August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

A wide range of reasonableness is fundamentally correct; ..

Of course it is right. In words reminiscent of Judge Silver, The SCOTUS is always right. You can call it "fundamentally" right or whatever adjective you want, but the 9th told Marty when and how the wide range of reasonableness applies. It applies to the merits of the West claim asserting that the final result is not within the SCOTUS range.

... but violating the clear terms of a collective bargaining agreement is not within that range of reasonableness, ...

Marty never made a claim that USAPA violated "the clear terms of a collective bargaining agreement." and Judge Silver has made it clear that is NOT the plaintiff's claim that will be on trial in Oct. The assumption that USASPA cannot negotiate has already been disproved multiple times. Spending additional money trying to get an injunction is probably not money well spent.

The company may continue to feign the assumption that the extremely narrow Nic Award occupies the entire width of the "wide range of reasonableness" (i.e. it saves them money to pretend they can be sued for using anything other than the Nic) However, the company obviously has no real threat from Leo for negotiating with USAPA. They have been dismissed twice already and once after the MOU.

.... Violating a CBA to harm one group for the benefit of another group is traditionally seen as a DFR. ...

If you think USAPA has violated a CBA then you might want to inform Marty to amend his complaint (again) to say that.

If the Company assists the agent in harming a group of represented employees they are liable for collusion charges. ..

The company has been dismissed twice and will never be held culpable of harm for negotiating.

....why would they violate the TA and end up harming their shareholders and the west just so the east can get what they could not attain legally via arbitration?

Here is the real issue. Marty refuses to confess that the USAir pilots are negotiating a contract with the (absent) company--West assumptions otherwise make him a lot of money, why should he clarify. Instead he is fighting outside of negotiations to get something that you can't attain via negotiations.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Obscure? The Company has filed a DJ suit to get legal clarification and has filed an appeal since that clarification did not come at the district level. The clearly outlined their Hobson's Choice that USAPA had placed them in by demanding a seniority solution that had already been found to be a DFR in Addington I until the Ninth dismissed on ripeness.

Are you accusing the Company of lying to a federal judge and also to the Ninth in their appeal? Silver said their claim of harm based on two clear threats from their pilots and or their union was ripe and required judicial relief. Was she lying too?

If the shoe fits. In fact, Sliver has NO ARTILE III JURISDICTION. We're going to find that out shortly. Here we go, debating something that AOL contrives and supported by the company even though there is no legal basis.

Keep tilting at windmills.

 

[end_of_alpa]

There is no whipsaw. The Company has a fiduciary responsibility to not expose themselves to a costly violation of the contract. So long as USAPA demands a seniority regime of questionable legality, negotiations will remain stalled pending judicial relief. Only USAPA can install negotiations; a strategy they were formed to exploit - delay the NIC implementation no matter the cost.

Blah, blah, blah. All conjecture on your part, no substance.

 

[Reed Richards]

Did Silver ever respond to the Company request to sit in on depos? I thought they already started in CLT today. Anyone?
RR

 

[Piedmont1984]

Like I posted yesterday, no one knows with any certainty what the majority wants at this point in time. The usual suspects that post here, the anecdotal feedback that we may get from our other half while flying trips does not paint an accurate picture. Although I am still cautiously optimistic that the merger will proceed, USAPA needs to seriously consider a scientific way to measure rank and file sentiment on the issues. Something along the lines of the Safety Survey from two years ago comes to mind.

 

[flyer63]

I guarantee you if it contains the NIC un modified it will be a big NO. In fact I predict it will be more of a no than it was in 2007. I guess you don't see how seriously the NIC harms the majority of the east list. And now we have senior pilots leaving who would be ok with the NIC being implemented. We also have the third listers who want nothing to do with the NIC. But survey away I'm confident in the answer Captain.

 

[Claxon]

Have the comrades of the People's Republic of Leonidas produced any shiny publications from their propaganda machine lately?

 

[Piedmont1984]

Flyer

You can't guarantee it because you don't have hard statistics to back up your assertion. You may vote no, I may vote no, but the majority rules. On the flip side, how do we know that the west would not entertain a modified Nic at this point in time. You can't draw conclusions based on what is posted here, or your gut instincts. Many in PHX may just be going along with the official AOL position to avoid the scorn and ridicule of their colleagues. Many in the east have the same mindset regarding the USAPA stance on DOH. Like I said, put all these questions out there, cover the spectrum. In about a hundred questions the union could have a working blueprint of where the membership wants them to go. FWIW, my intuition tells me the results of such a survey would show that the majority wants both sides to move off their positions, then find a mechanism for implementing such a goal. Any subsequent DFR threat would be difficult to prevail on if the union has a valid survey in their back pocket.

