Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Bill Brasky]

From pilot central



Not 88-89

People make bidding choices for different reasons I think we all understand that. But that does not change the fact that a DOH list does not match up at all with the reality of SENIORITY. At AA an 88 hired is much more senior than an 88 hire on the east.

A 1988 hire at american 31% on the seniority list.
A 1988 hire on the east 69% on the seniority list. A 1988 east pilots was furloughed at the time of the merger.
A 1988 hire on the west 15% on the seniority list.

Does anyone think that an arbitrator is going to take a junior 76 captain from AA, a very senior west captain and a mid level east F/O and place them next to each other on a combined seniority list? Better think again.

And no attrition does make make everything equal.

For the first 5 years, more than 50% of the attrition in the combined company is from the LCC side, of which probably 80% is East, and they are around 30-35% of the total pilots. So, DOH with a 5 year fence would pretty much balance things. For the youngsters on the west, there are no fences which protect APA guys from 2000-2005 hires, many of which would not retire for 20 years or more.

The Nic is terrible for LCC pilots, horrible for APA pilots and a windfall for the AWE pilots. That's why it isn't gonna happen.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Judge Silver's ruling was clear; USAPA is free to negotiate any SLI they wish, as long as it has a LUP, which its DOH with C&R plan does. All your drivel about dismissed cases and minority positions mean nothing, they have NO standing in a court of law.

Judge Silver even amended the order to make clear that it covered all the westies, not just the six or so named in the complaint. She had a chance to change what she said, and only made it more restrictive.

If your lawyers are telling you anything else, they're just stealing your money.

And yet you still have no idea why her ruling contained warnings to USAPA or why the NMB still has negotiations parked in a perpetual state of status quo. My "drivel" at least has a sense of logic and reasoning to it and the best you can come up with is "I have no idea".

P.S. so if SIlver's ruling was clear and she has known from the beginning that USAPA intended to use a DOH scheme which you claim is a LUP, then why a warning? If DOH is a LUP and Silver beleives that USAPA has ever intention of negotiating for the same, why waste time attaching multiple warnings about discarding an arbitrated award and ensuring that the LUP negates any claim that can be made regarding a DFR?

 

[Zone5]

I remember that skit as well. I think the prop department commandeered Spock’s Vulcan ears before he was carried off. The show was much funnier back then than it has been over the past couple of decades. Still, I fail to see the analogy connecting that skit to my post.
Bill Brasky said this…

My post was to proffer a reasoned hypothesis as to why Silver offered the multiple warnings to USAPA in her final ruling. She admitted, by way of reversing her previous position of allowing the DJ to go forward because the Company did in fact face legal and financial harm if they accepted USAPA’s non-NIC list, that she felt boxed in by the Ninth’s ruling on ripeness. Thus she re-aligned her official opinion to line up with the Ninth’s ruling on USAPA’s freedom to negotiate within the context of a LUP. So, Silver along with Tashima and Graber made a legal determination that the federal courts lacked any jurisdictional authority to grant relief to the dispute over the NIC. In their views the court is barred from interfering until such time when an unquestionably ripe claim of harm can be made against USAPA and perhaps the Company.

Still, Silver was very much aware of the fact that USAPA was found to have violated their DFR in Addington and that Bybee had dissented from Tashima and Graber on the ripeness issue and went on to not only dissent on the determination of ripeness, but made an extremely compelling argument based on the merits of the case as to why USAPA had in fact violated their DFR just as the lower court had ruled. Silver knows, as evidenced by the warnings in her final opinion, that should USAPA ever make the west claim ripe, the use of a non-NIC list would bring legal harm to both them and the Company as it had already been determined by the only two federal judges who looked past ripeness and into the actual merits of the west claim.

My point is, that while all this pontification over the NIC might make a really great "hobby" for you and some others out West, it is OBE, the World has moved on and the NIC has been rendered moot by the MOU and its associated MTA and JCBA between AMR and LCC,assuming the merger is on.

A failure of the deal with AMR (highly unlikely) would bring us at LCC, back to where we left off, with two lists, two contracts and the company moving forward with its DJ appeal, for the foreseeable future. At which point, you could crank up the band as loudly as you so desire, in the meantime all this continued NIC speak is just "white noise". You will have to satisfy your "needs" by watching re-runs.


seajay

 

[cleardirect]

Judge Silver's ruling was clear; USAPA is free to negotiate any SLI they wish, as long as it has a LUP, which its DOH with C&R plan does. All your drivel about dismissed cases and minority positions mean nothing, they have NO standing in a court of law.

Judge Silver even amended the order to make clear that it covered all the westies, not just the six or so named in the complaint. She had a chance to change what she said, and only made it more restrictive.

If your lawyers are telling you anything else, they're just stealing your money.

