ALPA/USAPA Topic for week of 2/6 to 2/13

[aquagreen73s]

The transition agreement survives, as does the arbitration. The issue is successorship under the RLA versus the NLRA. Burns is an NLRA case and was subsequently distinguished in later RLA cases, all of which had the opposite holding of Burns. Why? Because the RLA has different concerns and requires a contrary holding to Burns. That's not my opinion, but comes from the post-Burns cases themselves. One case in particular has a detailed discussion as to the policy reasons for the the RLA law to be contrapositive with NLRA law when it comes to CBA successorship. However, the u-sap plan might work if this were an NLRA matter, but then again Burns comes from a different era and I would bet that should that issue arise again, the Supreme Court would reverse it. Burns arguably puts managements at a disadvantage. Putting management at a disadvantage is not necessarily a bad thing IMO, but the current Court is not exactly labor friendly and a management-appellant would certainly have the ears of four justices. Interestingly, the issue of successorship rarely arises in either the NLRA or under the RLA but I suppose that is not surprising given the fact that CBAs don't change very often and when they do, they don't try to repudiate agreements. In any case, whether Burns would be reversed nowadays is immaterial. Heck, this probably won't even reach a vote given the toal screw-up and last minute mea culpa to the NMB last week. In any case, the worst for the West would have been a cave and fortunately the line held. Henceforth there won't be any time nor any reasonable excuses for another steering committee where the West could once again be laid on pretty heavily to cave. If there is an election and if usapa becomes the CBA, then they have the impossible task of literally rewriting RLA case law. Don't believe me, then just go to your local law library, log on to Westlaw, and keycite Burns. You'll see a number of yellow flags pop up which means the case has been distinguished. Scroll through some of those yellow flags and you'll see for yourself - the RLA and the NLRA are very different when it comes to successorship.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

But....it probably won't even go there after last week's mea culpa to the NMB.

As usual you're making something out of old news. Whatever you post has no bearing on how the NMB will rule. What you don't seem to realize or possibly can't bring yourself to admit, is the replacement card campaign was extremely successful. So, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out all you want with old news. The next step is the card, replacement card validity, followed by a vote.

 

[aquagreen73s]

As usual you're making something out of old news. Whatever you post has no bearing on how the NMB will rule. What you don't seem to realize or possibly can't bring yourself to admit, is the replacement card campaign was extremely successful. So, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out all you want with old news. The next step is the card, replacement card validity, followed by a vote.

Hey...just exrapolating from the context of both letters. Perhaps you should trying reading something yourself instead of relying on what others tell you.

In any case, the law is the law.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Hey...just exrapolating from the context of both letters. Perhaps you should trying reading something yourself instead of relying on what others tell you.

I have read it. It's still old news and the replacements are in. But keep trying, your clinging is really getting old. Just like Tiger said ......."You're beating a dead horse" since everything now resides at the NMB. BTW What is "exrapolating"? (From a supposed lawyer no less)

 

[nostradamus]

You'll see a number of yellow flags pop up which means the case has been distinguished.

Yellow flags on your credibility sir, you gave a guarantee that you could not back up. Read quote below counsel.


nostradamus
Rating: 0
View Member Profile
Add as Friend
Send Message
Find Member's Topics
Find Member's Posts

post Jan 24 2008, 12:35 AM
Post #282


Veteran
*****

Group: Registered Member
Posts: 1,127
Joined: 8-December 04
Member No.: 6,549




QUOTE (aquagreen73s @ Jan 24 2008, 12:08 AM) *
Point to where Kirby said he can and would force the West to accept a renogtiated seniority list, because that is what you are implying. Show me. I'm not even asking for a direct statement; I'll settle for a contextual argument. I guarantee you won't find any such thing because we would have already known about it had Kirby said anything remotely close to that.

Jesus HC...this isn't hard people! And you call yourselves "professionals?" Your beatings will continue until you guys get a grip.

so now you're on to Kirby. You guys are too much.

Nostradamus quote below


AWA ALPA website, try reading your own union news, counsel.

"May 2007: The “Kirby Proposalâ€￾ emerges, which offers America West pilots a three percent pay raise paid for by concessions in other areas of the America West contract. During presentation of the Kirby Proposal, US Airways President Scott Kirby mentions that pilot expectations are too high, despite the fact that it is he and other senior managers who set the expectation for all employees with their lavish post-merger compensation packages.

· Summer 2007: Kirby begins to insist that America West pilots mitigate the seniority award so that he can try to cram another sub-standard contract down our throats."

 

[aquagreen73s]

I have read it. It's still old news and the replacements are in. But keep trying, you're clinging is really getting old. Just like Tiger said ......."You're beating a dead horse" since everything now resides at the NMB. BTW What is "exrapolating"? (From a supposed lawyer no less)

Well I'm glad you did read it. Now, like the Strawman, if you only had a ....., then you'd be able to figure out there's a missing T!

 

[traderjake]

It was the way ALL of our mergers had gone.

Not some old man's decision on what HE thinks is fair.

