US Pilots Labor Thread 8/20-8/27- NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[cleardirect]

I attacked JS denials on both sides and never took a stand who was more at fault.

I supported COBRA on this chat board for the west pilots who refused to join. I could see the position they were in. Join and get slammed in the crew room or just ride it out. I sent my BPR a letter on that. I haven’t followed if that got resolved or not. The RICO was thrown out of Fed court for the same reason the DFR was thrown out of AZ state court: jurisdiction. West types drool over the first but ignore the 2nd. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with merits. I never said we’d win the DFR court suit. The way the judge set up what he’d allow in, as far back as February it was obvious there was no way we could. I posted that before the trial started. Point is, the Ninth will decide if he committed reversible error or wasn’t ripe, not this board.

Clear says the Ninth took it on short notice because of the concept of binding arbitration was at stake. Maybe so, but on the flip side, the Ninth maybe expedited it because the concept of a union being allowed to bargain without pre-set conditions is also at stake. We’ll know next winter. Or the Ninth could uphold the plaintiff, then it should be over. Or reverse on ripeness with no other reason. However this turns out, I hope both sides will just move on and let the Ninth decision end this and not retry on ad nauseum on this board. Totally lost in this E/W battle is what a labor thread should really be about: labor Vs management. Get back to that and maybe we’ll all have some good discussion.

Here is an interesting twist. As one of the strongest supporters and advocates for USAPA. The positions you take now sound quite reasonable. I don’t have the time or inclination to go research past posts. But suffice it to say that reading a couple of years of posts, they sure did not come off as how you are now trying to characterize them.

One correction to the record. The RICO suit was not dropped on jurisdiction reasons. It was dropped because USAPA could not make the case. You are right juristiction does not have anything to do with merit. But the RICO case was dropped exactly because it had no merit.

So don’t be surprised if that case does not come back and bite.

Document 97 RICO suit page 45 Plaintiffs are USAPA, defendants are the individual west pilots in this suit.

VII. CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendants’ purpose is to “destroy USAPA†undermines the Plaintiff’s RICO claims in two respects. By asserting that the Defendants’ goal is the destruction of the Plaintiff itself, of the Plaintiff fails to meet the continuity requirement RICO and also fails to allege adequately an essential element of extortion, namely, that the Defendants seek to “obtain†the Plaintiff’s “property.†For these reasons, the Court concludes that Counts One and Two of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and accordingly, these claims are dismissed.

Not jurisdiction.

I agree that the ninth should end it. But it usapa wins it will not end. It will continue for several more years.
It would be good to get back to labor vs. management. But at this point usapa is causing more harm and is a bigger threat to me and the west then management.

For example it was usapa the union that tried and failed to fire west pilots not management. For the last two years it was usapa and the east that was holding up contract talks not management. So when usapa and the east pilots decide that west pilots are not the enemy and turn their attacks on management maybe we can get on the same side.

 

[Megasnoop]

Here is an interesting twist. As one of the strongest supporters and advocates for USAPA. The positions you take now sound quite reasonable. I don’t have the time or inclination to go research past posts. But suffice it to say that reading a couple of years of posts, they sure did not come off as how you are now trying to characterize them.

Then reread a few and tell me where anything I posted is differnt than my last. I'm not going to do it for you. Same positions as posted before.

Speaking of rereading posts, to USA320Pilot, all I can say is thanks for the memories. You don't have to read them all, just one or two (all posted before his 4 month board absense)

Posted on: Aug 15 2007, 12:02 AM
After discussing with an USAPA Officer the drive to remove ALPA from both the US Airways and AWA property according to their Council, Seham, Seham, Meltz, and Petersen, in 1954 the Teamsters sued the NLRB over control of a seniority list because the Teamsters desired to re-write a seniority list outside contract negotiations. The NLRB disapproved this action, which resulted in the Teamsters complaint filed in court. The case was filed with the Second District Federal Court who ruled in favor of the union; however, the lower court’s decision was appealed and over turned by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRB when it issued Citation # 107 NLRB 837; NLRB v Teamsters, 225 F. 2d. 343. On page 19 the Supreme Court said, “In 1954, the NLRB ruled that seniority status in mergers must be resolved by agreement between the employer and the union, not by the union unilaterally.â€

What is germane to our pilot group dispute and important to note is that the Nicolau Award is a private agreement among the parties, ALPA is a party to the Award, and ALPA is pledged to defend it. However, what is very important to understand is that if ALPA is no longer present than it cannot defend the Award!

