2014 Pilot Discussion

[Claxon]

That's the funniest part of the whole order.  Silver is the biggest hypocrite in the world, calling herself an impartial member of the court system, then criticizing an attorney who is simply doing the job he is paid to do: Giving his client the best representation possible without breaking the law (a fact her own ruling affirms.)
 
It's easy, Judge Silver:  Is it legal, or not?  Keep your moralizing to yourself, and contact your representatives in Congress if you think the law needs to be changed (to suit your personal goals of protecting your homies to the detriment of everyone else.)

Wake and Silver are typical of the AZ judicial cadre. Anti labor and profoundly incompetent. Siegle led her around by the nose for quite a time until her honor took the time to read what the law really said.

 

[Claxon]

Neil V Wake let the morons at Leonidas go to trial for an unripe case. He takes the prize as the most incompetent.
The 9th had a field day on him.

 

[Graceson]

The strongest point Silver makes in her ruling demonstrates that she does indeed understand the true definition of “fair and equitable” as well as “wide range of reasonableness.”  
 
 
 
“Because the MOU is beneficial in many respects, the West Pilots ask the Court to focus exclusively on Paragraph 10(h) and decide whether there was a legitimate union purpose…  It is unclear whether agreement terms can, as a practical matter, be analyzed in this way. Given the nature of bargaining, analyzing every provision of an agreement in complete isolation will often result in a distorted picture of the overall situation. During bargaining, parties’ positions and agreement provisions evolve. It may inappropriately enmesh courts in the minutiae of collective bargaining if unions can be required to justify every provision without regard to the overall beneficial nature of an agreement.” …“The fact that USAPA might have, in truth, been motivated by a desire to weaken the chances of eventual adoption of the Nicolau Award is not enough. …‘bad’ motive does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves the interests of workers as a whole . . . .”).”
 
 
 
In the above, she provides that “weaken(ed) chances of an adoption of the Nicolau is not enough.” Not even if such chances are truthfully motivated by some USAPA desire to do so. She further states that, “analyzing every provision of an agreement in complete isolation will often result in a distorted picture of the overall.” Even if USAPA’s NC reaches a final resolution on an SLI for ratification as part of a CBA, such seniority list must be judged as but only a single provision weighted against the beneficial nature of the agreement as it serves the interests of workers as a whole.
 
 
 
At first glance it seems she contradicts precedent and discovery as well as her own interpretations of that discover by offering the following:
 
 
 
“In reaching its conclusion on the DFR claim, the Court must stress it is not adopting an argument USAPA has repeatedly proffered. According to USAPA, it has always been free to ignore the Nicolau Award because its members will refuse to ratify anything other than a strict date-of-hire system… USAPA owes duties to all of its members. It cannot justify its actions by claiming it is merely acting as the conduit for enacting the East Pilots’ self-serving wishes. USAPA has never been free–and never will be free–to extract the maximum benefits for the East Pilots, regardless of the cost to the West Pilots."
 
 
 
But upon carefully considering of the exact wording of the above statements, no one should reasonably disagree with her conclusions. In fact I think these statements are a worthy refinement of the “wide range of reasonableness” standard that any SLI would ultimately be measured by. In effect, she illustrates the extremes of “unreasonable” buy using words such as, “strict” and “maximum.”
 
 
 
By illustration, she states that within a wide range of reasonableness, “strict” date of hire would not meet her interpretation of the standard --- the word “strict” being the extreme within some spectrum’s range of values. Also she views any resolution of “maximum” benefit for one side with disregard for the other is also an extreme as per her interpretation of reasonable. I believe this refinement of the definition “reasonable” by illustrating the extremes are useful for NC’s determination of a fair SLI.
 
 
 
A “strict” DOH would be an extreme -- agreed. And despite perceptions or fears to the contrary, a NC’s definition of fairness :does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves interests of workers as a whole.” Precedent now exists within the industry which further references the Nicolau as one standard which excludes essential elements in weighing the true value of an employee’s contribution. A standard now viewed as extreme. A standard which extracts the maximum benefit for the West Pilots, regardless of the cost to the East Pilots.

 

[end_of_alpa]

The strongest point Silver makes in her ruling demonstrates that she does indeed understand the true definition of “fair and equitable” as well as “wide range of reasonableness.”  
 
