August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[cleardirect]

To get a contract for everyone might be an LUP. Recall the ninth said it would be speculative at best that we could get one using the NIC. TKX for the hearing/trial clarification.

Getting a contract is not an LUP for abandoning the Nicolau.

It was a REQUIREMENT by alpa to get a contract using the Nicolau. usapa inherited that duty. Read the T/A why is this such a difficult concept for you guys?

You are correct about the ninth and their speculation about getting a contract. There was no evidence presented to the ninth that the east would not have voted for a contract with the Nicolau. None!

 

[Phoenix]

Hybrid Claim


The West is always talking about a Hybrid Claim but did anyone notice that Jude Silver documented two distinct West claims against USAPA and USAirways? and they don't immediately appear very hybrid to me.... but if at heart they really are....


----- "USAPA breached its [duty of fair representation] because it made a contract that abandons a duty to treat the Nicolau award as final and binding."


------ "In addition to the claim against USAPA, the West Pilots also assert a claim against
US Airways for allegedly breaching the Transition Agreement."


Other than the TA, is there any other legal basis to assert that USAPA had a duty to hold to the Nic and only the Nic?

 

[cleardirect]

You are reading into Silver's words something she did not say in that statement. Your words are a conclusion. Just more lectures from you.

Her words are merely descriptive and her judgement about it will come later. The 9th said that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nic as was ALPA, but maybe that was just an academic hypothesis... If ALPA was indeed constrained by itself and powerless to have oversight of its own policy then I suppose Silver could find that USAPA was likewise powerless to have any oversight of the SLI process, but then she should have just said that during the declaratory judgement trial. If on the other hand it is conceivable that ALPA or USAPA could in some circumstances ultimately still have legitimate oversight and adequate cause to abandon the Nic... well then its only fair they get a chance to explain themselves and its only fair for those that lose their lottery ticket to have a judge tell them to Wake up from the dream.

As usual you clip a portion of a sentence to try and force it to fit your view of the world.

Read the entire statement on context. I have posted about this before. When the ninth said usapa was as free as ALPA was to abandon the Nicolau you are leaving out a large and important part of that comment.

"As the district court said" the ninth was agreeing with judge Wake. Go back and read what the district court said about ALPAs ability to abandon the Nicolau. The district court being judge Wake. He said ALPA could NOT abandon the Nicolau.

Judge Silver gave usapa that ability to abandon the Nicolau. LUP. Usapa does not have one. Never did, never will.

When you disregard a federal judges order bad things happen to you. She orders usapa to have an LUP. usapa ignored that order and tried to slip a contract by without it.

 

[Reed Richards]

You are right about one thing. Judge Silver does not to look at the creation of usapa she has already made a decision on that.

She may indeed have made a decision, and have a strong opinion about USAPA's purpose in life. And she may carry such bias into her ruling on the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with that. But she is only asking if a DFR was committed in not using the NIC in the MOU. Nothing else. I actually wonder if that intern from the NTSB is now clerking for her, actually putting in the document that you guys have made it to first base. And now second base is an option? Really, what a visual. She must not have read her order very closely. And one other thing Cleardirect. Can you find LUP anywhere in her nine pages? I cannot, but stand ready to be corrected. RR

 

[cleardirect]

She may indeed have made a decision, and have a strong opinion about USAPA's purpose in life. And she may carry such bias into her ruling on the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with that. But she is only asking if a DFR was committed in not using the NIC in the MOU. Nothing else. I actually wonder if that intern from the NTSB is now clerking for her, actually putting in the document that you guys have made it to first base. And now second base is an option? Really, what a visual. She must not have read her order very closely. And one other thing Cleardirect. Can you find LUP anywhere in her nine pages? I cannot, but stand ready to be corrected. RR

Bias? Some would call it prior behavior. Maybe even a rap sheet if you will. A criminal gets taken into court they alway look at his past record even if it has nothing to do with the current charges. usapa has been found guilty once and got off on a technicality. Got charged again and missed punishment by the same technicality. Not this time.

No LUP is not in this order. Not her last order also does not just go away. It still applies. But judge Silver did put in this order that abandoning the Nicolau puts usapa on dangerous ground. Ummm, did usapa intentionally abandon the Nicolau in the MOU? She has already determined that usapa was created and is still all about DOH and avoiding the Nicolau. I would call that dangerous ground ignoring a federal judges order.

