OCT/NOV 2012 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Phoenix]

Don't be too hard on Marty. Just like the rest of us, he is only trying to get paid.Greeter

No hits on Marty. He knows enough to keep asking so he can keep the billing up. Next I suggest he ask Doug's lawyers to please consider insisting on the Nic, to the exclusion of all else. After that he can ask Nic to please reissue a statement on the Nic award, and after that he can ask John Prater to make a statement. He could ask Wake to come to an all expense paid golf trip to discuss a public statement. The groveling, I mean billing, he could do is bound only by the limits of his imagination!

 

[Move2CLT]

What a yutz. No intention of following Marty's suggestions yet he wants to sit down and discuss. Ya, makes sense.

Here's that outstanding USAPA lawyer at work:

While USAPA has no intention of following the suggestion made in your letter, we hope you will reconsider and agree to sit down and seriously discuss a mutually agreeable seniority proposal.
Please let me have a prompt response.

Very truly yours,

Patrick J. Szymanski

 

[Move2CLT]

Even a law student can easily see past Szymanski's BS. Oh, and I really enjoyed the way he hid in his little corner during the BPR meeting. Not a peep out of him.

Did anyone ask how the Merger Committee's briefing went? You'll get a SHORT answer for that question.

It was a nasty meeting for the east.

[background=rgb(250, 250, 250)]I think Szymanski mischaracterized this case. The case is [/background]Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co.[background=rgb(250, 250, 250)], the 1944 US Supreme Court case that [/background]established[background=rgb(250, 250, 250)] the duty of fair representation. Most folks don't know that the duty of fair representation is not something actually written in the language of the RLA; it comes from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the RLA, beginning with [/background]Steele[background=rgb(250, 250, 250)]. [/background]

[background=rgb(250, 250, 250)]In [/background]Steele[background=rgb(250, 250, 250)], it is true that the union negotiated CBA provisions that discriminated against workers by race, but the court didn't find against the union based upon a violation of Constitutional Equal Protection. It was 1944 - there really wasn't much "Equal Protection" afforded blacks at that time, and it was 20+ years prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Instead, the Supreme Court held that the RLA confers upon unions the exclusive right to negotiate on behalf of ALL workers within a class and craft, and that the union was not representing ALL workers by arbitrarily excluding a certain political minority for no reason other than to advance the interests of the majority at the minority's expense. The fact that racism was involved is immaterial, and Szymanski is trying to suggest that racism must be involved in order for a DFR to be breached. While discriminating against somebody because of their skin color is certainly a good example of arbitrary behavior, it is certainly not the ONLY example.[/background]

[background=rgb(250, 250, 250)]So draw the analogy to our case here. Nobody can dispute that USAPA's proposal is much more favorable to East pilots than the Nic, and much less favorable to the West pilots than the Nic. So the question is - why is the union proposing the change? Is it simply because one group outnumbers the other? The fact is that the only reason we are here is because of that numerical disadvantage, and quite frankly, the mountain of evidence that we've accumulated since even before USAPA became a "bargaining agent" reeks of the same mentality that underlies racism. [/background]

[background=rgb(250, 250, 250)]And before anybody starts in with how date-of-hire is not arbitrary, you have to remember that you can't make that argument in a vacuum. We are not working from a blank slate: we are working from an arbitrator's award. DOH is ONLY in the equation here because of a showing of force by a majority, and only AFTER that majority failed to convince a neutral party that DOH is in any way shape or form "fair and equitable." Also, no matter how you try to dress up DOH, it still disadvantages EVERY SINGLE West pilot: not only from our current stand-alone positions, but also from the single-seniority list that the company already has in its possession. DOH might be less egregious than a staple, and DOH with C&Rs might be less egregious than straight DOH, but in a DFR inquiry it doesn't matter how MUCH the group is disadvantaged, it only matters WHY the group is being disadvantaged. That is precisely why this line of thinking about modifying the C&Rs to get under the DFR bar is a waste of time. The East has already CLEARLY established its illegal intent for forming USAPA, and that is all the West needs to prevail in court.[/background]

 

[Move2CLT]

The former Franke air folks have lost some enthusiasm since the merger. They were totally involved right after the nic award, but lost interest shortly afterwards.

http://www.alpa.org/...spx?itemid=4816

Yo Claxon, your fellow easties think you're an idiot so STFU. Even they don't read your crap.

 

[Claxon]

Even a law student can easily see past Szymanski's BS. Oh, and I really enjoyed the way he hid in his little corner during the BPR meeting. Not a peep out of him.

Move Franke disciple. Do we not have to ratify a contract first to run in to the certain DFR victory you have planed for the East? This would require the East pilots to get off LOA 93 first, and this would reduce your posting vocabulary on this board by 93 percent.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Move said: "Even a law student can easily see past Szymanski's BS."

Federal Judge said "I am not a law student."

