US Pilots labor thread 5/3-

[CallawayGolf]

The longer a jury stays out, the bigger the problem of the case. If this thing was about the finality of arbitration, the ruling would have been easy, and fast. It isn't. I really see no substantive loss for ALPA as you say HP. I see this thing is all about labor law. Labor law is the point these guys are digging in on. And that will cover the arbitration issue. I am not going to debate trial points. I am just making the point that the longer this thing takes, the better it looks for the appellant. Had it been an easy ruling, the one the west expects, it would have been rendered. This is a big problem for this court, and you are seeing this in the time involved.

Until the ruling comes out all we can do is speculate. I speculate bad news or perhaps really bad news for USAPA and Seham when that day comes. It's no surprise that you would speculate the opposite. Besides, who gets to define what a “long time” is regarding a federal court of appeals decision? It seems long to us because we are mindful of it hanging out there since December. The court however moves at its own pace and rarely acts as quickly as most would expect.

You’re free to have hope beyond all logic and reason if it makes you feel better. From my point of view, a remand from the 9th changes very little for the west vs. the status quo and keeps the final victory well within reach. An affirmation of Wake’s ruling, on the other hand, will represent a substantial loss to the east pilots (so they think anyway), USAPA, and Seham. The downside risk to the west is negligible; for USAPA, the risk of a 9th Circuit loss is all but catastrophic to the plan to abrogate responsibility and resurrect stunted careers at the expense of the west.

 

[BLT]

The longer a jury stays out, the bigger the problem of the case. If this thing was about the finality of arbitration, the ruling would have been easy, and fast. It isn't. I really see no substantive loss for ALPA as you say HP. I see this thing is all about labor law. Labor law is the point these guys are digging in on. And that will cover the arbitration issue. I am not going to debate trial points. I am just making the point that the longer this thing takes, the better it looks for the appellant. Had it been an easy ruling, the one the west expects, it would have been rendered. This is a big problem for this court, and you are seeing this in the time involved.

Why is a west ruling easier than an east ruling? There are two or more points of view, but only one case. How long do these rulings normally take? Are we beyond the average or does it just feel like a long time?

 

[Black Swan]

Why is a west ruling easier than an east ruling? There are two or more points of view, but only one case. How long do these rulings normally take? Are we beyond the average or does it just feel like a long time?

Does anyone know what the average time is for a Federal Appeal?

 

[hp_fa]

I am just making the point that the longer this thing takes, the better it looks for the appellant.

Swan, for just a second pretend you are a real appellate judge and your job is to see that justice is done. Now pretend that an injunctive relief case has been presented to a panel in which you were a member and that a majority of that panel felt that the injunction that had been issued by the trial court was improper. Wouldn't you want that improperly issued injunction lifted at the earliest possible moment since that injunction was improperly harming a party in that case?

If, as you contend, the longer this takes the better it is for the appellant, why didn't the court issue an order lifting the injunction and in that order say that an opinion would follow? Appellate courts do use that procedure when it will take time to write and issue an opinion, but they want the parties to know the ruling and not have a party wrongfully subject to an improper injunction while they write the opinion. That, IMO, is the fault with your theory.

 

[OTTER574]

Does anyone know what the average time is for a Federal Appeal?

Don't know, but why don't you ask Andrew S. Jacob, Attorney at Law and counsel for AOL? Seems he may have some experience at the appellate level. Or, you can put your faith in lee seham and his "years of experience" in labor law.

Federal courts of appeals move very slowly especially with very little case law to go on. This has been noted btw, by the Federal judges in this case.


http://www.polsinelli.com/ajacob/

 

[Phoenix]

... Here's an independent view of the truth.

Yeah... and despite all these observations of "truth" (along with all the armchair lawyers on these boards, or real court rooms), the most crushing white elephant in the room will still remain.. binding ratification.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Yeah... and despite all these observations of "truth" (along with all the armchair lawyers on these boards, or real court rooms), the most crushing white elephant in the room will still remain.. binding ratification.

Binding ratification won't be a problem once USAPA is compelled to negotiate a CBA in good faith and they put a TA out for a vote. Everyone knows that USAPA fears a vote of the MIGS more than any other course of action or outcome. They fear a vote because they fear it will pass which would seal their fate as the most inept and useless union the history of this nation. By all means put a TA out and let’s see how rock solid the east resolve is after five years of concessionary wages at the bottom of the industry with no hope of avoiding the NIC.

 

[N924PS]

Yeah... and despite all these observations of "truth" (along with all the armchair lawyers on these boards, or real court rooms), the most crushing white elephant in the room will still remain.. binding ratification.

Which is exactly what will occur when USAPA and management hammer out a contract that can be presented to the membership for ratification. Including the Nicolau Award.

It will happen and soon.

