What's new

2015 Pilot Discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phoenix said:
How it affects the protocol agreement is the issue, not the SLI. Even before that, the courts never had before them MB and the SLI... It was always DFR (and ironically never the protocol agreement).
Apart from the protocol agreement there is no mechanism to continue with the MB arbitration (I say "continue" because it began with the West application for a committee and got a good speed when the committees filed their briefs---which are now moot?) The status of negotiated agreements reached in the "protocol agreement" are now upended.
We were all finally moving forward with "equal committees". Now what?
MB is federal law. Is the protocol agreement a statutory requirement or an instrument freely entered into by the multiple parties?

Who decides if it's moot now? And how does USAPA gain the necessary funds to continue absent a defunct protocol agreement, especially after they fight to oppose paying west legal fees, but likely lose that too given the 9th's ruling?
 
A320 Driver said:
No, it doesn't. It said the NIC would be used.
No, the 9th said USAPA must advocate for the NIC.

USAPA isn't a party to the protocol agreement.

There are 3 committee's, LAA/LUS/west.....

If USAPA dissolves tomorrow, the LUS committee can advocate anything (ie: the same thing they already have given) and USAPA haven't a dog in the fight...

In US law, you are never bound to incriminate yourself... So east pilots (not represented by USAPA anymore, now represented by APA) can advocate whatever is best for them, the west has their own committee to advocate the NIC....
 
Looks like an appeal will be forthcoming. All forward progress shall halt till a court(expedited of course) is heard.
 
im back..!! said:
No, the 9th said USAPA must advocate for the NIC.
USAPA isn't a party to the protocol agreement.
There are 3 committee's, LAA/LUS/west.....
If USAPA dissolves tomorrow, the LUS committee can advocate anything (ie: the same thing they already have given) and USAPA haven't a dog in the fight...
In US law, you are never bound to incriminate yourself... So east pilots (not represented by USAPA anymore, now represented by APA) can advocate whatever is best for them, the west has their own committee to advocate the NIC....
Based on that then I assume the Ninth's order falls the successor CBA (APA) to advocate for the NIC. That's even better for the process.
 
prechilill said:
You easties have a NICe day, and maybe even a NICe weekend. I wonder what Monday will bring?
A major hangover after news like this. Eastwus is probably already at the bar.

Ex-America West pilots win U.S. court ruling on seniority rights
By Jonathan Stempel
JUNE 26 | Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:28pm EDT
By Jonathan Stempel

June 26 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday ordered a union negotiating seniority rights of former US Airways and America West pilots to stop favoring the US Airways pilots, in a divisive decade-old dispute overhanging the 2013 merger that created American Airlines Group Inc.

By a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the US Airline Pilots Association to defend a 2007 arbitration panel ruling widely seen as favorable to America West pilots, if it wanted a role in integrating pilots from the former US Airways Group Inc and AMR Corp, American's parent.

Circuit Judge Jay Bybee said the USAPA violated its duty of fair representation toward the America West pilots through its "continuing discrimination" toward them.

The decision may have a bearing on hearings beginning Monday on integrating the carriers' seniority lists under the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American pilots. Representatives for the USAPA and America West pilots will participate.

Seniority is often considered when determining salaries, benefits and job protections.

The USAPA and its lawyers did not respond to requests for comment. Marty Harper, a lawyer for the America West pilots, said they are "extremely pleased" with the decision. An American spokesman said the Fort Worth, Texas-based carrier had no position in the dispute.

The dispute stemmed from a failure to reach consensus on the seniority rights of 5,100 former US Airways pilots and 1,900 former America West pilots after those carriers merged in 2005.

In May 2007, an arbitration panel led by George Nicolau said 1,700 US Airways pilots on furlough when the merger occurred belonged at the bottom in seniority.

Angered US Airways pilots soon left their union and formed the USAPA, bringing the America West pilots with them.

But the America West pilots said the new union treats them as inferiors, and misled them into voting for an agreement related to the US Airways-American merger by calling the seniority terms "neutral," even as it told former US Airways pilots that the arbitration ruling was "dead."

