the 9ths quotable dicta, that says, well back in 2008, the West was being harmed.

Damages started to accrue back in 2008, if for no other reason, usapa was extorting money from the West, under the guise of being the legal CBA. Well, how much money has usapa collected from the West for their past 3 years of failling in their DFR to the West? I am thinking usapa is in the hole over 10 million just for wrongfully collected dues monies. Now add in intentionally forcing seperate ops to favor east pilots, protecting them from furloughs, downgrades etc.,suffered on the West and usapa is way deep in the hole, if they finally pass a non-Nic CBA.

Finally, I took the "courts loathe interveneing into collective bargaining" to mean just that. Bussinesses, Unions, Individuals can make deals, enter contracts, negotiate amongst themselves all they want, why should the courts intervene? But once one side reneges and breaches their contracts, then the courts can step in. That is the entire "not ripe" ruling the 9th delivered. Until the non-Nic CBA is actually passed, negotiations are still ongoing, and there is no real remedy the courts can provide. Instead of Wakes injunction ordering usapa to negotiate for the Nic, usapa now has an appelate court telling them, you get this passed, negotiations have then concluded, then usapa is "unquestionably" in breach and "unquestionalby" liable, and the courts can them order remedy, so NEGOTIATE away, just keep in mind usapa has a DFR to the West also, and the West has a contract with the east and the company that says NICOLAU.

 

[Pi brat]

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

I'm not saying I'm right about this, that's why I put the qualifier in there. This had been going along for so long I've lost track and I asked a question. The PHX and SFO courts are both in the 9th circuit, with SFO being the court of appeal, is that right? Or is the 9th just SFO? When Judge Silver says "court" I'm not sure if she means a specific court like Wake, or SFO. When she talks about collective bargaining it sound like she was talking about the appeal in SFO.

But hey, I'd be disappointed if you didn't jump in and beat the west drum, in that especially irritating method you have.

We'll see what she meant, some day.

 

[sumadarson]

Judge Silver has to refer to the 9th published opinions;

The Judge will rule that the union is allowed to negotiate all sections of the contract with the company and is responsible legally for the outcome. Same as Judge Wake ruled the company is not a party to any legal actions due to the operation of the union.

American Airlines and East will combine. west will combine with Frontier in PHX, but end up handled like the Midwest Airline Pilots.

You may DFR. It will take years, if you find a Law Firm that takes on a case that is questionable, from a group of west pilots that owe their current law firm over a million dollars and is mired in a identity theft scandal.

Book Mark this pal,

Signed

The messenger that brought you the bad news.

 

[Pi brat]

Damages started to accrue back in 2008, if for no other reason, usapa was extorting money from the West, under the guise of being the legal CBA.

I don't know how a court could say the case is not ripe at a certain time, then go back and give damages to a date before it became ripe. We'll see, but I wouldn't spend it yet.

 

[N924PS]

Judge Silver has to refer to the 9th published opinions;

The Judge will rule that the union is allowed to negotiate all sections of the contract with the company and is responsible legally for the outcome. Same as Judge Wake ruled the company is not a party to any legal actions due to the operation of the union.

American Airlines and East will combine. west will combine with Frontier in PHX, but end up handled like the Midwest Airline Pilots.

You may DFR. It will take years, if you find a Law Firm that takes on a case that is questionable, from a group of west pilots that owe their current law firm over a million dollars and is mired in a identity theft scandal.

Book Mark this pal,

Signed

The messenger that brought you the bad news.

NOSTRO's ORACLE:


http://animation.about.com/library/tutorials/bl8ball1.htm

 

[Phoenix]

"To be sure, the parties’ interest would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse, in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’ claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bar- gain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members — both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified."--9th

Those who remember their grammar lessons will notice that "under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit" is one of two subordinate clauses that modify the bargaining to which USAPA is left by the 9th's decision. Try as one might to ignore it, the fact is that the force of this sentence is that USAPA is left to bargain with the company.

The 9th further made it clear that USAPA was left to bargain in order to resolve the seniority dispute (Addington hoped to persuade the 9th to deny USAPA the right to bargain), and made it clear that the NIC is undoubtedly an un-ratifiable bargaining position.

Not only is the NIC not required by the 9th, the 9th went further to acknowledge that it is "undoubtedly" a bargaining position that will be rejected.

It is illogical to suggest that the 9th warned USAPA that they would be guilty of a DFR if they fail to ratify the NIC while at the same time holding that the 9th announced that the NIC is impossible to ratify.