 

[Phoenix]

As usual you clip a portion of a sentence to try and force it to fit your view of the world.

Read the entire statement on context. I have posted about this before. When the ninth said usapa was as free as ALPA was to abandon the Nicolau you are leaving out a large and important part of that comment.

"As the district court said" the ninth was agreeing with judge Wake. Go back and read what the district court said about ALPAs ability to abandon the Nicolau. The district court being judge Wake. He said ALPA could NOT abandon the Nicolau.

Judge Silver gave usapa that ability to abandon the Nicolau. LUP. Usapa does not have one. Never did, never will.

When you disregard a federal judges order bad things happen to you. She orders usapa to have an LUP. usapa ignored that order and tried to slip a contract by without it.

Words of the esteemed Judge Silver....


[T]he West Pilots, as well as US Airways, cite a variety of authority supporting the position that
the “decertification of ALPA and the certification of USAPA did not change the binding
nature of the Transition Agreement.” (Doc. 164 at 7). The West Pilots and US Airways are
correct.

When USAPA became the pilots’ new collective bargaining representative, it
succeeded “to the status of the former representative without alteration in the contract terms.”
Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 1983). As
there does not appear to be any dispute that the Transition Agreement was part of the contract
between the pilots and US Airways, the Transition Agreement applies to USAPA. Even the

case which USAPA relies upon states there is a “general principle that collective bargaining
agreements survive a change in representative.” Ass’n of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v.
USAir, Inc., 24 F.3d 1432, 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Thus, just as ALPA would have been
bound by the Transition Agreement had it remained the pilots’ representative, USAPA is
bound by the Transition Agreement.(see note 2)


But being “bound” by the Transition Agreement has very little meaning in the context
of the present case. It is undisputed that the Transition Agreement can be modified at any
time “by written agreement of [USAPA] and the [US Airways].” (Doc. 156-3 at 38).
Moreover, USAPA and US Airways are now engaged in negotiations for an entirely new
collective bargaining agreement and there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US
Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish. As explained by the
Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so
may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” Hass v.
Darigold Dairy Products Co., 751 F.2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985). And a union “may
renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.”


note 2: USAPA believes the Transition Agreement is not binding and it “cannot in any way
limit the authority of USAPA . . . with respect to negotiating a new agreement.” (Doc. 152
at 16). It is unclear why USAPA is so adamant on this point as there is no claim that the
Transition Agreement itself is limiting USAPA’s authority during the negotiation of a new
collective bargaining agreement. Regardless of the binding nature of the Transition
Agreement, USAPA’s duty in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement remains the
same: to act in conformity with its duty of fair representation. See 14 Penn Plaza LLC v.
Pyett, 556 U.S. 247, 270-72 (2009) (“Labor unions certainly balance the economic interests
of some employees against the needs of the larger work force as they negotiate collective-
bargaining agreements” and that balance must reflect compliance with the unions’ “duty of
fair representation.&rdquo😉.

 

[Phoenix]

Bias? Some would call it prior behavior. Maybe even a rap sheet if you will. A criminal gets taken into court they alway look at his past record even if it has nothing to do with the current charges. usapa has been found guilty once and got off on a technicality. Got charged again and missed punishment by the same technicality. Not this time.

No LUP is not in this order. Not her last order also does not just go away. It still applies. But judge Silver did put in this order that abandoning the Nicolau puts usapa on dangerous ground. Ummm, did usapa intentionally abandon the Nicolau in the MOU? She has already determined that usapa was created and is still all about DOH and avoiding the Nicolau. I would call that dangerous ground ignoring a federal judges order.

Is there any legal basis to require USAPA to use the Nic? Yes, the Transition Agreement.... can you name another one? No need to rush, as you have until the 24th of Sep to come up with one...

 

[Reed Richards]

No LUP is not in this order. Not her last order also does not just go away. It still applies.

You teed it up for me so well on this one, I won't even take the big swing. Perhaps others can school us on exactly what Silver ruled last time (warnings and all.) If USAPA was indeed going to play Evel Knievel with her "warnings" then perhaps a little safety equipment in place before doing so. That would be raises for all (1.6B in improvements) and a membership vote. If every West Class member had voted AGAINST the MOU would it have passed? The answer is no. RR

 

[Phoenix]

You teed it up for me so well on this one, I won't even take the big swing. Perhaps others can school us on exactly what Silver ruled last time (warnings and all.) If USAPA was indeed going to play Evel Knievel with her "warnings" then perhaps a little safety equipment in place before doing so. That would be raises for all (1.6B in improvements) and a membership vote. If every West Class member had voted AGAINST the MOU would it have passed? The answer is no. RR

Speaking of votes, if Silver takes the liberty to change any part of the terms of the MOU, do any of the many signatory organizations and the many thousands of individual voters... well do they all have a right to a vote on the "actual MOU".. Judge Silver does seem to have an affection for "actual" things.