 

[nycbusdriver]

A possible solution to the damage done by Nic to pilots like myself who find us once again at the very bottom of a seniority list after 20+ years would be to explore longevity based pay. It has merits even without the Nic. Other carriers use it...check out UPS where senior pilots fly domestic 727's and are home every night while Jr pilots fly Int'l 747. It takes away seat lust...training is reduced...you bid lifestyle not equipment. We always negotiate pay starting at the top with wide-body being holy grail. News flash...we don't have enough wide-bodies to go around here at US. Leveling and balancing the pay based on longevity only IS fair...and very doable. I know I don't want to be flying the Atlantic tracks at 65. Puts you in an early grave.

Great post. Great thoughts.

Longevity based pay is a wonderful idea that has been proposed many times throughout this mess. It never gets ANY traction. Don't ask me why; it makes perfect sense to me. I bet the NAC wouldn't even entertain bringing it up. I'll bet your reps feel the same way and would dismiss the idea out of hand. Sad, really.

The only downside to accepting the Nic with no strings attached in return for longevity based pay is: What happens if/when another carrier buys/merges with LCC? Stuff like that goes easily out the window pronto, while the seniority ordered on the list never gets shuffled. That is the crux of the problem with ANY monetary solution to the Nicolau list. Money stuff gets changed in a flash; seniority lists are forever. (That's why I really don't even trust fences...they too can go poof with a merger.)

 

[nycbusdriver]

Hogdriver, as a military man you should understand the importance of following a process and honoring the results. Alpa merger policy was the process, along with an arbitration. Enough said.

Interesting bringing the military argument into this.

As a former USAF pilot myself, I recall something called "Date of Rank" that theoretically placed you in a pecking order within your grade.

It never mattered how much full-time active duty vs. reserve bum time you had. You pinned your rank on at a specific date, and even if you wore that uniform all of 12 days a year, you still outranked someone of the same grade who pinned it on a day after you even if he wore it 365 days a year.

Interesting concept. Kind of like Date of Hire. Works fine for the military. Thanks for making the comparison.

 

[Poug Darker]

Great post. Great thoughts.

Longevity based pay is a wonderful idea that has been proposed many times throughout this mess. It never gets ANY traction. Don't ask me why; it makes perfect sense to me. I bet the NAC wouldn't even entertain bringing it up. I'll bet your reps feel the same way and would dismiss the idea out of hand. Sad, really.

The only downside to accepting the Nic with no strings attached in return for longevity based pay is: What happens if/when another carrier buys/merges with LCC? Stuff like that goes easily out the window pronto, while the seniority ordered on the list never gets shuffled. That is the crux of the problem with ANY monetary solution to the Nicolau list. Money stuff gets changed in a flash; seniority lists are forever. (That's why I really don't even trust fences...they too can go poof with a merger.)

You hit the nail on the head. Been there, done that. $$ come, then they are taken away with a stroke of a pen. Pecking order is the most important issue, always has been.
I believe USAPA has addressed the longetivity pay scale concept by saying that because this employee group is heavily weighted toward the super senior, the monetary value would be overwhelmingly large at 'industry standard' wage rates. The rates would have to be significantly lowered to accomplish this goal. You could project strategically: in the event of a merger, the system of longetivity pay goes away, but the rates do not - then where would you be? (I know....right where most of us are now)
Cheers.

 

[Black Swan]

Don't know, but why don't you ask Andrew S. Jacob, Attorney at Law and counsel for AOL? Seems he may have some experience at the appellate level. Or, you can put your faith in lee seham and his "years of experience" in labor law.

Federal courts of appeals move very slowly especially with very little case law to go on. This has been noted btw, by the Federal judges in this case.


http://www.polsinelli.com/ajacob/

I would, but I am going to, for your sake, save any legal fees for the next level.

 

[2fly4u]

None of this even matters. Before too long all of you will wake to find yourselves "former" pilots to US Airways. At that moment, you will all seek employment with an airline and find yourselves on the very bottom in seniority. American Airlines is all that's left and that pilot group will hardly allow a merger or buy-out with pilots of 10 years expecting to be merged into equal seniority with one of their own pilots of 15 years or more. It may be the decision that was handed down, but nobody else is having it. So you need to straighten it out, put lipstick on this pig of labor force and send it back out to dance for the nice man named American Airlines. Otherwise, you will find yourselves unemployed or flying a regional jet at the bottom of some upstart's seniority list. Good luck.

 

[nycbusdriver]

....Believe you me, never in a MILLION YEARS did I ever want to work for us air. ...

....Pi brat, the list is done, move on or face the consequences.

We can agree on that, at least. I'll bet Pi brat even concurs on that point.

 

[Black Swan]

Yeah... and despite all these observations of "truth" (along with all the armchair lawyers on these boards, or real court rooms), the most crushing white elephant in the room will still remain.. binding ratification.

This, is right on the mark. I think the West guys cannot, will not put their heads around the fact that there is no way most east guys will vote for a deal that may give them 10k a yr. up front, but deny a much bigger return over time. They cannot get this into their heads. We are looking long term, and any deal with the Nic is a BAD investment.