US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/18-6/23-Stay on Topic and Observe the Rules

[HPearlyretiree]

That answer has no meaning to me because I lack the information to make sense out of it, but then again it wasn't an answer that I need because you were asking the real question.

With that I am headed for bed. Just so you don't worry about me tomorrow my time will be limited. I will be rewiring the entire entertainment center and installing both an AV receiver and a Blu-Ray, then calibrating all of it. So don't miss me too much if I am missing for multiple hours.

How dare you have a life beyond this board! Nicstolemyjob has been here all day, endlessly posting and in denial and demanding that you do the same! You dare to have a family and life beyond this silly issue? Fie on you!

BTW, AWA bought USAirways, we just didn't say anything to the East, because we knew you would all get emo and butthurt.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

That answer has no meaning to me because I lack the information to make sense out of it, but then again it wasn't an answer that I need because you were asking the real question.

With that I am headed for bed. Just so you don't worry about me tomorrow my time will be limited. I will be rewiring the entire entertainment center and installing both an AV receiver and a Blu-Ray, then calibrating all of it. So don't miss me too much if I am missing for multiple hours.

Understand. Yes, I'll miss our spirited exchanges. I am sorry that you lack the information to make sense of my remarks....

"my real question " has been asked and answered by YOU...and others a hundredfold.

All my questions are "real questions"

maybe tomorrow,

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

So, everyone at HP had their seniority reset on the late 80's, when they went bankrupt?

I'll play along a little with you but "Bankruptcy" does not mean the same thing it meant as little as fifteen years ago after HP went. Then, it was a major issue. Nowadays it is simply an "accepted" measure to beat down those pesky labor people.

There is a separate issue, the phrase "bankruptcy" can mean everything from a formalized means of changing something in the corporation (that the creditors likely will not like) to liquidating a corporation. It seems to have become adopted by management as a tool for managing, something the former CBA could never understand.

I can show you how US went "bankrupt" in order to manage a change in accounting in order to more easily "buy" HP without running into anti-trust issues or tax issues. I am sure you can do that yourself. Devolving yourself by passing off the situation like you did would indicate to me that you are simply being lazy.

ouch,

truth hurts.

 

[Nicstolemyjob]

Why do you compare where you stand on the seniority list with the pilot right next to you on the NIC? Is that really a measure of your TRUE seniority. Are you better off now since the merger?

I hope the whole airline comunity reads this...prints it...emails it...to everyone they know.

 

[ussnark]

Nah, you need a break (seriously). I spend plenty of time at the training center and every checkairman and instructor I've talked to says they work exclusively on their own side. But since I spend alot less time there than you do on this board, I'll concede that a checkairman from the east could possibly have conducted some degree of training in PHX. Feel better?
and,
Have we been punk'd?

Yes, you have been "punk'd".

East has been doing east training for at least a year at the PHX facility, you know, for all the upgrades. They also have sat in on the other sides training sessions, observing.

The fact that your mind cannot comprehend other possibilities in what was said is a big red flag for me that in other topics you are somewhat deficient. Like others here, you view things as either black or white. Get used to the fact that the world has moved on and there are colours out there now!!!!

Join us! It can be a great world, if you and your friends just let it.

 

[nic4us]

I can show you how US went "bankrupt" in order to manage a change in accounting in order to more easily "buy" HP without running into anti-trust issues or tax issues. I am sure you can do that yourself.

Well I could show you how the single bullet theory is preposterous, how Hollywood staged the moon landings, and why the government is hiding a crashed UFO from Rosewell. Still does not change the facts, and in our case you could not show any legitimate evidence that US bought HP.

The answere to your question is yes, everyones seniority was reset in 2005, even the West pilots, and HP was not in bankrupcy or purchased by another airline, yet our pilots lost seniority.

 

[Hate2fly]

I am guessing Stephen S. Mitchell.

------------------

I think it is unreasonable to expect that the West folks should have been expected by anyone to negotiate off of Nicolau.



Because they took the same chance at binding arbitration as the AAA folks did and could have "lost". Why should they negotiate away a result, especially when nothing of value is being offered? If the AAA MEC did not negotiate, mediate or arbitrate any position other than DOH/LOS, why should West be expected to give them any of what they did not gain in the agreed upon process?

hp, We in the east still operate under a DOH system and this will continue for a long time. Seperate operations!

