USAirways pilots labor thread 7/23-7-29

[HPDriver]

All aboard the USAPA gravy train!!!!


http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/ForYourFilesUSAPAPayOs.pdf

 

[cubfan]

The arbitrator, the two pilot neutrals, and the Delta Northwest arbitration panel say you're wrong. Longevity is not seniority.

Show your "labour dictionary" to the Appeals Court, if you get the chance.

What's the answer to the question I asked?

If you're the bottom man on the seniority list for 5 years are you any more senior at year 5 than year one?

And what is the answer to my question?

 

[captainJack]

Not only are you swimming upstream but you're doing it with an anchor attached to your backside.

We are used to work.

 

[captainJack]

http://www.unbiasedfacts.org/ForYourFilesUSAPAPayOs.pdf

So, are you implying there are "biased facts"?

I mean, you (or whoever publishes the website) modifies the word "fact", apparently believing the modification is necessary because they (you) feel there is something out there other than "unbiased facts".

Starting from such a premise, thoughtless or not, should send up red flags just as if you had www.factsfrommypointofview.org as your URL. Perhaps something like this would be better: www.truthiness.net

 

[Hawkhunter]

Keep dreaming.

I've got PM's from Hawkhunter that don't agree with you.

Not only are you swimming upstream but you're doing it with an anchor attached to your backside.

As usual, not quite true. Keep throwing darts GB.

 

[cleardirect]

So, are you implying there are "biased facts"?

I mean, you (or whoever publishes the website) modifies the word "fact", apparently believing the modification is necessary because they (you) feel there is something out there other than "unbiased facts".

Starting from such a premise, thoughtless or not, should send up red flags just as if you had www.factsfrommypointofview.org as your URL. Perhaps something like this would be better: www.truthiness.net

This is either naive or intentionally obtuse.
Using your argument all news outlets could never be biased. That lawyers could not effectively argue they case in court because only facts are presented.
Just like usapa, anyone can present “factsâ€￾. However how or what facts you present can determine your bias. We see usapa leaving facts out all of the time. We see usapa mixing facts in the same paragraph in order to hide or obscure the meaning of these facts.

What unbiased facts does is present facts that you do not learn about from usapa. Ever wonder why Fox news carries some different stories then the rest of the left leaning news outlets? They are still the facts of the story. Just different or additional. Why is there a controversy over global warming? Because people can look at the same facts and draw a different conclusion.
A person or group can have additional facts that the other person or group may not have. That is the case here. Unbiased is giving out facts that the east pilots are not getting from the “official state run mediaâ€￾.
Perfect example. LOA 93 snap back. The facts are the facts. Why does usapa see the same facts differently than the company? So your entire premise is flawed.

 

[cleardirect]

This is going to be a long trip. The ninth has released the schedule for appeal briefs. I don’t know about you. But 5 months just to file, does not sound like expedited to me.

The appellate process will begin immediately. A notice of appeal will be filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week, and our counsel will immediately seek expedited treatment of that appeal by the Ninth Circuit. Recent case law supports the expediting of an appeal where a lower court’s order has an impact on a union’s bargaining proposals in the context of collective bargaining.

So 5 months just to get the documents into the ninth circuit. How is that expedited? Did Seham offer to have the brief ready in one month?

Add the 19 months for the median time it takes to get through the ninth. It will be sometime near July 2011 before usapa can appeal to the Supreme Court.

Anyone think that the current situation will remain status quo over the next two years? Anyone willing to give usapa another two to three years before we get a new contract? Six years from the merger and still no contract. Does anyone believe that usapa will be able to hold onto this group for the next two years without delivering anything?

DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND CADS: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: CADS due by Attorney Nicholas Paul Granath, Attorney due on 07/23/2009. Transcript order for Appellant US Airline Pilots Association due 08/24/2009. Transcript due for Orig Clerk USDC, Phoenix on 09/21/2009. Certificate of record due 09/28/2009. Appellant US Airline Pilots Association opening brief due 11/09/2009. Appellee Don Addington, Appellee John Bostic, Appellee Mark Burman, Appellee Afshin Iranpour, Appellee Roger Velez and Appellee Steve Wargocki answering brief due 12/07/2009. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [7002819] (GR)

 

[Hawkhunter]

This is going to be a long trip. The ninth has released the schedule for appeal briefs. I don’t know about you. But 5 months just to file, does not sound like expedited to me.



So 5 months just to get the documents into the ninth circuit. How is that expedited? Did Seham offer to have the brief ready in one month?

Add the 19 months for the median time it takes to get through the ninth. It will be sometime near July 2011 before usapa can appeal to the Supreme Court.

Anyone think that the current situation will remain status quo over the next two years? Anyone willing to give usapa another two to three years before we get a new contract? Six years from the merger and still no contract. Does anyone believe that usapa will be able to hold onto this group for the next two years without delivering anything?

Yes

 

[cleardirect]

Yes

Then you will learn what it is like to be in the minority.

 

[Hawkhunter]

Then you will learn what it is like to be in the minority.

Then why do you post so much trying to convince the "minority"? Heck, the Driver is so sure, she says she will be a Captain, living on Lake Norman in a Captains house within 6 months.

 

[hp_fa]

Add the 19 months for the median time it takes to get through the ninth. It will be sometime near July 2011 before usapa can appeal to the Supreme Court.

** If ** your date of July 2011 is correct then the SCOTUS will not decide whether or not to accept the case via a Writ of Certiorari would not occur until October 2011 (the start of the next term) at the earliest and it would be either late in that term or sometime soon after October 2012 until the case would conceivably be argued to the SCOTUS.

 

[cleardirect]

** If ** your date of July 2011 is correct then the SCOTUS will not decide whether or not to accept the case via a Writ of Certiorari would not occur until October 2011 (the start of the next term) at the earliest and it would be either late in that term or sometime soon after October 2012 until the case would conceivably be argues to the SCOTUS.

Ouch. that is a long time from now.

At least Cleary will be out of office by then.

 

[Megasnoop]

The union has every reason to wait for the 2 situations at hand to play out.
AWA pilots are desperate...it's so obvious it's actually funny. Some are posting their spittle every 2 minutes. The players have changed but the song is the same. It's a great study in human behavior. The mental gymnastics are hard at work out in the hot desert. Cheers

Course theyre desperate. The appeal going to drag on (19 months, according to Clear, 5 months just for briefes). Meanwhile we’ll get 2 $35M payments and, according to long-time ALPA negotiator extrordinaire, Donn B (he was actually named chairman of the ALPA National Negotiating Committee, so hard to attack his bonifides), we’ve got a near air-tight case in arbitration for the LOA93/84 pay restoration. That pay restoration puts us almost 20% ahead of the company’s only offer.

Let’s review shall we. Both sides agreed to binding arbitration.

Ok, let’s review. Even West’s own Merger Attorney said the “arbitration award†is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list….that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate†an “arbitration award†….does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company.â€
Awaiting your review on that, Clear. Was he lying to a Federal Court?

The EAST does not like the outcome. (DUH!)
The EAST pulls out of negotiations during a very good economic time. (ALPA pulled out. Well, so did the old East MEC. USAPA had nothing to do with it. Rank and file had no vote on pulling out)
The EAST decides to try an experiment called USAPA. (You got that part right)
The EAST stops any negotiations for two years. We now are in the worst economic times. (You already said that. ALPA had the opportunity to put the East MEC into trusteeship and force us to accept the NIC. They didn’t, thinking they could still save the property. I got anything wrong so far, Clear?)
The EAST attempts to tell the company what the seniority list will be. (So? That’s what they were elected to do.)
The EAST loses a DFR and decides to further delay negotiations. (The Appeal is over? Didn’t know that.)
The EAST is now saying why get a contract now that snap backs are on the way. (Pay restoration to be precise. Better than anything the company had on the table.)
The EAST waits another year for arbitration on snap backs. (actually about 6 months AFTER the pay restoration is due to begin)
The EAST refuses to accept the injunction and delays another two years waiting for an appeal. (We’re appealing the injunction, not refusing to accept it. We wont violate it while we appeal)

So yes it has been the EAST that has delayed and caused the west to lose money.

