AUG/SEPT 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

Not sure I agree with that. Two courts have said it didn't have to be the NIC, but it can't be anything that disadvantages the West pilots. So, a list has to be crafted that meets all the stated goals from the original integration and a comparison on how it meets those goals. Apparently, the NIC is not the sliderule that you were hoping for. All that being said, straight DOH would obviously not pass muster, so let's see if those in power in USAPA are smart enough to figure that out.

In 5 years, there won't be a huge number of East pilots to get back to anybody.

Driver...

How many mergers have you been through, and how many were DOH? And seeing the number of East retirements coming, that alone would easily make a DOH list pass the test as long as there were adequate conditions and restrictions. Protect the West guys who are closer to retirement adequately, and the younger guys out there are going to inherit the airline. A point they seem to miss.

 

[Black Swan]

dupe

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

." So, a list has to be crafted that meets all the stated goals from the original integration"

In 5 years, there won't be a huge number of East pilots to get back to anybody.

Driver...

Disagree, those were "ALPA STATED GOALS with ALPA MERGER POLICY(subject to wind direction at ALPA HQ) , FAIR and EQUITABLE, now I agree with that! and the 5 year comment!

 

[Piedmont1984]

How many mergers have you been through, and how many were DOH? And seeing the number of East retirements coming, that alone would easily make a DOH list pass the test as long as there were adequate conditions and restrictions. Protect the West guys who are closer to retirement adequately, and the younger guys out there are going to inherit the airline. A point they seem to miss.

Any JCBA going forward will span several years. Had a DOH contract been ratified back in '06/'07 the west would not have seen much benefit from attrition. But a contract ratified today would be different. I still say USAPA should move off straight DOH, or revisit the C&R's in order to address the real possibility of shrinkage in PHX.

 

[Pi brat]

Nope, almost correct but not quite.

usapa is where it was two years ago. But, is parked and has us under injunction.

The West is where it was two years ago, but, we now have the company admitting in federal court that it thinks it has to use the Nic, that the TA is a part of the CBA and under the RLA usapa would be in violation of their DFR if they do not use the Nic.

Other than that, you are once again showing your typical pragmatic understanding of the situation.

Actually nic I think PHX is more correct than either of us. We are back to the answer we got 2 years ago, and we are still stuck on our respective contracts. You are correct that now we have an injunction over our heads but we have a couple new things. We now have two Federal judges that say the union has the right to propose a different seniority list( I'm guessing from what I've heard as we haven't seen the final ruling) and we have five years of fighting each other that kind of backs up the theory that the east wouldn't ratify a contract with the Nic in it. I mean, if a group is willing to give up close to a billion dollars in contract improvements and spend millions on litigation, what does that say?

And PI1984 is right. Now would be a good time to at least revisit the C&Rs, allowing for west input. If I were King I would revisit the whole DOH thing, but I think I'm really in the minority after yesterday.

One thing is for sure: It's not over.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Actually nic I think PHX is more correct than either of us. We are back to the answer we got 2 years ago, and we are still stuck on our respective contracts. You are correct that now we have an injunction over our heads but we have a couple new things. We now have two Federal judges that say the union has the right to propose a different seniority list( I'm guessing from what I've heard as we haven't seen the final ruling) and we have five years of fighting each other that kind of backs up the theory that the east wouldn't ratify a contract with the Nic in it. I mean, if a group is willing to give up close to a billion dollars in contract improvements and spend millions on litigation, what does that say?

And PI1984 is right. Now would be a good time to at least revisit the C&Rs, allowing for west input. If I were King I would revisit the whole DOH thing, but I think I'm really in the minority after yesterday.

One thing is for sure: It's not over.

Agree with PI1984 on the C& R thing , the problem is your ret date by law really doesn't change, today 65 tomrw who knows? Point being you can never account for the ever changing dynamic in management, or the economy, as FATHERABE has pointed out, were tied to the wind of many variables, but your ret date really doesn't change, your birthdate doesn't change, neither should your LOS! MM!

 

[nic4us]

Actually nic I think PHX is more correct than either of us. We are back to the answer we got 2 years ago, and we are still stuck on our respective contracts. You are correct that now we have an injunction over our heads but we have a couple new things. We now have two Federal judges that say the union has the right to propose a different seniority list( I'm guessing from what I've heard as we haven't seen the final ruling) and we have five years of fighting each other that kind of backs up the theory that the east wouldn't ratify a contract with the Nic in it. I mean, if a group is willing to give up close to a billion dollars in contract improvements and spend millions on litigation, what does that say?

And PI1984 is right. Now would be a good time to at least revisit the C&Rs, allowing for west input. If I were King I would revisit the whole DOH thing, but I think I'm really in the minority after yesterday.

One thing is for sure: It's not over.

Once again, almost correct.

The part about two federal courts saying the union can propose a different seniority list. Sure they can, but, and it is a huge but, both have affirmed that usapa has a DFR toward all LCC pilots.

The 9th specifically said, and this is the part most often misinterpreted by the east, the final proposal might yet be one that does not do the harm plaintiffs fear, even if it is not the Nic.

That is saying, one of the possibilities of why this is not ripe, is that usapa might make a proposal that the West won't sue them over. That was not an affirmation of usapa's right to disregard the NIc. Actually, it supports the West's position. Use the Nic or get sued, and we will determine what constitutes the harm we fear.

The five years fighting part goes both ways. Yes the east won't ratify a Nic contract, and yes the West will sue over any non-Nic. That is why the company is upset that Silver simply kicked the can once again and did not answere their question.