And, seniority rights live in a CBA and not necessarily in an outside agreement. As you know, Section 22 of our current contracts is not closed and paragraph 22.B.1 of the East contract says, “Seniority of a pilot shall be based upon the length of service of an airline pilot in the employ of the Company or its predecessor airline companies whose operations have been taken by the Company.â€

The Supreme Court ruling above, the removal of ALPA from the seniority integration process, current contract rights afforded in Section 22 of the ALPA contract, and the removal of ALPA from both of our properties can vacate the Nicolau Award.

Once USAPA takes control over the combined pilot group there will be a new seniority integration negotiation. USAPA cannot deprive, and will not deprive, the West their right to negotiate a new seniority integration agreement and they will allow the process to carry out. USAPA and their Counsel clearly understands they cannot “lock out†the minority group (the AWA pilots) because this would create a DFR lawsuit, which could be won by the plaintiff. But, the majority group can “vote out†the minority group and implement a seniority integration, which can be effectively imposed. Basically USAPA could close the question, call the vote, call for the “I’s†who would decide the matter, the case would be closed, and seniority imposition would occur.

Also noteworthy, as USAPA grows their case and position continues to gain strength through the expertise of their Counsel. They are very close to filing the application for a card count and representational election.

Gentlemen, it is my understanding that the Rice Committee hopes to have recommendations/solutions by around Labor Day.

To make it perfectly clear to you what will happen, without a “realistic solution†that will likely be proposed by the Rice Committee, USAPA will become the new bargaining agent for the US Airways and the AWA pilots in the not-to-distant future. Next the seniority award/seniority integration will be re-visited. USAPA will not deprive the minority group of pilots of their legal rights to participate in the seniority negotiation process. Once the minority group presents their case in argument, with no agreement between the parties a new seniority list can be presented to the membership and imposed on the minority list.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

QUOTE(USA320Pilot @ Jun 3 2007, 08:45 PM)
According to an ALPA EVP I have talked to the EC believes it has the right to throw out the Nicolau Award if a consensual agreement between the parties is not obtained.
Regards,

USA320Pilot

USA320Pilot

Posted on: May 22 2007, 07:38 PM

Bear,

Let me explain things for you.

The East and West employees are tied together regarding the combined business entities earnings and financial health.

Can the two groups be operated separately? Absolutely, which has been going on for about 2 years.

As far as the East pilots, there is a lot of benefit of remaining separate including large pay increases due to attrition based career expectations, a $35 million bonus payment due on both January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011 for a total of $70 million. If split equally amoung the active East pilots this would be about $23,000 per pilot.

Regards,

USA320Pilot


AWA320 Pilot said: “Look partner, our careers on the west are now stagnant as a result of this merger. We will not allow you and the east to place YOUR burdens on our backs!!â€

USA320Pilot comments: I have to correct the inaccurate statement above. During the May 8-9 JNC – Company talks AWA Vice chairman Mitch Vasin was talking to US Airways president Scott Kirby, other management personal, and JNC members. Vasin was talking about how the merger has harmed the AWA pilots and Kirby said without the merger and financing US Airways’ consultant Joth Luth of the Deabury Group brought to the merger AWA would have filed bankruptcy.