Reams of opinions (after the fact) from the losing side. A simple ruling from the sitting Judge.

Thanks Lee. Thanks Pat. (both paid in full)

Greeter

 

[cleardirect]

Several posters have said the East is pleading to negotiate with the West, but they have not provided any proof of that. On the other hand someone posted a letter from Marty to Patrick, and if the letter is not just a hoax, it shows that Marty is hoping to negotiate with the Patrick.

It simple amazes me how you east guys can read something and completely get 180 degrees wrong. Marty is not begging to negotiate he is warning usapa and PS to use the Nicolau award. Or did you miss this part of the letter?

The time has come for USAPA and the East Pilots to be fully and fairly informed about
the status of the Nicolau Award and the significant risk USAPA runs if it deviates from that
Award without legal justification. We understand that the leadership of USAPA and others,
perhaps even including yourself, have been telling the East Pilots that USAPA is now free to
either use or propose any seniority list it wants. Those statements are not true and it is time that
USAPA and the East Pilots fully understand this.


The parties to the Transition Agreement agreed in advance that the Nicolau Award would
be the final resolution of the seniority dispute. USAPA can deviate from the Nicolau Award if,
and only if, the deviation is “supported by a legitimate union purpose.” USAPA has now had
almost 50 months of litigation to propose a “legitimate union purpose” for deviating from the
Nicolau Award. The reasons proposed by USAPA in the Addington trial were rejected by a civil
jury. In the current US Airways, Inc. litigation, USAPA failed to come forward with an argument
that was acceptable to Judge Silver for deviating from the Nicolau Award. The reason for
USAPA’s failure is that there is no “legitimate union purpose” for deviating from the Nicolau
Award. There never has been and there never will be.

Now compare Marty's no to usapa's begging to negotiate. Note even PS acknowledges that Marty is telling him we will not negotiate.

The way to resolve this dispute is- as we have said repeatedly- for your clients to join in genuine, good faith discussion concerning USAPA’s seniority proposal. This is a serious request. USAPA wants and solicits the participation of the west pilots through you or your clients or however your clients believe appropriate in determining the course of negotiations with US Airways over an integrated seniority list.

Your letter strongly suggests that you will reject, as do postings by the Army of Leonidas that continue to say “Nic or Nothing.” We hope we are mistaken.

The need to fashion a common ground on this issue is even more important given the possibility of a merger between US Airways and American and a possible seniority integration proceeding with the Allied Pilots Association. We will be able to better protect our seniority in such a proceeding if we are working together.

While USAPA has no intention of following the suggestion made in your letter, we hope you will reconsider and agree to sit down and seriously discuss a mutually agreeable seniority proposal.

It was the same with a letter to the PHX domicile chairman from the president. Please, please, please negotiate with usapa. Same answer as before. NO!

Look around for the final letter from Marty to PS. Pretty plain. NO!

 

[Move2CLT]

Move said: "Even a law student can easily see past Szymanski's BS."

Federal Judge said "I am not a law student."

Reams of opinions (after the fact) from the losing side. A simple ruling from the sitting Judge.

Thanks Lee. Thanks Pat. (both paid in full)

Greeter

Man you're a dumb m-f'er

 

[Move2CLT]

Move Franke disciple. Do we not have to ratify a contract first to run in to the certain DFR victory you have planed for the East? This would require the East pilots to get off LOA 93 first, and this would reduce your posting vocabulary on this board by 93 percent.

A simple injunction would keep you on your beloved LOA93. You're not getting off that easily so you may as well prepare yourself to retire under it!!

LMAO!!

 

[cleardirect]

Part of Marty's second letter to usapa in response. I think the last line sums it up very well.

Contrary to your contention, the Court clearly observed that USAPA will expose itself to
substantial risk if it tries to implement a seniority list other than the Nicolau Award.

You say, “USAPA has legitimate reasons for pursuing something other than the Nicolau
Award.” If that were true, why does USAPA want West Pilot representatives “to join in genuine,
good faith discussions concerning USAPA’s seniority proposal.” If that were true, why didn’t
USAPA prevail in the Addington litigation? Why didn’t you stand up and claim as much in front
of Judge Silver?

Your letter to me (and a very similar letter recently sent by President Gary Hummel to
John Scherff) asks the West Pilots to negotiate. Yet, there is not a lot to negotiate because
USAPA insists it will never implement the Nicolau Award. Any date-of-hire seniority list
(whatever conditions and restrictions it may have) is unacceptable. Implementation of any such
seniority list would be a DFR breach. As I’m sure you know, neither John Scherff nor any group
of West Pilots can waive an individual pilot’s claim arising from such breach. At best, such
“negotiations” can only create a false appearance of fair representation. Our clients will have no
part of that.