Please explain to us why we should care if you get left out of our pay restoration? Right now, if we vote on a TA, it will have to contain the NIC and a pay CUT for East. Not a reasonable choice for us, not with $70M coming (which could go away with a paltry contract "increase"). That $35M in 2010 and 2011 comes close to the company’s only offer.

The west role in all of this. Accept binding arbitration, Accept the list and try and get a contract. Win a DFR case and try to move on with a new contract.

ALPA and the East MEC accepted binding arbitration, not East rank and file and not USAPA. That’s what this lawsuit is all about. Is binding really binding or as West Merger attorney put it, “in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list….that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept."

BTW. Just because you can not possibly think of a legal argument why USAPA will not get the snap backs. Does not mean the smart lawyers will not. After all Seham had some off the wall theories. Only to be shot down by competent attorneys.

The Seham firm is the same guys that will be doing the snap back arbitration right? Good luck with that. He has done so well for you so far.

As much as I dont want to admit it, I'll accept Donn B's 6-page treatise on why we should win the pay restoration. As far as Seeham&Co? $35 M for our LTD pilots? I'd say that's a fairly good win.

For change, try commenting on what your own merger attorney told a Federal Judge, not your same old song.

When you come to a fork in the road, take it. Yogi Berra

 

[hp_fa]

ALPA and the East MEC accepted binding arbitration, not East rank and file and not USAPA. That’s what this lawsuit is all about. Is binding really binding or as West Merger attorney put it, “in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list….that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept."

That argument has been totally discredited.

USAPA does not dispute that it succeeded to ALPA’s rights and obligations under the Transition Agreement. Nonetheless, USAPA contends that the Nicolau Award does not limit USAPA in any sense. USAPA relies heavily on the following stipulation: “The parties to the Nicolau Arbitration were stated to be ‘the US Airways Pilot Merger Representatives and the America West Pilot Merger Representatives.’†USAPA suggests that the Nicolau Award bound only the merger representatives, with the sole effect of precluding those representatives from asserting the existence of any disagreement between them regarding the Nicolau Award. The award, according to USAPA, was imposed on the East Pilots without their consent; ALPA, and by extension USAPA, remained free to order its affairs as though the award had never happened.

This argument offends common sense, the evidence, and fundamental principles of law. In the context of labor rights, it is both discordant and irrelevant. Generally, properly appointed representatives acting within the scope of their authority do bind those they represent. ALPA Merger Policy provides that the Merger Representatives “shall have complete and full authority to act for and on behalf of the flight deck crew members of their respective airlines for the purpose of concluding a single flight deck crew member seniority list, which shall not be subject to ratification.†[MP § 1.D.3.] This is not a dispute about the personal contractual obligations of East Pilots.4 The East Pilots took on the benefits and burdens of ALPA’s representative actions when they elected to be represented by that union. They gave their political consent to the actions of the merger representatives when they elected the East MEC that appointed them. Cf. Ackley v. W.
Conference of Teamsters, 958 F.2d 1463, 1478 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that unions exist and take action subject to union members’ voting rights); 45 U.S.C. § 152 Fourth (protecting a bargaining unit’s right to choose a union by majority vote). The East Pilots and ALPA were therefore bound, in the legislative sense of collective bargaining, by ALPA’s Transition Agreement commitment “by and through†the East MEC to follow ALPA Merger Policy in merging the seniority lists. See Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 337-38, 347-48 (1964) (holding that union discharged its duty of fair representation by resolving a seniority dispute in accordance with negotiation and arbitration procedures of a CBA negotiated by a multi-local union and executed by each appropriate local union).