Kirby then said that he was placed in charge of a program called “Project Zanzibarâ€, which was a formal reorganization and 15% downsizing of the company’s ASM’s. Thus, without the merger the AWA pilots would not have had to worry about stagnation, but instead would have likely had furloughs, pay cuts, and other contract loses according to Kirby.
In regard to AWA stagnation, it’s going to be much worse with the stand-off between the East and West pilots and could get ugly very fast, but that is the AWA pilots choice for not abiding my the EC’s resolution.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[hp_fa]

Did you review your notes on whether Wake questioned attorney fees?

Yes, and I also have a personal recollection of the discussion. (My opinion of the difference between what I said happened and what you claim happened is, in my opinion, spin on what occurred. It wasn't wrong that a discussion occurred, but the way that USAPA discussed it was artfully phrased.)

There was a discussion about attorneys fees. The discussion started with a discussion of when the supporting documents and authority would be filed. Then the Judge asked the plaintiffs about their theory and Andy Jacob responded that it would be under the "common benefit doctrine". The judge asked what the amount claimed was and they erroneously answered $1.7 mil (The prior filing said $1.8 mil.) Judge Wake then asked the defendants what their fees to date were and Granneth did not know the answer and said he just bills for his work and doesn't know that answer, so the judge never got an answer to that. The only discussion was the theory of recovery, not the right to recovery and then how it will be presented to the Court. Andy Jacob said it would be a question of law and not a question of fact and therefore not require an evidenciary hearing. Judge Wake was somewhat skeptical that it could not require an evidenciary hearing, but will decide that when the matter is briefed.

(My personal opinion is that it will require an evidenciary hearing and that the defendants will also be required to state their entire fees for this matter so that the judge can view the amount of bills generated by both sides. If he does that the fees paid to SSM&P for the entire trial will be in one place at one time and not spread through an LM-2.)

So now it is my turn to ask. Do you have the transcript yet and can you prove me to be incorrect? If so post the whole thing somewhere so everyone here can judge whether my notes, taken on the fly in the hearing, were substantially correct or not.

 

[Pi brat]

For the last two years it was usapa and the east that was holding up contract talks not management.
[/quote]
So now that USAPA has the federal gun to it's head we can expect a the company to put a full contract proposal on the table any day now?

 

[cubfan]

LOA 93 payout results plan A 75%/24% 2800 eligable voters 2100 votes cast 75%

 

[Elevation]

For the last two years it was usapa and the east that was holding up contract talks not management.

So now that USAPA has the federal gun to it's head we can expect a the company to put a full contract proposal on the table any day now?

They have a full proposal on the table for a while it's called the Kirby proposal.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Well the question was, what if? What if usapa legal circle is, however small it is, WRONG?

Will it all be worth it if the appeal fails?

Will it be worth it....

In the end, I have no dog in this fight...at least not that will affect my career personally.

I think it's well worth it. Even an arbitration should have some modicum of fairness to those involved. Nicolau simply ignored the long, hard work and incredible sacrifices made by many of my colleagues, including losing their jobs for a time. He basically said these sacrifices were nothing.

I disagree, and disagree vehemently. I know fair when I see it, and the Nicolau list is not fair in any sense at all. It doesn't even pretend to fairness, but simply to a false premise which even the CEO has said on many occasions is false.

So, I still say: USAPA....GO FOR IT...to the last dollar take this fight as far as you can. It is money well spent.

 

[cubfan]

They have a full proposal on the table for a while it's called the Kirby proposal.

Thats no proposal.......thats a joke

 

[Pi brat]

They have a full proposal on the table for a while it's called the Kirby proposal.

I believe that was just for the payrates, but even so, if that is your idea of a full proposal you are management's dream come true.

 

[Elevation]

I believe that was just for the payrates, but even so, if that is your idea of a full proposal you are management's dream come true.

It covers sections 1-30 so it's a full proposal so your wrong their. It's not my proposal that's why it's called the Kirby proposal so your wrong again.

 

[nycbusdriver]

It covers sections 1-30 so it's a full proposal so your wrong their. It's not my proposal that's why it's called the Kirby proposal so your wrong again.

