ALPA RULING OUT

[USA320Pilot]

Last week members of the Executive Council (EC) met with the US Airways and AWA Merger Committee's and MEC Officers. Discussions were held at a working dinner on Tuesday night, during the day on Wednesday, and then again on Thursday.

Some EVP's want the Nicolau Award thrown out, but do not represent the majority. Some EVP's want fences and some EVP's want a new agreement with different ratios.

Without a clear consensus on how to proceed, on Thursday the EC crafted a resolution to delay intervention until next months meeting the last week of June.

As Jack Stephan said, "These documents (EC Resolution & ALPA President letter to both MEC's) lay the foundation for seeking to right the injustices of this egregious award. The resolution states that the Executive Council is acutely aware of the negative consequences that may result if the MECs fail to come together to explore consensual approaches that promote career protection and mutual success. Additionally it goes on to direct ALPA President, Captain John Prater to continue to employ all of the resources of the Association to assist the MECs in achieving these goals."

On Tuesday, May 29, ALPA President John Prater will simultaneously speak with Stephan and AWA MEC Charrman John McIlvenna via conference call where Prater will begin about a one-month process of using all of ALPA International's resources to assist the MEC's in obtaining a joint seniority list, otherwise, I understand the EC is willing to intervene.

US Airways-pilots end the week at odds

See Story

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[awausairtech]

I am not the sharpest tool in the tool box but, and I may be wrong, Your language in the ALPA was changed back when USAIR AND UNITED was going to merge which did not happen but, You did not change the merger language back and now it bites you, What will be next JETBLUE with 3 year pilots at the top??????? So someone needs to start to look at whats up next don't you think?????? 🙄

 

[awausairtech]

I am not the sharpest tool in the tool box but, and I may be wrong, Your language in the ALPA was changed back when USAIR AND UNITED was going to merge which did not happen but, You did not change the merger language back and now it bites you, What will be next JETBLUE with 3 year pilots at the top??????? So someone needs to start to look at whats up next don't you think?????? 🙄

precedence: !!!!!(The fact, state, or right of preceding; priority: Applications arriving first will receive precedence.
Priority claimed or received because of preeminence or superiority: COMMOM SENSE!!!!

 

[Borescope]

highest ranking officers first.
COMMOM SENSE!!!!

No where in ALPA's merger policy does it say anything about "highest ranking officers first" (ala date of hire). Next time you'll learn to play your cards a little better 😛

 

[awausairtech]

No where in ALPA's merger policy does it say anything about "highest ranking officers first" (ala date of hire). Next time you'll learn to play your cards a little better 😛

Is that not what I was getting at Borescope. I was just posting the meaning of ( precedence):huh: :huh: I FIXED IT, You can read into it what you want but the ("highest ranking officers first" ) has nothing to do with this meaning as used.. Have a good one!

 

[oldcrow]

What will be next JETBLUE with 3 year pilots at the top??????? So someone needs to start to look at whats up next don't you think??

JETBLUE is non-union. They would be stapled to the bottom of the list just like Piedmont stapled the Empire pilots to the bottom of the list.

 

[luvn737s]

Our contract does say that if you don't pay your dues you will be fired. However ALPA policy does say that someone in such a position has to be given a hearing and a judgement and an avenue to regain good standing. Having dealt with these situations before all that is required of a non dues paying member is to set up a repayment schedule with ALPA in an "attempt" to regain standing. And that effort only requires a repayment schedule of a few dollars every few months in order to prevent termination. Hmm...10-50 in dues payment per year versus a couple hundred a month for ALPA not doing their job? No one on the west side who is a non dues paying member has ever been fired as long as they pony up a one every now and then.

Bob

ALPA is under an obligation to take an airline, who allows "free riders", to court to have those employees dismissed. There are very few exceptions, the use of which by 3500 people at once, would probably be disallowed anyhow. And if they kick you out of the union, you either pay for your own lawyer, or go it alone.

