US Pilots Labor Thread 6/2-6/9 STAY ON TOPIC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richard

Veteran
Dec 15, 2005
2,084
2
OK we try another week with the Pilots' Labor Thread.....unfortunately, we continue to delete posts and issue suspensions--I will remind you that some of the posting on here is inappropriate and brings discredit to the posters, their side of the argument, and the profession in general.

PLEASE observe the rules and stay on topic...NO PERSONAL REMARKS, NO FLAME BAIT.

Also, please stay on subject. The topic of unionism and entitlement in general is not appropriate for this thread, except how it specifically applies to one or another side in THIS dispute. The general question, as well as any references to the UAW, belongs in a topic in the Water Cooler.

Thank You.
 
Megasnoop said:
717flyer, you got a long road ahead of you, lots of obstacles and not a lot of money to win the appeal. Best of luck, may the best (and most well-paid) attorneys win! Snooper-dooper
Other's answered your other points so I won't repeat them. But what makes you think we don't have a lot of money to win the appeal? We'll probably get what we've already invested back in the damages trial and in any case our effort has been 100% voluntarily funded thus far. You think we'll suddendy give up now?

I'm usually pretty good about avoiding getting personal but I think I can get away with this: I recommend you hire Lee Seham as your personal attorney for all your family matters. May he be as successful for you as he has been for USAPA.
 
No, I dont think I missed it at all, newbie. But I also didnt miss what your crew is trying to do now. In the remedy phase your claiming damages. Yeah, we know, we have our own spies right in your midst (I love these guys, so deluded with "fairness" they are spilling it all. sorry, theyre protecting themselves, thats why they came to us. Well, there goes those sources, if they read this chat). your attorneys allegedly have a "double secret probation" informant from ALPA and an unnamed outside vendor who will shred Jack Stephens testimony, claiming ALPA was on the verge of putting East and West into trusteeship and then cramming down a single vote on the contract. So? All that means is ALPA lied to its own membership and was too slow to beat USAPA to its election win. No proof that USAPA had a clue what ALPA was doing to saving the mother ship.

His holiness, the right honorable Neil V. Wake has already said he wont take away the right of agreement ratification. He knows hes already got Blochs GR-9 decision and the NC judges in the Breeger case going against him. He needs some cover and we"re not going to give it to him. He laid it, he can sit on it until it hatches.

More to come on this, ocsar. I love putting it out in dribbles. Short posts get read, Lengthy tomes get ignored. Ah, Judge Wake, the gift that keeps on giving. I love this guy. Senor Snoopernista

Once again, I am not a West pilot, and have never worked for America West or US Airways. So if you have some inside knowledge of the West's legal strategy then great for you. I read Stephens testimony and I think it was not germane to the outcome of the trial. Trusteeship? Who cares?

The point of the trial is that there is a seniority list. Now the East pilots want to reshuffle it. Is it for some higher union purpose, like punishing scabs, or is it for illegitimate purposes like favoring the majority over the minority? To everyone that is not an East pilot it is clearly the latter. The email that Bradford wrote said essentially:

  • We found a lawyer to represent us
  • He said what we are doing is a violation of the duty of fair representation
  • Therefore, we need to hide our true purpose and disguise our intentions

It is clear that not only was USAPA founded on the premise to deny the West pilots their rights, it was intentional and not just an accident. That is not a higher union purpose. You cannot re-order a seniority list willy nilly. Certainly not because you didn't get your way in a final and binding arbitration that you agreed freely to.

So you can call me newbie or claim I am a West pilot spy or whatever you want, I really don't care. I have no interest in the outcome of this case except that it is clear that this is an injustice to the West pilots and it is difficult to watch. On a more personal level, it is good to see that the crackpot theories that the East pilots have used in this ordeal have been destroyed at every step of the way. It makes it easier to argue against my own pilot group using the same crackpot theories.

Now, the East pilots are going to finance their own crackpot secret investigation into the pension termination. Great, now I won't have to pay some assessment to have some crackpot secret investigation for our pension termination. Thanks for saving me the money.
 