Ummm!

Who exactly is usapa going to negotiate ...with?

When judge Silver was talking about negotiating she was trying to tie contract talks into balancing seniority with something in the exchange. She did not understand that there is no way to have different pay scales or work rules traded for seniority.

Now that we have a path to a contract there is no negotiations. They will be separate from seniority negotiation and finished before seniority begins. The APA is not going to give up anything so the east can disregard an arbitrated list and advance the east.

The requirement for LUP has not changed. We know that a negotiated seniority list is not going to happen. So it will be up to the arbitrator. Without an LUP presenting something other than the Nicolau violates judge Silver order.

 

[Bill Brasky]

And yet you still have no idea why her ruling contained warnings to USAPA or why the NMB still has negotiations parked in a perpetual state of status quo. My "drivel" at least has a sense of logic and reasoning to it and the best you can come up with is "I have no idea".

You're argument is still stupid. She found against you. If she meant anything else, she wouldn't have ruled they way she did. Yes, drivel. I was being nice. Really, it's just more west stupid ####.

 

[cleardirect]

For the first 5 years, more than 50% of the attrition in the combined company is from the LCC side, of which probably 80% is East, and they are around 30-35% of the total pilots. So, DOH with a 5 year fence would pretty much balance things. For the youngsters on the west, there are no fences which protect APA guys from 2000-2005 hires, many of which would not retire for 20 years or more.

The Nic is terrible for LCC pilots, horrible for APA pilots and a windfall for the AWE pilots. That's why it isn't gonna happen.

You are not going to get a 5 years base fence.

An arbitrator is not going to combine a seniority list placing a WB captain senior NB captain and a midlevel NB F/O together.
An arbitrator is not going to put 85% of the east pilots in the top 50% of the list and 65%of the AA pilots in the bottom 50% of the list.
An arbitrator is not going to put 71% of the east in the top 35% of the list. A 5 year fence does not fix that kind of disparity.

In your opinion the Nicolau horrible for east pilots. The arbitrator decided that it was fair for ALL LCC pilots. Judge Silver stated that the decision of an arbitrator is powerful evidence of a fair list.

A DOH is horrible for an APA pilot. Placing almost 3000 out of 3500 east pilots senior to 6500 AA pilots. Never going to happen.

The 5 year fence is going to lock you off the AA wide bodies that is the only fence we will see.

 

[Bill Brasky]

You are not going to get a 5 years base fence.

An arbitrator is not going to combine a seniority list placing a WB captain senior NB captain and a midlevel NB F/O together.
An arbitrator is not going to put 85% of the east pilots in the top 50% of the list and 65%of the AA pilots in the bottom 50% of the list.
An arbitrator is not going to put 71% of the east in the top 35% of the list. A 5 year fence does not fix that kind of disparity.

In your opinion the Nicolau horrible for east pilots. The arbitrator decided that it was fair for ALL LCC pilots. Judge Silver stated that the decision of an arbitrator is powerful evidence of a fair list.

A DOH is horrible for an APA pilot. Placing almost 3000 out of 3500 east pilots senior to 6500 AA pilots. Never going to happen.

The 5 year fence is going to lock you off the AA wide bodies that is the only fence we will see.

First of all, what makes you think this is going to an arbitrator? secondly, how do you have a clue what an arbitrator may or may not do? More brainless crap from a westie. Secondly, I've seen both lists and the combined DOH list that some APA built. It actually looks pretty workable. Not quite there, but a lot closer than the Nic would be.

Doesn't matter, Nic ain't happening.

 

[Pi brat]

You are not going to get a 5 years base fence.

An arbitrator is not going to combine a seniority list placing a WB captain senior NB captain and a midlevel NB F/O together.
An arbitrator is not going to put 85% of the east pilots in the top 50% of the list and 65%of the AA pilots in the bottom 50% of the list.
An arbitrator is not going to put 71% of the east in the top 35% of the list. A 5 year fence does not fix that kind of disparity.

In your opinion the Nicolau horrible for east pilots. The arbitrator decided that it was fair for ALL LCC pilots. Judge Silver stated that the decision of an arbitrator is powerful evidence of a fair list.

A DOH is horrible for an APA pilot. Placing almost 3000 out of 3500 east pilots senior to 6500 AA pilots. Never going to happen.

The 5 year fence is going to lock you off the AA wide bodies that is the only fence we will see.

More predictions. I cannot understand why you state your theories about things you really don't know about as facts.

 

[Pi brat]

You're argument is still stupid. She found against you. If she meant anything else, she wouldn't have ruled they way she did. Yes, drivel. I was being nice. Really, it's just more west stupid ####.

His logic changes. He said the only logical outcome of the DJ was for count 1.

