USAirways pilots labor thread 7/23-7-29

[Edward]

Here is the new pilot labor thread. This is a warning to everyone that posts. Do NOT make it personal as this will get you time off & the posts will be removed as we no longer edit.

Last cycle we gave out numerous suspensions & deleted way to many posts. The thread came very near being closed for the cycle. Think before you post.

 

[cleardirect]

More fun from the presidents message.

Now I thought that usapa was an electronic, internet union. Is that what he means by trash talk, the garbage coming from CLT?

The presidents calling the west pilots adversaries. Very nice. The president admitting that he is opposing the very group that he was found to not be representing. When are these guys going to learn?

Lastly. Is your morale being diminished? Just how is that happening? We are trying to give you the facts that your union is not telling you. By telling you that what the union told you, they could do, is not going to happen? That the reason that usapa was formed has been taken away by a federal judge?

This fight is over. The sooner you all realize that the better. You are now required to honor your agreement to final and binding arbitration. Today the east is required to honor a federal injunction. The fundamental concept of seniority is the Nicolau. And the officers and committees have to implement that list unmodified. It that happens to effect your moral that is not the fault of the west adversaries. That is the fault of the usapa leaders that sold you a bill of goods that Cleary and gang can not deliver on.

If you want to read spin. Read the finding of facts and compare that to Cleary’s message. There is the spin of legal skirmishes. Mike listed all of the things the west did not get. Those were nothing more then plays in a long game. The final score is what matters.

USAPA with a federal injunction and a record of DFR. Where was the part that talked about what usapa is required to do?

As previously discussed, USAPA has refrained, and will continue to refrain, from engaging in what amounts to Internet trash talk. Our adversaries in the Addington litigation seek to spin every legal skirmish in hopes of diminishing pilot morale behind the fight to honor the fundamental concept of seniority.

 

[VAflyGal]

I have a question for you guys, and forgive me for sounding one way or another, but what exactly do the Westies think is going to be the outcome of all this? Court ruling, appeal, or binding arbitration notwithstanding, do you really believe there will be any pilot on the east (eg, with a 1988 hire date) who will sit in the right seat while someone with, say, a 2003 hire date, is on the left?

I'm not taking sides on this - I'm just curious if you actually believe the pilots will effectively be merged with all the animosity.

More fun from the presidents message.

Now I thought that usapa was an electronic, internet union. Is that what he means by trash talk, the garbage coming from CLT?

The presidents calling the west pilots adversaries. Very nice. The president admitting that he is opposing the very group that he was found to not be representing. When are these guys going to learn?

Lastly. Is your morale being diminished? Just how is that happening? We are trying to give you the facts that your union is not telling you. By telling you that what the union told you, they could do, is not going to happen? That the reason that usapa was formed has been taken away by a federal judge?

This fight is over. The sooner you all realize that the better. You are now required to honor your agreement to final and binding arbitration. Today the east is required to honor a federal injunction. The fundamental concept of seniority is the Nicolau. And the officers and committees have to implement that list unmodified. It that happens to effect your moral that is not the fault of the west adversaries. That is the fault of the usapa leaders that sold you a bill of goods that Cleary and gang can not deliver on.

If you want to read spin. Read the finding of facts and compare that to Cleary’s message. There is the spin of legal skirmishes. Mike listed all of the things the west did not get. Those were nothing more then plays in a long game. The final score is what matters.

USAPA with a federal injunction and a record of DFR. Where was the part that talked about what usapa is required to do?

 

[hp_fa]

As previously discussed, USAPA has refrained, and will continue to refrain, from engaging in what amounts to Internet trash talk. Our adversaries in the Addington litigation seek to spin every legal skirmish in hopes of diminishing pilot morale behind the fight to honor the fundamental concept of seniority.

Gee, where would one start?

"Internet trash talk"?

1. What was all that stuff that USAPA supporters was putting out during the Cactus RICO and the Addington case?
2. Is that Internet trash talk really communications from members that doesn't comport with USAPA's presbyoptic and cataract-filled view of the world?

Our adversaries in the Addington litigation seek to spin every legal skirmish...

1. Spin a Win. Is that a new game show?
2. Adversaries that happen to be US Airways pilots or furloughees?
3. Does a federal trial court DFR finding qualify as a skirmish?

...in hopes of diminishing pilot morale...

1. It can get worse?
2. Pilot morale is arguably enhanced when they need to take each other to court to enforce what they have already won?

