Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Phoenix]

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.

I'm sure the reason there is an NDA between AA and USAir has been in order to study the TA from a merger attempt from seven years ago. The reason they have extended the NDA a few times is they are diligently operating under the assumption that they will not ammend that TA, and unless snowballs melt at the North Pole, they will never scrap that TA and start fresh with their own ideas.

 

[EastUS1]

Tell yourself the judge did not pick a side.

So...which side did the 9th pick, or did the latest court? Where's the verbage noting the nic to be somehow sacrosanct, and in fact mandatory, to be found anywhere?

 

[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.

Now you think that the loa 93 was a waste of time and a loser from the beginning.

Wow!

How things change. You and all the east posters here were convince that Kasher was going to pay. That it was a slam dunk winner.

Reality finally is creeping in over there.

You knew this was a loser yet supported it. The west never got our chance at arbitration of the distance learning and you supported that. Could it be that the west would have won that case and kept our 2.5 million that Parella and usapa gave away?

 

[EastUS1]

You and all the east posters here were convince that Kasher was going to pay. That it was a slam dunk winner.

The west never got our chance at arbitration of the distance learning and you supported that. Could it be that the west would have won that case and kept our 2.5 million that Parella and usapa gave away?

1) I had no such faith. So much for "...all the east posters here...".
2) I'd agree that it should have been pursued, but will now note that we've gone far afield from you actually posting anything proving any standing courts' ruling(s) have determined the nic to be "it".....?

 

[Phoenix]

Now you think that the loa 93 was a waste of time and a loser from the beginning.

Wow!

How things change. You and all the east posters here were convince that Kasher was going to pay. That it was a slam dunk winner.

Reality finally is creeping in over there.

You knew this was a loser yet supported it. The west never got our chance at arbitration of the distance learning and you supported that. Could it be that the west would have won that case and kept our 2.5 million that Parella and usapa gave away?

Lots of accusations there without evidence.

 

[Metroyet]

And it's pretty clear to me that he's NOT a UAL guy, but a westie, and a junior one at that. He's been wrong more than you know.

Hey Jetz, what was it you said about denial? I think it's an epidemic out East!

 

[EastUS1]

Hey Jetz, what was it you said about denial? I think it's an epidemic out East!

Speaking of denial; I'm still waiting on some west clarification here: "but will now note that we've gone far afield from you actually posting anything proving any standing courts' ruling(s) have determined the nic to be "it".....?

 

[Phoenix]


Court cases.

Ok. The lady that got a million dollars for spilling hot coffee on herself. That was middle ground and helpful? Yes it restored everyone's hope that the courts can retain civility and humanity against the uncaring megalithic corporations. Taking a million dollars is reasonable when it is taken from a monstrous international business that boasts "billions and billions served" yet it doesn't care that its actions action caused third degree burns on the gentiles of an innocent woman. 



The Tobacco companies billion dollar judgement was middle ground? Do you think they were happy with that award and found "fair" Again, reasonable and civil, of course. Twenty five years ago smoking was a social past time but the tobacco companies failed to warn us of the inevitable pain and sorrow of cancer, emphysema, stokes, and death. Score two for the courts. Score zero for extremists outside the norm of humanity.



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. The courts always pick the side of reasonableness and humanity, putting extremists on the outside, but always still preserving some moderation in all their judgements. Even murderers are still afforded A/C, hot meals, cable TV, and parole board hearings to prove they have rehabilitated themselves for reintegration into society. Courts go to extremes to prove they are reasonable and side with anyone who will show they are trying to be reasonable. Even the criminal who is all better now.



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? Try to answer this one for yourself. What was the reasonable and civil decision between a union trying to use the courts for revenge against a few boisterous individuals expressing their opinions? 



Use your own false example. Judge Wake do you think he picked a middle ground or pick a side? Ooops, Wake got a little too big for his britches. Can't have the courts interjecting into disputes that still have room to work themselves out. Interjecting too soon is uncivilized. Folks in dispute should have their opportunity to prove they can be civil and work it out.



Which argument are you going to make?
The courts won't allow themselves to be used to extract the revenge that the Nicreants hope to get. The bargaining in Dallas won't even come close to being outside a wide range of reasonableness. Not even close. Nicreant threats and hopes are extreme. Court threats are not even a consideration, unless AOL can find someone else that truly has a vested interest to use the Nic, in which case threats of litigation will be used as leverage, just like AOL is desperately trying.

 

[Phoenix]

Speaking of denial; I'm still waiting on some west clarification here: "but will now note that we've gone far afield from you actually posting anything proving any standing courts' ruling(s) have determined the nic to be "it".....?

There has been plenty of West clarification.

 

[end_of_alpa]

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.

KEEP READING (AGAIN!):

"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.” Id.

 

[Metroyet]

KEEP READING (AGAIN!):

"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.” Id.

Again, KEEP READING.

What EXACTLY is The legitimate union purpose for modifying the transition agreement to disregard Nicolau award in favor of date of hire? A seniority scheme the benefits every single east pilot to the express disadvantage to every single west pilot?
. Moreover, what will provide the company legal cover for going along with such an absurd notion? As you should well know by now, just because the union demand something of the company in no way requires the company to accommodate them. So I'll ask again, what is the legitimate union purpose for disregarding the arbitrated award? Also, bear in mind that the TWA pilots were awarded a decision Against ALPA 13 years after the fact. The fact you guys created this seven-year mess is irrelevant. the facts are the facts.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Again, KEEP READING.

What EXACTLY is The legitimate union purpose for modifying the transition agreement to disregard Nicolau award in favor of date of hire? A seniority scheme the benefits every single east pilot to the express disadvantage to every single west pilot?
. Moreover, what will provide the company legal cover for going along with such an absurd notion? As you should well know by now, just because the union demand something of the company in no way requires the company to accommodate them. So I'll ask again, what is the legitimate union purpose for disregarding the arbitrated award? Also, bear in mind that the TWA pilots were awarded a decision Against ALPA 13 years after the fact. The fact you guys created this seven-year mess is irrelevant. the facts are the facts.

Not our award, and what "MESS" are you talking about? I am sure you can take out your resume and distribute it freely!

 

[Claxon]

Again, KEEP READING.

What EXACTLY is The legitimate union purpose for modifying the transition agreement to disregard Nicolau award in favor of date of hire? A seniority scheme the benefits every single east pilot to the express disadvantage to every single west pilot?
. Moreover, what will provide the company legal cover for going along with such an absurd notion? As you should well know by now, just because the union demand something of the company in no way requires the company to accommodate them. So I'll ask again, what is the legitimate union purpose for disregarding the arbitrated award? Also, bear in mind that the TWA pilots were awarded a decision Against ALPA 13 years after the fact. The fact you guys created this seven-year mess is irrelevant. the facts are the facts.

You will find out the results of the Legitimate Union Purpose in, on average, ten plus years from now.

 

[Claxon]

http://www.unitedpilotagreementinfo.com/

 

[Claxon]

The bad part of the UAL agreement. Lets learn from 767jetz mistakes.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/DesktopModules/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=49058