US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/24-6/30 Stay On Topic

[700UW]

7 or 8 years?

I guess you forgot about the RLA and section 6 negotiations for both sides when after a 30 day cooling off period the company is free to impose a CBA and the union is free to strike.

 

[exB717Flyer]

This ruling pretty much ensures seperate ops for the next 8 to 10 years.

You can live through the next boom cycle stuck with LOA93? I doubt it. Let's get a TA and see what happens, shall we?

 

[GuntherA320]

You can live through the next boom cycle stuck with LOA93? I doubt it. Let's get a TA and see what happens, shall we?

No one over here wants to live with LOA 93. However....when given a choice between LOA 93 and combined ops.....90% of east pilots will vote for continued seperate ops and LOA 93. You guys have seriously underestimated the East pilots resolve on this matter. 700....i haven't forgotten about section 6....what you don't realize is that the judge won't allow one side or the other to go section 6. If what you're saying is that after the East side contract is ammendable that the company can implement LOA 93 on both sides and implement the NIC....well....maybe you're right....but I don't see that happening. But then again...I could be wrong. Then it will be 2 years......both sides will share the pain......and the company would be in utter chaos with both sides revolting. This place would implode.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If what you're saying is that after the East side contract is ammendable that the company can implement LOA 93 on both sides and implement the NIC....well....maybe you're right....but I don't see that happening.

Outside of bankruptcy the company can't impose a contract until released from mediation and the cooling off period expires. If the final judicial remedy is the same as the draft posted earlier, there'll be no section 6 negotiations to begin the process that could ultimately end in a company imposed contract, so no imposed contract. The judge will have halted that process before it began.

Jim

 

[Megasnoop]

How supremely observant of you to notice. The damages trial isn't until August.

Damages? What damages? The only ones you stood a prayer of getting was for out-of-seniority furloughs/downgrades. Thanks to one of your own sharp knives who filed grevances on those before Addington filed, the judge took your damages (counts 1&2) and gave them to an arbitrator. Count 1 lost in arbitration. You no-showed count 2 (out-of-seniority furloughs).

Wakes remedy decision is nothing more than a rehash of his thinking out loud in the middle of the trial. How much $$ did both sides spend on this? We paid for it out of dues and your MX fees. How much do you owe your attorneys? Gunther summed it up well.

7 or 8 years?

I guess you forgot about the RLA and section 6 negotiations for both sides when after a 30 day cooling off period the company is free to impose a CBA and the union is free to strike.

700, you dont get to an impasse until after mediation when both sides stop smiling at each other. And with this ruling, $70M coming in and with LOA84, we're going to be doing a lot of smiling at the table over the next 8-10 years.

 

[traderjake]

No one over here wants to live with LOA 93. However....when given a choice between LOA 93 and combined ops.....90% of east pilots will vote for continued seperate ops and LOA 93.

90% of the Captains I fly with say the courts are not going to allow USAPA to rewrite the seniority list and that it's time to get paid.

 

[GuntherA320]

Outside of bankruptcy the company can't impose a contract until released from mediation and the cooling off period expires. If the final judicial remedy is the same as the draft posted earlier, there'll be no section 6 negotiations to begin the process that could ultimately end in a company imposed contract, so no imposed contract. The judge will have halted that process before it began.

Jim

Jim.....just so i'm clear.....what you're saying is that, in your opinion, i'm right and 700 is wrong? I think I know the answer....I just want to hear it from you.

 

[USA320Pilot]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark
Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;
Steve Wargocki,

Plaintiffs,
vs.
US Airline Pilots Association; US
Airways, Inc.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez; Steve Wargocki, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
Steven Bradford; Paul Diorio; Robert Frear; Mark King; Douglas Mowery; John Stephan, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 08-1633-PHX-NVW
(consolidated)

ORDER
CV08-1728-PHX-NVW

The Court has composed the following draft language for the injunction order against USAPA in this case. This language is published to the parties for any comments or objections they wish to make before the order is entered.

In accord with the foregoing and the entire record in this action, it is hereby ordered that Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to negotiate and implement a single collective bargaining agreement with US Airways that will implement the Nicolau Award seniority proposal unmodified, according to its terms. Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to support and defend the seniority rights provided by or arising from the Nicolau Award in negotiations with US Airways. Defendant USAPA shall not negotiate for separate collective bargaining agreements for the separate pilot groups, but shall rather negotiate for a single collective bargaining agreement that incorporates the Nicolau Award.

The Court retains jurisdiction to modify or dissolve this order upon motion of any party.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that counsel for both parties may submit any comments and objections relating to the Court’s proposed injunction language on or before
June 30, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 539 Filed 06/25/2009

 

[BoeingBoy]

Gunther,

You were sorta right if I understand your earlier post correctly. You said that you "didn't see" the company imposing a contract. I took that to mean that they wouldn't impose a contract, not that they couldn't. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize.