...behind the fight to honor the fundamental concept of seniority.

1. What ever happened to the fundamental concept of acting within both the letter and the spirit of the law?
2. For that matter what ever happened to the fundamental concept of living within the letter and spirit of a federal injunction?
3. Whatever happened to the fundamental concept of accepting "full and binding" arbitration awards?
4. Seniority is what it is. Nicolau decided what seniority is based on the principles of ALPA Merger policy that was in place at the time of the merger and arbitration. The trial court never re-visited the actual award. The appellate court cannot now do so because it wasn't decided in the court below.

Isn't it amazing how many questions Mr. Cleary raised in just two sentences?

My really good question is what would happen if Cleary and the BPR actually tried, and not a faux-attempt to squeak by a judge in a contempt proceeding, to actually live within both the Court's rulings and the Nicolau decision? Every day they fail to do so is just more evidence that USAPA was really only created for one purpose and that was to kill the Nicolau award. And that, as Mr. Bradford knew from an opinion of counsel, is contrary to the law and will not survive judicial scrutiny.

 

[exB717Flyer]

I have a question for you guys, and forgive me for sounding one way or another, but what exactly do the Westies think is going to be the outcome of all this?

Don't know. Depends on whether the East wants a better contract anytime soon.

Court ruling, appeal, or binding arbitration notwithstanding, do you really believe there will be any pilot on the east (eg, with a 1988 hire date) who will sit in the right seat while someone with, say, a 2003 hire date, is on the left?

Yes. Believe it or not, this wasn't the first contentious airline merger. The AA pilots did to the TWA pilots exactly what the East tried to do to the West. Today, former TWA captains are flying as FOs for nAAtives. Life goes on.

I'm not taking sides on this - I'm just curious if you actually believe the pilots will effectively be merged with all the animosity.

Harboring animosity is a personal choice, not an inevitability.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Isn't it amazing how many questions Mr. Cleary raised in just two sentences?

Equally amazing is how Mr. Cleary is "supremely confident" about the appeal. What he's saying is that Mr. Seham's legal opinion is superior to Judge Wake's. One must wonder what the basis of his confidence is.

I can predict the USAPA spin now. Closer to the court ruling on the appeal Cleary will warn of the uphill battle they face. (managing expectations) Then, when the court rules against USAPA, Cleary will announce this was the result they expected all along given the biases of -- well -- everybody. Then Cleary will express his "supreme confidence" of the US Supreme Court hearing the case and the spin cycle will repeat. ad nauseum.

 

[hp_fa]

Then, when the court rules against USAPA, Cleary will announce this was the result they expected all along given the biases of -- well -- everybody.

You forgot the line about the liberal California-based appeals court located in (gasp) San Francisco.

 

[aquagreen73s]

I have a question for you guys, and forgive me for sounding one way or another, but what exactly do the Westies think is going to be the outcome of all this?

Good question. My take is that macro events will overtake this process. What's happening over in the car industry will certainly work it's way over into the airline industry. Massive changes in how airlines are structured and the product they sell is underway. Just look at SWA diving into all of the legacy, big hub airports. Look how suddenly international traffic is more a liability than a boon.

A combined CBA via consolidation is the most likely scenario, which of course will include Nic.

The appeal has zero chance of success.

Zero.

 

[captainJack]

You forgot the line about the liberal California-based appeals court located in (gasp) San Francisco.

Okay, you seem to have a problem with stereotypes. Continuing with your line of logic, you don't like gay people?

Does the 9th have a reputation for being "liberal", whatever that means? Do you mean they actually allow all relevant data and examine all factors, unlike Wake? After all, if one narrowly defines what a jury can see and hear, one can pretty much get whatever ruling one wants. Look at Judge Ito and the OJ trial. John Yoo, a tenured professor at "liberal" UC Berkeley, so narrowly defined torture that virtually anything became allowed as not torture, at least under Cheney/Bush. It seems a similar process happened with Judge Wake and the AOL folks.

 

[hp_fa]

Hi VAflyGal.

We all have opinions and while it didn't sound as if you were exactly neutral, and I am not saying that I em either, your post raised a few good points.

I have a question for you guys, and forgive me for sounding one way or another, but what exactly do the Westies think is going to be the outcome of all this?