Final answer. No negotiating with usapa for seniority. The Nicolau is the list end of story. If usapa thinks they are free to offer whatever proposal they want. Go for it stop wasting our time. You don't need the west to negotiate with the company. You need the company to agree to some scheme. So stop begging for the west to negotiate for seniority.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Clear said:

"Look around for the final letter from Marty to PS. Pretty plain. NO!"

Noted. Much appreciated. Class dismissed.

Greeter

 

[Zone5]

Gee, and all this time USAPA has said seniority is negotiable just like crew meals...

The West Pilots can still successfully allege claims against USAPA for not fairly representing them.

As a matter a fact, so could I, if I had the money. USAPA is only representing a narrow band of the seniority list at the expense of the rest of the pilots, East and West. The fact that they have been unable to place a contract to vote on in front of the pilot group affirms this. Delay...delay ...delay......

You asked for it, you got it, in spades

The question of a SLI between West-East, is indeed "negotiable", Judge Silver thinks so anyway.

USAPA does appear to be bound by the terms of the TA (thank you ALPA), the very same TA that requires a JCBA between the East and the West to be ratified before the NIC can be implemented. Is that going to happen anytime soon? I think not.

As far as delay is concerned, "Team Tempe" has been the biggest "facilitator" of delay so far. Totally understandable, it's what they are paid to do and yes it also achieves the goal of most East pilots (at least the ones I work with) of blocking the NIC.

If we go into a merger with AMR, it will most likely be without an East-West JCBA, that being the case, the only seniority list's being used today and which have been used since the AWA-AAA combination, will be put on the table and a three way SLI will be negotiate and or arbitrated. The "marriage" contemplated in the TA, will have never been "consummated" and will therefore be "annulled", as if it never happened, because in fact it never did. On what basis do any of us East or West, to this day, bid for anything?, trips, schedules, vacations, bases or equipment, it's just as it has been since the "money men" put his thing together so many years ago. Two contracts, two pilots groups and one paint job. That my friends is a fact.

There is no "contract" to vote on for many reasons, take your pick on who to place the blame on, it really doesn't matter. Personally, I don't give a rats ass about being in the left seat, I passed the point of letting my ego call the shots years ago. Pay me Delta F/O rates for whats left of my so called career and I will be a happy camper. Fence me in to the seat and base I'm in today for the duration and you can have your NIC.

I also think you are wrong about there only being a "narrow band" of East pilots opposed to the NIC.

By the way, your statement that, "The West Pilots can still successfully allege claims against USAPA for not fairly representing them.", means nothing. You can "successfully" allege ANYTHING in this country, all it takes is money, a lawyer and more money! Go for it.


seajay

 

[Claxon]

A simply injunction would keep you on your beloved LOA93. You're not getting off that easily so you may as well prepare yourself to retire under it!!

LMAO!!

Franke air dictionary may have a "simply injunction" but searching case law I have found no history of such.

 

[Move2CLT]

Franke air dictionary may have a "simple injunction" but searching case law I have found no history of such.

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[Move2CLT]

The question of a SLI between West-East, is indeed "negotiable", Judge Silver thinks so anyway.

USAPA does appear to be bound by the terms of the TA (thank you ALPA), the very same TA that requires a JCBA between the East and the West to be ratified before the NIC can be implemented. Is that going to happen anytime soon? I think not.

As far as delay is concerned, "Team Tempe" has been the biggest "facilitator" of delay so far. Totally understandable, it's what they are paid to do and yes it also achieves the goal of most East pilots (at least the ones I work with) of blocking the NIC.

If we go into a merger with AMR, it will most likely be without an East-West JCBA, that being the case, the only seniority list's being used today and which have been used since the AWA-AAA combination, will be put on the table and a three way SLI will be negotiate and or arbitrated. The "marriage" contemplated in the TA, will have never been "consummated" and will therefore be "annulled", as if it never happened, because in fact it never did. On what basis do any of us East or West, to this day, bid for anything?, trips, schedules, vacations, bases or equipment, it's just as it has been since the "money men" put his thing together so many years ago. Two contracts, two pilots groups and one paint job. That my friends is a fact.

There is no "contract" to vote on for many reasons, take your pick on who to place the blame on, it really doesn't matter. Personally, I don't give a rats ass about being in the left seat, I passed the point of letting my ego call the shots years ago. Pay me Delta F/O rates for whats left of my so called career and I will be a happy camper. Fence me in to the seat and base I'm in today for the duration and you can have your NIC.

I also think you are wrong about there only being a "narrow band" of East pilots opposed to the NIC.

By the way, your statement that, "The West Pilots can still successfully allege claims against USAPA for not fairly representing them.", means nothing. You can "successfully" allege ANYTHING in this country, all it takes is money, a lawyer and more money! Go for it.


seajay

There would not be three lists but, instead, only two: Nic and the APA.

I do believe Wilson made that pretty clear at the BPR meeting he attended.