2015 Pilot Discussion.

[Claxon]

 
I'll bet if Nicolau would have accepted the DOH argument, you would have found less errors in ability to be an arbitrator and you would have welcomed his stamp.
 
What labels are you going to place on this set of arbitrators?
 
We shall see.

I will label it a fair final and binding process, real neutral arbitrators, free of alpa pilot "neutrals."

 

[snapthis]

How do you know if a good job is being done to convince the neutrals?
 
We will hear about this Monday, then we will see where things stand.  Bottom line many more years of "leeetigation".

 
You just got trounced by FWAAA and was reminded or the train wreck which placed us in this quagmire.
 
I'd say you had two strikes on that one, because they were over the plate, so chill out and quit arguing with the call(s).
 

 

[Claxon]

I really don't think the 9th ruling is all that bad. The West is pushing an argument that Eischen already addressed as troublesome in the last big merge. The Legacy AA pilots will say the Nic is not fair. Let the West push the Nic. The arbitrators are not in any way obligated to it. They know they will ruin their reputations if they produce a list which will be called unfair and flawed. I place my money on an award very similar to UAL- CO regardless of any arguments the three groups make. The West saying they are getting the Nic after all is said and done is most likely not true. Nor will the East or LAA get what they want. This process is already so screwed up that the arbs are going to take it and run on their own regardless of the three positions.

Best synopsis to date.

 

[nic4us]

None of this is law. This is a process not regulated by law. I am looking at the arbs and what Eischen has done in the past as a clue.
I think the East made a colossal error picking Nicolau and arguing DOH. He never made a DOH award. I say Eischen is going to put his stamp on this, not George Nicolaus'
We shall see.

 
McCaskill-Bond is law.  Contracts carry the force of law.  Union representational rights and the Duty of Fair Representation are mandates of law.
 
This is all about the LAW, (which coincidentally is the acronym for Legacy America West.)
 
I have read Eischen's award in the CAL/UAL merger.  The issues  of the Nicolau Award being "problematic" have nothing to do with the fairness of the Nic, (as a matter of FACT, Eischen repeatedly emphasizes that the Nic was fair and justly constructed given the facts before him and the ALPA merger policy at the time.  Nicolau is repeatedly noted as being a "fair and EQUITABLE award throughtout the CAL?UAL award))  
 
What was "problematic" was that the ALPA merger policy had changed after the Nic award to include a "consideration" for LOS.  Which the CAL/UAL panel did, but held LOS to a much lower rating than the other two considerations..i.e. Status and Career Expectation.  
 
Bottom line, Nicolau gave the east far more than they deserved.  Had the Eischen panel ruled in the AWA/US merger, even using the post Nic ALPA merger policy, the award would not have been significantly different from what Nicolau ruled.
 
All speculative water under the bridge.
 
So, here is where we are..
 
The Nicolau award is the only system wide seniority list for all LUS pilots.
The Nicolau award was never vacated by a court.  (now modified to include upheld by 9th)
The parties to the Nicolau award are all still present. (and one party is rightfully claiming and is being backed by the courts, that the award is controlling)
 
Have a nice weekend.

 

[snapthis]

 
McCaskill-Bond is law.  Contracts carry the force of law.  Union representational rights and the Duty of Fair Representation are mandates of law.
 
This is all about the LAW, (which coincidentally is the acronym for Legacy America West.)
 
I have read Eischen's award in the CAL/UAL merger.  The issues  of the Nicolau Award being "problematic" have nothing to do with the fairness of the Nic, (as a matter of FACT, Eischen repeatedly emphasizes that the Nic was fair and justly constructed given the facts before him and the ALPA merger policy at the time.  Nicolau is repeatedly noted as being a "fair and EQUITABLE award throughtout the CAL?UAL award))  
 
What was "problematic" was that the ALPA merger policy had changed after the Nic award to include a "consideration" for LOS.  Which the CAL/UAL panel did, but held LOS to a much lower rating than the other two considerations..i.e. Status and Career Expectation.  
 
Bottom line, Nicolau gave the east far more than they deserved.  Had the Eischen panel ruled in the AWA/US merger, even using the post Nic ALPA merger policy, the award would not have been significantly different from what Nicolau ruled.
 
