US Pilots Labor Thread 5/13-19--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[toganoflex]

What could happen with the damages part? What would it entail?

And there's a very good chance the first payout of $35 million will end up in an escrow account to cover those damages.

Its not IF we're getting compensated, its just a matter of how much.

 

[hp_fa]

I'm confused, are you saying that if the east had been reasonable in nic's eyes, he would have given them a better deal, but they were not, so he gave them a different deal? How does either sides position effect an arbitrators solution? Did he punish the east for being unreasonable? If the east had asked for DOH and all of the west's per diem for 10 years would nic have been even worse? Do you guys just make this s@#$ up?

First off I don't factually know what Mr. Nicolau would have done. That said, we know that he asked East one last time for a modification of their position and Mr. Katz, on behalf of East, told the arbitration panel that he had no modification of position to offer. Now why do you think Mr. Nicolau asked for any such modification?

My feeling is that Mr. Nicolau did not "punish" East, although I suspect many members of East feel that is what he did. However, I also believe that after that he did not go out of his way to find any reason to find for East or otherwise reward what he may have considered an intransigent attitude on their part.

Ask yourself another question. Even post-Nicolau, what do you think ALPA might have done had East modified their position at Wye River? Do you think West may have moved a bit at the Blue Ribbon meetings? My point is that by failing to consider any alternatives East placed themselves into a box and then didn't do anything meaningful to even attempt to get themselves out of that box.

 

[hp_fa]

Interesting, however, the union requested a facilitator from the NMB and the company rejected that proposal. So I don't think anyone can claim the union's been dragging their feet.

If you're addressing that to me I suggest you re-read what I had posted. You may have flipped my intended meaning.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Grow up!

Yeah. East displays the same little man syndrome that Cleary exhibits. Oh well...

 

[electricjet98]

I'm sorry, I must have missed it and then overlooked your post this morning when I first looked at the board this morning.

For the first question I am trying to understand the question as framed. The included phrase "prior to accepting the results" is confusing me so can you explain that for me? If you exclude that phrase my response would be yes.

The second question is, as of now, easy. The Court indicated that it will schedule the damages portion for 8/18/09 - 8/21/09 with a possibility that it will also have time the preceeding week if, as the Court suspects, a currently scheduled case is resolved. The Court has also set an accelerated window for dispositive motions, which specifically includes motions for summary judgment , for complete briefing to the Court by June 12, 2009. (Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (full or partial) to be filed by 5/22/09, Plaintiffs' Response by 6/1/09 and Defendant's Reply by 6/12/09.)

Does that help?

I could have worded it better. I'll rephrase:

Is it possible for the appelate court to accept the appeal just for the intention of fully understanding the case and let it stand as future 9th Circuit precedent?

If the answer to that is yes, then obviously the Appelate Court has accepted the results of the District Court (Wake).

I guess I was alluding to the possibility of the Appelate Court accepting the request to hear the appeal, simply for the sole purpose of setting precedent so that all of it's District courts will have a basis for future decisions.

It does help my understanding...thank you.

 

[BoeingBoy]

And any USAPA officer, interim or otherwise, owes you any explanation, correct or otherwise, why?

Reread the post s-l-o-w-l-y.....now tell me where I said that I was owed an explanation.

Jim

 

[luvn737s]

If you feel that's any semblance of a productive notion = Call your rep and suggest it. Good luck with any/all attempts to get the east to cave in though.

When it's been established yet again that the Nicolau list will be the only future seniority list, doesn't it seem foolish to equate moving forward with that knowledge with "caving in?" "Caving in" to a reality that brings with it much higher income than you would have otherwise and which doesn't rely on stoking the fears of a phantom west invasion holds none of the negative connotations you might like to ascribe to it.

Would you support a referrendum on continued appeals, or do you think that Cleary should have a blank check to carry out his war on windmills? Further, do you expect more from the folks who carry out the unions business, than simply trying to salvage their personal pride by looking for an affirmation from anyone of their agenda against the west? To what accountability do you hold USAPA officers for achieving real gains? Do you think the pilots can win long-term, by simply not losing?

 

[A320 Driver]

When it's been established yet again that the Nicolau list will be the only future seniority list, doesn't it seem foolish to equate moving forward with that knowledge with "caving in?" "Caving in" to a reality that brings with it much higher income than you would have otherwise and which doesn't rely on stoking the fears of a phantom west invasion holds none of the negative connotations you might like to ascribe to it.