 

[Reed Richards]

Speaking of votes, if Silver takes the liberty to change any part of the terms of the MOU, do any of the many signatory organizations and the many thousands of individual voters... well do they all have a right to a vote on the "actual MOU".. Judge Silver does seem to have an affection for "actual" things. &nbsp

Yep. And there is also the pesky issue of Code Share and COC being rock solid in front of the Judge on 15 August. USAPA to Judge Lane.."Your Honor, it would seem our previous agreement to cede these items is under assault in Judge Silvers Court. Could you please wait another month or so to bring AMR out of BK, we need to get this resolved." If I was not so tied up in all this, it would be a real hoot. RR

 

[Metroyet]

Speaking of votes, if Silver takes the liberty to change any part of the terms of the MOU, do any of the many signatory organizations and the many thousands of individual voters... well do they all have a right to a vote on the "actual MOU".. Judge Silver does seem to have an affection for "actual" things.

There's a clause in the MOU that covers the possibility that a certain section of the MOU might be found to be illegal. Your group has already agreed, by ratification, that if any term was found to be illegal that the specific term will be rectified to the satisfaction of the law and the rest of the MOU will remain unchanged. See how easy it is to set up the East? The fact that this MOU was CLEARLY your new CBA didn't worry anyone? What's the one remaining piece to the TA requiring the nic? A CBA. Hey, it's what the pilots of US AIRWAYS wanted, no crying about it.

 

[Phoenix]

There's a clause in the MOU that covers the possibility that a certain section of the MOU might be found to be illegal. Your group has already agreed, by ratification, that if any term was found to be illegal that the specific term will be rectified to the satisfaction of the law and the rest of the MOU will remain unchanged. See how easy it is to set up the East? The fact that this MOU was CLEARLY your new CBA didn't worry anyone? What's the one remaining piece to the TA requiring the nic? A CBA. Hey, it's what the pilots of US AIRWAYS wanted, no crying about it.

Yes, the TA. Which part of the TA makes it illegal for us to ratify something other than the Nic? If the TA doesn't make it illegal then what does?

As Reed Richards alluded to... It wasn't illegal for the East pilots to willingly vote to allow USAPA to abandon the CoC and Scope protections that were exclusive benefits to the East (in exchange for benefits to all pilots, both East and West). How can anyone fault USAPA for offering everyone an opportunity to agree to abandoning the Nic (which favored benefits for senior East pilots and many West pilots, in exchange for benefits to all pilots)?

 

[Claxon]

The DFR is not using the Nicolau in the MOU. The judge ordered usapa to use the Nicolau of have a damn good reason (LUP). Usapa does not have one. So no the MOU is not thrown out.

Just an injunction ordering usapa to use the Nicolau.

As always usapa was free to negotiate 29 sections of the contract. Section 22 was decided by an arbitrator.

You have to be the biggest idiot, along with Metroyet. Both you morons stated over and over that the APA got you the MOU, not USAPA. Now you say USAPA is guilty of a DFR, because something it had no hand in, does not have the Nic.
Unbelievable stupidity.

 

[Claxon]

There's a clause in the MOU that covers the possibility that a certain section of the MOU might be found to be illegal. Your group has already agreed, by ratification, that if any term was found to be illegal that the specific term will be rectified to the satisfaction of the law and the rest of the MOU will remain unchanged. See how easy it is to set up the East? The fact that this MOU was CLEARLY your new CBA didn't worry anyone? What's the one remaining piece to the TA requiring the nic? A CBA. Hey, it's what the pilots of US AIRWAYS wanted, no crying about it.

Sure there is. You make up stories about as much as that idiot Gay.

 

[Pi brat]

usapa has been found guilty once and got off on a technicality.

Not really. The technicality kept the merits out of the appeal. We don't know what would have happened then, just like we don't know what will happen now. Oh, that's right, you do and you haven't been wrong yet!