USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread

[prechilill]

Well, that settles it then..."it looks like...." rain
snow
fun
(fill in the blank)

While you are certainly entitled to think what you want...by reading the daily's, either side can claim an advantage based on their presuppositions to the case. But, by all means, since you are all possibly watching a lottery ticket get burned, cheerlead yourselves into a frenzy.

Here's the really funny part about this case so far, you west peiople have for months asseted that NO background filler information was going to be in court...nothing. That it was NOT about the Nic.....(here's one for Metroyet)

IRRELEVENT

Tell me, what has been the primary topic of this whole case?...the Nic.

And while the judge is going to give final instructions to the jury to deliberate on, I'd say this:

Have the AOL folks considered that they litigated too soon?...USAPA can't enforce the Nic right now to mitigate west furloughs, so no harm there....(seperate ops)

And, no actual DOH with CBL's list has been thrust upon the west under whichthey can claim "harm"

Ever see the Tom Cruise movie called "Minority Report" ? It deals with a futuristic ideal in law enforcement known as "pre-crimes" wherein they arrest people based on crimes they "will commit" but haven't yet.....


That was set in like 2070......it's 2009, USAPA has as yet not even harmed anyone.

(fade to black...)

Thanks H! You can put your head back in the dark hole now. Take care!

 

[Pi brat]

No.

My point was from a purely judicial point-of-view. There is ample speculation in the record that the Nicolau award would have been voted down. There is also ample speculation in the record that Kirby, as it existed, would have been voted down. However, it appears less certain that Kirby would have necessarily been voted down. In either event it is all speculation since a vote never actually happened. Had a vote actually occurred then the Court would be listening to evidence of actual pilot vote(s) rather then people saying it would have been voted down.

Had East (ALPA or USAPA) been smart enough to actually put it to a vote, with the expectation that it would lose, then they could claim they tried to implement Nicolau and failed while at the same time they offered their members the Kirby proposal within the same CBA. Could the pilots, despite all the posturing in crew rooms and websites have accepted the proposals? Sure, but it probably is more unlikely to have occurred rather than likely. Did the union leaders fear putting it up for a vote? Probably. But had they done so many of the things we are hearing in court about ALPA be undemocratic would not be able to have been factually stated. Also, and this is my main point, a judge would have a much harder time coming to a possible conclusion that there has been a breach in the duty of fair representation.

I agree with what you say except when you put USAPA in there. All those moves were made by ALPA as USAPA was just an idea until elected last year. Who is on trial here? USAPA, the east pilots as a group no matter who the CBA was, or ALPA? I was under the impression that it was a USAPA DFR

I told my ALPA reps it was a mistake to leave JNC talks. We agreed to the process and it was improper to leave them. I was confident that the company would not come up with a contract that would convince the top part of the list to vote for it, as the bottom part wouldn't vote for one with the Nic award in it. The economic tide had turned and I don't think the company could have afforded it. The DC contribution being the main reason. But again, those were my ALPA reps., I don't believe USAPA had anything to do with those decisions as most of the east MEC was fighting hard against their election.

With ALPA we were at an impass. The east MEC was doing it's thing, the west MEC their thing, and ALPA national their own. I don't see how anyone could argue that. Now maybe they could argue that given time they could have worked it out, but was it the pilots responsibility to delay the election to let that happen? I can't remember, did ALPA even forward the list before the election was over?

 

[Pi brat]

Pinocchio nosed Jack Stephan testified that "getting a contract was a priority...but not at the expense of seniority". Gee, I wonder whose seniority he was worried about. AWA seniority to him was worthless, and his sides' was priceless. DFR.

The Jury gets it.

This will be over soon enough.

Go sue Jack and ALPA then.

 

[A320 Driver]

I agree with what you say except when you put USAPA in there. All those moves were made by ALPA as USAPA was just an idea until elected last year. Who is on trial here? USAPA, the east pilots as a group no matter who the CBA was, or ALPA? I was under the impression that it was a USAPA DFR

I told my ALPA reps it was a mistake to leave JNC talks. We agreed to the process and it was improper to leave them. I was confident that the company would not come up with a contract that would convince the top part of the list to vote for it, as the bottom part wouldn't vote for one with the Nic award in it. The economic tide had turned and I don't think the company could have afforded it. The DC contribution being the main reason. But again, those were my ALPA reps., I don't believe USAPA had anything to do with those decisions as most of the east MEC was fighting hard against their election.

