US Pilots' Labor Thread 5/26 to 6/2-- NO PERSONAL COMMENTS

[hp_fa]

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.

No offense intended but I am sick of the phrase "gold standard". I was sick of it listening to Seham repeatedly use it in court and folks are now using that phrase here. It isn't the fact that East folks are using it, I would be equally sick of it if it were West folks using it. I am just tired of that phrase. Dare I ask what's next, the "platinum standard"?

 

[Megasnoop]

No offense intended but I am sick of the phrase "gold standard". I was sick of it listening to Seham repeatedly use it in court and folks are now using that phrase here. It isn't the fact that East folks are using it, I would be equally sick of it if it were West folks using it. I am just tired of that phrase. Dare I ask what's next, the "platinum standard"?

Ok, Ok, "platinum standard" from now on. No offense taken.

Nice to see all the pilots who think they are lawyers, just amazing

Not a lawyer, 700, but I can quote them, less work than competing with the hps legal brain. Anyone thinking this will be settled quickly, from appeal to decision JA/ALPA took 18 months. ALPA lost the JA DFR because they negotiated a seniority list with the company in a week, completely ignoring JA pilots. JA pilots didnt file their DFR until AFTER the agreed-to list was in place. The 9th said, “The agreement declared invalid here was reached on October 6, 1987. Significantly, between October 1, when the merger became effective, and October 6, no Jet America pilot participated in ALPA negotiations with Alaska, despite requests to participate. ALPA does not dispute that it did not follow its merger policy governing mergers of ALPA-represented groups in negotiating the October 6 agreement.
Bernard sued on behalf of himself and the other Jet America pilots alleging that ALPA had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) excluding them from all negotiations for an agreement integrating the seniority lists of the two pilot groups; (2) entering into an agreement that discriminated against them in favor of the pre-merger Alaska pilots; and (3) failing to afford them the benefits of ALPA's own merger policy.â€￾

See the differences between the 2 DFRs? If not so obvious, there was no seniority agreement between USAPA and LCC to complain about. There was no USAPA/company action to dissuade or not allow participation by former AWA pilots in negotiations or in the merger committee by USAPA. Converse, it was the zealots out of AWAPPA who discouraged west pilots from getting involved. Judge Wake pronounced and USAPA/AOL stipulated USAPA has not denied membership to West pilot who has applied. The more you read JA/ALPA the easier to believe the 9th will overrule. snoopo

 

[Waketurbulence]

The more you read JA/ALPA the easier to believe the 9th will overrule. snoopo

Sound like Sehman is selling you another bill of goods.

 

[exB717Flyer]

First, 717, I think the jury is done with this.

Before the liability trial started were you so confident as well?

Sorry, but USAPA had nothing to do with the furloughs.

The company decides when to furlough and they furlough in reverse-seniority order. Wasn't there just a trial about USAPA and seniority lists? I must've missed it.

If JA/ALPA was the 9th Circuits DFR gold standard for defining DFR, weve got no worries. Steve

So then you are as "supremely confident" as your dear leader Cleary. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Megasnoop]

Before the liability trial started were you so confident as well?The company decides when to furlough and they furlough in reverse-seniority order. Wasn't there just a trial about USAPA and seniority lists? I must've missed it.So then you are as "supremely confident" as your dear leader Cleary. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I thought we had a good chance until I read the jury instructions. Then I wondered why it took the jury a whole 2 hours to reach a decision. What you missed was that there was no combined list in place, through no fault of USAPA. Clearys "supremely confident" is his own deal, I hold onto mine, based on the way the 9th Circuit ruled on JA/ALPA. Just some more of that DFR, the trial court decided, “By way of remedy, the district court: (1) directed ALPA to apply its current merger policy providing for negotiation, mediation and arbitration in order to resolve merger and seniority integration disputes between the two groups of pilots; (2) directed ALPA to treat the former Jet America pilots as a separate ALPA-represented group for purposes of implementing this policy and to appoint three Jet America pilot merger representatives; (3) vacated and set aside the October 6, 1987, seniority integration agreement between ALPA and Alaska Airlines; and (4) specified the basis by which pilots would be furloughed, promoted and given flying assignments in the interim period until a new agreement could be reached.â€￾

The district court retained jurisdiction and awarded damages (correct pay based on the final list), but only based on those inflicted by the illegal agreement. Again, USAPA & LCC have NO AGREEMENT! Im still not sure you understand the difference.