But you're probably right, a mob can usually get it's way through destruction when it ignores the rule of law.

-edited.
I apologize for my previous remark which I see was disrespectful.

 

[IMisstheAladdinTrays]

JETBLUE is non-union. They would be stapled to the bottom of the list just like Piedmont stapled the Empire pilots to the bottom of the list.

Merger Protection is part of the new FAA Reauthorization Bill. It will prevent any one group from being "stapled" to the bottom!

 

[ClueByFour]

On Tuesday, May 29, ALPA President John Prater will simultaneously speak with Stephan and AWA MEC Charrman John McIlvenna via conference call where Prater will begin about a one-month process of using all of ALPA International's resources to assist the MEC's in obtaining a joint seniority list, otherwise, I understand the EC is willing to intervene.

You said they would intervene after the first meeting. Changing your mind?

I'm of the fine opinion that the ALPA EC will not, repeat not, take any action to vacate the Nicolau award. To do so would lead to bankrupting the union.

It would be impossible to defend a DFR lawsuit from the West. ALPA knows this, the EC knows this, and the East MEC knows this, which is what is leading to the chest-beating Tarzan calls to decertify.

As an aside, I have it on pretty good authority that the NMB is not going to let the East pilot group grab via the Teamsters what they could not (and won't) get via ALPA.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

ALPA is under an obligation to take an airline, who allows "free riders", to court to have those employees dismissed. There are very few exceptions,

Luv'n

I understand that but in reality it never happens. I used to be involved in working to get members in bad standing to pay up. Not once were they ever threatened with legal action or anything else. As long as they set up a repayment schedule the termination letter/court proceedings do not come into play. Repayment schedule only means that they have to pay something - no required amount. I saw most of them pay $10 every quarter. That keeps ALPA satisfied and the company satisfied.

I have never been delinquent in my dues and don't intend on being so in the future. Just letting people know how the game is played.

Bob

 

[Junebug172]

Decertify now!

So let me see, ALPA National supports you with resources ($$) above and beyond what your MEC and merger fund could support and you guys blame National for the course you, and you alone, decided to take.

AND, it was you guys that decided to take this thing into arbitration when the West wanted nothing else but to negotiate an agreement.

And now that you guys don't like the outcome, you want a do over.

Why are you blaming National again?

 

[Mr Furlough]

You said they would intervene after the first meeting. Changing your mind?

I'm of the fine opinion that the ALPA EC will not, repeat not, take any action to vacate the Nicolau award. To do so would lead to bankrupting the union.

It would be impossible to defend a DFR lawsuit from the West. ALPA knows this, the EC knows this, and the East MEC knows this, which is what is leading to the chest-beating Tarzan calls to decertify.

As an aside, I have it on pretty good authority that the NMB is not going to let the East pilot group grab via the Teamsters what they could not (and won't) get via ALPA.

I'm not so sure your DFR case is as iron clad as you attempt to advance. East Pilots could just as easily argue DFR for allowing it to stand.

I don't know if you have any first hand experience in DFR law suits or not. But I can tell you this-ALPA isn't the least bit intimidated by a pilot pounding his/her fist and crying "DFR". Truth of the matter is, you would be very challenged to raise enough money to see it through in the legal arena.

As to your objection, I'm not sure what your issue is. Are you against overturning the Nicolau Award because you fear you might loose something? Or is it the attempted oversight that National is bringing to the process?

Cheers,

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You said they would intervene after the first meeting. Changing your mind?

I'm of the fine opinion that the ALPA EC will not, repeat not, take any action to vacate the Nicolau award. To do so would lead to bankrupting the union.

It would be impossible to defend a DFR lawsuit from the West. ALPA knows this, the EC knows this, and the East MEC knows this, which is what is leading to the chest-beating Tarzan calls to decertify.

As an aside, I have it on pretty good authority that the NMB is not going to let the East pilot group grab via the Teamsters what they could not (and won't) get via ALPA.

