US Pilots Labor Thread 2/16-2/23

[EastUS]

Your fellow pilot is suggesting, essentially, that the West is in trouble because they'll trot out Sullenburger as a shining example of why DOH is somehow fair, and you are calling _me_ spiritually ill?

Pot, meet kettle.

Saving the world, one clue at a time

You thought it cute to bring up past fatal accidents..even going so far as to present them as if they are some sports score.
"and you are calling _me_ spiritually ill?" Just making an observation on such "thought" processes. Readers will judge for themselves.
"Pot, meet kettle." My arse. I've not now, nor have I ever had any interesting delusions that I'm "Saving the world, one clue at a time", nor do I patronizingly assume jurors from Arizona to essentially be fools.

 

[nic4us]

It must be a good idea then, since not one west advocate here seems the least bit thrilled by the prospect.

I am saying that prior to the conclusion of the NTSB investigation, none of us should be thrilled at the prospect of a cross examination. This is a can of worms best left unopened.

I would like to know if Sully has ever been denied jumpseat. Megasnoop's post makes it sound like it has happened numerous times.

And speaking of the DFR lawsuit, I cant wait for Sully to tell the jury about every time he was denied a jumpseat by "AWA" pilots.
snooper

 

[EastUS]

I am saying that prior to the conclusion of the NTSB investigation, none of us should be thrilled at the prospect of a cross examination. This is a can of worms best left unopened.

I would like to know if Sully has ever been denied jumpseat. Megasnoop's post makes it sound like it has happened numerous times.

1) BS.
2) How many times would be sufficient for you in order for it to "count"? Face it; the west pilots, as a group, haven't exactly behaved like little angels during any part of this ordeal. It wouldn't fret me any to have some sense of that afforded to the jurors.

 

[cleardirect]

It would be a huge disasterous mistake to put Sully on the stand prior to the results of the NTSB investigation.

and what does Captain authority have to do with a unions DFR, unless you are argueing that USAPA failed to back West Captain authority in the jumpseat issue, but backed it wholeheartedly in the USA Today fuel fiasco. .

It must be a good idea then, since not one west advocate here seems the least bit thrilled by the prospect. I'd think it would be equally instructive to have testimony from the FO..who'd be made "junior" to any west person with less than half his years worked/flown for the company. I don't know that most jurors could readilly relate to the jumpseat issue, but, it's interesting coloration on all the vast reservoirs of claimed "Integrity", and the overall west behaviors from the start of this mess to the present. Not being a trained trial attorney; I don't pretend towards knowing the best strategy for either side's presentations. I do know a bit about human beings though, and it will be fellow members of the human race that comprise the jury. What they'll think of "everything" is impossible to know at this time..but, I'll venture a guess that they may not be so utterly overwhelmed by the west's "Integrity" and "Righteousness" as are the west pilots themselves. Oh well..It should all be an interesting show in any case, whatever witnesses are called and however it's to be done.

East,

Let’s look at the other side of the argument. Why was usapa fighting so hard to make it a jury trial? Judges rule on the law. Does usapa think that they have a weak legal case? Why now are all you east guys excited about a jury? Have the facts of the case changed? No.

What is the purpose of having 12 uninformed citizens look at the case? The only difference is going to be presentation. IF Sully were to get on the stand it changes nothing. If some F/O wants to shed tears on the stand. That his world has been destroyed by Nicolau. That the means justifies the end in order to avoid binding arbitration. It only adds a little theater and drama to an otherwise complex case. But the facts don’t change.

So why was usapa trying so hard to avoid a bench trial? Trying to avoid the law and go with an emotional defense?

A jury does not bother me. I believe that we will have a quicker resolution with a jury then a bench trial. Besides, if we win, we will not have to listen to whining about biased judges. It will be normal citizens that heard the story and disagreed with the tyranny of the majority not living up to their obligations. But maybe it will be that the folks out west are biased towards the east, maybe it will be they are to stupid to understand a NY lawyer and “core union valuesâ€￾. If you lose I am sure there will be a reason other then usapa was wrong.

So why is it so good that this is going to be a jury trial?

Ps As far as that jump seat thing. Check out the crews news from CLT. Capt Hogg said on tape that the east started the war after the Nicolau was announced. Seham may want to be careful about opening up that irrelevant line of questioning.