Yeah...it covers sections 1-30, so it's full....full of what I can't say without getting booted again.

Basically, take the worst aspects of each contract, gives the west pilots 3% and brings the east pilots parity.

Yeah. It's full alright.

 

[flyer63]

Will it be worth it....

In the end, I have no dog in this fight...at least not that will affect my career personally.

I think it's well worth it. Even an arbitration should have some modicum of fairness to those involved. Nicolau simply ignored the long, hard work and incredible sacrifices made by many of my colleagues, including losing their jobs for a time. He basically said these sacrifices were nothing.

I disagree, and disagree vehemently. I know fair when I see it, and the Nicolau list is not fair in any sense at all. It doesn't even pretend to fairness, but simply to a false premise which even the CEO has said on many occasions is false.

So, I still say: USAPA....GO FOR IT...to the last dollar take this fight as far as you can. It is money well spent.

NYC busdriver... I hope to run into you some day. Thank you as someone who has No Dog in this fight.. standing tall next to us that have been Hammered by this award and do have a dog in this fight!... and thanks for voting for option A... I'm sure you did that as well.
thanks

 

[nycbusdriver]

NYC busdriver... I hope to run into you some day. Thank you as someone who has No Dog in this fight.. standing tall next to us that have been Hammered by this award and do have a dog in this fight!... and thanks for voting for option A... I'm sure you did that as well.
thanks

You are very welcome. I certainly did vote for option A, and I guess you are aware that it passed 75% to 25%.

Maybe it's not a precise indicator, but that is a fair notion of the sentiment on the east even among the captains who "have no dog in this fight." I have been very gratified, and even surprised in some cases, by colleagues in my seniority range who "get it." Some who I thought would be out for themselves have expressed strong opinions in support of the junior guys who have taken it in the shorts at the hands of inept (corrupt?) management so many times in the past 20 years.

It may not be accurate, but I think if the Kirby proposal was up for a vote today, you would see similar results for similar reasons.

 

[Pi brat]

It covers sections 1-30 so it's a full proposal so your wrong their. It's not my proposal that's why it's called the Kirby proposal so your wrong again.

Their?

I said I thought, it's been so long I couldn't remember, so I stand corrected. Yeah, I didn't figure your name was Kirby, but you missed my point, it's not nearly complete enough. The EMB rates are enough reason to read no further.

Back to the injunction. I think that it gives the company a lot of power if they really want a contract. They could put a substandard offer out there and run to the judge saying USAPA wasn't following the order by delaying. Of course maybe they know it would be a mistake, because I agree with busdriver that the Kirby proposal would fail a membership vote by the same ratio as the LOA 93 payout. Unlike some east pilots I think a good contract with the Nic would pass by a thin margin, but I just don't think the company can afford that contract right now.

 

[Barrister]

You are very welcome. I certainly did vote for option A, and I guess you are aware that it passed 75% to 25%.

Maybe it's not a precise indicator, but that is a fair notion of the sentiment on the east even among the captains who "have no dog in this fight." I have been very gratified, and even surprised in some cases, by colleagues in my seniority range who "get it." Some who I thought would be out for themselves have expressed strong opinions in support of the junior guys who have taken it in the shorts at the hands of inept (corrupt?) management so many times in the past 20 years.

It may not be accurate, but I think if the Kirby proposal was up for a vote today, you would see similar results for similar reasons.

Help me with the math here I may have it wrong. 1600 EAST guys voted for an equal distribution. Lets say for the sake of the argument that most if not all were F/O's....the people who would benefit the most. No problem so far. Now when it comes to voting for the NIC....or should I say a contract containing the NIC.....I believe that 98% of EAST F/Os will vote against it. Doesn;t this almost completely neutralize the West votes FOR NIC. Then it will be between the EAST Captains who don't care about NIC v. those EAST Captains who do care about NIC probably 300-400 who don't care and 1000 who DO care. Seems to me it's going to be a long..........well .......you know!!!!