June - US Pilots Labor Discussion

[nic4us]

Sorry, I quoted in your box. What I am saying is, if you are not "letting me off the hook" fine, just why has the hook, not been set? Seven years later!

but it has.....we are still talking Nic...the company is in court regarding the Nic....if we do a merger it will be the Nic.

You are making the arguement that since the NIc has not been implemented it does not exist...same arguement East was putting forth in his reality of the situation talk.

Well, the reality is the Nic is a final and binding award amongst the pilot group at LCC. It will not go away, it is here awaiting a joint contract to this day, just as I am awaiting my TA-10 payout.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I appreciate your return. The Nic decision was rendered, and the decision was given to ALPA, not the company. As it should have been as it was a decision that was in reference to a dispute or issue within ALPA, not ALPA and the Company. This was never a dispute between the company and pilots, but a dispute between pilots and pilots. And immediately, there was issue from the East pilots, that it did not follow ALPA merger policy. So the dispute was not with the company over the way THEY wanted to order seniority but with the organization that represented the pilots of the same company. The East pilots then contested the award as being out of the parameters of ALPA merger policy, and hence the Wye River session as a last ditch attempt to circumvent what was now brewing- an East revolt stating ALPA merger policy not being followed. ALPA clearly recognized the threat of the loss of the USAirways Pilots in whole over this dispute. Obviously, it was not binding if the pilots defected, not binding even staying in ALPA as Wye River established. IF it were binding, why Wye River? Why not just tell the East pilots to accept the list? Why the warning from Freund "All the risk lies with the West.......?" Freund clearly recognized the defection was coming, and the list was NOT binding. He was warning the West reps to compromise, or risk losing the award in entirety. Either way, the defection and formation of USAPA clearly allowed USAPA to order seniority as they internally chose, and to submit it. That, has been done. All before a joint contract. USAPA is not beholden to the agreement of ALPA. USAPA is liable for harm, if it can be proved, but is not beholden to the Nicolau.

You got [at least] one thing absolutely correct. The SLI process and the resulting arbitration award was between the pilots of the former US Airways and the former America West. It was not between the pilots and their bargaining agent nor was it between the Company and the bargaining agent. Thus changing bargaining agents does nothing to alter or negate the agreements made amongst the pilots themselves through their respective agents. The Transition Agreement on the other hand was and is a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the Company and a violation of that agreement subjects either or both parties to the remedies permitted under the RLA. So the NIC is binding on the pilots because they were and still are the parties that reached and agreement to conduct a SLI per the ALPA process, and USAPA is still legally bound by the TA because they inherited that agreement just like they inherited LOA93 and C2004.

Now Wye River happened because at that time the possibility still existed that one of the parties might forego their rights to exercise a claim to use only the NIC if an agreement could have been reached subsequent to the award. It obviously turned out that the west was unwilling to abandon their rights to have the NIC used as the final and binding seniority list. As such Wyre River resulted in nothing more than affirming that the NIC was going to be expected and demanded by the west.

 

[Graceson]

Military pilots don't strap into planes. They strap planes on.

Thank you!

 

[im back..!!]

but it has.....we are still talking Nic...the company is in court regarding the Nic....if we do a merger it will be the Nic.

You are making the arguement that since the NIc has not been implemented it does not exist...same arguement East was putting forth in his reality of the situation talk.

Well, the reality is the Nic is a final and binding award amongst the pilot group at LCC. It will not go away, it is here awaiting a joint contract to this day, just as I am awaiting my TA-10 payout.

--------------------------------------
I have to assume you either dont have access, or haven't taken the time to watch the crew news. Mr Parker is quite explicite......

Watch the crew news, then explaine what was said....

The list to be given to APA will be determined by USAPA....simple as that....

 

[Graceson]

The 9th removed the injunction that made it binding. Apart from that injunction, it was/is not binding, as is abundantly obvious. Why else are people hoping for a new injunction?

Binding agreements have a lifespan of useful relevance. This has a useful relevance terminating at ratification (successful or unsuccessful). In the absence of ratification, the superior court decided its relevance as -- soft. As soft as it was for the previous bargaining agent, though the test of fair and equitable is, without compromise, a hard standard. As it was for the previous bargaining agent.

 

[fodase]

I appreciate your return. The Nic decision was rendered, and the decision was given to ALPA, not the company. As it should have been as it was a decision that was in reference to a dispute or issue within ALPA, not ALPA and the Company. This was never a dispute between the company and pilots, but a dispute between pilots and pilots. And immediately, there was issue from the East pilots, that it did not follow ALPA merger policy. So the dispute was not with the company over the way THEY wanted to order seniority but with the organization that represented the pilots of the same company. The East pilots then contested the award as being out of the parameters of ALPA merger policy, and hence the Wye River session as a last ditch attempt to circumvent what was now brewing- an East revolt stating ALPA merger policy not being followed. ALPA clearly recognized the threat of the loss of the USAirways Pilots in whole over this dispute. Obviously, it was not binding if the pilots defected, not binding even staying in ALPA as Wye River established. IF it were binding, why Wye River? Why not just tell the East pilots to accept the list? Why the warning from Freund "All the risk lies with the West.......?" Freund clearly recognized the defection was coming, and the list was NOT binding. He was warning the West reps to compromise, or risk losing the award in entirety. Either way, the defection and formation of USAPA clearly allowed USAPA to order seniority as they internally chose, and to submit it. That, has been done. All before a joint contract. USAPA is not beholden to the agreement of ALPA. USAPA is liable for harm, if it can be proved, but is not beholden to the Nicolau.