 
 
“Because the MOU is beneficial in many respects, the West Pilots ask the Court to focus exclusively on Paragraph 10(h) and decide whether there was a legitimate union purpose…  It is unclear whether agreement terms can, as a practical matter, be analyzed in this way. Given the nature of bargaining, analyzing every provision of an agreement in complete isolation will often result in a distorted picture of the overall situation. During bargaining, parties’ positions and agreement provisions evolve. It may inappropriately enmesh courts in the minutiae of collective bargaining if unions can be required to justify every provision without regard to the overall beneficial nature of an agreement.” …“The fact that USAPA might have, in truth, been motivated by a desire to weaken the chances of eventual adoption of the Nicolau Award is not enough. …‘bad’ motive does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves the interests of workers as a whole . . . .”).”
 
 
 
In the above, she provides that “weaken(ed) chances of an adoption of the Nicolau is not enough.” Not even if such chances are truthfully motivated by some USAPA desire to do so. She further states that, “analyzing every provision of an agreement in complete isolation will often result in a distorted picture of the overall.” Even if USAPA’s NC reaches a final resolution on an SLI for ratification as part of a CBA, such seniority list must be judged as but only a single provision weighted against the beneficial nature of the agreement as it serves the interests of workers as a whole.
 
 
 
At first glance it seems she contradicts precedent and discovery as well as her own interpretations of that discover by offering the following:
 
 
 
“In reaching its conclusion on the DFR claim, the Court must stress it is not adopting an argument USAPA has repeatedly proffered. According to USAPA, it has always been free to ignore the Nicolau Award because its members will refuse to ratify anything other than a strict date-of-hire system… USAPA owes duties to all of its members. It cannot justify its actions by claiming it is merely acting as the conduit for enacting the East Pilots’ self-serving wishes. USAPA has never been free–and never will be free–to extract the maximum benefits for the East Pilots, regardless of the cost to the West Pilots."
 
 
 
But upon carefully considering of the exact wording of the above statements, no one should reasonably disagree with her conclusions. In fact I think these statements are a worthy refinement of the “wide range of reasonableness” standard that any SLI would ultimately be measured by. In effect, she illustrates the extremes of “unreasonable” buy using words such as, “strict” and “maximum.”
 
 
 
By illustration, she states that within a wide range of reasonableness, “strict” date of hire would not meet her interpretation of the standard --- the word “strict” being the extreme within some spectrum’s range of values. Also she views any resolution of “maximum” benefit for one side with disregard for the other is also an extreme as per her interpretation of reasonable. I believe this refinement of the definition “reasonable” by illustrating the extremes are useful for NC’s determination of a fair SLI.
 
 
 
A “strict” DOH would be an extreme -- agreed. And despite perceptions or fears to the contrary, a NC’s definition of fairness :does not spoil a collective bargaining agreement that rationally serves interests of workers as a whole.” Precedent now exists within the industry which further references the Nicolau as one standard which excludes essential elements in weighing the true value of an employee’s contribution. A standard now viewed as extreme. A standard which extracts the maximum benefit for the West Pilots, regardless of the cost to the East Pilots.

USAPA has NEVER proposed a strict DOH list. First there is conditions and restrictions. Secondly the two "extremes" would be putting the East and/or the West underneath the others respective seniority list.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Slow news day.....

 

[Pi brat]

 
I think Pi Brat got it right....wildcard. Phoenix was already appealing before the appeal then we had the ruling. Victory is declared, then the party. I read either 44 or 46 pages because I had to read it twice. Be prepared for a hangover, this thing is not over by a longshot.
 
Maybe the RLA needs to be examined. Last time I checked I was never an engineer on a locamotive, rather a B727. The Railway Labor Act was passed in 1926. 
 
The USAPA experiment has failed due to the fact the law was manipulated in a manner that it was no longer a bargaining agent. The RLA has allowed USAPA to disenfranchise a third of it's pilot group.
 
It may be legal now to allow a "union" to abuse power. Hopefully we can McCaskill-Bond unions like  USAPA to prevent a similar travesty in the future.
 
Thanks for the suggestion.

I don't remember making a "wildcard" statement. Are you refering to my post where I added a DL pilots comment to yours? Those were his words. But, in any case we can certainly see that dealing with the courts is certainly a wildcard situation.
 
Your previous post, that I just pull for the home team, probably got a lot of chuckles on here and certainly would from my former reps. I've tried to look at what is right and to be pragmatic about what is possible and he best solution for all of us. That at times has gotten me called a traitor and waffler.
 
I've always said that I can understand the west POV and that I respect your right to fight for what you believe is right. But over time I think that fight has become an illogical jihad. Based on the past you are probably right that this isn't over, but it should be. We should put the Nic and a straight DOH east/west list behind us and focus on merging the 3 lists.
 
Along the way I have begun to care less and less what happens to the west. I hate the negative implications for some of my friends out there. but when you try to be fair, like with the C18, but just get kicked in the teeth, it takes something out of you. I have been called a scab, a liar, a thief and even a community college prodigy who couldn't get a job without his Dad. None are true and it's worn thin.
 
