US Pilots labor thread 11/5-

[Metroyet]

You can't win at chess if you think you are playing checkers.

Right. You guys have such a fine record of brilliance.

"Real men of genius" I've read.

 

[88 B.T.D.]

Anyone see Parkers quote today regarding integration with American?

Asked whether a merger would be prevented by the inability to combine two pilot groups following the 2005 US Airways/America West merger, Parker responded: "All it means is that if indeed there was to be another merger, it would require yet again another seniority integration, (between) three groups instead of two." REED/The Street

 

[HPDriver]

Anyone see Parkers quote today regarding integration with American?

Asked whether a merger would be prevented by the inability to combine two pilot groups following the 2005 US Airways/America West merger, Parker responded: "All it means is that if indeed there was to be another merger, it would require yet again another seniority integration, (between) three groups instead of two." REED/The Street

Using only two seniority lists because the company has also stated that they have accepted Nic.

End of story.

Any other piece of wishful thinking?

 

[electricjet98]

Parker responded: "All it means is that if indeed there was to be another merger, it would require yet again another seniority integration, (between) three groups instead of two."

Judge Wake has retained jurisdiction over the case.

 

[Glucose Intolerant]

Right. You guys have such a fine record of brilliance.

"Real men of genius"

I think your talking about CHQ in Tempe? Right

 

[Glucose Intolerant]

Using only two seniority lists because the company has also stated that they have accepted Nic.

Any other piece of wishful thinking?

The Article - Page Two

Asked whether a merger would be prevented by the inability to combine two pilot groups following the 2005 US Airways/America West merger, Parker responded: "All it means is that if indeed there was to be another merger, it would require yet again another seniority integration, (between) three groups instead of two."

 

[HPDriver]

The Article - Page Two

Asked whether a merger would be prevented by the inability to combine two pilot groups following the 2005 US Airways/America West merger, Parker responded: "All it means is that if indeed there was to be another merger, it would require yet again another seniority integration, (between) three groups instead of two."

Yawn

 

[Captain Underpants]

trader, I agree, most on the east at least in most crew room bull rings(you know where most great decisions or opinions are made) feel that barring a miracle most likely the NIC is it. However, most feel the company won't or can't bring enough to the table for contract approval. So for now, the NIC sits and has to wait probably for a long time before implamintation.

USAPA has a dual duty to negotiate as big a pie as possible from the company and an ongoing duty of fair representation to all USAirways pilots to distribute the pie fairly. By law they have to do both in good faith.

The Arizona court has imposed a constraint to negotiate the Nic award into the next contract pending appeal. IF an assumption is made that the Nic award is unfair then the Arizona court if upheld on appeal would be requiring USAPA to negotiate an unfair seniority section into the next contract. Individual pilots have a right by law as confirmed by the court to reject an unfair contract proposal.

The Arizona court has also now set a precedent where individual pilots now have a right to sue the union for DFR for establishing a negotiating position that is considered unfair to any pilot or group of pilots.

The Arizona court has also established a protected special group of pilots to try to force the union to distribute an unfair share of contract benefits to the special group at the expense of the remaining unprotected pilots.

The consequences can be easily predicted:

--The Court would have try to replace the union in establishing and approving negotiating positions for pay, scheduling, and seniority to try to secure the extra share for the protected group.

--The union would have to try to distribute damages among the unprotected group resulting in a redistribution of contract benefits from the unprotected senior pilots to the unprotected junior pilots.

--Any union or union leaders attempting to use the Nic award as a basis for seniority integration would be immediately replaced.

--The union would be sued repeatedly for DFR by unprotected pilots each time a new negotiating position was established to try to prevent the union from violating its constitution or bringing an unfair contract proposal to vote.

--Any contract proposal making it to vote with a court approved redistribution would be rejected by as much as 90% against.

--The company would seize the opportunity to use the court order as a weapon to divide and conquer the pilots resulting in maintaining much lower pilot pay and benefits and a much smaller pie to share.

--The union would effectively be prevented from fulfilling its dual duty to negotiate a bigger pie and distribute the pie fairly.

If the Nic award was fair then the consequences would not occur. Unfortunately the consequences listed are not really predictions.....they have already occurred.

The solution is simple......allow the union to use a fair and equitable integrated seniority list and all the negative consequences for all the pilots of the Nic award go away. The alternative is the reality of trying to force Nic and suffering the consequences for perhaps the remainder of your careers.

underpants

 

[cleardirect]

The Article - Page Two

Asked whether a merger would be prevented by the inability to combine two pilot groups following the 2005 US Airways/America West merger, Parker responded: "All it means is that if indeed there was to be another merger, it would require yet again another seniority integration, (between) three groups instead of two."

Ted Reed is known for his unbiased and accurate reporting so it must be true.

I guess that little federal injunction just gets ignored in the next merger.

Where is that sarcasm icon?

 

[cleardirect]

Small flaw with the entire long winded thesis.

The Ninth circuit is not going to determine fairness of the Nicolau. That is not the question even though Seham keeps asking.

The Ninth is going to determine if judge Wake conducted the trial correctly and followed the law. That’s it nothing else. Changing the subject does not make it so. It only wastes 6,998 words on the court.

 

[HPDriver]

Small flaw with the entire long winded thesis.

The Ninth circuit is not going to determine fairness of the Nicolau. That is not the question even though Seham keeps asking.