I'm saying that the company can't impose a contract (other than by going into bankruptcy) because there can't be separate Section 6 negotiations if the judge's draft remedy stands.

700 was right in the general sense - the company can impose a contract after the Section 6 steps required by the NMB are exhausted - negotiate, mediate, cool off. In this specific case, however, he's wrong if the judges draft remedy stands. Section 6 negotiations can't start so the steps can't be exhausted. Sorta like saying how long it'll take you to drive from MIA to BOS. Normally it's X hours, but if a judge says you can't leave MIA you can't drive to BOS in a million hours.

Jim

 

[GuntherA320]

Gunther,

You were sorta right if I understand your earlier post correctly. You said that you "didn't see" the company imposing a contract. I took that to mean that they wouldn't impose a contract, not that they couldn't.

I'm saying that the company can't impose a contract (other than by going into bankruptcy) because there can't be separate Section 6 negotiations if the judge's draft remedy stands.

Jim

Thanks Jim......that's what i thought....I wasn't 100% sure they couldn't do it.....but if you say so.....well then I believe it to be true.

 

[spike99]

name='USA320Pilot' date='Jun 25 2009, 10:07 PM' post='692956']
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark
Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;
Steve Wargocki,

Plaintiffs,
vs.
US Airline Pilots Association; US
Airways, Inc.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez; Steve Wargocki, et al., Plaintiffs,
vs.
Steven Bradford; Paul Diorio; Robert Frear; Mark King; Douglas Mowery; John Stephan, et al., Defendants.

No. CV 08-1633-PHX-NVW
(consolidated)

ORDER
CV08-1728-PHX-NVW

The Court has composed the following draft language for the injunction order against USAPA in this case. This language is published to the parties for any comments or objections they wish to make before the order is entered.

In accord with the foregoing and the entire record in this action, it is hereby ordered that Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to negotiate and implement a single collective bargaining agreement with US Airways that will implement the Nicolau Award seniority proposal unmodified, according to its terms. Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to support and defend the seniority rights provided by or arising from the Nicolau Award in negotiations with US Airways. Defendant USAPA shall not negotiate for separate collective bargaining agreements for the separate pilot groups, but shall rather negotiate for a single collective bargaining agreement that incorporates the Nicolau Award.

The Court retains jurisdiction to modify or dissolve this order upon motion of any party.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that counsel for both parties may submit any comments and objections relating to the Court’s proposed injunction language on or before
June 30, 2009.

DATED this 25th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 539 Filed 06/25/2009
[/quote]Great, we incorporate the Nic into the next CBA with 15 year fences, and furloughs by LOS. Sounds great to me, doesn't affect anyone from their expectations, unless of course you're a Westie trying to take advantage of the East Attrition.

 

[traderjake]

well I'm not a pilot /lawyer/labor expert somebody needs to explain to me how it is right that an 86 hire is junior to a 99 hire??

Because the position the 99 hire brought to the merger was senior to the position the 86 hire held at their respective airlines.

Should a 15 year East Reserve First Officer be senior to a 10 year West Captain?

Why, because the East was a stagnant, poorly run company for 15 years?

The position you could hold before the merger is what matters, not the amount of time it took you to get there.

 

[nic4us]

No one over here wants to live with LOA 93. However....when given a choice between LOA 93 and combined ops.....90% of east pilots will vote for continued seperate ops and LOA 93. You guys have seriously underestimated the East pilots resolve on this matter.

Gunther,

The West understands your resolve pretty well. Perhaps you are correct in that it will take 10 years, but I feel you are reading this remedy for what you want to see in it and not for what is in it.

First, this is an affirmation that Seham and USAPA are wrong. 10 months or 10 years does not change the fact that the east voted in a new union in the hopes of doing something they could not legally do, and now they will have to "defend" the very thing they set out to reneg. I would imagine that to include during any future merger negotiations.

Second, the remedy says, "shall immediately", I would love to be at the next negotiating session to see USAPA concede the Nic as their sect 22 and witness the company's reply.

Third, you are baseing your willingness to remain on LOA93 through a vision of the status quo. The only constant is change, and big changes are in store for us. We have a damages trial starting in just over a month, we have the company seeking more VLAs, we have new routes and new destinations being added and some subtracted. All these changes will be impacted by USAPAs liability of DFR and the guaranteeing of the Nic.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Judge Wake's order states, "Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to negotiate and implement a single collective bargaining agreement with US Airways that will implement the Nicolau Award seniority proposal unmodified, according to its terms. Defendant USAPA and its officers, committees, representatives, and agents shall immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to support and defend the seniority rights provided by or arising from the Nicolau Award in negotiations with US Airways."

USA320Pilot comments: USAPA is expected to appeal Judge Wake's decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in SFO. For information on the appeal click here and here.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[nic4us]

Damages? What damages?

Oh I would say 2 million worth of dues payable to a union liable for failure of DFR for starters.

Then I would add a stack of legal bills, and top it off with Punitive damages if the BPR so much as hints of a stalling tactic.