Would you support a referrendum on continued appeals, or do you think that Cleary should have a blank check to carry out his war on windmills? Further, do you expect more from the folks who carry out the unions business, than simply trying to salvage their personal pride by looking for an affirmation from anyone of their agenda against the west? To what accountability do you hold USAPA officers for achieving real gains? Do you think the pilots can win long-term, by simply not losing?

I'm sorry, this pilot group couldn't win a coin toss. We've given and lost for so long, most are just numb.

It appears we are stuck with the Nic and if it were not a good deal for the West, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep (imbrace) it. I suppose compaired to DOH, it's just awesome. Captured attrition, wide body flying, European ops...whats not to like.

"Move on" sounds very good to me at this point but lets please be honest. Nic is as much of a pig to the East as DOH is to the West. I got used to the change of age 60 and I'll get used to this.

A320 Driver B)
.

 

[ableoneable]

Cleary and Seham can cry foul all they want about the jury instructions; that’s not at all why they lost. The fact is that the jury only deliberated for 90 minutes, which makes it pretty obvious that the case was decided long before the jury even heard the instructions. I’m going to post two of the biggest pieces of evidence that sunk USAPA’s defense, in my opinion.

The first piece of evidence is a letter written by Steve Bradford (who didn’t even have the balls to show up and testify at the trial by the way) shortly after the Nicolau Award was issued. This is one of many similar letters that he wrote to report about his “lawyer shoppingâ€￾ following the issuance of the Award. The most damaging part of that letter is a caution by the attorney that:

the language you use in setting up your new union and how you go about talking and writing about your solutions to this award can be used against you. You need to stress he positives of the new union and not dwell on the award. Don't give the other side a large body of evidence that the sole reason for the new union is to abrogate an arbitration, the Nicolau award, that in the opinions of most judges, should be allowed to stand due to no gross negligence or fraud.

Right there, this attorney explains the basis upon which USAPA was unable to successfully defend itself in this trial. There were several more letters like this one from FO Steve, which more than proved that USAPA’s first President was in fact looking to start his new union for the sole purpose of abrogating an arbitration.

The second piece of evidence is an email that Steve Bradford wrote to the AWA member of the ALPA Executive Council. The letter was written on May 16, 2007, literally days following the issuance of the Nic. In this email, Bradford proudly announces his plans to bail on ALPA because of the Nic. This email, coupled with the warnings of the attorney in the first letter, should make it very clear why the verdict went the way that it did.

In the closing arguments, the attorneys for the AWA pilots introduced these two letters, and highlighted the fact that Mr. Bradford refused to show up and testify on behalf of USAPA. You can’t tell me that some nuance in a jury instruction is what unanimously convinced those 9 people to rule in favor of the defendants. This attorney warned them against proceeding in a certain fashion, they proceeded in that fashion, and they lost. Ah yes Bradford - what a guy! He builds this disaster, ducks out of office at the earliest opportunity, and then leaves his supporters hanging when the organization comes under fire. My guess is that it probably wasn’t Bradford’s decision to dodge testifying because Seham figured that Bradford’s testimony would be more damaging that his absence. So, without FO Steve to save the day, USAPA’s defense consisted of:

1) A fruitless attempt to influence a jury with the rock-star power of our Hudson “heroesâ€￾, neither of whom had anything to do with the formation of USAPA or crafting of the DOH list, and whose testimony was limited to complaints about the Nicolau Award (read the warning in the first letter about focusing on the Nic)

2) Scott Theuer testifying that he didn’t think it was fair that US Airways was a minority in ALPA, but that it was OK to do whatever he wanted to AWA who is a minority in USAPA. Scott was also confronted with a USAPA update he wrote where he proudly stated something to the effect of there “being no more Westâ€￾ when our separate ratification rights are taken from us by USAPA.

3) Randy Mowrey who got visibly angry and defensive with asked questions about various West seniority interests that he deliberately disregarded when crafting “hisâ€￾ seniority list (yes, he referred to it as *his* list while on the stand). Randy also insulted the defense attorney and the judge during one of his angry tirades.

To USAPA’s supporters: I guess the old adage is true in that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. You were all sold on a huge lie, and I don’t see anything good for anybody (other than Mr. Parker and Mr. Seham) coming out of continuing to pursue this lie. I encourage all of you to read the trial transcripts (I give credit to USAPA for posting them on their website), and see for yourself why the case went the way that it did. I’m “supremely confidentâ€￾ that Seham’s appeal will do nothing but put more money in Seham’s pocket, and keep everybody from a contract.

