June - US Pilots Labor Discussion

[traderjake]

May 19

Special BPR Meeting Recap - Day 5

Former PHL Vice-Chairman Candidate Paul Music asked to address the Board. Paul first congratulated newly elected PHL Vice-Chairman Jamie Weidner and requested the BPR emphasize Teamwork, Leadership, and Unity in the future.

 

[nevergiveup]

My parents raised 7 kids and a few adopted teens, put us all through Catholic school K-12 as well as college. They taught me, that...if you make an agreement, you live up to it.

I also learned that its important to be an individual thinker, not part of a groupthink collective like a union. And far from an office drone, I am an educated, certificated professional in my field with over 25 years of experience in management. I have to rely on the quality of my work, not my seniority number in order to have a job.

So.....if you make an agreement, you live up to it. If the company comes to an agreement with the union, and they breach it because they don't feel like it, that would be bad, just like not living up to a binding arbitration agreement. I can't see how you don't get that.

I guess its OK for anyone who enters into a legal agreement with you to not live up to it then?

The reason NIC is not in use is not because a party has not lived up an the agreement, it is because there has not been a contract. USAPA nor the company could legally use the NIC if they wanted to. A quickie contract should not be forced upon the group just to allow one side to cash in its ticket. Contracts are important to the whole group. Even if we don't merge, getting a contract will take a long time. It seems as though some of the east pilots tried to force management to speed up getting a contract, but strangely, the west did not want to help. The west was warned repeatedly about what might happen. They have had every opportunity to help make it happen. Betting the farm is an interesting option they have taken. We shall see.

 

[EastCheats]

The reason NIC is not in use is not because a party has not lived up an the agreement, it is because there has not been a contract. USAPA nor the company could legally use the NIC if they wanted to. A quickie contract should not be forced upon the group just to allow one side to cash in its ticket. Contracts are important to the whole group. Even if we don't merge, getting a contract will take a long time. It seems as though some of the east pilots tried to force management to speed up getting a contract, but strangely, the west did not want to help. The west was warned repeatedly about what might happen. They have had every opportunity to help make it happen. Betting the farm is an interesting option they have taken. We shall see.

The East agreed to binding arbitration as did the West. Forming a union to get a do-over on the DOH pipe dream obviously did not work. We have seen the East use that union to cheat West pilots out of elected positions.

DFR I was the shot over the bow. You should consider that a warning because we have laid the mines for DFRII.

Walk cafefully.

 

[Piedmont1984]

The East agreed to binding arbitration as did the West. Forming a union to get a do-over on the DOH pipe dream obviously did not work. We have seen the East use that union to cheat West pilots out of elected positions.

DFR I was the shot over the bow. You should consider that a warning because we have laid the mines for DFRII.

Walk cafefully.

I have my doubts that there will ever be an Addington type DFR again - PROVIDED that the merger proceeds.

Either, as you would like to see, the Nic will be the list - or, a non-Nic list will be used which does little or no harm to the west as compared to the Nic but which would be open to considerable interpretation - or, the APA will find another creative way to avoid liability, placate both parties to the dispute and move the process forward.

I'm going to go with option number 3. Although that option may be the same as option number 1, that's not necessarily the case.

I base this on the fact that I woke up on the right side of the bed this morning.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The reason NIC is not in use is not because a party has not lived up an the agreement, it is because there has not been a contract. USAPA nor the company could legally use the NIC if they wanted to.

And a large part of the reason that there isn't a contract is that the east and USAPA insist on ignoring binding arbitration....

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

The reason NIC is not in use is not because a party has not lived up an the agreement, it is because there has not been a contract. USAPA nor the company could legally use the NIC if they wanted to. A quickie contract should not be forced upon the group just to allow one side to cash in its ticket. Contracts are important to the whole group. Even if we don't merge, getting a contract will take a long time. It seems as though some of the east pilots tried to force management to speed up getting a contract, but strangely, the west did not want to help. The west was warned repeatedly about what might happen. They have had every opportunity to help make it happen. Betting the farm is an interesting option they have taken. We shall see.

Not one thing you wrote is correct.

 

[Move2CLT]

I have my doubts that there will ever be an Addington type DFR again - PROVIDED that the merger proceeds.