Bargain, baby, bargain. Wide range of reasonableness.

 

[doh nogo]

Judge Silver has to refer to the 9th published opinions;

The Judge will rule that the union is allowed to negotiate all sections of the contract with the company and is responsible legally for the outcome. Same as Judge Wake ruled the company is not a party to any legal actions due to the operation of the union.

American Airlines and East will combine. west will combine with Frontier in PHX, but end up handled like the Midwest Airline Pilots.

You may DFR. It will take years, if you find a Law Firm that takes on a case that is questionable, from a group of west pilots that owe their current law firm over a million dollars and is mired in a identity theft scandal.

Book Mark this pal,

Signed

The messenger that brought you the bad news.

I am Mr. Rourke, your host. WELCOME to Fantasy Island!

(be sure to read that with the proper accent.)
The Plane! The Plane!

 

[CallawayGolf]

Those who remember their grammar lessons will notice that "under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit" is one of two subordinate clauses that modify the bargaining to which USAPA is left by the 9th's decision. Try as one might to ignore it, the fact is that the force of this sentence is that USAPA is left to bargain with the company.

The 9th further made it clear that USAPA was left to bargain in order to resolve the seniority dispute (Addington hoped to persuade the 9th to deny USAPA the right to bargain), and made it clear that the NIC is undoubtedly an un-ratifiable bargaining position.

Not only is the NIC not required by the 9th, the 9th went further to acknowledge that it is "undoubtedly" a bargaining position that will be rejected.

It is illogical to suggest that the 9th warned USAPA that they would be guilty of a DFR if they fail to ratify the NIC while at the same time holding that the 9th announced that the NIC is impossible to ratify.

Bargain, baby, bargain. Wide range of reasonableness.

Is clairvoyance a requirement to sit on the most overturned appeals court in the nation?

 

[sumadarson]

The wheels are being greased right now.

The carrier, which served about 46,000 passengers at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in February, is cutting in half its fee for changing economy-fare flights booked on or after Wednesday to $50. Read more: Frontier Airlines cuts flight change, checked luggage fees | Phoenix Business Journal

 

[fodase]

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11771154/leonidas-talks-with-usapa

 

[CactusPilot1]

http://www.reformusapa.com/
Just launched....
Constitutional Amendments
Tuesday, 12 April 2011 00:04 | Last Updated on Thursday, 14 April 2011 22:49 | | |


Coming soon: A Constitutional Amendment to amend the USAPA Constitution. This is needed to ensure representation for all under USAPA. As a result of the current West/East division brought on by the misuse of the union structure, USAPA is no position of ever fulfilling its role as a Collective Bargaining Agent for all US Airways pilots.

Some of the items that will be put forward will be:

1.Removing DOH from the constitution and replace it with the McCaskill Bond language. This merger occurred on May 19, 2005, USAPA took over on April 18, 2008 and this DOH language is preventing us from achieving a contract.

2.Reducing the 2/3rd’s requirement for Constitutional changes to a 3/5th’s or 60 percent requirement. All organizations need to modify their Constitutions from time to time and this will make it easier to make required modifications for the betterment of the organization.

3.Currently the Constitution allows the President to select Committee Members and we feel the BPR is better suited for this task so this section will be put forward for modification.

4.Three parties, the Company, the Representatives for the East and West pilots signed the Transition Agreement. USAPA is bound by this agreement and we will seek to memorialize that in the Constitution. That includes three West members to join three East members of the Negotiating (Advisory) Committee.

5.In the event of a Merger both sides are not properly represented therefore we will add an amendment to ensure the Merger Committee it staffed with an equal number of East and West Representatives.
These changes will go a long way to putting our past behind us and will enable USAPA to focus its energy and resources on achieving a much need contract.

Sincerely,

Ken Holmes

Mark Burman

From the site:

 

[Phoenix]

Is clairvoyance a requirement to sit on the most overturned appeals court in the nation?

It matters not to you or me how many times the 9th has been overturned. It only matters that they were not overturned in their instruction to USAPA to bargain, and to bargain some position other than the NIC (within a wide range of reasonableness) so that it can be ratified, so that we can get on with DFR try #2.

 

[sumadarson]

http://www.reformusapa.com/
Just launched....

Two west pilots starting to ask for money from the hopefuls.

awappa

army of leonidas

reform usapa, new west pilots asking for a hand out.

awappa, RICO charges, closed down.

army of leonidas, stolen east pilots data, closed down soon.

reform usapa, keep giving us money west, just change the benefactor.