All speculative water under the bridge.
 
So, here is where we are..
 
The Nicolau award is the only system wide seniority list for all LUS pilots.
The Nicolau award was never vacated by a court.  (now modified to include upheld by 9th)
The parties to the Nicolau award are all still present. (and one party is rightfully claiming and is being backed by the courts, that the award is controlling)
 
Have a nice weekend.

 
Outstanding synopsis which cuts through the BS.
 
Have an on outstanding Nic filled 4th of July
 

 

[Claxon]

 
Outstanding synopsis which cuts through the BS.
 
Have an on outstanding Nic filled 4th of July
 

The main fact is below in my signature area.  In the remedy portion there was no injunction that the nic has to be used.
 
Your rhetorical club is made of paper.

 

[snapthis]

"

The main fact is below in my signature area.  In the remedy portion there was no injunction that the nic has to be used.

I'm ready to pull the remaining strands of my hair going back and forth with you.
 
Out of context. Have you forgotten about the 9th's message to Judge Silver? Something along the lines of we kick the case back to her with certain instructions.
 
"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.12"
 
 
If I have learned anything from USAPA over years in the courtroom is deception runs deep in the ranks. You did not fool the 9th.
 
From last weeks opinion:
Far from demonstrating that the
union had a legitimate purpose in negotiating Paragraph10(h), the paragraph is further evidence of USAPA’s
intransigence and its continuous course of discriminatory
conduct. USAPA’s motive is nowhere more evident than in
its behavior during the MOU roadshows where, as the district
court found, USAPA’s representatives told the East Pilots
that Paragraph 10(h) rendered the Nicolau Award “dead,” but
also “played fast-and-loose” with the West Pilots, deceiving
them about the purpose and effect of Paragraph 10(h).11
 
 
USAPA included Paragraph 10(h) solely to benefit the East
Pilots over the West Pilots, to free them from the
consequences of the arbitration to which they were bound.
implementation of the Nicolau Award.” Addington, 2014 WL 321349, at
implementation of the Nicolau Award.” Addington, 2014
 
 
In its final order, the district court took USAPA to task for its dilatory
tactics: “USAPA employed almost every conceivable delaying tactic,”
including extensive filings and motions to continue. Id. at *5. Delay
worked to USAPA’s benefit. The longer it could postpone its obligations
to negotiate for the Nicolau Award, the more likely it was that the West
Pilots would give in or that the matter would become moot
 
USAPA’s conduct is blatantly discriminatory. Such a
 
decision falls outside the “wide range of reasonableness” that
 
we afford the union because USAPA has violated its duty of
 
“complete loyalty to[] the interests of all whom it represents.”
 
Ford Motor Co., 345 U.S. at 338; see Barton Brands,
 
 
529 F.2d at 798–99.
 
In sum, the district court identified three possible reasons
 
why USAPA included Paragraph 10(h) in the MOU: first, to
 
obtain the benefits of the MOU while remaining neutral as to
 
seniority; second, to avoid conflict; and third, to advantage
 
the East Pilots by promoting date-of-hire seniority over the
 
Nicolau Award. The first reason is unsupported by the
 
evidence, and the district court clearly erred in concluding
 
that this reason could have supported USAPA’s actions. The
 
second reason is not legitimate; USAPA may not rely upon an
 
unjustified conflict of its own making as a l
 
egitimate union
 
purpose. And the third reason is clearly discriminatory and
 
impermissible. None of the purposes that the district court
 
identified for USAPA’s actions constitutes a “legitimate
 
union purpose” for abandoning the Nicolau Award in the
 
MOU. Nor do we see any other legitimate union purpose for
 
Paragraph 10(h).

 

[Phoenix]

No one is enjoined to affirm or use the Nic for anything, ever.

That is the ultimate antithesis of "final and binding"... It is the antithesis of a contract. It is devoid of meaning or effect. It is beneath the dignity of Judge Wapner..

"Bybee the Beneficent Bumbler"

 

[im back..!!]

I'm not a West pilot, but you're grasping at straws. Footnotes generally don't contain the holding of written appellate opinions, and this one is no different.