How did the Shuttle Merger go?

Your mind is slipping, old man.

Seniority is not Length of Service or Date of Hire. It's your relative position on a Seniority List.

Everyone except the majority of East pilots knows its.

 

[nostradamus]

aquagreen73s
Rating: 0
View Member Profile

post Today, 08:43 PM
Post #92


Veteran
*****

Group: Registered Member
Posts: 571
Joined: 22-August 05
Member No.: 7,649
"



QUOTE (AAA73Pilot @ Feb 12 2008, 08:38 PM) *
As usual you're making something out of old news. Whatever you post has no bearing on how the NMB will rule. What you don't seem to realize or possibly can't bring yourself to admit, is the replacement card campaign was extremely successful. So, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out all you want with old news. The next step is the card, replacement card validity, followed by a vote.


Auquagreen your please reference yellow flag post above, it will show the hypocrisy of your quote below.

"Hey...just exrapolating from the context of both letters. Perhaps you should trying reading something yourself instead of relying on what others tell you.

In any case, the law is the law."

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Seniority is not Length of Service or Date of Hire. It's your relative position on a Seniority List.
Everyone except the East pilots know that.

Maybe in your circle of friends. Not in mine. This has been the most divisive merger in history. Which I believe will be the ultimate end of ALPA as we know it.

 

[traderjake]

Maybe in your circle of friends. Not in mine. This has been the most divisive merger in history.

You've got friends? When did this happen?

I think the Republic and TWA pilots would disagree with you.

 

[aquagreen73s]

This has been the most divisive merger in history.

OMG! That's like Osama complaining about being mistreated.

By the way, what did you guys do with all those scraps of paper? Seham's letter said you guys could only find 40-50 of them and it was clear from the context of both letters that those scraps represented only a small portion of the total cards that were sliced and diced. Am I to believe that usapa threw those perfectly good pieces of paper away instead of recycling? Don't you guys CARE about anything beyond yourselves?

 

[AAA73Pilot]

It is still old news. I would suggest you go back and reread the replies. Maybe you will figure it out the second time around. The replacements are in and its up to the NMB to determine if we have 50%+1 valid cards of the eligible pilot population. All we need is somewhere around 2660 or thereabouts. Not a problem since the new campaign returned 3200+. I see voting instructions arriving in the near future.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

You've got friends? When did this happen?

I think the Republic and TWA pilots would disagree with you.

That's funny. Keep grasping. Maybe you will finally hold onto something.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Care to take my bet Tiger?

I'm with the dead horse group. Sounds like you can make some easy money pal.

C'mon, put your money where your mouth is smart guy.

Pilot,
It is not my intent to find myself in a childish wager. It was, however, my intent to provide a little levity. The "dead horse" is not the east pilot group or those who think like you. It was to represent the issue at hand. The idea that we have been arguing since May and we have made little if any progress. I say to heck with it! You are going to vote as will I. So in the end does all this really matter? No. Let's laugh a little. Yes, it is a serious situation but c'mon this board and all its rhetoric will solve nothing...

Andy

 

[prechilill]

The transition agreement survives, as does the arbitration. The issue is successorship under the RLA versus the NLRA. Burns is an NLRA case and was subsequently distinguished in later RLA cases, all of which had the opposite holding of Burns. Why? Because the RLA has different concerns and requires a contrary holding to Burns. That's not my opinion, but comes from the post-Burns cases themselves. One case in particular has a detailed discussion as to the policy reasons for the the RLA law to be contrapositive with NLRA law when it comes to CBA successorship. However, the u-sap plan might work if this were an NLRA matter, but then again Burns comes from a different era and I would bet that should that issue arise again, the Supreme Court would reverse it. Burns arguably puts managements at a disadvantage. Putting management at a disadvantage is not necessarily a bad thing IMO, but the current Court is not exactly labor friendly and a management-appellant would certainly have the ears of four justices. Interestingly, the issue of successorship rarely arises in either the NLRA or under the RLA but I suppose that is not surprising given the fact that CBAs don't change very often and when they do, they don't try to repudiate agreements. In any case, whether Burns would be reversed nowadays is immaterial. Heck, this probably won't even reach a vote given the toal screw-up and last minute mea culpa to the NMB last week. In any case, the worst for the West would have been a cave and fortunately the line held. Henceforth there won't be any time nor any reasonable excuses for another steering committee where the West could once again be laid on pretty heavily to cave. If there is an election and if usapa becomes the CBA, then they have the impossible task of literally rewriting RLA case law. Don't believe me, then just go to your local law library, log on to Westlaw, and keycite Burns. You'll see a number of yellow flags pop up which means the case has been distinguished. Scroll through some of those yellow flags and you'll see for yourself - the RLA and the NLRA are very different when it comes to successorship.

Interesting comments, aquagreen. It seems the colossal card calamity will cost Bradford the upgrade he was banking on, but in the end this USAPA fiasco will save east pilots a lot of heartache and money. How ironic- Bradford and company should all be thanked for their incompetence. Anger certainly is a difficult emotion to diffuse.