Either, as you would like to see, the Nic will be the list - or, a non-Nic list will be used which does little or no harm to the west as compared to the Nic but which would be open to considerable interpretation - or, the APA will find another creative way to avoid liability, placate both parties to the dispute and move the process forward.

I'm going to go with option number 3. Although that option may be the same as option number 1, that's not necessarily the case.

I base this on the fact that I woke up on the right side of the bed this morning.

I'll explain to you why it'll be the Nic and your other options fail.

Using anything other than the Nic will trigger another DFR. Being that Addington was shut down on ripeness instead of merit, the chances of a judge granting an injunction are just about 100% so that we can figure out if it harms us or not. Doesn't matter how generous the terms are because no matter what you put out its something less than the Nic. Chances are it'll harm a few west pilots to some degree.

So we will need a jury to figure that out. And that will take time. Parker doesn't have time and neither does the APA.

So, with no desire to waste time on DFR 2 and with APA having an abrogated contract to look forward to if this fails, do you think they're going to risk litigation?

Nope.

How do you avoid litigation? You use the Nic. End of story. No three way. No special list. Nothing. Just the Nic.

And I base this on sound logic and fact.

 

[BoeingBoy]

2007 - Nic award is published, east MEC pulls it's JNC members from negotiations - negotiations for a joint contract stop. Was that the west's fault?

2007-2008 - USAPA formed and representational dispute filed with NMB. After it's investigation the NMB scheduled an election. No negotiations occured during this time. Was that the west's fault?

2008 - USAPA elected CBA, gets it's act together. Was that the west's fault?

2008 - Negotiations for joint contract resume will all east NAC and USAPA's DOH based combined seniority list submitted. Was that west's fault?

2009 - West filed Addington suit, negotiations slow to a crawl with USAPA insisting on it's list. Company says contract can't be finished till seniority settled. Was that west's fault?

2010 - District Court rules against USAPA, USAPA appeals to 9th Circuit Appeals Court. Was that the west's fault?

2010 - 9th rules "Not ripe". West files with SCOTUS.

2011 - SCOTUS declines to hear case

2011 - US files DJ with District Court

Where, other than defending what it though was right, is west at fault for now 5 years? Where did the east cause a delay?

Jim

 

[Piedmont1984]

Move

It's possible that a DFR may be filed by some, even if it IS the Nic. Don't forget the language of the C&BL's or some of the outliers right in your own camp. Anybody can file a DFR.

So I amend my remarks by stipulating that I doubt a WINNABLE DFR will ever be filed, therefore, if the APA feels confident they can fend off a DFR with a weak claim the merger and the timeline will not be hindered. Weak DFR claim = chances of restraining order less than 50%.

And I base that on two excellent cups of java stimulating my cerebral cortex this morning.

 

[Move2CLT]

Have another cup of joe and maybe with a bit of caffeine this time.

Remember that whole "unquestionably ripe" thing? The ONLY thing we lost on was ripeness and its pretty much a guarantee that we will win the DFR2 lawsuit should we ever go that direction.

But that's neither here nor there.

I say this AGAIN that neither the company NOR the APA wants to waste the TWO years or so fending off a lawsuit. AA needs to be out of bankruptcy with abrogated contracts or Parker wants this deal done in much less time than that.

So you've already lost the APA or Parker right there. They're not going to waste time fending off a lawsuit that has an injunction on it preventing them from moving forward with non-Nic list.

That's the advantage we have - the chances for an injunction.

Any other lawsuit that's filed will more than likely NOT get that injunction and the merger can proceed forward. Our DFR has merit. Any other lawsuit would be a big question mark.

And what someone going to sue Parker for? Using an arbitrated list? Good luck on that one. And with Silver's ruling in his back pocket, Parker will move forward with the Nic.

I've told you guys LOA93 would fail and it did. I told you guys MDA would fail and it did. I told you guys there would be no snapbacks and there weren't. And I told you guys CoC wouldn't be triggered and Parker publicly stated the same in CLT.

Im telling you again that Nic is it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So I amend my remarks by stipulating that I doubt a WINNABLE DFR will ever be filed, therefore, if the APA feels confident they can fend off a DFR with a weak claim the merger and the timeline will not be hindered. Weak DFR claim = chances of restraining order less than 50%.