Why ALPA lost this case was because they first promised to represent JA pilots and then they didnt. They imposed a staple list a week after the merger was finalized on September 30, giving JA pilots no representation, even though according to the ALPA Constitution they were required to use Allegheny-Mohawk. As the court said,

"Having correctly determined that ALPA violated its duty of fair representation, and that a new agreement would have to be executed, the district court faced the question what to do in the interim. Rather than allow the tainted October 6 agreement to govern, the court ordered the agreement set aside, and a temporary system for promotions and furloughs established."

Sounds good for you, except, there is no list to set aside and damages without a list. But as the 9th Circuit said in its conclusion, "On October 1, 1987, the date Alaska and Jet America merged, ALPA's duty to fairly represent the Jet America pilots attached. ALPA breached that duty by discriminating against the previously nonunionized Jet America pilots in reaching an integrated seniority agreement with Alaska. The district court acted within its discretion in issuing an order to set the tainted agreement aside, compel the parties to reach a new one according to ALPA's own internal procedures, and submit to a stipulated system for promotions and furloughs in the meantime.

AFFIRMED."

717flyer, you got a long road ahead of you, lots of obstacles and not a lot of money to win the appeal. Best of luck, may the best (and most well-paid) attorneys win! Snooper-dooper

 

[oscarjazz]

Not a lawyer, 700, but I can quote them, less work than competing with the hps legal brain. Anyone thinking this will be settled quickly, from appeal to decision JA/ALPA took 18 months. ALPA lost the JA DFR because they negotiated a seniority list with the company in a week, completely ignoring JA pilots. JA pilots didnt file their DFR until AFTER the agreed-to list was in place. The 9th said, “The agreement declared invalid here was reached on October 6, 1987. Significantly, between October 1, when the merger became effective, and October 6, no Jet America pilot participated in ALPA negotiations with Alaska, despite requests to participate. ALPA does not dispute that it did not follow its merger policy governing mergers of ALPA-represented groups in negotiating the October 6 agreement.
Bernard sued on behalf of himself and the other Jet America pilots alleging that ALPA had breached its duty of fair representation by: (1) excluding them from all negotiations for an agreement integrating the seniority lists of the two pilot groups; (2) entering into an agreement that discriminated against them in favor of the pre-merger Alaska pilots; and (3) failing to afford them the benefits of ALPA's own merger policy.â€￾

See the differences between the 2 DFRs? If not so obvious, there was no seniority agreement between USAPA and LCC to complain about. There was no USAPA/company action to dissuade or not allow participation by former AWA pilots in negotiations or in the merger committee by USAPA. Converse, it was the zealots out of AWAPPA who discouraged west pilots from getting involved. Judge Wake pronounced and USAPA/AOL stipulated USAPA has not denied membership to West pilot who has applied. The more you read JA/ALPA the easier to believe the 9th will overrule. snoopo

I think you miss the key issue in the trial. The issue was not about whether the West was allowed to participate or not. The issue was did the East try to use their majority status to trample on the rights of the minority West pilots. There was an agreement by both parties to use ALPA Merger Policy to combine the seniority lists. That process was complete when the list was accepted by LCC management. USAPA was formed to nullify this outcome in favor of the majority East pilots. USAPA has an affirmative duty to honor the agreements they inherited, including the Transition Agreement. All this hooey about not voting on the TA or not voting on ALPA Merger Policy was just that, hooey.

USAPA tries to hide behind date of hire being the "gold standard" and "all other unions used date of hire" but those are irrelevant. You had a process defined, you agreed to the process, the process was completed. You have a seniority list and it is the Nicolau list. Whatever the East pilots feel about how unfair it is, it is the list. USAPA's attempt to reorder the list is clearly a breach of duty of fair representation, they move all the East pilots up and all the West pilots down. The conditions and restrictions attached are inadequate and grossly favor the East pilots. C+R's are also notoriously bad at dealing with the future. In the Northwest/Republic merger they had 18 years of C+R's and 26 arbitrations to fight about them, more than 1 per year.

So it doesn't matter if the West was allowed to participate. It was clear from the start, that no matter what the minority said, the majority East pilots were going to roll over them. THEY WROTE IT INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION. No matter what, the East wins and the West loses, sorry but it's in our constitution.

After decades of working for a mismanaged, failing airline, I can see how the disappointments of the East pilots can generate a sense of entitlement to redress their wrongs. However, they seem to have a mass hysteria that somehow makes them think they have to right to bludgeon the West pilots, whom they have an affirmative duty to represent fairly. You guys are the only ones who see yourselves in the right here, everyone else sees it differently. If you go back and read the Brucia dissent to the Nicolau award, it only applies to a small portion of the list right around the furlough/no furlough break line. He agreed with the rest of the list.