The West pilots obtained an award from the Nicolau Arbitration panel under ALPA merger policy. Nicolau did not accept the East DOH/LOS proposal, however he did accept their position regarding existing widebody flying and, accordingly, placed the top 517 pilots ahead of the first AWA pilots. Nicolau basically slotted the remaining active pilots. He did not place furloughed pilots ahead of the juniormost AWA pilot because he did not believe a pilot who brought an active flying position to the merged airline should be furloughed in favor of a then furloughed pilot. The Nicolau decision did fall within the ALPA Merger Policy and ALPA did provide the company with that senioity list and the company accepted it on 12/20/07. USAPA did subsequently attempt to provide the company with a revised seniority lsit and the company did not accept it.

So, in answer to the question, the West pilots expect that when all is said and done they will be slotted in accordance with the Nicolau decision.

Court ruling, appeal, or binding arbitration notwithstanding, do you really believe there will be any pilot on the east (eg, with a 1988 hire date) who will sit in the right seat while someone with, say, a 2003 hire date, is on the left?

How do you say "notwithstanding? The fact that the West pilots obtained a decision after a full and binding arbitration is defensible, as is, obviously, a federal court decision that mandates that the Nicolau seniority list be followed. Your sentence seems to imply that the West pilots should now negotiate away what they obtained after having taken the same chance at having an adverse decision rendered by Nicolau. So having generally prevailed, why should they negotiate that and a court victory away?

My question, in return, is why doesn't USAPA make a good faith attempt to comply with Nicolau and the court's ruling? The more they resist doing so the more evidence they provide the Court that USAPA never intended to represent the West pilots and enforce the full and binding award that was legally obtained under the provisions of their previous bargaining agent. If you want to read the Court's Findings as well as its subsequent Order you can find both documents here. I will grant you that the 53 page Findings can seem dry, but the Judge is actually quite a good legal writer and he fully encompasses the entire proceedings into that document.

 

[HPDriver]

...do you really believe there will be any pilot on the east (eg, with a 1988 hire date) who will sit in the right seat while someone with, say, a 2003 hire date, is on the left?

Do you think a west Captain will care if an east FO wants to fly. The company will just get another FO and send him home without pay protection.

They can have all the animosity they want.

 

[cleardirect]

Some more humor for your viewing pleasure. El presidente speaks or Seham can't really tell who is running the union anymore.

Here is the basis for usapa's appeal. If anyone would like to take the time to educate yourselves on why these are a waste of time. Take the judges finding of facts and look for where the judge addresses each of these. I have done it and found it very informative.

As we all know knowledge earned is better than knowledge given. Do the work yourself. Then call Cleary to have him explain why the judge is wrong. This is great because all of the research has been done. This is not a west opinion. This is the decider of law. Enjoy!

On appeal, we fully expect to win. As discussed more fully in the previous USAPA publication “Why We Appealâ€￾ (May 21, 2009, posted in the Legal Library), we expect to win because the court’s decision impermissibly disregarded existing precedent in numerous ways, including:

* Judge Wake ordered that USAPA was prohibited from presenting any evidence that would “challenge the process, procedure or decision of the Nicolau Award,â€￾ despite existing precedent that recognizes a labor union’s right to revisit seniority determinations that have been instituted through a disputed arbitration proceeding.

* Judge Wake ordered that USAPA was prohibited from presenting evidence that every other unionized employee group at US Airways has committed to seniority integration on a date-of-hire basis without any conditions and restrictions designed to protect their West counterparts, despite the well-recognized DFR standard that a union need only operate “within a wide range of reasonableness.â€￾

* Judge Wake ordered the jury to not consider date-of-hire seniority integration, standing alone, to be a legitimate union objective, despite existing Ninth Circuit precedent that has held that the implementation of a date-of-hire consolidation is well within the wide range of reasonableness that “must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents....â€￾

* Judge Wake ordered that the jury not consider the merits of ALPA Merger Policy and barred the presentation of evidence that ALPA Merger Policy was the product of a political process whereby consideration of DOH seniority – the industry gold standard – was deliberately excised from that Policy’s criteria.

* USAPA successfully obtained dismissal of the “Breeger Case,â€￾ filed on behalf of certain former Empire and Trump Shuttle pilots, because the judge found that a federal court had no right to adjudicate a DFR claim prior to the conclusion of negotiations. Same facts, same negotiations – different court, different result. We are confident that the Ninth Circuit will hold that the North Carolina district court got it right.