 

[EastUS]

East,

Let’s look at the other side of the argument. Why was usapa fighting so hard to make it a jury trial? Judges rule on the law. Does usapa think that they have a weak legal case?

Let's look at it from your side. Why were/are your lawyers so afraid of facing a jury? Do they properly fear that the west's long history of utterly rancid, BS behaviors will raise a proper stench in the jurors' nostrils? Or, si it a concern that not everyone on planet earth might so easilly agree with your own greed, and not (Gasp!) think that you should personally become "senior" to someone with over twice your years worked and time flown?

No matter really. It'll play out as it will. nothing "said" here will make any difference.

 

[Pacemaker]

Pure fantasy, all of it. The east will not be allowed to parade a bevy of 55 year old F/O's in front of the jury any more than the west will be allowed to call a cadre of financial experts on the stand to testify of US Airways' imminent demise sans merger. Irrelevant. It's a DFR case. The judge's job is to see to it any attempted theatrics by either side are stopped cold.

 

[souperfly]

I'm no lawyer but I bet quite a bit of the ugly details of the tactics used by Leonidas and the AWAPPA over the last few years will show up in front of the jury. I've been reading this board for awhile. I've visited the AOL site, and the AWAPPA site early on in this deal. I think the behaviors of the west pilots will be trotted out into the full light during this DFR lawsuit. Yes, it's about DFR, but it also stands to follow that one is desirous of representation to begin with. Will that make the East case? No. But it will illuminate the "sunday-school" image the west pilots profess to have during their examination in the hot-seat. Some lawyer wanna-be's on here profess that the west was never consulted prior to USAPA's DOH stance in the CBL's. It will be fun to watch these plaintiffs explain their complete disregard and, in fact, complete ignoring of USAPA as their legally certified bargaining agent. It will be fun to see their answer to questions regarding their application for membership, and the date of such application...if any. The questions will arise: has USAPA "represented" the west pilots since it was elected? Obviously, that answer will be yes. Busily filing grievances against the company on their behalf as well as attempting to pin the company down to negotiate in good faith without stalling...etc.
Now, since the west cannot win on those terms, the only case I see them attempting to make is how DOH "fairly" represents their interests...well, as others' have said, look no further than every other unionized group on the property. The bee in their bonnet is that a new union with it's own Constitution and By-Laws which reflect DOH (well within their right) refuses to acquiesce a seniority system contrary to its own. The west will obviously try to distance themselves and downplay their behavior over the last two years, but it will be argued that the were hindering (or attempting to hinder) the day-to-day operation of USAPA...and there is evidence of that intent....which will have some currency in front of a jury.

I don't pretend to know how this will end up, but it's going to get ugly for the west before it gets better, if at all.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Let's look at it from your side. Why were/are your lawyers so afraid of facing a jury? Do they properly fear that the west's long history of utterly rancid, BS behaviors will raise a proper stench in the jurors' nostrils? Or, si it a concern that not everyone on planet earth might so easilly agree with your own greed, and not (Gasp!) think that you should personally become "senior" to someone with over twice your years worked and time flown?

No matter really. It'll play out as it will. nothing "said" here will make any difference.

Just to name a few more things potential jurors might find interesting;

The jurors will be interested in Jeff Freund's leagal arguments in the Superior court of the District of Columbia regarding the Nic Award/"bargaining postion" and ALPA itself and it's attorneys attempting to get the two sides to modify the "binding" award.

Not to mention the jurors will also be interested in the Mid Atlantic fiasco and potential ruling if one occurs before hand of the alleged fraud and ALPA interference in the whole NIC fiasco.

 

[cleardirect]

Pure fantasy, all of it. The east will not be allowed to parade a bevy of 55 year old F/O's in front of the jury any more than the west will be allowed to call a cadre of financial experts on the stand to testify of US Airways' imminent demise sans merger. Irrelevant. It's a DFR case. The judge's job is to see to it any attempted theatrics by either side are stopped cold.

Exactly! So jury trial bench trial. No matter.

 

[EastUS]

Exactly! So jury trial bench trial. No matter.

If you say so..It must be true, which is why the west so recently fought against a jury trial of course.

No matter. It'll all have it's time in court.

 

[nic4us]

1) BS.
2) How many times would be sufficient for you in order for it to "count"? Face it; the west pilots, as a group, haven't exactly behaved like little angels during any part of this ordeal. It wouldn't fret me any to have some sense of that afforded to the jurors.