I thought that after the this outcome, the East pilots would get tired of getting smacked in the head by reality. Given the reaction of the BPR I guess they haven't hit that point yet. I am an outside observer and every other outside observer just shakes their head in disbelief at what you are doing. I can't believe this will be overturned on appeal, because to everyone else in the world, USAPA is being patently unfair to the West pilots. Enjoy your bubble while it lasts, I think it will get popped sometime soon.

 

[Freighterguynow]

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.

The Atlas pilots already tried this exact approach and were shot down at the 103rd session.

ALPA president, Capt. John Prater, opened the meeting with, among other things, an update on Atlas/Polar joint negotiations, calling for a solution based on pilot consensus.

http://www.alpa.org/portals/alpa/pressroom...oardMeeting.htm

Membership Ratification - no time line, no cram downs and no complaints about being disadvantaged because it's taking too long.

 

[Megasnoop]

I think you miss the key issue in the trial. The issue was not about whether the West was allowed to participate or not. The issue was did the East try to use their majority status to trample on the rights of the minority West pilots.

No, I dont think I missed it at all, newbie. But I also didnt miss what your crew is trying to do now. In the remedy phase your claiming damages. Yeah, we know, we have our own spies right in your midst (I love these guys, so deluded with "fairness" they are spilling it all. sorry, theyre protecting themselves, thats why they came to us. Well, there goes those sources, if they read this chat). your attorneys allegedly have a "double secret probation" informant from ALPA and an unnamed outside vendor who will shred Jack Stephens testimony, claiming ALPA was on the verge of putting East and West into trusteeship and then cramming down a single vote on the contract. So? All that means is ALPA lied to its own membership and was too slow to beat USAPA to its election win. No proof that USAPA had a clue what ALPA was doing to saving the mother ship.

His holiness, the right honorable Neil V. Wake has already said he wont take away the right of agreement ratification. He knows hes already got Blochs GR-9 decision and the NC judges in the Breeger case going against him. He needs some cover and we"re not going to give it to him. He laid it, he can sit on it until it hatches.

More to come on this, ocsar. I love putting it out in dribbles. Short posts get read, Lengthy tomes get ignored. Ah, Judge Wake, the gift that keeps on giving. I love this guy. Senor Snoopernista

 

[HPearlyretiree]

I thought that after the this outcome, the East pilots would get tired of getting smacked in the head by reality. Given the reaction of the BPR I guess they haven't hit that point yet. I am an outside observer and every other outside observer just shakes their head in disbelief at what you are doing. I can't believe this will be overturned on appeal, because to everyone else in the world, USAPA is being patently unfair to the West pilots. Enjoy your bubble while it lasts, I think it will get popped sometime soon.

Same same, I am astounded that the east can't get this. USAPA was formed solely to get around an agreement and to screw the west.

And, they lost, in court, fair and square, no courtroom shenanigans, no evil conspiracy, none of that. Yet, the east doesn't get it. Its denial beyond reason, bordering into cultlike thinking.

 

[N924PS]

Same same, I am astounded that the east can't get this. USAPA was formed solely to get around an agreement and to screw the west.

And, they lost, in court, fair and square, no courtroom shenanigans, no evil conspiracy, none of that. Yet, the east doesn't get it. Its denial beyond reason, bordering into cultlike thinking.

I'm not sure it's come to that, but to put it in an aviation analogy, USAPA uses the old "Gosport Tube."

That was a device used in flight training in WWII biplane trainers where the instructor could speak to the student, but the student couldn't talk back. One way communication. You can hear my message, but I can't hear yours.

 

[cleardirect]

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.

Define "hear". Could the ninth look at the case just to see what if it has any merit and throw it out? Yes, does that meet the "hear" definition? If all three look at it and throw it out without further action, did the ninth hear it? Yes! If the ninth looks looks at it without the 15 minutes of oral arguments do you still consider it "heard"?

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 “instructionsâ€￾ 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

You forgot a couple of things.

First the damages trial will be in August 2009. That case will be over and done with. Most likely with some very stiff money damages. The appeals court might not even have the plaintiffs response by the time the damages are awarded. We will not get a ruling from the ninth until around March 2011.

Willing to wait for a contract until about Sept 2011 or more?

So there will be NO chance of the ninth sending back instructions.