The judge cannot take away the east pilots vote!

Average age in the east pilot group 58 years old!

In just over 3 years from now the east starts the retirement of almost 1 pilot per day for a long time!

Every new hire pilot coming on board in the east will see that as long as the east is still in seperate operations, he moves to the left seat very quickly! The new hires in the east will always vote with the "Old East guys".

Take a good look at that average age of the east pilot........58

When was the last time you were able to tell a 58 year old pilot how to think?

 

[Megasnoop]

Let's ponder some strategy, which means long term thinking. USAPA is fighting tooth and nail for reversible error which is absolutely their right.

Actually, I think we’re just doing what the BPR voted that we do. “Fighting tooth and nailâ€￾ is so hyperbole. Not much strategy to that. But when we need “strategy,â€￾ I think we’ll stick to getting it “in-house,â€￾ not rely on a "disinterested" paralegal.

So let's assume that in 12 months that the Ninth Circuit grants USAPA everything it wants as far as a new trial and remands the case for a new trial. What do you think will happen at a new trial, especially if Stephan Bradford is correctly served a subpoena for trial? What is going to happen when he has to testify and there is already a paper trail that will lock in his testimony about his motivations in forming USAPA? Remember that there is documentation that at least partially establishes that it was to defeat Nicolau.

“Everything it wantsâ€￾ would mean tossing the entire thing out on reversible error with either no ability to retry (a bit of a long-shot?) or else the right to retry with guidelines and/or without Wake. How about “lets assumeâ€￾ Wake won’t get another shot at it at all? Maybe the 9th will decide he cant be unbiased and cant have it back. But assuming there is a new trial, worse case for us is the 9th Circuit remands back for “ripeness.â€￾ Kind of like the Breeger decision. If so, until theres a DOH-based (with restrictions) contract, theres no “ripeness,â€￾ so no trial. But even if there is a new trial, with Bradford properly served, his intent/motivations still don’t matter. Surely someone of your legal prowess can read and understand Rakestraw. Any wonder Harper and Wake fought “tooth and nailâ€￾ to keep it out of the jury’s knowledge?

Folks need to think ahead and, at the same time, realize that the company is not going to be serious until the pilots get this behind them.

The company wasnt serious back from 2005-2007. What makes you think having this all behind us is going to speed up the process? One thing we don’t really need is free advice and thinking from a paralegal. Thinking about a retrial already? I thought the appeal was DOA? It still won’t make any difference, because intent/motivations don’t matter. So says Rakestraw v. ALPA - United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 981 F.2d 1524 Argued Feb. 24, 1992.Decided Dec. 28, 1992

Negotiation means compromise. Neither employees as a whole nor particular groups of employees emerge from bargaining with all their wants satisfied. Often unions can achieve more for some of their constituents only by accepting less for others. "Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid. The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected.â€￾ Rakestraw. If union leaders took account of the fact that the workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears
more harshly on the minority. Cf. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).

These principles dispose of the Ozark-TWA case. ALPA's "merger policy" could not compel TWA to agree to anything, and it did not seem likely, under the circumstances, to produce agreement within the union either. So ALPA experimented, emphasizing negotiations between representatives of the two groups rather than what Duffy feared would be premature intra-union litigation. Perhaps Duffy’s handlers were wrong, but a mistake in judgment does not violate the duty of fair representation.

For the reasons developed in Part II of that opinion, however, a "bad" motive does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves the interests of workers as a whole, and that treats employees who are pariahs in the union's eyes no worse than it treats similarly situated supporters of the union. From Rakestraw we learn that you can do something for a good motive or a bad motive and not run foul of DFR.

Judge Wake made sure that the jury never heard any of this from Rakestraw - The appeals court will.

From the barnyard, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.â€￾ George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945

 

[hp_fa]

Actually, I think we’re just doing what the BPR voted that we do. “Fighting tooth and nail†is so hyperbole. Not much strategy to that. But when we need “strategy,†I think we’ll stick to getting it “in-house,†not rely on a "disinterested" paralegal.