 

[ableoneable]

Letter #1

A Conversation with an Attorney
KEEP THIS INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL

On Saturday, June 9th in San Francisco I had a conversation regarding our case with Chris Katzenbach of Katzenbach and Khitikan, a labor law firm.

Katzenbach and Khitikan have done some NMB work primarily with the American Eagle pilots group and they helpd them set up a 501C3 non-profit format to hold the Eagle Pilots independent union which is involved in an organizing campaign to oust ALPA from that property.

In commenting on our case he said that as an outsider he really had to hand it to the opposing counsel in the final brief for the America West Pilots. He understands, in some respects, the issues involving airline seniority. He said however that to an outsider the America West brief was very convincing and easy to follow. This doesn't make it right or more fair, it's just an easier to follow and better presentation to follow than the Katz presentation. The America West brief, appears a least on the surface, to be more in line with the stated new ALPA merger policy. It ignores past president but if you only have the current policy as a point of reference then their argument seems more in tune with it.

Chris Katzenbach feels that a direct assault on this award in the courts is a looser. The courts don't want to be educated on the minutia of this case or any other complicated private matter. The courts only concern is if there is fraud or bribery or some other gross misconduct in the conduct of this arbitration. If pressed they would take a case like that but he feels it to be a looser. It would also probably require a substantial down payment up front to pursue. By the way their fees are very reasonable, $275.00 per billable hour.

I next specifically asked him about the formation of a new bargaining agent as an avenue of advance to get around this award. He says that it is entirely possible. The key the courts look for is not the private squabbles, procedures and methodologies between unions and their nationals, the facts of the collective bargaining agreement. The CBA is the defining argument in a case to the courts. The Railway Labor Act /National Mediation Board procedure and policy above all governs.

"Could the America West pilots sue us" I asked, "if we pursue this course of action." "Yes", he said however Duty of Fair representation suits are losers, Katzenbach and Khitikan sued ALPA for the American Eagle Pilots over their current contract which among other things had a 20 year no strike clause. The contract was a negotiating committee cram down to keep from having the Eagle flying farmed out and allowing for the American equivalent version of "jets for jobs" and "flow through." Does this sound familiar?? As a result of this contract the Eagle pilots are trying to get out of ALPA.

Chris said the contract was truly piece of "####" but because it was negotiated by the duly elected negotiating committee it would stand in court. They lost big-time and that's that. So to answer the question, yes you can be sued but they must prove fraud or other really gross violations of law to have the suit stand up. However, he cautioned, the language you use in setting up your new union and how you go about talking and writing about your solutions to this award can be used against you. You need to stress he positives of the new union and not dwell on the award. Don't give the other side a large body of evidence that the sole reason for the new union is to abrogate an arbitration, the Nicolau award, that in the opinions of most judges, should be allowed to stand due to no gross negligence or fraud.

In a ruling by the NLRB, not the NMB, in 1954, stated: Seniority status in mergers must be resolved between the the employer and the union not by the union unilaterally. 107 NLRB 837;225F.2nd.343. That is to say seniority lives in the collective bargaining agreement not inside the unions. It will cost some more money to find if there is an equivalent ruling in a case by the NMB, but Chris feels there most certainly is.

A study and roadmap of the case law based on the premise that a new bargaining agent can get around the award and make the Nicolau award moot will cost 5 to 7 billable hours, so about $1925 with this firm.

When I stated that our Chairman Doug Parker had expressed an interest in industry consolidation he replied "well you know this process can work in reverse". That is, if we had a merger with United then even before there was an arbitration process the United pilots would petition the NMB for "single carrier status" and we could find ourselves back in the same position as we are now, inside ALPA. The Nicolau award won't die until ALPA dies. If there are mergers down the road then the award can come back if ALPA does. Seniority lives in the CBA so you need a new contract to go with the new union to solidify your claims. Can something be put in the contact to protect these claims, I asked. "That question will require a lot of research". Katzenbach and Khitikan seem to be competent in this area although they are not experts in Railway Labor Act /
NMB law. Chris stated that there are very few firms who specialize in RLA/NMB law, it's a very small portion of labor law pie.

This consultation is not free, they don't do that with this kind of case, but they have low rates ie, $275/hr. My name is the one given so I will pony up on this meeting and the firm will supply a resume of their qualifications to do this kind of law and a recap and their opinions on what was discussed and I will forward that information when I get it so that all can see what type of law firm this is and if we want to do business with them in the future.