In January 2014, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver in Phoenix refused to order the USAPA to honor the arbitration ruling, despite calling its actions "sufficiently disturbing to make this a very close call."

Bybee, however, said the USAPA was "constitutionally committed" to repudiating the arbitration ruling, and shortchanged the America West pilots.

"It may be perfectly legitimate, in the abstract, for a union to take measures to avoid infighting while negotiating a contract with an employer," but not if such a conflict results from "the unilateral, discriminatory action of the union itself," Bybee wrote.

The case is Addington et al v. US Airline Pilots Association et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-00471. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Andrew Hay)
 
CallawayGolf said:
MB is federal law. Is the protocol agreement a statutory requirement or an instrument freely entered into by the multiple parties?
Who decides if it's moot now? And how does USAPA gain the necessary funds to continue absent a defunct protocol agreement, especially after they fight to oppose paying west legal fees, but likely lose that too given the 9th's ruling?
Obviously a freely negotiated contractual instrument to accomplish MB without further litigation about MB authorities. That was the point.

Without that protocol agreement there is no MB, none. Unless a court compels participation. Everyone was willing to proceed. Everyone was proceeding. The 9th upended it even though the protocol agreement was never even an issue before any court.

Other than delay and more rancor, who knows what is next.
 
CallawayGolf said:
Based on that then I assume the Ninth's order falls the successor CBA (APA) to advocate for the NIC. That's even better for the process.
What process? Not the process agreed to in the protocol agreement!

Great question you have though. What authority does APA have pursuant to MB, in light of the 9th. Has any court properly altered APA's rights granted by MB? Will APA just roll over and concede a restriction to their rights?

All that work on their briefs and the 9th just zeroed them out and rewrote every committees brief (accept the West's). Interesting times to say the least. 😀
 
Phoenix said:
What process? Not the process agreed to in the protocol agreement!
Great question you have though. What authority does APA have pursuant to MB, in light of the 9th. Has any court properly altered APA's rights granted by MB? Will APA just roll over and concede a restriction to their rights?
All that work on their briefs and the 9th just zeroed them out and rewrote every committees brief (accept the West's). Interesting times to say the least. 😀
I thought USAPA said the protocol agreement was seniority neutral. Was that not the case?
 
CallawayGolf said:
I thought USAPA said the protocol agreement was seniority neutral. Was that not the case?
The protocol agreement was never on trial. Neither was MB, but the 9th has ventured to muzzle both USAPA (and obviously APA) in an MB process that hasn't even barely gotten underway.

This is about much more than little ole USAPA.
 
Crzipilot said:
 
 
 
dipshit.   nowhere in the ruling did it say the NIC had to be institituded.    It said USAPA could not advocate any other seniority agreement than the NIC.      so no...you won't be bidding any big bus any time soon.   You will still be locked in the desert until such time that Doug agrees to use whatever combined list,   whenever that is resolved,       with a no bump no flush agreeement.  
 
Heard monday meeting is already canceled.     
 
also think somwhere in that 9th thing,   it said the arbitration board didn't have to use the NIC.....interesting to say the least...
It you see it as a win for USAPA, good for you.
 
 
"We thus remand this case with instructions to the district court to enter an order enjoining USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond seniority integration proceedings, including any seniority-related discussions leading up to those proceedings, except to the extent that USAPA advocates the Nicolau Award...."
 
 
snapthis said:
It you see it as a win for USAPA, good for you.
 
 
"We thus remand this case with instructions to the district court to enter an order enjoining USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond seniority integration proceedings, including any seniority-related discussions leading up to those proceedings, except to the extent that USAPA advocates the Nicolau Award...."
 
Cherry picking again spin this.  cactusboy was given info from his golf partner bobby boldock, incomplete information. 
 
luvthe9 said:
Will give you some lessons in law and I see you still can't handle the truth comin from you own pilot group.


I have a big no NIC smile on
 
Extra Crispy or original? :lol:
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top