 

[jetjok1]

Last bid had east 88 hire in DCA on little bus capt position. This next bid will be even better. This is the crux of the problem with the NIC. Attrition to its rightful owner who has put in the time and patiently waited. We want noting of your PHX base. So move along

Not true.......I, an east capt. Will bid phx, if and when, it becomes available immediately.

 

[CallawayGolf]

You're argument is still stupid. She found against you. If she meant anything else, she wouldn't have ruled they way she did. Yes, drivel. I was being nice. Really, it's just more west stupid ####.

Recapped excepts from Silver order. Bold text added for emphasis for those thinking Silver's ruling clears the way for DOH list that servers as a LUP to counter any DFR claims against it...

This is a hard case.​

But with that freedom comes risk because the West Pilot Defendants may have viable legal claims in the future should the collective bargaining agreement contain a seniority provision harmful to a subsection of the union.​

But US Airways must evaluate any proposal by USAPA with some care to ensure that it is reasonable​

and supported by a legitimate union purpose.​

On September 30, 2008, USAPA submitted a new seniority proposal to US Airways. (Doc. 151, ¶ 65; Doc. 153, ¶ 38). This proposal combined the East and West Pilots on the merged seniority list according to their dates of hire without regard to whether a pilot was on furlough at the time of the merger.​

In 2008, a group of West Pilots sued USAPA claiming USAPA had breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to adopt the Nicolau Award during negotiations with US Airways. The case was certified as a class action and proceeded to trial where the West Pilots prevailed. On appeal, however, the case was dismissed as not presenting a ripe controversy.​

But the 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.”. The West Pilots and US Airways are correct.​

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.​

Of course, in negotiating for a particular seniority regime, USAPA must not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so.​

By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground.​

In the end, the Court cannot provide as much guidance as it had hoped it could.​

it is not possible to determine the viability of any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation until a particular seniority regime is ratified.​

When the collective bargaining agreement is finalized, individuals will be able to determine whether USAPA’s abandonment of the Nicolau Award was permissible, i.e. supported by a legitimate union purpose.​

This conclusion places US Airways in a difficult position. At the present time, it is not possible to predict what will result from the collective bargaining negotiations. Thus, the Court cannot grant US Airways prospective immunity from any legal action by the West Pilots.​

 

[nic4us]

Not true.......I, an east capt. Will bid phx, if and when, it becomes available immediately.

You will be welcome in PHX excersizing your rightful Nic seniority.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Cleardirect said "Fences are only going to be for the wide bodies and guess what US Airways does not have that many. That means that US Airways will be fenced off the AA WB. That does not mean the west is fenced off the US airways WB."


We indeed don't have "that many" wide bodies, but we have enough for me. Bring on the fences, I personally do not covet the WBs the APA already has. I fully expect to be fenced off their wide bodies, and probably any replacement aircraft.

When the fences are negotiated or arbitrated, I assume that is where we share a common goal: we both want full rights to any GROWTH aircraft. I would argue Clear that you also might have a right, in seniority, to any East wide bodies that were "growth" airplanes after 2005, and no more. By the way, the 5 330s coming East later this year?...replacement aircraft. But I don't have a say. Good luck.

Greeter

 

[CallawayGolf]

His logic changes. He said the only logical outcome of the DJ was for count 1.

Yes I did based on her statement that the Company was entitled to relief. In the end, even she admits that she was unable to provide the relief she hoped to because of the Ninth's ruling on ripeness. That's why she said "In the end, the Court cannot provide as much guidance as it had hoped it could. it is not possible to determine the viability of any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation until a particular seniority regime is ratified." She changed he views as the case progressed to a conclusion which made my prediction of the outcome invalid. The DJ law and thus this case were never intended to be held to the same standard of ripeness as a DFR claim, but in the end she changed used that standard even though she herself said earlier in the proceedings that the DJ was indeed ripe and the Company was ripe. But I made a prediction that didn't come to pass so please hold it against me until such time as you are willing to let it go.

 

[Pi brat]

Yes I did based on her statement that the Company was entitled to relief. In the end, even she admits that she was unable to provide the relief she hoped to because of the Ninth's ruling on ripeness. That's why she said "In the end, the Court cannot provide as much guidance as it had hoped it could. it is not possible to determine the viability of any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation until a particular seniority regime is ratified." She changed he views as the case progressed to a conclusion which made my prediction of the outcome invalid. The DJ law and thus this case were never intended to be held to the same standard of ripeness as a DFR claim, but in the end she changed used that standard even though she herself said earlier in the proceedings that the DJ was indeed ripe and the Company was ripe. But I made a prediction that didn't come to pass so please hold it against me until such time as you are willing to let it go.

And when you are wrong about your other predictions it will also be because THEY changed, not your faulty logic.