Footnote 12 merely explains that the 9th Cir is unwilling to order the SLI arbitration panel that the NIC list is the only permissible means of combining the East and West pilots. Instead, the 9th Cir merely prohibited the USAPA from arguing any other method other than the NIC list (the USAPA is enjoined from arguing DOH). Nobody will be there arguing DOH for the East and West combination.

As a practical matter, the court didn't need to order the SLI arbitration panel to start with the NIC list - it's fairly obvious that the arbitration panel will likely begin with the NIC list anyway and then combine the NIC list with the APA list, as many have predicted since the date the US-AA merger was announced (and even when the US-AA merger was just a rumour).

Arbitration panels aren't going to ignore a previous arbitrated result, especially in this instance. The USAPA was a success in delaying the inevitable for several years, but eventually, the NIC and APA lists will be combined. My prediction is that the final result is NIC-like, given that APA's employer was in bankruptcy at the time of the merger. APA won't be very happy with it, but there won't be anything they can do about it.

I agree with your post, yet must include the note that the arbs have seen the arbs issues with the Nic as referenced in the UAL/CAL merger. they didn't rank too favorably. the NIC was referenced as an issue to be avoided.
I think this is why the (the 9th  didn't come out and force the use of the NIC).
the NIC imposes a penalty on the lower half of the LAA pilots. that was never envisioned by the arb Nicloau. Nostradamus he wasn't.

 

[Claxon]

I'm ready to pull the remaining strands of my hair going back and forth with you.
 

USAPA as APA are not involved in the proceedings now.
 
If Judge Silver enters any order for the East pilots to use the nic, it will go against what the 9th foot note highlighted and be appealed, there is not an injunction that the nic has to be used.

 

[traderjake]

the NIC imposes a penalty on the lower half of the LAA pilots. that was never envisioned by the arb Nicloau. 

 
The penalty being LAA pilots can't have the seats USAPA stole from the West before the West pilots get them .
 
I don't think that's going to fly with the Arbitration Panel. 

 

[snapthis]

No one is enjoined to affirm or use the Nic for anything, ever.

That is the ultimate antithesis of "final and binding"... It is the antithesis of a contract. It is devoid of meaning or effect. It is beneath the dignity of Judge Wapner..

"Bybee the Beneficent Bumbler"

 
It sounds like the same advice you got that caused you to lose your case and get 10h put on it's head. Too bad it's well over your head due to your inexperience concerning these matters. You are like most hard core USAPA supporters, you don't ask the tough questions of your lawyers or don't know the questions to ask.
 
Oh, one other thing. Have a happy 4th of July. Not to worry, this problem you have will not take a holiday.

 

[CactusPilot1]

It sounds like the same advice you got that caused you to lose your case and get 10h put on it's head. Too bad it's well over your head due to your inexperience concerning these matters. You are like most hard core USAPA supporters, you don't ask the tough questions of your lawyers or don't know the questions to ask.
 
Oh, one other thing. Have a happy 4th of July. Not to worry, this problem you have will not take a holiday.

Beautiful..you know what's even better? It's the same goons who went from ALPA to USAPA then to USAPA LLC and now trying to re-invent themselves. It's the same bumbling idiots and the only ones asking questions are the third listers who I have a bit of understanding of those concerns.

 

[Claxon]

 
It sounds like the same advice you got that caused you to lose your case and get 10h put on it's head. Too bad it's well over your head due to your inexperience concerning these matters. You are like most hard core USAPA supporters, you don't ask the tough questions of your lawyers or don't know the questions to ask.
 
Oh, one other thing. Have a happy 4th of July. Not to worry, this problem you have will not take a holiday.

What questions do we have to ask.  East committee taking over, foot note 12 is a blue print for the arbs.  The agreement was an East, west and AASLIC with a snap shot of Sept 2013. 

 

[Claxon]

Beautiful..you know what's even better? It's the same goons who went from ALPA to USAPA then to USAPA LLC and now trying to re-invent themselves. It's the same bumbling idiots and the only ones asking questions are the third listers who I have a bit of understanding of those concerns.

The third listers views are from a Captain seat or a 330 seat, with a few more years of attrition. 
 
Whats in your bid?  Sitting reserve f/o for 10years has to be tough on you.