You've got to remember two things. A jury has already ruled against USAPA on the merits and the 9th warned that USAPA's list was less favorable to the west than the Nic list (i.e., a DFR just waiting to be won) and that USAPA had to represent east and west fairly or face that "unquestionably ripe" DFR.

Sure, anybody can file a DFR but the west can point to the above as well as the company's statements in the DJ. I'd give the west a 95% or better chance of success if USAPA tries to use it's list or separate east and west list for any merger with AA, and apparently the APA has been notified of that. Do you really thing APA wants to be thrown in that briar patch? What is the easiest way to ensure that a merger timeline won't be disrupted? Maybe insist on using the Nic (updated with those hired since it was published) and the AA list?

Put yourself in the shoes of APA. Do you try to find some solution that will make both US east and west happy - as if anything would do that? Or do you take the easy course that has little danger of a winable DFR?

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

Piedmont,

Are you not seeing this because you just don't understand what we're saying or is it because you just don't want to see it?

 

[HPearlyretiree]

1) Your late folks sound like very fine people. Again; I meant no insult to them nor their memory.

2) "And far from an office drone.." Oh me, Oh my! Spare me, as your above post defined one perfectly, and even flavored it with the unmitigated arrogance so typical of those never much (or even ever) sorely tested by any more severe endeavors. "I have to rely on the quality of my work.." or WHAT?...without said "quality"....somebody perhaps suffers a paper cut? 😉 Run your unbelievably arrogant, self-serving BS by even the most junior Private Soldiers in Afghanistan.and see just how "awestruck" they'd be with it.

3) "So.....if you make an agreement, you live up to it." No argument there. Kindly show me my signature on any supposed "agreement" herein, and we'll discuss that very thing in detail.

4) " If the company comes to an agreement with the union, and they breach it because they don't feel like it.." That's actually a rather routine occurrence here...what planet do you live on?

5) "I guess its OK for anyone who enters into a legal agreement with you to not live up to it then" See 4) above. What's your point? 😉

East, every day I have to do nasty things, last week I had to fire 4 people in one day, and deal with their unemployment hearings. I have to deal with the EEOC, DOL and OFCCP complaints, as well as lawsuits. I have to investigate senior managers, and sometimes CEO's for wrongdoing and ethical violations that could put the company in peril. I have to put together a budget, administer salary, deal with an alphabet soup of laws (Davis Bacon, ADA, ADAAA, USERRA, NLRB, Wage and Hour, ADEA, FMLA, etc), and frequently have to tell management "no, you can't do that" and to employees "no, you can't do that". I have to spend countless hours in ongoing education, surrounded by lawyers and government officials (had to listen to a NLRB Board member drone on for an hour last week, saying absolutely nothing). I respect what you do for a living, its a good job, evidently you can't respect what others do for a living.

But, one thing I know, when you make an agreement that is binding, you can't weenie out of it by making up a new union out of spite. No, you didn't sign the agreement to do binding arbitration, that is a very silly argument, your union did, and they represent you, you can't act as an individual in your union. You know better than that....I would hope.

 

[nevergiveup]

Have another cup of joe and maybe with a bit of caffeine this time.

Remember that whole "unquestionably ripe" thing? The ONLY thing we lost on was ripeness and its pretty much a guarantee that we will win the DFR2 lawsuit should we ever go that direction.

But that's neither here nor there.

I say this AGAIN that neither the company NOR the APA wants to waste the TWO years or so fending off a lawsuit. AA needs to be out of bankruptcy with abrogated contracts or Parker wants this deal done in much less time than that.

So you've already lost the APA or Parker right there. They're not going to waste time fending off a lawsuit that has an injunction on it preventing them from moving forward with non-Nic list.

That's the advantage we have - the chances for an injunction.

Any other lawsuit that's filed will more than likely NOT get that injunction and the merger can proceed forward. Our DFR has merit. Any other lawsuit would be a big question mark.

And what someone going to sue Parker for? Using an arbitrated list? Good luck on that one. And with Silver's ruling in his back pocket, Parker will move forward with the Nic.

I've told you guys LOA93 would fail and it did. I told you guys MDA would fail and it did. I told you guys there would be no snapbacks and there weren't. And I told you guys CoC wouldn't be triggered and Parker publicly stated the same in CLT.

Im telling you again that Nic is it.

Snapshot today. How many lists do you see in use? Time will tell.

 

[dca319]

Duplicate