Question? Regardless of the eventual outcome..whenever that may be with appeals...doesn't the seniority list still have to be ratified by the membership?
 
Question? Regardless of the eventual outcome..whenever that may be with appeals...doesn't the seniority list still have to be ratified by the membership?
Have you not been paying attention? There is no vote on seniority. That is left to the merger committee. Now the courts.

Do you get to just vote on pay rates? Do you get to vote on how many days of vacation you get?

No, you vote on a total package. Any contract brought will include the Nicolau award. EVERY contract will have that.

If we merge with American do you want to leave the list up to a single majority vote? How do you think that would come out? Majority rules in deciding how a seniority list is made up. No thanks. Ask a TWA guy how their merger went.
 
This is a record, even for THIS topic.....40 minutes into the new thread, one suspension and THREE posts deleted.

Why is it so difficult for you all to resist attacking each other individually?
This WILL NOT continue and will not be tolerated...

Time to grow up and discuss the issues like adults....we're tired of giving "time outs".
 
No, you vote on a total package. Any contract brought will include the Nicolau award. EVERY contract will have that.


Exactly!

That is why I beleive Judge Wake will immediately implement the Nic as remedy. However, contrary to what someone posted earlier, I don't beleive we will operate each others aircraft until there is a joint contract.

Implementing the Nic would NOT harm the company in any way nor would it harm any pilot. It would allow each and every pilot to bid their proper Nic seniority. Should a West pilot choose to locate east for a given vacancy, they would do so knowing they would have to work under the east contract. Same would hold true for an east pilot wanting to move West. The furloughed pilots could bid any vacancy their seniority would hold, and displace pilots that should have been furloughed based on their Nic seniority.

Full implementation would take the issue of the seperate ratification and intentional delay out of the picture and would create a "virtual fence" for all domiciles, meaning for example, few West pilots would bid east knowing they would do so under LOA93.

As cleardirect said, any and ALL contract proposals WILL INCLUDE THE NIC UNALTERED.
 
I have seen the latest USAPA brief on the remedies that Judge Wake will be imposing later this month and was struck by USAPA's position that the Nicolau List should only be used once in any ratification vote and then become a nullity. This seems absurd because what it effectively becomes is a reverse ratification of the Nicolau Award. By that I mean rather than a vote that would accept Nicolau, the vote would be held and if the vote failed then USAPA would arguably be able to ignore the Nicolau seniority list.

I should point out that I am not aware of any provision whatsoever in ALPA merger policies that would void an arbitrated result if a subsequent proposed CBA is submitted to a vote and is not agreed to by the membership. USAPA is, in my view, once again trying to kill Nicolau.

Let's take a hypothetical to illustrate the mischief that USAPA could create under this scenario. Assume that USAPA negotiates a CBA, but doesn't give its best efforts at negotiating the best possible financial terms and then submits this to a vote and, by design, it loses. USAPA, under the sought remedy by the Court, would then no longer need to use the Nicolau list in Section 22, and conveniently negotiates significantly better financial terms and then puts this revised CBA to a vote. Gee, with both better financial terms and the lack of Nicolau the CBA passes and USAPA gets what it has wanted all along, a CBA without Nicolau that is based upon DOH with conditions and restrictions.

I doubt that the Court is going to fall for that one....
 
Full implementation would take the issue of the seperate ratification and intentional delay out of the picture and would create a "virtual fence" for all domiciles, meaning for example, few West pilots would bid east knowing they would do so under LOA93.

What an interesting post. All of it. (Doesn't mean I agree with any of it, but delightedly amusing anyway.)

But I wanted to take the above quote and comment.

So, the big cry of "Foul" that we hear from the west is that the east is reneging on an arbitrated seniority list that "both sides agreed on."

Given that tidbit, why is it then ok to throw out a contractual provision (which both sides, BTW, signed off on) which require separate ratification before said seniority list can become effective.

Doesn't the west believe in living up to their agreements? It's a contact. It's binding.