 

[Pi brat]

Agree with PI1984 on the C& R thing , the problem is your ret date by law really doesn't change, today 65 tomrw who knows? Point being you can never account for the ever changing dynamic in management, or the economy, as FATHERABE has pointed out, were tied to the wind of many variables, but your ret date really doesn't change, your birthdate doesn't change, neither should your LOS! MM!

Yeah, but LOS and DOH are two different things.

I think you could probably make any SLI "fair" with the right C&Rs, but can you get them right? Without a merger I see PHX shrinking. With DOH there is a bigger shift in relative position from west to east than there is from east to west with the Nic. How do you REALLY protect people? I don't have the answer, but think that if you don't and we get to DFR II, then there is trouble.

If I were a west pilot I would be worried that the east has had five years to figure out what went wrong in the first DFR case and fix it.

 

[Pi brat]

That is saying, one of the possibilities of why this is not ripe, is that usapa might make a proposal that the West won't sue them over. That was not an affirmation of usapa's right to disregard the NIc. Actually, it supports the West's position. Use the Nic or get sued, and we will determine what constitutes the harm we fear.

You know I have agreed with the west on some things (even if I think the Nic is screwed up), but that is one thing I disagree with. I don't think the standard is "if they come up with something the west won't sue over." I would put money that someone WILL sue, no matter what. The standard is that they union does what is necessary, within a wide range of reasonableness. That never makes everyone happy. I have a friend that thinks that if one west pilot is unhappy with a solution it is an automatic DFR win. I don't think so. What if we did go for 10 more years voting down a contract? How do you then come up with a solution that makes every west pilot happy?

 

[nic4us]

No, USAPA needs to negotiate in good faith (for once) and produce a TA for the pilots to vote on. It will pass and then a judge will issue a TRO prohibiting it's implementation. Only then will the fairness of the NIC finally be ajudicated. Oh, that an the legitimacy of any future binding arbitration in any lawsuit.

In other words, don't count your chickens before they hatch, but you need to produce at least one egg.

This is the biggest problem involved.

No court to date has stepped up to the plate and answered the real question.

Does a union have the ability to renege on a binding arbitration?

I am guessing when one finally does, the answere will be a resounding...um NO.

Everybody keeps pointing to McCaskill/Bond and saying, well there arbitration is afforded by federal law if an agreement can't be reached. Well, so what? the usapa premise is that the majority at a union can simply disavow any arbitrated result by electing a new representational body.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Yeah, but LOS and DOH are two different things.

I think you could probably make any SLI "fair" with the right C&Rs, but can you get them right? Without a merger I see PHX shrinking. With DOH there is a bigger shift in relative position from west to east than there is from east to west with the Nic. How do you REALLY protect people? I don't have the answer, but think that if you don't and we get to DFR II, then there is trouble.

If I were a west pilot I would be worried that the east has had five years to figure out what went wrong in the first DFR case and fix it.

Yes they are agreed, PHX will shrink and eventually close or be sold off, my POV, AA will emerge standalone, There is offsets and trade-offs , huge attrition EAST as opposed WEST, again all variables to the economy and management, I know one thing for sure, we don't close a base EAST, ie BOS, PIT, LGA, etc and give those pilots a "relative position " in there base of choosing, they follow there equipment and displacement protocols, 2 dates never change, a fact of life! MM!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You know I have agreed with the west on some things (even if I think the Nic is screwed up), but that is one thing I disagree with. I don't think the standard is "if they come up with something the west won't sue over." I would put money that someone WILL sue, no matter what. The standard is that they union does what is necessary, within a wide range of reasonableness. That never makes everyone happy. I have a friend that thinks that if one west pilot is unhappy with a solution it is an automatic DFR win. I don't think so. What if we did go for 10 more years voting down a contract? How do you then come up with a solution that makes every west pilot happy?

Got that right! No shortage of WEST lawsuits, getting laughable now! What makes you think the EAST pilots wouldn't SUE if the NIC is used, no shortage of litigation move'n forward! It is why unions have a wide range of reason phrase attatched! I am for DOH with C&R's, How do you compete for a job, when the pilot on the list ahead of you was 17, aint right, but then again I don't want his job out west either!

 

[nic4us]

You know I have agreed with the west on some things (even if I think the Nic is screwed up), but that is one thing I disagree with. I don't think the standard is "if they come up with something the west won't sue over." I would put money that someone WILL sue, no matter what. The standard is that they union does what is necessary, within a wide range of reasonableness. That never makes everyone happy. I have a friend that thinks that if one west pilot is unhappy with a solution it is an automatic DFR win. I don't think so. What if we did go for 10 more years voting down a contract? How do you then come up with a solution that makes every west pilot happy?

You don't have to come up with a solution that makes every West pilot happy...you just use the NIc.

The wide range of reasonableness has nothing to do with why Addington was determined to be not ripe, and that is what Tashima was commenting on.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

This is the biggest problem involved.

No court to date has stepped up to the plate and answered the real question.

Does a union have the ability to renege on a binding arbitration?

I am guessing when one finally does, the answere will be a resounding...um NO.

Everybody keeps pointing to McCaskill/Bond and saying, well there arbitration is afforded by federal law if an agreement can't be reached. Well, so what? the usapa premise is that the majority at a union can simply disavow any arbitrated result by electing a new representational body.

ALPA aint the federal govt! um, NO!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

You don't have to come up with a solution that makes every West pilot happy...you just use the NIc.

The wide range of reasonableness has nothing to do with why Addington was determined to be not ripe, and that is what Tashima was commenting on.

You don't have to come up with a solution that makes every West pilot happy...you just use the NIc.

The wide range of reasonableness has nothing to do with why Addington was determined to be not ripe, and that is what Tashima was commenting on.

Not only is it not ripe, it is infested with insects and witherd off the vine!