'84

 

[Phoenix]

Flyer

You can't guarantee it because you don't have hard statistics to back up your assertion. You may vote no, I may vote no, but the majority rules. On the flip side, how do we know that the west would not entertain a modified Nic at this point in time. You can't draw conclusions based on what is posted here, or your gut instincts. Many in PHX may just be going along with the official AOL position to avoid the scorn and ridicule of their colleagues. Many in the east have the same mindset regarding the USAPA stance on DOH. Like I said, put all these questions out there, cover the spectrum. In about a hundred questions the union could have a working blueprint of where the membership wants them to go. FWIW, my intuition tells me the results of such a survey would show that the majority wants both sides to move off their positions, then find a mechanism for implementing such a goal. Any subsequent DFR threat would be difficult to prevail on if the union has a valid survey in their back pocket.

'84

Everytime we have an election there is a pole. And we have had plenty of opportunity to elect reps that are wishy-washy about doing the right thing, committed to following the mob wherever it leads instead of leading. Doing a pole like you suggest would be a perfect job for Hummel! I hope he does it!!

 

[snapthis]

Have the comrades of the People's Republic of Leonidas produced any shiny publications from their propaganda machine lately?

We have a pretty good idea what's going on in Charlotte as MIGS. A luxury you don't have with Leonidas. Why spoil the October surprise?

My guess is you'll have to keep guessing when the next update comes from Beijing.

Be patient grasshopper.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Like I posted yesterday, no one knows with any certainty what the majority wants at this point in time. The usual suspects that post here, the anecdotal feedback that we may get from our other half while flying trips does not paint an accurate picture. Although I am still cautiously optimistic that the merger will proceed, USAPA needs to seriously consider a scientific way to measure rank and file sentiment on the issues. Something along the lines of the Safety Survey from two years ago comes to mind.

That would make for an interesting survey, assuming it is properly constructed.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Everytime we have an election there is a pole. And we have had plenty of opportunity to elect reps that are wishy-washy about doing the right thing, committed to following the mob wherever it leads instead of leading. Doing a pole like you suggest would be a perfect job for Hummel! I hope he does it!!

The newly elected CLT reps certainly aren't wishy washy, but they certainly weren't elected by a majority either. Less than 50% participated in the runoff.

The so called mob happens to be the rank and file. This union was founded on the principle that unlike ALPA, the union would diligently and frequently take a measure of rank and file sentiment and comply with the same.

 

[Phoenix]

The newly elected CLT reps certainly aren't wishy washy, but they certainly weren't elected by a majority either. Less than 50% participated in the runoff.

The so called mob happens to be the rank and file. This union was founded on the principle that unlike ALPA, the union would diligently and frequently take a measure of rank and file sentiment and comply with the same.

The CLT reps were indeed elected by a majority. That is why they are reps and any apparent desire to assume the non-voters opposed the CLT reps.... well, they didn't. Non-voters in effect cast their vote for whoever wins. Silence is consent.

Why would you expect any rep (even Hummel) to spend union money to solicit the opinions of those who don't care enough to even vote? Silence is indeed consent.

 

[Reed Richards]

PHX is correct, elections (even by strict definition) are polls. By a large majority the East pilots voted on an MOU that indeed took us off our current stalemate and introduced change. The West Class voted for that process by an even larger majority. Watch what people do, not how they “poll.” The West Class, having supposedly wanting to move on, as 84 has suggested, choose to sue and trick fu…k the system to get exactly what they originally wanted . In fact "NIC or nothing." I have no question about what the East and West pilots want their reps to do. The MOU was a poll, in fact a poll that was run twice on the BPR level. RR

 

[Reed Richards]

ALPA took polls prior to USAPA leaving the room. The polls were politically warped in the way the questions were asked, answers collated, and total results presented to the parties. It was only about them being able to "stay in office." Polls can be political tools used by those trying to get elected or stay in office, to garner the most "votes." But once in office we (at least I do) expect our politicians to act as entire entities and vote with character and all the facts, not just with polls. A pol that votes ONLY by polling is weak, and that speaks to his or her actions being only politically motivated. There is a fine line, the polls should only be a PART of the decision process. Obama care is favored by slightly less than half of "those polled," yet it is the law of the land. How can that be? RR