That's good and I don't know much about your new "in-house", but who did the interviews? Mr. Bradford got you Seham, what did Mr. Cleary get? In other words whose point of view was the new "in-house" trying to fit?

“Everything it wants†would mean tossing the entire thing out on reversible error with either no ability to retry (a bit of a long-shot?) or else the right to retry with guidelines and/or without Wake.

You should know without me telling you that a change of judge is not going to be ordered by the 9th Circuit. To be honest I have never heard of that happening.

But assuming there is a new trial, worse case for us is the 9th Circuit remands back for “ripeness.†Kind of like the Breeger decision. If so, until theres a DOH-based (with restrictions) contract, theres no “ripeness,†so no trial. But even if there is a new trial, with Bradford properly served, his intent/motivations still don’t matter. Surely someone of your legal prowess can read and understand Rakestraw. Any wonder Harper and Wake fought “tooth and nail†to keep it out of the jury’s knowledge?

I have read Rakestraw and, like the Judge, don't think it is applicable here. I have posted that before so that isn't a news flash. It appears to "my legal prowess" that Seham is the one who is mis-reading and mis-applying Rakestraw.

 

[Megasnoop]

hp, We in the east still operate under a DOH system

Every new hire pilot coming on board in the east will see that as long as the east is still in seperate operations, he moves to the left seat very quickly! The new hires in the east will always vote with the "Old East guys".

Take a good look at that average age of the east pilot........58

When was the last time you were able to tell a 58 year old pilot how to think?

Ouch, Fly. I never really thought of it that way. But your right. Quicker upgrades under separate ops with DOH back east. New hires own self-interest (plus the higher pay rates of LOA84) will mean replacing one DOH voter with another. That 2:1 ratio of E Vs W (assuming more than 100 of them join in good standing) will continue til we're all replaced with Mag-Levs.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

Just a point of order if I may. It's much more than jaded! It's Jaded, Cynical, Negative, Mercenary & sad along with a whole bunch of other adjectives.

I do know that Seniority is very important, however one cannot not make a mortgage payment or pay for wife #3's Porche with it so ultimately it all does come down to coin.

Honor & Integrity alas are ancient concepts in a modern society obsessed with RIGHT NOW! We see it in corporations, unions, churches and most civic institutions.

Money talks and BS walks and those of us who believe in things like Honor, Integrity, Courage, Trust and Credibility are sadly dinosaurs from a bygone age.

Piney, from one dinosaur to another, well said indeed.

 

[luvn737s]

From USAPA's Safety Squa(n)dron:

There were many more, including one we proposed requiring all regional airlines to become part of the operating certificate of the airline for which they contract their flying. Needless to say, that one didn’t sit too well with the industry folks.

The vast majority of all recommendations are costly and time consuming. The “immediacyâ€￾ of the meeting was not nearly as possible as some may have thought. USAPA had substantial input, which was realistic and focused on safety. None of what we proposed was without cost, without requiring voluntary compliance by the carriers or without new regulation by the FAA. None of our input was part of the immediate implementation on which the FAA has decided to move forward; some will likely be acted on in the future. Of course, USAPA was not alone in not having proposals immediately implemented. The other pilot unions also lacked success. This was not surprising — true professionals don’t look for quick fixes or political band aids.

At least USAPA is consistent: Every suggestion (read "demand") is unreasonable and beyond reasonable consideration. Are these dopes really worth their stipend? I wouldn't wait by the phone for another invitation to participate in crafting safety standards when you refuse to proffer something useable.

"We're right and everyone else is wrong". They've learned their lines well.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

I can't explain hp's motivations...and wouldn't try to.

But statements like that offset any rational posts he may make in between. I don't believe it's from not being informed...it's from his pre-disposition to the west that ridiculous comments like this bubble out now and again.

Whatever...I see lots of that stuff these days.

To coin a phrase, "me too". Hp has an inordinate interest in not only the lawsuit but he also is so biased that he leans like the tower of Pisa towards the west. For a time I thought he was a former employee by his avatar. Now I think he may be a west attorney or a maintenance engineer for black helicopters.