Better think again about your worst case. The worst case for you and usapa is the ninth circuit affirms the lower courts ruling. Everything stands as is. Also check your ripeness theory. IF big if the ninth determines that this case is not ripe yet. That does not mean it is over. That means we come back eventually if/when usapa finally gets a contract with a DOH list. Then it becomes a slam dunk. Arbitration decided, usapa managed to get a DOH list in violation of that arbitration. Back to DFR.

I know that you guys follow Seham like the pied piper. But it really would be helpful to all of us if you would just consider that he does not know what he is doing. Can you point to any unique theory of his that has been successful since arriving at usapa? The judge was none to impressed with his “binding arbitration only applies to the merger repsâ€￾ theory. The “impasseâ€￾ theory has gotten no traction with the court.

When the plaintiffs first filed this case in Sept. we heard from usapa that it had mo merit. That it would be dismissed at the beginning. Usapa was confident that they would win this case. We all know the outcome. Now Cleary is telling you that he is “Supremely confidentâ€￾ that you are going to win at appeal. The odds go down the further up you move. Read the PHX update. There is an excellent piece about the process of appeals. You have been told by usapa or Seham that new evidence will be presented to the appeals court. That is not true. Does someone misunderstand or is someone being lied to?

The median time to hear a case is 18 months. The chances of overturning a verdict. 5-10%. That is to start with. Throw in the poor facts of USAPA’s case and the fact that the judge knows what he is doing as opposed to Lee Seham. The chances for upholding the verdict go up pretty high.

But you guys hold out hope and wait for the Hail Mary pass thrown by the worst quarterback in the league. In the mean time the verdict stands the damages go forward.

 

[ROACLT]

Same same, I am astounded that the east can't get this. USAPA was formed solely to get around an agreement and to screw the west.

And, they lost, in court, fair and square, no courtroom shenanigans, no evil conspiracy, none of that. Yet, the east doesn't get it. Its denial beyond reason, bordering into cultlike thinking.

Its not cult like, its unionism 101. They are protecting what they perceive as their entitlement. If you don't like entitlements, then dissolve the union and let the free market reign and the company pick and choose pay, benefits, and promotions. Seniority only exists because of Unions and entitlement mentality. Without them it is free market, and meritocracy.

A lot of people and politicians were mocking the the cult-like mantra of the UAW and their entitlement mentality to pension and retirement benefits but hey, the ended up with 55% of Chrysler and 18% of GM. That is union mentality at its best. Unions are all about entitlement and they fight for it the end and in the case of the UAW, it worked out pretty well. Bob Corker and the NeoCons on Capitol Hill considered the UAW as being in denial beyond reason but the UAW got the last laugh.

 

[nic4us]

I thought we had a good chance until I read the jury instructions. Then I wondered why it took the jury a whole 2 hours to reach a decision. What you missed was that there was no combined list in place, through no fault of USAPA.


Sounds good for you, except, there is no list to set aside and damages without a list.

the best (and most well-paid) attorneys win! Snooper-dooper

But there is a list to set aside, actually two lists, the seperate operations lists.

The best attorneys win easily if their client is in the right.

 

[ClueByFour]

His holiness, the right honorable Neil V. Wake has already said he wont take away the right of agreement ratification. He knows hes already got Blochs GR-9 decision and the NC judges in the Breeger case going against him. He needs some cover and we"re not going to give it to him. He laid it, he can sit on it until it hatches.

The NC decision won't matter unless SCOTUS chooses to hear your case once the 9th Circuit plays baseball with Seeham's skull. Won't happen.

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.

The problem is you have a different question of law. Your fatal assumption is that the 9th circuit (assuming they find any) will find that the reviewable points of law are similar to Cress Bernard v ALPA. I suspect you are wrong, but hey--I told you this was not gonna work some time ago......

 

[cleardirect]

Its not cult like, its unionism 101. They are protecting what they perceive as their entitlement. If you don't like entitlements, then dissolve the union and let the free market reign and the company pick and choose pay, benefits, and promotions. Seniority only exists because of Unions and entitlement mentality. Without them it is free market, and meritocracy.

A lot of people and politicians were mocking the the cult-like mantra of the UAW and their entitlement mentality to pension and retirement benefits but hey, the ended up with 55% of Chrysler and 18% of GM. That is union mentality at its best. Unions are all about entitlement and they fight for it the end and in the case of the UAW, it worked out pretty well. Bob Corker and the NeoCons on Capitol Hill considered the UAW as being in denial beyond reason but the UAW got the last laugh.

That is still to be seen. Holding 55% of a company that closes the doors gets the UAW what? Back of the unemployment line.

Don't be so quick to think that the UAW is sitting pretty now. It's not over yet.