The Ninth is going to determine if judge Wake conducted the trial correctly and followed the law. That�€™s it nothing else. Changing the subject does not make it so. It only wastes 6,998 words on the court.

Thank you!

 

[HPDriver]

Has anyone read USAPA's Reply Brief?

Its a g-damn laugh-a-minute!!!!

I'm starting to feel sorry because of the level of desperation contained in this brief.

 

[Hawkhunter]

Unless the Appeals Court sends the case back to Judge Wake any contract you vote on will contain the Nic award.

I didnt say it wouldnt, did I. Your previous post said Wake had a say so on our vote. Why dont you read what you write. He cannot make us vote "Yes". Not that it matters because the company will never put out anything worth a vote. Do you understand now?

 

[hp_fa]

The Arizona court has imposed a constraint to negotiate the Nic award into the next contract pending appeal. IF an assumption is made that the Nic award is unfair then the Arizona court if upheld on appeal would be requiring USAPA to negotiate an unfair seniority section into the next contract. Individual pilots have a right by law as confirmed by the court to reject an unfair contract proposal.

Let me weigh in just a bit. The terms "fair" and "fairness" are very subjective and viewed in the eyes of the beholder.

Judge Wake has not imposed a contract, nor has he attempted to usurp the right of any and all union members to vote on any contract proposal that is negotiated and presented to them for ratification or rejection. What he has done is mandate that the Nicolau award be used for any and all seniority integration contained in any contract. He has done so in the form of a permanent injunction. That injunction can be lifted by the Court when it deems it proper to do so. Examples of when it would be proper to do so are:

1. Under instruction by a superior appellate court;
2. After a contract has been ratified using Nicolau;
3. Upon request by the Addington plaintiffs; or,
4 Any other circumstance which the Court believes justifies the lifting of the injunction.

The Arizona court has also now set a precedent where individual pilots now have a right to sue the union for DFR for establishing a negotiating position that is considered unfair to any pilot or group of pilots.

The Arizona court has also established a protected special group of pilots to try to force the union to distribute an unfair share of contract benefits to the special group at the expense of the remaining unprotected pilots.

Technically, legal precedent is arrived at via an appellate decision. Another court may choose to follow how Judge Wake resolved the issues-to-date in his court, but no trial court is bound to any decisions made by Judge Wake. However once the Ninth Circuit rules on any issues those issues become precedent throughout the entire Ninth Circuit until either it overturns or distinguishes those rulings, or the US Supreme Court makes any rulings if it were to hear the case.

I believe that you misstate where you claim individual pilots have a right to sue for DFR for establishing a negotiation position that is considered unfair to any pilot or group of pilots. The Addington plaintiffs, who were ruled to be part of an entire class of pilots, were summarily denied rights and obligations of the full and final (and vigorously contested) arbitration that occurred under ALPA merger policy. Accordingly I believe your statement is not a correct view of what has occurred.

The consequences can be easily predicted:

--The Court would have try to replace the union in establishing and approving negotiating positions for pay, scheduling, and seniority to try to secure the extra share for the protected group.

--The union would have to try to distribute damages among the unprotected group resulting in a redistribution of contract benefits from the unprotected senior pilots to the unprotected junior pilots.

--Any union or union leaders attempting to use the Nic award as a basis for seniority integration would be immediately replaced.

--The union would be sued repeatedly for DFR by unprotected pilots each time a new negotiating position was established to try to prevent the union from violating its constitution or bringing an unfair contract proposal to vote.

--Any contract proposal making it to vote with a court approved redistribution would be rejected by as much as 90% against.

--The company would seize the opportunity to use the court order as a weapon to divide and conquer the pilots resulting in maintaining much lower pilot pay and benefits and a much smaller pie to share.

--The union would effectively be prevented from fulfilling its dual duty to negotiate a bigger pie and distribute the pie fairly.

If the Nic award was fair then the consequences would not occur. Unfortunately the consequences listed are not really predictions.....they have already occurred.

The solution is simple......allow the union to use a fair and equitable integrated seniority list and all the negative consequences for all the pilots of the Nic award go away. The alternative is the reality of trying to force Nic and suffering the consequences for perhaps the remainder of your careers.

I disagree with your predicted consequences.

The Union would be required to use Nicolau as its seniority integration method. It would be otherwise free to negotiate the best possible contract. By law the Union, by following any applicable orders and/or injunction(s), would be following its legal duties to its members.

The bottom line is that on December 8th we **may** have an idea on how the Ninth Circuit panel feels about this case. If not then we will know sometime between then and probably March, when an opinion, published or memorandum, would be issued. No matter how the panel rules I suspect that one or both parties would seek an en banc hearing before the entire Ninth Circuit. That may or may not be granted. Once that is denied, or is granted, heard and decided, the Writ of Certiorari will be filed and the Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case or reject the case and move forward accordingly.

The bottom line is that I see things very differently than you do.

 

[Captain Underpants]

I disagree with your predicted consequences.

Hp_fa,

I understand the legal positions. The question is why would the West pilots want to win the Addington case? The West pilots would only continue to suffer the self-inflicted negative consequences of trying to force an "unfair" seniority integration. The only possible benefit to winning Addington for West pilots would be an ego boost from bragging rights.

The consequences are not predicted they are already established, ongoing and can only get worse with an Addington "victory". The malignant Nic award is the problem and making the problem permanent with increasingly negative repercussions is not an intelligent solution.

underpants