I have no idea where these chips will fall, but I doubt that this little fact I just pointed out will be lost on Judge Wake. Okay, maybe it will be lost on Judge Wake. But I doubt the 9th Circuit would miss it.

I can't believe the "Integrity" crowd now want the judge to do away with their agreement on separate ratification of any new contract.
 
I have seen the latest USAPA brief on the remedies that Judge Wake will be imposing later this month and was struck by USAPA's position that the Nicolau List should only be used once in any ratification vote and then become a nullity. This seems absurd because what it effectively becomes is a reverse ratification of the Nicolau Award. By that I mean rather than a vote that would accept Nicolau, the vote would be held and if the vote failed then USAPA would arguably be able to ignore the Nicolau seniority list.

I should point out that I am not aware of any provision whatsoever in ALPA merger policies that would void an arbitrated result if a subsequent proposed CBA is submitted to a vote and is not agreed to by the membership. USAPA is, in my view, once again trying to kill Nicolau.

Let's take a hypothetical to illustrate the mischief that USAPA could create under this scenario. Assume that USAPA negotiates a CBA, but doesn't give its best efforts at negotiating the best possible financial terms and then submits this to a vote and, by design, it loses. USAPA, under the sought remedy by the Court, would then no longer need to use the Nicolau list in Section 22, and conveniently negotiates significantly better financial terms and then puts this revised CBA to a vote. Gee, with both better financial terms and the lack of Nicolau the CBA passes and USAPA gets what it has wanted all along, a CBA without Nicolau that is based upon DOH with conditions and rules.

I doubt that the Court is going to fall for that one....

I doubt it too.

But then, you see the delusional thinking of Sehman and usapa.

It is hard to imagine anyone with at least a fourth grade education thinking the way these people do.

Some are getting it, but as long as that salesman Sehman keeps telling them what they want to hear, there will be no end and he will keep putting pilots dues money in his pocket until the Judge shows them the light.

hp_fa, don't you find it hard to remain neutral or un-biased when you witness such absurdity time and time again?
 
hp_fa, don't you find it hard to remain neutral or un-biased when you witness such absurdity time and time again?

I don't claim to be unbiased. However I try to look at things objectively and try to not unintentionally show my biases. In other words I will say what I think, but when I am trying to be objective in a discussion I try to keep my biases from clouding the objectivity I might be trying to utilize at that point in time.

This case is a great example of why I hated working on domestic relations cases. To me, from an inside the law firm perspective, domestic relations was largely one huge emotional fight that was in a venue the eschewed emotion and sought only cold logic. For example, how many parents claimed and/or promised not to fight their marital battles through the kids? How many of these same parents did precisely that, trying to make themselves look better to the children than their evil spouse. Despite all the claims to the contrary, what the soon-to-be divorced husband or wife really wanted was to go into a courtroom and publicly use colorful language and metaphors to describe their soon-to-be "ex". Forget the child support and the rest of the property stuff, what they really wanted was to tarnish and forever taint the other person because of the emotional scarring that had occurred.

Anyway, thanks for your post. I'll take it in the light that I am at least seeming to keep my biases under control when I am trying to be objective.
 
What an interesting post. All of it. (Doesn't mean I agree with any of it, but delightedly amusing anyway.)

But I wanted to take the above quote and comment.

So, the big cry of "Foul" that we hear from the west is that the east is reneging on an arbitrated seniority list that "both sides agreed on."

Given that tidbit, why is it then ok to throw out a contractual provision (which both sides, BTW, signed off on) which require separate ratification before said seniority list can become effective.

Doesn't the west believe in living up to their agreements? It's a contact. It's binding.

I have no idea where these chips will fall, but I doubt that this little fact I just pointed out will be lost on Judge Wake. Okay, maybe it will be lost on Judge Wake. But I doubt the 9th Circuit would miss it.

I can't believe the "Integrity" crowd now want the judge to do away with their agreement on separate ratification of any new contract.

