I believe the jury verdict found that USAPA's position to us a DOH with fences approach, as opposed to the arbitrated NIC list, did not fairly represent the West. Anything other than that, is a reach on anyones part. I still do not believe there is any proof the aforementioned position of USAPA, can be proven to have caused any proveable harm to any West pilots. I don't believe hypotheticals will warrant a finding of monetary damages, or any other compensations other than the inclusion of the NIC in a future CBA.
US Pilots' Labor Thread 5/26 to 6/2-- NO PERSONAL COMMENTS
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
I hate to rain on the westworld parade here but have all of you out west forgotten that you also named the company in a lawsuit regarding "improper furloughs" ?
Hmmm?
And how long did it take for Wake to cut the company loose from that...1 day..a couple days?
The answer is more interesting than the question, actually...Once the company argued and showed seperate operations as being the current mode of operating these two systems and seniority lists, they were cut loose by Wake.
The exact same situation is in place with USAPA...further, it takes TWO parties to enter into a contract...USAPA is only half the equation, and cannot be held liable for the other party.
These are the realities you are all ignoring...but it is going to be just that.
L
luvn737s
Guest
NIC In or Out was never an option. Therefore, yes I think once that option was taken off the table, there would have been a joint contract.
The company's offer could have been negotiated for a little more and there would be a decent basis for negotiating a better contract in the near future.
And your point is? We can all speculate what a jury might award in damages...could be 2M (cover legal costs, etc) or it could be 10M. One thing is for certain, it WILL cost east something. Makes no difference what YOU THINK, a JURY will decide.
upe
L
luvn737s
Guest
USAPA had a duty to present and defend the Nicoalu award since it was inherited from ALPA who had the same duty (but shirked also, to a great extent). It chose to take another path that resulted in separate operations much longer than was in the spirit of the TA, which caused harm to the west pilots.
Had USAPA done what it should have done, and yet the time table had stretched due to circumstances beyond their control (and that means not stoking the battle betwen the east and west , which has become USAPA's raison d'etre) then they could not be legitimately held responsible for the harm done to the west pilots.
However, as we have seen, they made their bed and soon it will be lights out.
Ouch. I thought my point was clear. I'm sure we'll ALL speculate about "damages"...ready for mine?
ZERO.
Why? for the same reason that your claim against the company for these very same "out of seniority furloughs" was tossed by Wake early on. And why did the company get to walk?
Seperate operations. Seperate seniority lists which operate under a TA. Wake agreed.
Newsflash: we are still in seperate operations...two contracts, two seniority lists under a TA.
These furloughs which have already happened under seperate ops as described have no claim against the company or USAPA.
If, (a huge if) Wake has some unchecked delusion of implementing the Nic without a joint CBA attached to it, any future furloughs not consistent with it MAY have legs in a claim...
Don't go buy a car yet.
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
The burden of proof will be "more likely than not". The evidence certainly isn't as overwhelming as it was in the liability trial but the behavior of the East in walking out of negotiations in 2007 (when the company was profitable) will certainly be shown to the jury. Nobody can say a contract was a shoe-in in 2007 but it's very clear the East's actions prevented one. USAPA's actions have propagated that and thus opened them to real damages.
If you were reading the court transcripts, you should know this was NOT about the fairness of NIC or USAPAs wet dream list. It was about not honoring existing agreements and trying to abrogate a final and binding arbitration, which the Honorable Judge Wake plainly described as "not a legitimate Union objective", one of many others I might add.
upe
The union has every right to set its goal as Alaska+ or based off an average of DAL, Southwest, Alaska or any other contract improvement that props up. The Kirby proposal is woefully inadequate to these agreements or what AA and CAL are seeking and likely to attain. Quite frankly there is no excuse not to pay within a range of those carriers except for management being unable to preform to the same level of its competitors. The union would actually be doing the company's long term survival and itself a benefit by forcing it to operate under the same conditions as better run companies vs surviving off the backs of its employees. Doing the latter might buy some time but only in the short term because competitors will move forward and be managed better because they have to, to cover the real cost of doing business and even the well of employee subsidies will fail to make up the difference as the company becomes less competitive. There is no such thing as a short term labor agreement under the RLA because even a 2 year agreement can become 5 years as the process runs its course.
Megasnoop
Veteran
First, 717, I think the jury is done with this. Sorry, but USAPA had nothing to do with the furloughs. Parker gave his "right-sized" speech 3 days after USAPA was elected. Not a shred of evidenced introduced that USAPA did a DFR stall on the furloughs. In fact, what wasnt intorduced at trial, but the judge knows from pre-trial motions, USAPA grievances were well on the way to trying to get jobs back. Your not getting recalled by the judge or getting paid by USAPA to stay on furlough, but feel free to dream on. Im actually "supremely confident" in the 9th Circuits ability to rule on this DFR. You see, 717, with the 9th, you also got DFR precedent.
Anyone thinking the 9th Circuit wont hear the appeal doesnt know the 9th history in DFRs. 20 years ago, they ruled against ALPAs appeal of Cress Bernard, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, AFL-CIO, Defendant/Appelant.
Cutting to the chase, the 9th Circuit upheld the district court DFR against ALPA. Sounds great if your a Westie. But our case is nothing like the Jet America case. Using the interpretations issued by the court in JA, Im feeling pretty good about our chances at 9th Circuit. Huge differences between JA/ALPA and USAPA/AOL. At worst for us, the 9th will send it back to Wake with “instructions†that will negate any $$ damages/awards. At best, there was no DFR, case overturned due to lack of ripeness. If JA/ALPA was the 9th Circuits DFR gold standard for defining DFR, weve got no worries. Steve
We all know the only reason USAPA came back to negotiate was they thought they could disenfranchise the west pilots to the benefit of the east. There is DNA evidence trailing all the way back to the van down by the river.
upe
I have to confidently disagree supremely.
Any way you slice it, bottom line, the courts are not going to allow USAPA to set precedent for abrogating a legitimate final and binding arbitration, just not going to happen. A big can of worms that would wreck havoc in the arbitration world. Lastly, forget about ripeness, Seham already appealed that issue to the Ninth before the trial began and it was denied. Please read the latest Leonidas update, the parody is really fascinating.upe
Megasnoop
Veteran
Actually, 717, Im "supremely confident" that the 9th Circuit will overrule the trial judge. USAPA wasnt even elected when Parker announced "right-sizing" the company in March 2008. USAPA didnt cause your furlough, LCC did. Even if not overturned, you wont get recalled or get a windfall for not being recalled. You may be damaged, but it wasnt by USAPA. What the judge heard but the jury didnt, in pre-trial motions, that USAPA was actively engaged in grievances to get your (and our) jobs back.
Anyone thinking the 9th Circuit wont hear the appeal doesnt know the 9th activist history in DFRs. 20 years ago, they ruled against ALPA in their appeal of Cress Bernard, Jet America Pilots, et al., Plaintiffs/Appelles, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, AFL-CIO, Defendant/Appelant.
Cutting to the chase, the 9th Circuit upheld the district court DFR against ALPA. Sounds great if your a Westie. But our case is nothing like the Jet America case. Using the interpretations issued by the court in JA, Im feeling pretty good about our chances at Circuit. At worst for us, the 9th will send it back to Wake with “instructions†that will negate any $$ damages/awards. At best, there was no ripeness, so no DFR, case overturned. Thats if JA/ALPA continues to be the 9th Circuits DFR gold standard. steve
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
