Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Walmartgreeter]

I really have no idea what the recall hopefulls want to do, or what they will put on the table to reach whatever their goals are.

But more importantly, due to the NDA, the ones hoping to be the new and improved leaders have no way of convincing the voters that they posses any goals or means that are different or better than what is already being done in Dallas. The guys that want to be the new reps might be some swell guys, but ever since the creation of USAPA there has never been a time more impossible to prove they will do what USAPA isn't. Even if they had insiders to the NDA telling them exactly what is going on, they still can't explain how they must be inserted into the mix to ensure a good outcome. The NDA hamstrings them to nothing but generalies and platitudes, at best. Wrong time wrong place, for them. IMHO.

You can go to the recall website, they articulate exactly the behavior they are trying to stop. For me it was their actions during the negotiation of the MOU. They so hated the President that they accused him of bargaining on his own. Before the negotiations were even done, they held a meeting in Charlotte to bad mouth an agreement they had not seen. Then they pulled the real boner of passing a resolution at the BPR table (and all are guilty here) that no matter what the agreement was, it HAD to go out for a vote. Because in their ranting and raving to the membership they accused the President of trying to bypass the members. Oops, they did not like the MOU, but had to send it out. You cannot fix stupid, hoping such behavior will change just because you are afraid of "change" will get you more of the same. Not worthy of a recall, but I still cringe at DeWitt (after being told by legal not to so) of trying to start a personal conversation with the APA president, about how HE thought things should go down. So "now is not the time" is exactly 180 from what I believe. Cannot happen soon enough.Greeter

 

[cleardirect]

The chance of a successful DFR against the UCC or the company is Nil. DUI has no reason to allow a DFR threat to enter into his mind. Its none of his business. "Its for YOU GUYS to decide." The chance of success against a union that will no longer exist is less than Nil. The chance of a DFR against APA is Nil. The legitimate union purposes are legion, and the West class is not only bound, but also not even privy to the NDA.

If the APA aims to force USAPA to show up with the Nic they can make the argument, but whats in it for them to get involved in affairs not their own?

If the APA aims to punt SLI for now and embark on an unknown path to an unknown outcome then whats in it for them?

If the APA aims to achieve pilot seniority cooperation and memorize it now via ratification, whats in it for them?

And whats acceptable for the UCC costing estimates?

Its all business. Threats are just attempts from the outside at shaping the MOU discussions inside the mahogany walls of Dallas.

I don't think it is too hard to figure out (assuming the reps have the fortitude to actually do their jobs rather than outsource their responsibilities to others, like ALPA does. Well, OK, all bets are off. ).

Glad that you recognize that a DFR from the east is nil.

Yes indeed why would the APA want to get involved with our fight? A legal list created by a neutral arbitrator with no liability attached and no additional cost to integrate.

Or spend time and money negotiating a list that carries liability. Cost in C&R. Time delaying a new contract completing the merger.

Why would the APA need cooperation? Usapa never did. APA is the majority and they know all about usapa and how difficult it is to work with you. That is what you all have been telling us right? The APA also know that the least liability path is arbitration.

Arbitration especially a federal arbitration puts an end to all of this. No DFR, no temper tantrum. We have a contract in place. An arbitrator creates a list. It gets inserted done deal.

The only people concerned about an uncertain outcome are you east guys. It is certain that you are not going to get a three way and it is certain you are not going to get DOH with American. The uncertainty is how long the WB fences are and how far down the list you F/O's are going to be.

BTW. It is funny that you put any faith in the reps or usapa bargaining anything. After 5 years of failure to achieve anything I would not want east pilots negotiating anything to do with seniority.

Let an outside arbitrator decide.

 

[Phoenix]

Angry today I see. No need to yell.

First I missed an o. No damn good reason.

The end of ALPA says. Dicta means nothing the only thing of importance from the ninth is not ripe. But I will set that aside since end of ALPA is wrong.

What did the ninth say in 2009?

Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated."

Since the court of appeals can only decide on what was done in the district court any opinion whether a Nicolau contract would pass is nothing but an unproven opinion.

But more importantly in 2009 when the ninth heard this case usapa was fairly new and had not created the track record they have now. The ninth said that it is uncertain that the Nicolau would be used. It does not say it will not be used.

So here we are three years later. Usapa has not changed its proposal as much as a comma. Usapa has not negotiated a single minute of any seniority list other than the Nicolau list in that time. We now have a ruling from judge Silver that says usapa had better have a damn good reason to use anything other than the Nicolau list. Parker is going into another merger and needs to complete this quickly without liability.

It is becoming very certain that the Nicolau list will be the only list used for the next integration.

While there is no "law" that says it has to be the Nicolau. The T/A says it. The east pilots agreed to it. The company accepted it. Integrity demands it. The court say it unless you have a damn good reason not to it will be the Nicolau.

So far after 5 years usapa has not found a legal reason not to use it. It does not put east senior to west is not a legal reason.

The folks at the table in Dallas aren't involved in legal reasoning about ancient disputes. They are discussing business and moving forward with financial benefits, in a civilized manner. Business interests will win out. Courts won't be necessary.

Fact is the courts aren't into punishing one side against the other, especially in civil suits, as the Nicreants have hoped to achieve these oh so many years. Lets face it, courts aren't about extracting revenge for eastholes or westicles, they are about finding the middle ground to prove everyone can get along, because after all we are all basically good people, out to help our neighbor. The courts intervene to decide between extreme opinions all the time, by passing judgement in the middle ground, to prove we can really have faith in humanity after all. Doing otherwise would be siding with an extremist, and... well, so extreme and uncivilized.

If the participants bargaining at Dallas avoid the extremes and remain civilized, and an orderly vote by the membership ratifies the earnest work done to benefit all the represented parties, the courts will have no reason to interject in order to restore hope in humanity, excpet perhaps to kindly instruct some outliers who wish to cling to extreme positions. And everyone will live happily ever after. The End.

 

[mrbreeze]

The Nicolau is the only accepted list.

The ONLY reason NIC is an accepted list is the timeline. After the whole fiasco with ALPA and the Nic..... USAPA was voted in. Parker saw where all this was headed and called a time out. It doesn't mean that the NIC list, a DOH list, or anything else you can come up with was processed between USAPA and the Company and accepted as the final merger list. It was all put on hold while we drag it on through the courts.

Keep clicking you heals, Dorothy.....but remember, that was only a movie.

breeze

 

[cleardirect]

The folks at the table in Dallas aren't involved in legal reasoning about ancient disputes. They are discussing business and moving forward with financial benefits, in a civilized manner. Business interests will win out. Courts won't be necessary.

Fact is the courts aren't into punishing one side against the other, especially in civil suits, as the Nicreants hope to achieve. Lets face it, courts aren't about extracting revenge for eastholes or westicles, they are about finding the middle ground to prove everyone can get along, because after all we are all basically good people, out to help our neighbor. The courts intervene to decide between extreme opinions all the time, by passing judgement in the middle ground, to prove we can really have faith in humanity after all. Doing otherwise would be siding with an extremist, and... well, so extreme and uncivilized.

If the participants bargaining at Dallas avoid the extremes and remain civilized, the courts will have no reason to interject in order to restore hope in humanity, excpet perhaps to kindly instruct some outliers who wish to hold to extreme positions. And everyone will live happily ever after. The End.

Yes and arbitrators split the baby instead of making a decision.

When Kasher decided on loa 93 did he find middle ground and give the east some?

Where do you get these wacky ideas. The courts all the time pick sides. They decide winners and losers not middle ground. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the concept of punitive damages? These are all about punishing wrongdoers.

Usapa has never been and was not designed to " help your neighbor" usapa was designed to punish the west and advance the east.