I cannot believe that you guys have forgotten the failed words of AOL. "This is over!" back during Addington I. "The victory in SFO is a given." "The MOU completes the TA and that's all that is left for the implementation of the Nicolau award." "USAPA does not have a LUP!!!!!" If you can ignore that and still follow Ferguson, knock yourself out. Just don't complain when your are even worse off after the next SLI.

 

[EastUS1]

Where is our little cupcake, PreChill?

 
Well...according to her, at least some months back; she was eagerly prepped and ready to bid into the left seat of a 330 in CLT no later than august of last year...Didn't that happen? In fairness though; her hilarious"T minus" countdown clocks were still up and running then as well. 😉

 

[EastUS1]

I cannot believe that you guys have forgotten the failed words of AOL. "This is over!" back during Addington I. "The victory in SFO is a given." "The MOU completes the TA and that's all that is left for the implementation of the Nicolau award." "USAPA does not have a LUP!!!!!" If you can ignore that and still follow Ferguson, knock yourself out. Just don't complain when your are even worse off after the next SLI.

 
"If you can ignore that and still follow Ferguson, knock yourself out."  Indeed, although it almost passes belief that any semblance of rational people could still do so. No matter, I suppose. "Click to Donate"....Suckers, with perhaps the added observation that placing your faith in some 2004 hire imbued with "supreme commander" of some supposed "spartan"...err..."army" delusions, who, when confronted by even the possibility of merely losing a frikkin' job, referred to such as having to make "the supreme sacrifice", MIGHT, just possibly, have additional "issues" and deficiencies worthy of consideration (as if those noted aren't enough for anyone even halfway sane)...Just sayin'.. http://www.cactuspilot.com/

 

[Pi brat]

So Snappy, since you are one of the few west posters still posting and you have read Silver's ruling, I want to ask you something. You know where Silver gives her reason for not allowing Humel's testimony? You see any problem with that?
 
It all sounds logical, right? Well the thing is, Humel provided a sworn depositon BEFORE his heart surgery and the hearing about the origins of 10h. He laid in on Kirby. Here it is from September 17th:
 
·A.· ·So at that meeting Dave Bates, his
·8· overriding concern was on how USAPA was going to
·9· handle their current seniority integration issue
10· and would that be handled prior to any merger with
11· American.· And that concern was answered by Scott
12· Kirby, who made it perfectly clear that we weren't
13· going to deal with seniority in any way, shape or
14· form, that the McCaskill-Bond process would allow
15· us to deal with that at a later date, that we would
16· be able to work towards an MOU provided that there
17· was no discussion on seniority and that the
18· seniority issue would be dealt with after the
19· merger.
 
So, under risk of perjury, Humel said that. If the AOL team was soooo sure that it was a lie, why didn't they call Scott Kirby to the stand? He could have made quick work of it, right? Add to the fact that USAPA tried to have the hearing delayed, and had she done that Humel wouldn't have had a reason to not testify, and it makes your wonder about the Judge.
 
It doesn't really matter, she ruled in USAPA's favor, but her words are giving the west encouragement.

 

[Pi brat]

I forgot the best AOLism:
"- Judge Silver ruled that USAPA will not be allowed to participate in the seniority integration proceedings once the NMB certifies the APA as the exclusive bargaining agent. "
 
I don't see that in the RULING.

 

[end_of_alpa]

So Snappy, since you are one of the few west posters still posting and you have read Silver's ruling, I want to ask you something. You know where Silver gives her reason for not allowing Humel's testimony? You see any problem with that?
 
It all sounds logical, right? Well the thing is, Humel provided a sworn depositon BEFORE his heart surgery and the hearing about the origins of 10h. He laid in on Kirby. Here it is from September 17th:
 
·A.· ·So at that meeting Dave Bates, his
·8· overriding concern was on how USAPA was going to
·9· handle their current seniority integration issue
10· and would that be handled prior to any merger with
11· American.· And that concern was answered by Scott
12· Kirby, who made it perfectly clear that we weren't
13· going to deal with seniority in any way, shape or
14· form, that the McCaskill-Bond process would allow
15· us to deal with that at a later date, that we would
16· be able to work towards an MOU provided that there
17· was no discussion on seniority and that the
18· seniority issue would be dealt with after the
19· merger.
 
So, under risk of perjury, Humel said that. If the AOL team was soooo sure that it was a lie, why didn't they call Scott Kirby to the stand? He could have made quick work of it, right? Add to the fact that USAPA tried to have the hearing delayed, and had she done that Humel wouldn't have had a reason to not testify, and it makes your wonder about the Judge.
 