 

[hp_fa]

Okay, you seem to have a problem with stereotypes. Continuing with your line of logic, you don't like gay people?

Does the 9th have a reputation for being "liberal", whatever that means? Do you mean they actually allow all relevant data and examine all factors, unlike Wake? After all, if one narrowly defines what a jury can see and hear, one can pretty much get whatever ruling one wants. Look at Judge Ito and the OJ trial. John Yoo, a tenured professor at "liberal" UC Berkeley, so narrowly defined torture that virtually anything became allowed as not torture, at least under Cheney/Bush. It seems a similar process happened with Judge Wake and the AOL folks.

CaptainJack, you completely missed my sarcastic intent so let me clear it up.

First, the facts.

The 9th Circuit actually does have a liberal bent. That is factual and numerous sources can confirm that. What that means is in the eye of the beholder, but in my view it mainly means that it is pro-people and tends to be anti-government and anti-corporations. Now obviously that will not be discernable in all of their opinions, but the view in California is logically quite different than the view in New York, Ohio, Florida, etc. Call it cultural differences based on regional differences.

As for why I raised that in sarcasm, the USAPA spin machine has attacked the "home cooking" of the Arizona-based trial court. They have already stated that the 9th Circuit is liberal. They have noted that it is in San Francisco. Based on past events they will attack any adverse decision of that court on its liberal and out-of-the-mainstream bias. If you don't believe me just wait to see what happens if the 9th Circuit does render an adverse opinion to USAPA. I am merely projecting the future based on the past. (eg - Nicolau was a senile old man, Wake is home cooking and/or biased to Arizona, etc.)

As for me being anti-gay? Nope. For what it is worth I believe they are entitled to equal protection under the law and include in that the right to form civil unions or marry. Who a person chooses to spend their life with is not my concern and it does not effect how I view their views, rights or obligations in society. There, is that clear enough?

 

[VAflyGal]

Thank you HP for the information. I don't favor either side, I feel bad for both because I don't believe this is going to ever be resolved. I do work on the East and have heard enough people say they will never ever share a flight deck in the scenario I hypothesized (is that even a word?) earlier...that they will call off sick or walk off the plane, etc before they will agree to it. This concerns me because we have a decent sized operation here and I see havoc coming more in the future. I hope I am pay protected through it all.

I'm sad when I hear about people I work with getting denied jumpseat priviliges when they are on west metal. Again, not all the time, but I'm sad both sides are so embroiled in such a battle. I hope for the best for everyone. I just wish we could all get a single agreement and move forward.

Hi VAflyGal.

We all have opinions and while it didn't sound as if you were exactly neutral, and I am not saying that I em either, your post raised a few good points.



The West pilots obtained an award from the Nicolau Arbitration panel under ALPA merger policy. Nicolau did not accept the East DOH/LOS proposal, however he did accept their position regarding existing widebody flying and, accordingly, placed the top 517 pilots ahead of the first AWA pilots. Nicolau basically slotted the remaining active pilots. He did not place furloughed pilots ahead of the juniormost AWA pilot because he did not believe a pilot who brought an active flying position to the merged airline should be furloughed in favor of a then furloughed pilot. The Nicolau decision did fall within the ALPA Merger Policy and ALPA did provide the company with that senioity list and the company accepted it on 12/20/07. USAPA did subsequently attempt to provide the company with a revised seniority lsit and the company did not accept it.

So, in answer to the question, the West pilots expect that when all is said and done they will be slotted in accordance with the Nicolau decision.



How do you say "notwithstanding? The fact that the West pilots obtained a decision after a full and binding arbitration is defensible, as is, obviously, a federal court decision that mandates that the Nicolau seniority list be followed. Your sentence seems to imply that the West pilots should now negotiate away what they obtained after having taken the same chance at having an adverse decision rendered by Nicolau. So having generally prevailed, why should they negotiate that and a court victory away?

My question, in return, is why doesn't USAPA make a good faith attempt to comply with Nicolau and the court's ruling? The more they resist doing so the more evidence they provide the Court that USAPA never intended to represent the West pilots and enforce the full and binding award that was legally obtained under the provisions of their previous bargaining agent. If you want to read the Court's Findings as well as its subsequent Order you can find both documents here. I will grant you that the 53 page Findings can seem dry, but the Judge is actually quite a good legal writer and he fully encompasses the entire proceedings into that document.

 

[Elevation]

What's this I hear about Derek Kerr saying the E190's could be up for sale?