Respectfully Submitted,

an aaapilots4fairness committee member

 

[ableoneable]

Letter #2

From: "Stephen Bradford"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Leaving ALPA


Wednesday, May 16, 2007


ALPA Executive Board

Dear Captain Webber,

Very shortly, I will be making a decision that I never thought I would
have to make in my 20 years of wearing this ALPA pin. Moreover, that
decision is to remove ALPA as my collective bargaining representative
from US Airways. Why? Just sour grapes and the childish wish to “stick
it to national?†“Just so we can show them whose boss and deny them the
dues?â€

None of the above are correct. We must leave ALPA if this award stands
because our great leader, Doug Parker, thinks the industry needs more
consolidation. He has already made a very ill advised run on Delta and
he will be looking for another partner soon. The pilots of US Airways
cannot go into another round of seniority negotiations with this award
as the starting point in our negotiations. By the logic of this award,
my 20 years at US Airways, all without furlough and twice, upgraded and
then downgraded to and from the left seat will buy me maybe a slot
behind three or four year pilot rather than the seven year pilot I am
not slotted behind. My fellow pilots and I simply cannot allow this to
happen. We have to defend what little we have left.

The move is purely defensive; we are not trying to take anything from
anyone, just trying to hold on to what we have. Make no mistake, we
don’t not want to leave ALPA, but we will just to ensure we can have
some say in the next merger. We will write our own merger policy into
our bylaws and defend it in civil court if we have to, even if we are
out-voted by ALPA in another election as a result of a merger.

Current ALPA merger policy is ill formed, deviates from over 60 years of
prior practice and produces bizarre and unfair awards in arbitration
because all the considerations of prior settlements are no longer a part
of the precedent. I would like to see someone defend the notion of
Career expectations vs. actual time in service to an independent judge.
That term may have sounded fine prior to September 11 but now with all
the legacy carriers either in or freshly out of Chapter 11 what good are
expectations. United had or has pilots on furlough. Northwest is still
in Chapter 11 and Delta has just emerged. Is “career expectation†a term
designed to protect wide body flying? If it is, then say so! A carrier
with significant wide body flying vs. a merger partner with little or
none has a right to take that into consideration. This was implied in
prior merger policy by the term _advancement opportunities_. This term
was specifically required to be considered in previous ALPA merger
policy. A pilot from the wide body carrier would expect advancement
opportunities to wide body equipment and a pilot from a non-wide body
airline could at least expect advancement due to attrition on his own
list, even if there were no wide body flying.

The current wording, interpretation and application of ALPA merger
policy will force the US Airways pilots, and by default, the America
West Pilots, because we have a two to one majority that is increasing,
into an independent or other collective bargaining agent condition.
Again, this is not because we want to but because we have to just to
protect what little we have left.

How could this be fixed? Allow the Nicolau award to stand but build a
long, 10yr, fence between East and West flying at US Airways. Change the
national ALPA merger policy to at least give time in service, date of
hire or any measure of total time on the property at least some value
and consideration in an arbitration. To use career expectation,
considering what has happened post September 11 to the industry, rather
than actual date of hire, is absurd. Delete the term career expectations
and replace it with “advancement opportunities†“and consideration for
the type of flying done by both pre-merger pilot groups.†This gives
defense to wide-body and international premium flying but does not
negate time in service or date of hire.

Sincerely and respectfully submitted,

Stephen H. Bradford

US Airways

A320 F/O PIT

 

[767one]

What does "labor friendly" have to do with anything? This suit isn't anti-union. It's anti rogue union.

Sad to say the rogue union is actually alpa. Sad to say because for 34 years I was an active dues paying member.

 

[767one]

Yes. Whatever else is true; I'm extremely pleased to be rid of the completely corrupt Alpa cancer.

It's worth noting that; "From where I sit", in this case, would be the position of a very senior commuter, who wishes to bid into west flying, is personally not effected by the Nic in any way, shape or form, and sadly, appears to be seated within a viewing posture solely based upon self interest.

From where I sit I also feel better off with usapa and I have just started my 37th year with the company.

 

[prechilill]

Letter #2

Thanks for the posts, Able! They both contradict 95% of Megasnoop's proclomations about USAPA so it would be nice to get his take on these letters (other than declaring them false, untrue and made up by a west pilot).

Has anyone seen the snoop? It is pretty quiet on the eastern front around here.

 

[ableoneable]

Here again is the first Bradford letter. It was introduced as evidence in the Addington litlgation and is part of the public record.