It doesn't really matter, she ruled in USAPA's favor, but her words are giving the west encouragement.

Judge Silvers ruling took the wind out of their sails. Doesn't really matter when your using cheesecloth instead of sail cloth.

 

[EastUS1]

I forgot the best AOLism:
"- Judge Silver ruled that USAPA will not be allowed to participate in the seniority integration proceedings once the NMB certifies the APA as the exclusive bargaining agent. "
 
I don't see that in the RULING.

 
Yeah. Oh well..."What matter wounds" (or actual rulings) "to the body of a Knight errant?...For each time he falls, he" (the nic) "shall rise again!....And woe to the wicked!" Don Quixote.  I'm nowadays thinking a fortune could easilly be made by just constructing a windmill in PHX and charging tourists to watch the fun as the west "knights" joust with it...Not to mention the income from souvenier T-shirt sales alone. 😉

 

[luvthe9]

After going through the recent recall and then reading Judge Silver's decision, I thought it remarkable that Gary Hummel would take a victory lap for that decision.

If you read that decision carefully, you will see that the Judge was less then impressed by Gary and how close we came to losing it. She scolded us at length and in many places. I believe she was wrong in her opinion of USAPA as a whole and she certainly overstepped her bounds as regards to our future, but she made it very plain what she thought about Gary. We won that decision in spite of his efforts.

If credit should be given, it should go to the people that charted the strategy that we eventually won on. That would be Mike Cleary and Randy Mowery. Those two hired the right law firms, set strategy, appointed the committee people that formed the essential committees that we all now take for granted and kept this union together from the beginning and during the most difficult times. A real leader would have given credit where credit was due. Hummel patted himself on the back as if to say "Look what I did" when he happened to come into office at the same time US Airways announced the merger and then needed our help. Other than follow the strategy that Mike and Randy had us on, what else did he do? He almost cost us that decision, that's what he did. I guess the old adage of "I'd rather be lucky then good" applies here. It's amazing to me just how small some people can get.

I can't tell you what I know about some things because of confidentiality, but I can tell you that decisions that Hummel made came very close to creating a disaster and still might. Some day I hope to tell the whole story so everyone can see what I am talking about. But right now, because things are not finalized with our seniority, I need to remain quiet. I guess that is why I find his self-congratulations so disingenuous.

On another topic, but may be just as relevant, In every election, the results have always been released as to how each base voted. That way, it was easy to see how different cultures (north, south, west) felt about a person or an issue. Not this time. This time, Gary is keeping that information to himself. The reason he says is consistency. He claims that in the CLT recall attempt, the numbers were not released but if you remember, they were. So it makes no sense to say they are being consistent. If they truly want consistency, release the information as it always has been. Unless there is another reason, like the east voted to recall him while the west voted to keep him. Not so far fetched since until Judge Silver made her decision, we never heard a single word out of Hummel about the company inviting the west to form their own merger committee and attend meetings. Not one word.

We have to trust our leaders and at least 49% have lost trust in Gary's leadership. That is a huge number and he will have to work very hard indeed, to gain that trust back. A start would be transparency. The seniority decision with the west has been made. Time to start leveling with us. If the west decided to vote to keep him, the obvious question would be why? They really wanted Bradford gone and they really wanted to run Ferguson for President. So why vote to keep both of them in there? If they did vote against the recall, I have to wonder why.

The future today looks much brighter than it did a few days ago, however, there is a lot of work to do yet and many decisions must be made that will affect all of our futures. The BPR had better be involved and hopefully Hummel will work hand in hand with them and the merger committee. The pilots here had better demand it.

Bill Glynn

 

[nevergiveup]

 
I think Pi Brat got it right....wildcard. Phoenix was already appealing before the appeal then we had the ruling. Victory is declared, then the party. I read either 44 or 46 pages because I had to read it twice. Be prepared for a hangover, this thing is not over by a longshot.
 
Maybe the RLA needs to be examined. Last time I checked I was never an engineer on a locamotive, rather a B727. The Railway Labor Act was passed in 1926. 
 
The USAPA experiment has failed due to the fact the law was manipulated in a manner that it was no longer a bargaining agent. The RLA has allowed USAPA to disenfranchise a third of it's pilot group.
 
It may be legal now to allow a "union" to abuse power. Hopefully we can McCaskill-Bond unions like  USAPA to prevent a similar travesty in the future.
 
Thanks for the suggestion.

Psalm75: 6-7

 

[Piedmont1984]

The three big developments of the past few years have been:

Injunction
Merger
MOU

Which of these three would you describe as a bona fide disaster? Who was the architect of that disaster?

Just askin.