With ALPA we were at an impass. The east MEC was doing it's thing, the west MEC their thing, and ALPA national their own. I don't see how anyone could argue that. Now maybe they could argue that given time they could have worked it out, but was it the pilots responsibility to delay the election to let that happen? I can't remember, did ALPA even forward the list before the election was over?

Well said. Those decisions were made by ALPA reps prior to USAPA being voted in. USAPA has actually gotten us back to the table...for whatever good it has done.

A320 Driver B)

 

[Pi brat]

Well said. Those decisions were made by ALPA reps prior to USAPA being voted in. USAPA has actually gotten us back to the table...for whatever good it has done.

A320 Driver B)

I think this thread has finally gotten me to understand USAPA's defense. I never got it and didn't think it would work(it may not).

Here’s what I’m thinking: It’s the west argument that it is the legal and/or moral duty for USAPA to use the Nic award going forward, as it was the result of an agreed up process and should be carried forward as any other part of the contract. Right? So, at what point does the failure to carry old parts of the contract forward constitute DFR? If we don’t carry forward the west’s sick leave provisions does that mean that we are guilty of failure to represent? Why is this so much more important than other changes that would be subject to a majority vote? In the early ‘90s the AAA gave away our duty rights in a new contract without membership ratification. That decision has affected every east pilot, from the most senior to the ones that were furloughed because of it. The MEC made the decision that it was in the best interest of the group as a whole, that it was worth it for the other contract changes. How is this different? Did I have a DFR suit? If the union doesn’t have the right to change the contract how come I have such a lousy one now. Is every change subject to a lawsuit?

USAPA says that it is only DFR when it done solely to disadvantage the other side. Is this correct? What is the tipping point? If it disadvantaged one west pilot is it the same.? The Nic award disadvantages many west pilots, just not the majority. Many think the top of the AWA list would be better of with DOH with fences, I had a senior west captain tell me he would. What's the difference?

 

[nic4us]

I can't remember, did ALPA even forward the list before the election was over?

Yes they did, at the eleventh hour, Prater being the slimeball he is, sent Paul Rice to deliver the list.

ALPA was guilty of failing the West pilots. The entire process was manipulated to appease the east and everyone expected the West to go along? Had the list not been delivered there would be two suits going on right now.

However, just because ALPA failed the West, that does not make it allowable for USAPA to do the same in a different manner.

USAPA's arguement seems to be, Hey Judge and Jury, ALPA was failed in allowing an impasse, therfore we will fail this same group, for our complete enrichment and what we think is their own good, in an attempt to break that impasse.

Further, this arguement that in the long run it is for my own good is pure BS. It is for the east own good and will remain so for the remainder of my and the majority of West careers.

 

[cleardirect]

I agree with what you say except when you put USAPA in there. All those moves were made by ALPA as USAPA was just an idea until elected last year. Who is on trial here? USAPA, the east pilots as a group no matter who the CBA was, or ALPA? I was under the impression that it was a USAPA DFR

I told my ALPA reps it was a mistake to leave JNC talks. We agreed to the process and it was improper to leave them. I was confident that the company would not come up with a contract that would convince the top part of the list to vote for it, as the bottom part wouldn't vote for one with the Nic award in it. The economic tide had turned and I don't think the company could have afforded it. The DC contribution being the main reason. But again, those were my ALPA reps., I don't believe USAPA had anything to do with those decisions as most of the east MEC was fighting hard against their election.

With ALPA we were at an impass. The east MEC was doing it's thing, the west MEC their thing, and ALPA national their own. I don't see how anyone could argue that. Now maybe they could argue that given time they could have worked it out, but was it the pilots responsibility to delay the election to let that happen? I can't remember, did ALPA even forward the list before the election was over?

The company accepted the list in December 2007. The election began in March 2008.

You told your ALPA rep not to leave JNC talks. They should have listened to you. How does it feel to be in the minority? Nice point scored yesterday. USAPA has been whining about how bad ALPA was and that the east was treated unfairly. That they were ignored by ALPA because they were just to small to make a difference.

USAPA is also telling the jury that because they are the majority they get to decide what is what. During cross yesterday Theurer was asked why US Airways felt so underappreciated. Was it because the majority airlines like United or Delta got their way? Kind of like how usapa is treating the west. A big oh yeah moment.

The connections are being made. The jury is getting it.

 

[hp_fa]

Thanks hp, I agree speculation doesn't mean fact so who really knows for sure. If the judge really already claimed "going to bench trial for damages" as prechilli claims, could one assume he has already made up his mind, I don't think he would make that mistake, basically saying GUILTY before jury decides?