As you say, "whatever"..... <_<

 

[cleardirect]

“Everything it wants†would mean tossing the entire thing out on reversible error with either no ability to retry (a bit of a long-shot?) or else the right to retry with guidelines and/or without Wake. How about “lets assume†Wake won’t get another shot at it at all? Maybe the 9th will decide he cant be unbiased and cant have it back. But assuming there is a new trial, worse case for us is the 9th Circuit remands back for “ripeness.†Kind of like the Breeger decision. If so, until theres a DOH-based (with restrictions) contract, theres no “ripeness,†so no trial. But even if there is a new trial, with Bradford properly served, his intent/motivations still don’t matter. Surely someone of your legal prowess can read and understand Rakestraw. Any wonder Harper and Wake fought “tooth and nail†to keep it out of the jury’s knowledge?

Kind of an optimistic point of view. But I believe that you missed a few very real possibilities. Very real possibility number 1. The ninth circuit upholds judge Wake and what usapa managed to do was delay this entire group another two years. Now on the 5- 10% chance that the case does get remanded back to judge Wake. We go through the entire trial but this time the jury gets to hear all of that so important evidence that Seham thinks can change the case. Still will not make a difference and we end up right back where we started.

The ninth circuit find thats the case is not ripe yet. Not likely but give the benefit of the doubt for a minute. That means that usapa now has to go and negotiate a DOH list with the company. That is not automatic. As the company has already accepted the Nicolau list. Being the company they are not going to just give it to you for free. So the east pilots end up buying the seniority that you say is not for sale. So on a very long shot usapa manages to buy the east seniority. Now this case is ripe.

We go back to court and do it all over again. Same outcome DFR.

Oh I know what you are thinking. Yes but the east gets separate ops in the mean time so either way you win. Things change. Separate ops very soon may not be in the east’s best interest much longer. As we keep hearing how old the east is. That age 60 rule will start to cut the other way.

"Inevitably differences arise in the manner and degree to which the terms of any negotiated agreement affect individual employees and classes of employees. The mere existence of such differences does not make them invalid. The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected.â€[/i] Rakestraw. If union leaders took account of the fact that the workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears
more harshly on the minority. Cf. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990).

These principles dispose of the Ozark-TWA case. ALPA's "merger policy" could not compel TWA to agree to anything, and it did not seem likely, under the circumstances, to produce agreement within the union either. So ALPA experimented, emphasizing negotiations between representatives of the two groups rather than what Duffy feared would be premature intra-union litigation. Perhaps Duffy’s handlers were wrong, but a mistake in judgment does not violate the duty of fair representation.

For the reasons developed in Part II of that opinion, however, a "bad" motive does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves the interests of workers as a whole, and that treats employees who are pariahs in the union's eyes no worse than it treats similarly situated supporters of the union. From Rakestraw we learn that you can do something for a good motive or a bad motive and not run foul of DFR.

Judge Wake made sure that the jury never heard any of this from Rakestraw - The appeals court will.

From the barnyard, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.†George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945

Rakestraw, Rakestraw, Rakestraw. Blah blah blah. Who cares. From the very first day that is the single case that Seham has leaned on. Guess what. In the judge’s first order he told you, usapa and Seham that it would not support the weight that usapa was putting on it. That was a clear signal that Seham needed to find a different case to build a defense. But Seham blindly plowed ahead.

Have you though of what happens if the ninth circuit agrees with Wake that Rakestraw does not apply? What happens to your appeal? Have you though of the possibility that Seham might be wrong? Could it be that Seham is the only lawyer in the country that thinks this will work? Has the BPR gotten a second opinion about the appeal?

NO! That’s right the only other lawyer that usapa had looking at the appeal got fired. Brengle is out. Could that have something to do with Seham wanting to be the only voice that Cleary hears? Once again the dissenting voice is silenced under the usapa regime.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

The technical point I was trying to make was that the compnay that the 23+ year pilot worked for went bankrupt. Legally, that company ceased to exist. The stock became literally worthless. That was my point.

If USAirways ceased to exist, then what did Parker buy? Air? The stock became worthless (tell me about it! I have a bathroom wall papered with it) but everything else still existed.

In my opinion, if it suits Parker to dump AWA for whatever reason going forward with his mantra of consolidation, I don't think he would miss a heartbeat over it. Then you will have no reason to write your book about USAirways East pilots: People I have Known And Loved.