5 justices liked Ted Olsen and what his clients case was about and viewed the law one way, 4 justices liked David Boies and what he argued for his client in the case and split a decision 5-4. It was a case that had everything to do with political bias and how it colored each judges interpretation of the law. To assume that the politics of Judge Wake and the 9th Circuit are the same would be foolish. They could rule either way and predicting who they are predisposed to liking, their politics, and how it might affect their ruling has merit based on Bush V. Gore but assuming which side their political bias endears them to at this point would be foolish. There will be an Amicus Curiae brief with several signatories and politics and a broad or narrow interpretation of the law governing union behavior and rights will be under review.
US Pilots Labor Thread Aug 27-Sep 3 KEEP ON TOPIC
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
5 justices liked Ted Olsen and what his clients case was about and viewed the law one way, 4 justices liked David Boies and what he argued for his client in the case and split a decision 5-4. It was a case that had everything to do with political bias and how it colored each judges interpretation of the law. To assume that the politics of Judge Wake and the 9th Circuit are the same would be foolish. They could rule either way and predicting who they are predisposed to liking, their politics, and how it might affect their ruling has merit based on Bush V. Gore but assuming which side their political bias endears them to at this point would be foolish. There will be an Amicus Curiae brief with several signatories and politics and a broad or narrow interpretation of the law governing union behavior and rights will be under review.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
That was an interesting answer and I respect that you tried to give a good response so I will limit my response to one question.
Gore did indeed lose to Bush 5-4. However Gore won a lot of states. What to date has the AAA MEC, and then subsequently USAPA, won in this series of seniority arbitration and litigation battles?
Gore did indeed lose to Bush 5-4. However Gore won a lot of states. What to date has the AAA MEC, and then subsequently USAPA, won in this series of seniority arbitration and litigation battles?
Eastisleast
Member
The truth and nothing but the truth.......its time to move on. We all really need a better contract.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
I agree wholeheartedly.
But I question the sanity and/or motives of your west brethren who are chomping at the bit to get a vote on the Kirby proposal.
I question the sanity based on the fact that the east "book contract" signed in 1998 has pay rates that are eye-watering compared to anything the west has ever had, the east has had for about 7 years, and the Kirby proposal. This means that the Kirby proposal is a huge concessionary contract for the east when compared to the "book contract." This combined with the fact that the east "book contract" is still in effect (though modified by LOA due to extraordinary circumstance and management non-, mis-, malfeasance,) leads one to believe that we need to be negotiating for an 11 year (since the signing) IMPROVEMENT on the east book.
I question the motive, of course, for the obvious reason that the west is chomping at the bit to get the Nicolau into effect, and it will take a combined contract to do it. (Even Judge
Well if you are going to use the states and voters Gore won as an argument for him pursuing his legal rights, then the same could be said for USAPA who won an election and a "majority" of voters.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
I guess you could argue on the neutrality of that election, occurring with so many East people having been very whipped-up with emotion and few West MIGS able to vote. However, the point remains that in the context of the seniority integration arbitration/litigation that USAPA hasn't won in front of any outsider. (I know, wait for a decision in the January - March time frame.)
Elevation
Veteran
- Oct 21, 2002
- 869
- 32
Why don't you ask your NC why they are not trying to get this? Aren't they asking for way less than that?
Even Doug Parker openly mocked them in the crew news 08/18/09 :
"One third piece of evidence of that (that snapbacks to old book won't happen), look at the contract negotiations we've had, we're negotiating for rates lower than that... why would you ever do that?. None of it makes any sense its disingenuous... and there going to lose."
Get back to us on the response from the NC, I'm dieing to hear it.
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,036
- 1,529
[quote name='nycbusdriver' date='Aug 29 2009, 07:51 AM' post='705068
I question the sanity based on the fact that the east "book contract" signed in 1998 has pay rates that are eye-watering compared to anything the west has ever had, the east has had for about 7 years, and the Kirby proposal. This means that the Kirby proposal is a huge concessionary contract for the east when compared to the "book contract." This combined with the fact that the east "book contract" is still in effect (though modified by LOA due to extraordinary circumstance and management non-, mis-, malfeasance,) leads one to believe that we need to be negotiating for an 11 year (since the signing) IMPROVEMENT on the east book.