You're welcome.

I am not sure if the bench trial, at this point, is regarding damages or issues that the Judge decides as a matter of law. I am not making assumptions that he has pre-decided the case, but I do think he is leaning towards the plaintiffs based on the evidence that has been presented to him to this point.

 

[A320 Driver]

The company accepted the list in December 2007. The election began in March 2008.

You told your ALPA rep not to leave JNC talks. They should have listened to you. How does it feel to be in the minority? Nice point scored yesterday. USAPA has been whining about how bad ALPA was and that the east was treated unfairly. That they were ignored by ALPA because they were just to small to make a difference.

USAPA is also telling the jury that because they are the majority they get to decide what is what. During cross yesterday Theurer was asked why US Airways felt so underappreciated. Was it because the majority airlines like United or Delta got their way? Kind of like how usapa is treating the west. A big oh yeah moment.

The connections are being made. The jury is getting it.

I've been on jury duty enough to know that you don't have a stinking clue what they are getting or not. I've never seen 9 people of the same opinion coming out of the courtroom. Takes time to form a consensus. Many times one person can persuade the whole bunch.

None of us will know until the verdict is read.

A320 Driver B)

 

[hp_fa]

I agree with what you say except when you put USAPA in there. All those moves were made by ALPA as USAPA was just an idea until elected last year. Who is on trial here? USAPA, the east pilots as a group no matter who the CBA was, or ALPA? I was under the impression that it was a USAPA DFR

From my perspective the reason USAPA is there is that they are the representatives to the East and they inherited that representation upon becoming the bargaining agent on 4/18/08.

 

[hp_fa]

USAPA says that it is only DFR when it done solely to disadvantage the other side. Is this correct? What is the tipping point?

I believe that you are getting close to what I understand. As for the question I believe the tipping point may well have been when the West lost its right to having a West ratification that had been in the ALPA CBL and USAPA provided for one large vote. ALPA had provided the East and West groups to vote as groups and now that is gone.

 

[Pi brat]

From my perspective the reason USAPA is there is that they are the representatives to the East and they inherited that representation upon becoming the bargaining agent on 4/18/08.

Agreed, they did inherit it, but are they responsible for the actions before they took office. Can I sue them for the loss of my duty rigs in the '90s? I'd like your opinion on my other points about why seniority is different and at what point the majority does or does not matter. If one west pilot was better off with the Nic award and all the others were not, would USAPA have the duty to make sure it was never changed?

 

[hp_fa]

I'll answer later. I need to head downtown.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Agreed, they did inherit it, but are they responsible for the actions before they took office. Can I sue them for the loss of my duty rigs in the '90s? I'd like your opinion on my other points about why seniority is different and at what point the majority does or does not matter. If one west pilot was better off with the Nic award and all the others were not, would USAPA have the duty to make sure it was never changed?

I think that THAT is the gist of the USAPA case. Since the East and West didn't exist anymore, they were obligated to represent the ENTIRE group, and the DOH principle is a central theme in union matters. They are also arguing that, even though the Nic may be a short term gain for some, that over all it is a detriment, since it allows virtually ANY sort of seniority list occur for future mergers.

 

[Pi brat]

The company accepted the list in December 2007. The election began in March 2008.

You told your ALPA rep not to leave JNC talks. They should have listened to you. How does it feel to be in the minority? Nice point scored yesterday. USAPA has been whining about how bad ALPA was and that the east was treated unfairly. That they were ignored by ALPA because they were just to small to make a difference.

USAPA is also telling the jury that because they are the majority they get to decide what is what. During cross yesterday Theurer was asked why US Airways felt so underappreciated. Was it because the majority airlines like United or Delta got their way? Kind of like how usapa is treating the west. A big oh yeah moment.

The connections are being made. The jury is getting it.

Thanks for the date, I couldn't remember. I think ALPA did fail you in not turning it over right away.

I have been in the minority for most of my career at US. Many decisions made for me have damaged my career, like the loss of duty rigs. I didn't sue over it. I voted for ALPA, I didn't sue over it because it was a legal election.

The union feels that DOH serves the majority of pilots better than the Nic award. The question is "Is the seniority part of the contract more holy than any other so that it can't be changed?" How about answering my other points. I do believe that USAPA inherited all parts of the former agreements, but wonder what can and cannot be changed.

You don't have to explain your anger any more-I get it. If I were in your shoes, with your life experience I would probably feel the same. I think if you were in mine, with my experience you would feel like I do.