I thought I have been pretty clear on this, once is one time too many, without a legitamate mitigating circumstance.

But Seham, is going to look even more inept if he ask Sully " how many times have you been denied jumpseat"? and the answere is " Oh, I have never been denied jumpseat".

Further, the West, as a group, has acted admirably, it is individuals who have not acted angelic. The East, However, as a group, has acted in their own best intrest, denying their contractual obligations to the detriment of the West, and that is what is on trial.

So, go ahead and call any witness you would like to try and explain why you feel justified in breaking the DFR, it is an admission that the duty was broken.

 

[Crzipilot]

Just for the sake of getting cliff notes of the west argument of DFR, and to see if I understand correctly. The west's claim to DFR is the fact that the NIC has not been implemented and or that USAPA's bylaws and or comments are basically that the NIC will not be implemented?

If that's not it, can you give a quick run down on why the west is saying USAPA is not upholding their duty of fair representation?

Thanks

 

[Captain Underpants]

Just to name a few more things potential jurors might find interesting;

The jurors will be interested in Jeff Freund's leagal arguments in the Superior court of the District of Columbia regarding the Nic Award/"bargaining postion" and ALPA itself and it's attorneys attempting to get the two sides to modify the "binding" award.

Not to mention the jurors will also be interested in the Mid Atlantic fiasco and potential ruling if one occurs before hand of the alleged fraud and ALPA interference in the whole NIC fiasco.

Westpuslot,

Yes the most important issue is whether USAPA has the right to negotiate the Nicolau list and all parties have already agreed they do. ALPA established formal negotiations through the Rice committee and Wye River to compromise the Nic list. The company position as stated by SK is that the Nic list is not fair and that they understand it is unusable outside a single CBA and is negotiable. The NMB has jurisdiction over the contract and has established seniority to be section of the contract that is required to be negotiated. Jeff Fruend stated in court that the Nic list is a bargaining position and has no enforceable seniority rights. The current AOL lawyers are requesting an injunction from the Arizona federal court to require USAPA to negotiate the Nic list into a single CBA.

If the West wins the DFR lawsuit, which is extremely unlikely, USAPA will simply be required to negotiate the Nic list which is not much different from USAPA's current obligation to negotiate seniority as all parties agree is required. The Nic award is simply a list of pilots. Nic provided no guidence how it is to be applied although it was generally assumed it would be used as a traditional system seniority list. The contract controls how, when and if an integrated list of pilots applies and how it is used in the various sections of the contract. The contract terms are to be negotiated between USAPA and the company and voted on by the USAPA members in good standing.

The AOL attorneys have also requested that through a class action all union dues and fees be refunded to the 1700+ AWA pilots. If the court grants this request all AWA pilots would be in bad standing with USAPA and lose PHX/LAS representation and be ineligible to vote on the CBA negotiated by USAPA. This seems an unusual request as it would be against the interests of the West pilots to lose political input at a critical time.

It is also interesting that the company has altered the .pdf file of LOA 93 located on the hub by deleting pages 2 and 4. They are blank. The USAPA copy of the .pdf file of same document on the USAPA web site contains pages 2 and 4 which refer to the pay freeze ending on 12/31/09 and reversion to LOA 84 pay rates. The company has stated there is no snapback clause in LOA 93 which is true. There is no snapback clause needed because the pay freeze is temporary and ends on 12/31/09. Only a permanent pay cut would need a snapback clause to restore the rates. I wonder if the company knows that they still have to pay the contract rates and that deleting 2 pages of LOA 93 and pretending they don't exist won't help.

underpants

 

[souperfly]

well said.

Not much to add to that succinct post except to say that I am more and more disappointed in this management thinking that deleting some pages from a document that 3500 East pilots have a copy of, redefining the company as it pertains to pilot salaries but not their own, and sicking out of the scope case because they will lose is an honorable or even legal way to operate as management.
Disgusting.
And not fooling anyone.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Underpants

My one concern is that in the event of another merger, what list will we use, the Nic may not apply in a new contract, but will it reappear in the next merger.

Or to put it another way, in the event of another merger with an ALPA carrier do we first integrate our lists and then vote for a CBA - or the other way around.

Makes a big difference.