Although the Court finds that the unambiguous language of the Transition Agreement resolves the question on its own, the East MECs course of conduct during and
after the Nicolau Proceedings confirms that the award was intended to be “final and binding†as to the two pilot groups. USAPA presented no evidence that the East MEC or any East Pilots regarded the Nicolau Arbitration as an academic exercise before or while it took place. To the contrary, the East Pilots exhibited a solemn resolve to make their case. Both sides presented voluminous economic evidence over the course of several weeks of hearings. The East MEC pressed hard to have the award overturned within the ALPA framework. Finally, the East MEC attempted to subvert the award’s implementation by withdrawing from merger negotiations altogether. Rather than cast doubt on the final and binding nature of the award, these actions show that from the East MECs perspective, the award was most final and most binding. ALPA’s attempts to negotiate a compromise between the two pilot groups do not belie the award’s finality; those attempts reflect an understanding that the West Pilots, through the West MEC, were entitled to sit on their rights. At no time did ALPA assert the power to impose a different
seniority proposal on the West Pilots without their consent.

(Emphasis Added.)

 

[Megasnoop]

What Garland et al wanted us to vote on was not even a TA ; it was a company offer direct to the pilots bypassing the Negotiators. Do you really think this is the way that contracts should be consummated? Neither did most of the "dont let my daddy vote " folks. If it is a TA or something involving pay or retirement, yes we should be able to vote.

Right, 88. It was a pig in a poke. Cram down from ALPA Natl. Company threatened liquidation. ALPA bought it and blinked.

And missing out on thousands of dollars. Fantastic strategy!!!

Being in only your 2nd contract in 15 years of union, I guess you missed the concept of lump-sum sign-on bonuses and retro pay. We’ve seen them both over the years. As well as pay contingent on other airline wages. UAL+1%. We all saw how long that lasted.

P.S. For a comprehensive look at why I believe the East pilot sentiment is shifting to no longer support USAPA click here.

At it again, CM???

So, are you implying there are "biased facts"?

CM’s at it again. Biting the hand of the man who saved his job. These guys are so afraid of their shadows and the real facts, they refuse to sign their names. Anonymous, just like the USAPA Watch, both out of the same Scottsdale Server.

Anyone think that the current situation will remain status quo over the next two years? Anyone willing to give usapa another two to three years before we get a new contract? Six years from the merger and still no contract. Does anyone believe that usapa will be able to hold onto this group for the next two years without delivering anything?

2 years works for me (5 years is better). Enough time to see USAPA deliver. With the $35M payments in 2010 and 2011, the LOA93/84 pay resolved. Most likely Addington resolved in 2 years. If USAPA delivers, they’ll survive. If they don’t, ALPA will get another byte of this rotten apple.

ALPA and the East MEC accepted binding arbitration, not East rank and file and not USAPA. That’s what this lawsuit is all about. Is binding really binding or as West Merger attorney put it, “in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list….that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept."

That argument has been totally discredited.(Emphasis Added.)

I guess West merger attorney was wrong.

This just in, another major $$ win for our grievance committee and our attorneys (reprinted with permission):
Grievance Committee Update
July 29, 2009

MEC 07-05-01 Jets for Jobs Benefits and Pay
The Union received Arbitrator Kaplan’s decision in MEC 07-05-01, and we are very pleased to report that he ordered a “make whole†remedy for all affected pilots, in terms of pay and benefits. Additionally, the Arbitrator remanded the calculation of the remedy to the parties, while maintaining jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise.....I (Tracy) want to extend a heartfelt thanks to Union Board members Doug Mowery and Jay Milkey, as well as our other participants; Dean Colello, Karen Flowers, Greg Knox, Donn Butkovic and USAPA attorney Sue Edwards.


It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking too much. Yogi Berra