Well bus,

First, the Judge sees what many on the east don't . He sees what usapa is all about and he is no fool.

In court, one of usapas "defenses"(lol) was that they were created to break the so called gridlock created by ALPA and the Nic.

By implementing the Nic, the alledged gridlock is gone.

Each side still has the right to vote on any contract, and as cleardirect stated, the Nic will be in ANY and ALL contracts to be voted on by the east and West pilots, so you can vote no forever if you want.

Per the T/A three things had to be done in order to use the seniority list. An arbitrated seniority award, a single certificate and a joint contract. Two of the three requirements have been met for some time now. The third has been under the control of the east since the award came out. The Judge knows that too.

The Judge see's the weakness in the T/A and understands that it was not designed to last this long.

usapa will keep trying to delay with appeals, and when that does not work, other forms of delay will unfold.

In my opinion, he will not let that happen as he has stated he doesn't want to see us back in his court. But that is exactaly where we will be if usapa is allowed to delay.

Again, the Judge is much smarter that usapa and their salesman.

Does the West beleive in honoring their agreements? Your damn right we do and the integrity of the West has been displayed since the day of the merger.

By hanging onto the 9th, your setting yourselves up for more disaapointment.

Judge Wake wrote the book on appeals.
 
Given that tidbit, why is it then ok to throw out a contractual provision (which both sides, BTW, signed off on) which require separate ratification before said seniority list can become effective.

Doesn't the west believe in living up to their agreements? It's a contact. It's binding.

I have no idea where these chips will fall, but I doubt that this little fact I just pointed out will be lost on Judge Wake. Okay, maybe it will be lost on Judge Wake. But I doubt the 9th Circuit would miss it.


NYC,

While interesting and logical, your proposition suffers from a factual foundation. Separate ratification is not a part of ALPA merger policy. I believe it is implied through the administrative policy that the pilot groups have the right of separate ratification for any joint collective bargaining agreement. And no, I cannot give you a citation.

This lack of citation in ALPA merger policy for separate ratification is why Lee Seham proposed the status quo ante during the bench trial for remedy, and the reason there has been no declaration by Lee Seham, and or the BPR, that the unitary voting system under USAPA, for ratification of a joint contract, will be changed in accordance with the TA and ALPA merger policy for separate ratification post DFR trial.

Just my .02
 
What an interesting post. All of it. (Doesn't mean I agree with any of it, but delightedly amusing anyway.)

But I wanted to take the above quote and comment.

So, the big cry of "Foul" that we hear from the west is that the east is reneging on an arbitrated seniority list that "both sides agreed on."

Given that tidbit, why is it then ok to throw out a contractual provision (which both sides, BTW, signed off on) which require separate ratification before said seniority list can become effective.

Doesn't the west believe in living up to their agreements? It's a contact. It's binding.

I have no idea where these chips will fall, but I doubt that this little fact I just pointed out will be lost on Judge Wake. Okay, maybe it will be lost on Judge Wake. But I doubt the 9th Circuit would miss it.

I can't believe the "Integrity" crowd now want the judge to do away with their agreement on separate ratification of any new contract.
Yes the west believes in living up to our contracts. However once again usapa has to take the blame on this one again.

It was the east that wanted a new bargaining agent, it was the east that went to the NMB and had us airways declared a single carrier. So single carrier single vote for a CBA. So the east sets the rules, single vote, when that is no longer convenient the east wants to change to rules to benefit themselves again.

Seham says Status quo ante. Well under ALPA we had the Nicolau and separate vote. usapa's proposal is separate vote and no Nicolau. Not quite status quo is it.

So who is and who is not living up to your agreements?
 
So who is and who is not living up to your agreements?
So who is and who is not living up to our agreements? There, fixed that for you.

The "nic" was a part of three agreements that had to occur in a positive manner for a merged list/contract, the separately ratified merger agreements providing an "escape" clause for either group.

I could not predict how it will fall out now (not being close to the action like you) but would surmise that no merged agreement would be possible over the next five to ten years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.