Yes business interests will win out. The fastest, cheapest, least liable path is the business path. The Nicolau.

 

[cleardirect]

The ONLY reason NIC is an accepted list is the timeline. After the whole fiasco with ALPA and the Nic..... USAPA was voted in. Parker saw where all this was headed and called a time out. It doesn't mean that the NIC list, a DOH list, or anything else you can come up with was processed between USAPA and the Company and accepted as the final merger list. It was all put on hold while we drag it on through the courts.

Keep clicking you heals, Dorothy.....but remember, that was only a movie.

breeze

No the reason the Nicolau was accepted is because the company signed a T/A along with the east and west pilots agreeing to use the result of arbitration.

Usapa according to the courts inherited that list.

Yes we are on hold because east pilots refuse to live up to your agreement and Parker is using that excuse to save a ton of money.

 

[EastUS1]

Usapa according to the courts inherited that list.

You should then be easilly able to cite exactly what court's ruling has stated that the nic must be used, and provide the transcripted evidence of your belief's validation.....? No...? Why can't you? Hint: Because it didn't happen. You've nothing but faith and opinion to "support" all the inane bluster.

 

[Claxon]

You should then be easilly able to cite exactly what court's ruling has stated that the nic must be used, and provide the transcripted evidence of your belief's validation there......? No...? Why can't you?

He can not.

Judge Silver
No. CV-10-01570-PHX-ROS
ORDER October 11, 2012

"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.”

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/Declatory_Relief/Doc193_Order.pdf

 

[EastUS1]

Yes business interests will win out. The fastest, cheapest, least liable path is the business path. The Nicolau.

Yep...nothing more than faith, opinion and pure bluster....period, ever, end-of-statement. Nothing new to see here.

Seriously; who are you trying to convince here...yourself? That seems a complete waste of time, for one so deeply invested in cultist delusions already, but hey, whatever gets you through the day, I suppose.

 

[cleardirect]

He can not.

Judge Silver
No. CV-10-01570-PHX-ROS
ORDER October 11, 2012

"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.”

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/Declatory_Relief/Doc193_Order.pdf

How about if we just drop the pretense that you are not an east pilot.

Your reps were given a chance to negotiate with the company for a change to the T/A. Your reps refused and voted down that resolution so the argument that you can might have been valid. But now that argument is moot because your reps don't have the guts or the ability to negotiate a change to the T/A.

 

[Phoenix]

Yes and arbitrators split the baby instead of making a decision.

When Kasher decided on loa 93 did he find middle ground and give the east some?

Where do you get these wacky ideas. The courts all the time pick sides. They decide winners and losers not middle ground. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the concept of punitive damages? These are all about punishing wrongdoers.

Usapa has never been and was not designed to " help your neighbor" usapa was designed to punish the west and advance the east.

Yes business interests will win out. The fastest, cheapest, least liable path is the business path. The Nicolau.

LOA 93 is a perfect example, though you might try to pick a court example rather than an arbitrator since the topic is "courts" Arguing for a snap back after all those years was an extreme position. I don't care how correct it may have been, there was no way an arbitrator was going to cause such a belated tectonic shift in wealth. That would be exteme. The middle ground was to find everyone has already been paid a handom salary, no one is starving, and we can all get along with the status quo. Humanity is still ok. Nothing to see here Move along. Everyone back to work.

Face it, the courts, and business, aren't into extreme results. The extreme hopes of the Nicreaants are remote.

There is noting being done in Dallas that will rise to the level of decimating our hopes in humanity. The courts may have a passing interest but a wide range of reasonableness is very humane. It could be the Nic. It could be a thousand other things. Thats why its called wide.

 

[EastUS1]

.... your reps don't have the guts or the ability to negotiate a change to the T/A.