A Conversation with an Attorney
KEEP THIS INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL

On Saturday, June 9th in San Francisco I had a conversation regarding our case with Chris Katzenbach of Katzenbach and Khitikan, a labor law firm.

Katzenbach and Khitikan have done some NMB work primarily with the American Eagle pilots group and they helpd them set up a 501C3 non-profit format to hold the Eagle Pilots independent union which is involved in an organizing campaign to oust ALPA from that property.

In commenting on our case he said that as an outsider he really had to hand it to the opposing counsel in the final brief for the America West Pilots. He understands, in some respects, the issues involving airline seniority. He said however that to an outsider the America West brief was very convincing and easy to follow. This doesn't make it right or more fair, it's just an easier to follow and better presentation to follow than the Katz presentation. The America West brief, appears a least on the surface, to be more in line with the stated new ALPA merger policy. It ignores past president but if you only have the current policy as a point of reference then their argument seems more in tune with it.

Chris Katzenbach feels that a direct assault on this award in the courts is a looser. The courts don't want to be educated on the minutia of this case or any other complicated private matter. The courts only concern is if there is fraud or bribery or some other gross misconduct in the conduct of this arbitration. If pressed they would take a case like that but he feels it to be a looser. It would also probably require a substantial down payment up front to pursue. By the way their fees are very reasonable, $275.00 per billable hour.

I next specifically asked him about the formation of a new bargaining agent as an avenue of advance to get around this award. He says that it is entirely possible. The key the courts look for is not the private squabbles, procedures and methodologies between unions and their nationals, the facts of the collective bargaining agreement. The CBA is the defining argument in a case to the courts. The Railway Labor Act /National Mediation Board procedure and policy above all governs.

"Could the America West pilots sue us" I asked, "if we pursue this course of action." "Yes", he said however Duty of Fair representation suits are losers, Katzenbach and Khitikan sued ALPA for the American Eagle Pilots over their current contract which among other things had a 20 year no strike clause. The contract was a negotiating committee cram down to keep from having the Eagle flying farmed out and allowing for the American equivalent version of "jets for jobs" and "flow through." Does this sound familiar?? As a result of this contract the Eagle pilots are trying to get out of ALPA.

Chris said the contract was truly piece of "####" but because it was negotiated by the duly elected negotiating committee it would stand in court. They lost big-time and that's that. So to answer the question, yes you can be sued but they must prove fraud or other really gross violations of law to have the suit stand up. However, he cautioned, the language you use in setting up your new union and how you go about talking and writing about your solutions to this award can be used against you. You need to stress he positives of the new union and not dwell on the award. Don't give the other side a large body of evidence that the sole reason for the new union is to abrogate an arbitration, the Nicolau award, that in the opinions of most judges, should be allowed to stand due to no gross negligence or fraud.

In a ruling by the NLRB, not the NMB, in 1954, stated: Seniority status in mergers must be resolved between the the employer and the union not by the union unilaterally. 107 NLRB 837;225F.2nd.343. That is to say seniority lives in the collective bargaining agreement not inside the unions. It will cost some more money to find if there is an equivalent ruling in a case by the NMB, but Chris feels there most certainly is.

A study and roadmap of the case law based on the premise that a new bargaining agent can get around the award and make the Nicolau award moot will cost 5 to 7 billable hours, so about $1925 with this firm.

When I stated that our Chairman Doug Parker had expressed an interest in industry consolidation he replied "well you know this process can work in reverse". That is, if we had a merger with United then even before there was an arbitration process the United pilots would petition the NMB for "single carrier status" and we could find ourselves back in the same position as we are now, inside ALPA. The Nicolau award won't die until ALPA dies. If there are mergers down the road then the award can come back if ALPA does. Seniority lives in the CBA so you need a new contract to go with the new union to solidify your claims. Can something be put in the contact to protect these claims, I asked. "That question will require a lot of research". Katzenbach and Khitikan seem to be competent in this area although they are not experts in Railway Labor Act /
NMB law. Chris stated that there are very few firms who specialize in RLA/NMB law, it's a very small portion of labor law pie.

This consultation is not free, they don't do that with this kind of case, but they have low rates ie, $275/hr. My name is the one given so I will pony up on this meeting and the firm will supply a resume of their qualifications to do this kind of law and a recap and their opinions on what was discussed and I will forward that information when I get it so that all can see what type of law firm this is and if we want to do business with them in the future.

Respectfully Submitted,

an aaapilots4fairness committee member