[/quote]
The time to achieve the "eyewatering" rates has long since passed.
Had the Nicolau Award been accepted two years ago when LCC was reporting profits, a joint contract might have been achieved with much higher rates than will be seen in any forthcoming T/A. Since that window has long since passed, and LCC is not profitable, don't hold your breath for an 11 year improvement in book rates.
It doesn't matter what the West never had or what the East once had. It's what can be achieved jointly going forward that is important.
I question the sanity based on the fact that the east "book contract" signed in 1998 has pay rates that are eye-watering compared to anything the west has ever had, the east has had for about 7 years, and the Kirby proposal. This means that the Kirby proposal is a huge concessionary contract for the east when compared to the "book contract." This combined with the fact that the east "book contract" is still in effect (though modified by LOA due to extraordinary circumstance and management non-, mis-, malfeasance,) leads one to believe that we need to be negotiating for an 11 year (since the signing) IMPROVEMENT on the east book.
[/quote]
The time to achieve the "eyewatering" rates has long since passed.
Had the Nicolau Award been accepted two years ago when LCC was reporting profits, a joint contract might have been achieved with much higher rates than will be seen in any forthcoming T/A. Since that window has long since passed, and LCC is not profitable, don't hold your breath for an 11 year improvement in book rates.
It doesn't matter what the West never had or what the East once had. It's what can be achieved jointly going forward that is important.
Megasnoop
Veteran
Well no kidding. Put the blame where it belongs. It was ALPA that didn't accept the NIC 2 years ago. But then, do you really think a Kirby contract with the NIC in it would have passed? If you do, I've got some swamp land...
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #40
“book contract†in 1998. Welcome to 2009. What happened in 1998 is long gone.
But you said it yourself. You HAD those rate. What do you HAVE now. Less then what we make.
All you guys and wish upon a star but that does not make it so.
I guess the water in the eyes will be when reality finally dawns, that the appeal is dead and the “book contract†was a long ago dream. Perhaps that real 20%-25% raise is going to look better then the government type pay cut from some made pay rate.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #41
From 16 months ago to the present it is USAPA, and the same east pilots that still do not accept Nicolou.
So currently it is USAPA to blame for not having a contract.
Speaking of long ago, just for kicks, here's some fun from 1999 .... http://cf.alpa.org/MEC/AAA/docs/newmectoda...10/merg1000.pdf
N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,036
- 1,529
ALPA did accept the NIC. They even handed it to LCC management and it was accepted.
There will be a joint contract with the NIC someday. After ? years of litigation and appeal the end result will be the same. Except there would have been a better contract sooner than later.
Hey, it's only money though. What's another couple of hundred thousand dollars of lost income when you've already taken a 36-100% paycut, lost your DB pension plan and all the contractual provisions that once made this a great career.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
You know the Nicolau Award of 2007 has much in common with the previous Nicolau Award as far as setting apart one group and then using a formula on those outside the top 517. Additionally, it was interesting that in the Shuttle integration that neither party sought the so-called "gold standard" (I still hate that term) of DOH as the basis of the integration.
Bush had been shot down twice on the recount by the FL Supreme Court but there was one more card to play. I'm sure he was glad he played it. The US Supreme Court for all its neutrality, only had 1 vote in play, Anthony Kennedy. Both sides new the legal interpretation is subjective and 4 votes on either side were all but in the bag due to political and philosophical bias. On one side you Scalia, Thomas, Renquist, and O'Connor, on the other Stevens, Bryer, Souter, and Ginsburg.
The whole confirmation process on Sotomayor had nothing to due with legal competency or experience and everything to do with personal political and philosophical views and how that will color judicial expression. Hardly ever does someone get nominated without the proper credentials.
To say that Wake's interpretation of the law, was/is the only possible outcome would be to ignore the fact that on the highest court in the land, the court is divided on the issue of abortion and whether the mother or unborn child's rights has legal primacy under the constitution. Same document and wildly divergent views between judges on interpretation and how it applies.
- Status
Similar threads