Be fair here! Not everyone can even aspire to becoming "heroic spartans", much less "knights", "dire wolves" and even "wizards"!!! 🙂 It goes without saying that you guys most certainly have the monopoly on "guts" locked up, right alongside "integrity" I'm sure. 😉

 

[cleardirect]

You should then be easilly able to cite exactly what court's ruling has stated that the nic must be used, and provide the transcripted evidence of your belief's validation.....? No...? Why can't you? Hint: Because it didn't happen. You've nothing but faith and opinion to "support" all the inane bluster.

4 The primary focus of the parties’ summary judgment filings is whether the Transition
5 Agreement is “binding” on USAPA. According to USAPA, it is “not ‘contractually’ bound
6 by any of ALPA’s agreements,” including the Transition Agreement. (Doc. 160 at 10). But
7 the West Pilots, as well as US Airways, cite a variety of authority supporting the position that
8 the “decertification of ALPA and the certification of USAPA did not change the binding
9 nature of the Transition Agreement.” (Doc. 164 at 7). The West Pilots and US Airways are
10 correct.
11 When USAPA became the pilots’ new collective bargaining representative, it
12 succeeded “to the status of the former representative without alteration in the contract terms.”
13 Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 1983). As
14 there does not appear to be any dispute that the Transition Agreement was part of the contract
15 between the pilots and US Airways, the Transition Agreement applies to USAPA. Even the
16 case which USAPA relies upon states there is a “general principle that collective bargaining
17 agreements survive a change in representative.” Ass’n of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v.
18 USAir, Inc., 24 F.3d 1432, 1439 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Thus, just as ALPA would have been
19 bound by the Transition Agreement had it remained the pilots’ representative, USAPA is
20 bound by the Transition Agreement.2



The transition agreement says that ALPA merger policy will be used. The merger policy produced the Nicolau. Usapa inherited the T/A therefore usapa is big d to use the Nicolau.

The east reps refuse to change the T/A.

 

[EastUS1]

The east reps refuse to change the T/A.

Thanks for the reply, without the same level of pointless barbs as I've been tossing, I'll fairly note. I'm perhaps being unusually dense here, but I'm still not seeing any court ruling stating usapa, not alpa, must use the nic contained anywhere within, or even that alpa was ultimately bound to it. I recall that 9th noting that usapa was "at least as free" as alpa to trashcan it. How indeed free that is seems to have been supported again in Judge Silver's proceedings, but we can quibble on indefinately. What you simply can NOT do is show a court's determination that "the nic is it", outside of the dismissed Cirque de Wake....period. As for the TA...I'm not at all certain how events in Dallas and the future dealings with the APA will work out.

 

[cleardirect]

LOA 93 is a perfect example, though you might try to pick a court example rather than an arbitrator since the topic is "courts" Arguing for a snap back after all those years was an extreme position. I don't care how correct it may have been, there was no way an arbitrator was going to cause such a belated tectonic shift in wealth. That would be exteme. The middle ground was to find everyone has already been paid a handom salary, no one is starving, and we can all get along with the status quo. Humanity is still ok. Nothing to see here Move along. Everyone back to work.

Face it, the courts, and business, aren't into extreme results. The extreme hopes of the Nicreaants are remote.

There is noting being done in Dallas that will rise to the level of decimating our hopes in humanity. The courts may have a passing interest but a wide range of reasonableness is very humane. It could be the Nic. It could be a thousand other things. Thats why its called wide.

Court cases.

Ok. The lady that got a million dollars for spilling hot coffee on herself. That was middle ground and helpful?

The Tobacco companies billion dollar judgement was middle ground? Do you think they were happy with that award and found "fair"

Courts hand out punishment all the time. Courts pick sides all the time. If you don't believe me go down to family court or talk to your divorced buddies and try and justify the "middle ground" of some of those settlement and child custody cases. Tell yourself the judge did not pick a side.

When the court threw out usapa false accusations of RICO, did they find middle ground and say some of the people's did wrong or did the pick a side and pick a winner?

Use your own false example. Judge Wake do you think he picked a middle ground or pick a side?

Which argument are you going to make?