That's about the goofiest thing I've read about this so far. The ONLY way ALPA can justify throwing out or modifying the award is by determining that the guidance set forth as a condition of it's adoption was not followed. Sounds to me like this would be pretty easy to do in this case. NO contract is binding if the conditions are not met. The same reasoning has to be applied whether the award is modified or completely thrown out. And just how could the NMB have any say in what a party representing pilots negotiates with the company? I don't see any sort of grab here, and I don't think ALPA sees one either. If ALPA wants to strengthen their position as a union, they will take an honest, unbiased look at this situation and right the errors which have become evident in the Nicolau award, not sit aside and hammer one side or the other, just because it's the expeditious thing to do. There has got to be shared sacrifice, not windfalls for either side.

 

[aquagreen73s]

I'm not so sure your DFR case is as iron clad as you attempt to advance. East Pilots could just as easily argue DFR for allowing it to stand.

I don't know if you have any first hand experience in DFR law suits or not. But I can tell you this-ALPA isn't the least bit intimidated by a pilot pounding his/her fist and crying "DFR". Truth of the matter is, you would be very challenged to raise enough money to see it through in the legal arena.

As to your objection, I'm not sure what your issue is. Are you against overturning the Nicolau Award because you fear you might loose something? Or is it the attempted oversight that National is bringing to the process?

Cheers,

You've got it all wrong. The only thing ALPA is obligated to do, and is still obligated to do, is to follow the merger policy. You had your day in court, you had your own neutral on the panel, and nobody on that panel objected to the outcome. East has no DFR case...none...nada...zip. It's over. The only thing left to do is for ALPA to enforce the award per their policy. If they don't, the barn door is wide open to liability under both tort and contract law.

 

[aquagreen73s]

That's about the goofiest thing I've read about this so far. The ONLY way ALPA can justify throwing out or modifying the award is by determining that the guidance set forth as a condition of it's adoption was not followed. Sounds to me like this would be pretty easy to do in this case. NO contract is binding if the conditions are not met. The same reasoning has to be applied whether the award is modified or completely thrown out. And just how could the NMB have any say in what a party representing pilots negotiates with the company? I don't see any sort of grab here, and I don't think ALPA sees one either. If ALPA wants to strengthen their position as a union, they will take an honest, unbiased look at this situation and right the errors which have become evident in the Nicolau award, not sit aside and hammer one side or the other, just because it's the expeditious thing to do. There has got to be shared sacrifice, not windfalls for either side.

Your're right about the jurisdictional limits of the NMB in reaching whatever is ultimately decided between the company and the pilots, but that's not the issue. The issue is a voluntary submission by all three parties - AWA, AAA and ALPA, to let the NMB decide the matter. About seven decades ago, Congress decided that it's best to create an organization under the Executive Branch of our government to deal with the sort of issues like we're dealing with here. Voila, the NMB was created. The idea was to keep these matters out of federal court unless there are extreme circumstances necessitating intervention. Those narrow circumstances are spelled out in the code and subsequent case law. AAA and AWA, per the ALPA policy, agreed to utilize this mechanism and when they did, all three parties became subject to the provisions of the code. That means, in a nutshell, no appeals of the award to a federal court. It's done. DFR is a whole different ballgame. You're now talking tort law and for that you would need to show four things: (1) a duty; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) that the breach was both the actual and proximate cause of your harm; and (4) that actual harm was suffered. We know ALPA has a duty, so (1) is met. It's up to you, however, to show that ALPA breached that duty, that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of your harm, and finally that you actually suffered harm. That's one hell of a hail mary if you ask me. You can't prove (2), (3) or (4) individually let alone all of the elements. DFR is out of the question for the East. Now, if ALPA somehow monkeys with their stated duty (and pay particular attention to that: their voluntary assumption of the duty to defend the NMB award), then that's a whole different matter for the West. I bet I could win that on summary judgment. The case would be that easy.