Typical eastie lost soul, bending laws, rules etc. so they fit your version of reality. I'll explain how it works by asking you a series of questions so you can place your brain in gear, I am sure that once your brain starts working you will immediatelly shut it down as you won't like what it's telling you.

1- Usapa lost loa 93, that loss is binding. Now let's speculate, theoretically could the company and usapa come to a mutual agreement after that final and binding loss that gave you a 3% raise if both sides agreed to it? Would that make the arbitration less binding or constitude a new agreement that modifies it?


2- Usapa inherited the TA, one of the things in the TA is that we can't use the Nic. until we have a single contract, why is that requirement of the TA valid yet the requirement for the nic. is not?

3- Usapa is free to renegotiate all terms of all contracts including the TA, loa 93. c2004 as long as it sticks to it's dfr. For what reason is usapa replacing the existing Nic. for a doh list and will that change harm anyone?

 

[Ames]

Good morning HP. I think the big issue is the fact the arbitration ISN'T binding. Not at all. You need to look at the issue of arbitration between a labor group and the company, and arbitration WITHIN a labor organization. In the first case, the sides have agreed to binding arbitration in their Collective Agreement. Look at the agreement the company had with ALPA and the one with USAPA. The LOA 93 decision is the perfect example of a binding agreement, and binding it is. You should really be looking at that, and wondering why that went down as fast and hard as it did, and the Nicolau did not. . A labor organization is free to change and negotiate seniority at will. And the fact the pilot group on this property changed bargaining agents, this frees it from the agreements on seniority the former negotiated. The very fact the Nicolau List has not been implemented as did the Kagel Award and others prior should tell you something. Neither the company nor a court can impose on a union the way it has to negotiate or implement seniority. There is nothing binding on USAPA nor the company. Even if Judge Silver says the Nicolau has to be used will mean nothing, as the 9th will again be a factor. If you want to keep pursuing the Nicolau and say it is binding, I think you are really barking up the wrong tree. Look at all the other arbitrations between the company and the union, and how the decisions are binding. That is your clue as to what is and what is not the case here. The INTERNAL DISPUTE is a whole animal unto itself. I agree 100% on the harm issue, as it is relevant and must be considered.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Binding arbitration is binding. Get over it.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Latest USAPA presidents e-mail is out.

Says USAPA has been in talks with APA and the company about the possible merger and working on contract items related to that.

Says the scope part of the agreement that the company signed with APA could cause some issues.

Talks are ongoing according to the mail.

 

[fodase]

Latest USAPA presidents e-mail is out.

Says USAPA has been in talks with APA and the company about the possible merger and working on contract items related to that.

Says the scope part of the agreement that the company signed with APA could cause some issues.

Talks are ongoing according to the mail.

What, no doh is the gold standard ?

 

[Keroseneuser]

What, no doh is the gold standard ?

No mention of seniority integration. I assume that is because these talks seem to be only about the joint contract, and from what parker seemed to be saying in the town halls the company figures the actual seniority integration is an issue between the unions and not the company.

Contractually the seniority issue seems to be of no relevance to what they are discussing, pay rates, work rules etc.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Don't see an edit button on this new layout, but related to my previous post...

Personally I see the lack of seniority issues in this update as a good thing. Get the contract issues worked out before the merger kicks in so everybody is working on the same page and payrate as well as same furlough protections etc.

Let the seniority issue get fought about later after everybody has the same protections and pay as everyone else. Would have saved us a bunch of problems if 7 years ago a similar approach was taken.


EDIT: Found the edit button ! Guess it has a limited edit time and had timed out on the previous post. 🙂

 

[ChockJockey]

Is there a suicide pact amongst certain east pilots for in the case they don't get DOH? Just curious.

 

[fodase]

Don't see an edit button on this new layout, but related to my previous post...

Personally I see the lack of seniority issues in this update as a good thing. Get the contract issues worked out before the merger kicks in so everybody is working on the same page and payrate as well as same furlough protections etc.

Let the seniority issue get fought about later after everybody has the same protections and pay as everyone else. Would have saved us a bunch of problems if 7 years ago a similar approach was taken.


EDIT: Found the edit button ! Guess it has a limited edit time and had timed out on the previous post. 🙂

I was kidding, but a single contract before SLI is the correct way to go. I wonder if you easties realize what that means?

 

[Keroseneuser]

I was kidding, but a single contract before SLI is the correct way to go. I wonder if you easties realize what that means?

I figure it is going to go pretty much how the APA wants it to go. Their updates have already focused heavily on the retirement numbers, so I am guessing they will go with whatever method maximizes their folks seniority. Meaning the method that puts the oldest pilots that are closest to retirement above their guys and resist anything that puts younger pilots above their older ones.

I figure if you want to see what direction they are going to take, 3 way or 2 way the only thing you have to do is look at the above consideration. Now on the legal side who knows how it will all wash out, but as far as what I think they will be pushing for, 3 way is my guess. For the simple fact that it adds a bunch of mid to late 50's guys into the reletive mix at a higher level than a 2 way that includes NIC and would add more late 30's and 40's guys at the higher level.

Time will tell though.

 

[cleardirect]

Incorrect. Listen to Parker. He says that the company has a seat at the table. If he thinks there is liability by using anything other than Nicolau that will be the list. If Parker thinks athat using anything other than Nicolau will delay the merger or cost him money. It will be the Nicolau.

Suppose in order to not cause harm to the west usapa has to propose very expensive C&R. Do you think Parker will accept it? Do you think the AA pilots will give up $2-3-4-5 per hour in order to pay for those C&R? No. Do you think theAA pilots care if it is an east or west pilots in any order? No!