US Airways ALPA MEC Chairman's Message

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways ALPA MEC Chairman's Message - July 10, 2007

This is MEC Chairman Jack Stephan with a Chairman’s message to the pilots for Sunday, June 10, 2007.

As I reported earlier the US Airways MEC Officers participated in a meeting at the ALPA offices on Wednesday, June 6th in Washington DC . In addition to the US Airways MEC Officers, in attendance at the meeting were the America West MEC Chairman and Vice-Chairman, Captain Prater, ALPA’s General Counsel and ALPA’s Executive Administrator, Randy Helling. The purpose of the meeting was to lay some groundwork to support the process of fulfilling the ALPA Executive Council’s May 24th resolution concerning the AAA/AWA merger, which calls for, among other things, “consensual approaches to promote career protections.â€

In response to the request of Captain Prater for the MECs to develop a process to comply with the Executive Council Resolution, the America West MEC has sent a letter stating their unwillingness to engage and declining to participate in any such process. In contrast, the US Airways MEC stands ready to do its part in fulfilling the Executive Council Resolution.

First of all, let me convey our disappointment with the America West MEC’s refusal to comply with the requirements of the Executive Council’s May 24th Resolution. In effect, their desire is that the Executive Council must accept their position on the Nicolau Award before they will agree to any discussions. We believe that their position is completely inconsistent with the Executive Council’s Resolution as explained by Captain Prater.

It is important to note that all parties at the June 6th meeting in Washington DC agreed that the process proposed by Captain Prater would not in any way waive the position of either party before the Executive Council. This confirms that the US Airways pilots’ position before the Executive Council will continue to be that the Nicolau Award violates the requirements of ALPA Merger Policy and should be invalidated and remanded to another arbitrator for resolution consistent with the Merger Policy. Again, let me be clear that regardless of what you have heard or read, we have not changed our position with the Executive Council in an any way whatsoever with regard to the Nicolau award.

You should recall that a section of the resolution states that the Executive Council desires to fully consider the views of each group and fully deliberate all issues raised in order to effectively discharge its responsibilities. Now that the America West MEC has declared its unwillingness to comply with the Executive Council’s May 24th Resolution, as the Executive Council deliberates on the issues before it, we believe strongly that the Executive Council should take into consideration the America West MEC’s refusal to comply with that Executive Council Resolution.

These issues will ultimately be resolved with the Executive Council or elsewhere, but they will not be resolved in personal exchanges with America West pilots. So I ask you to continue your professional conduct and remember that the America West pilots are professionals as well, attempting to fulfill their professional responsibilities in trying times.

The US Airways MEC remains singularly focused on protecting the careers of the US Airways pilots.

And as always, fly safe, and thanks for listening.

USA320Pilot comments: By a 13-1 vote the EC passed a resolution that states “the Executive Council is acutely aware of the negative consequences that may result if the MECs fail to come together to explore consensual approaches that promote career protection and mutual success.†Additionally it directed John Prater to continue to “employ all of the resources of the Association to assist the MECs in achieving these goals.â€

As I indicated earlier, it is my understanding the EC authority for this action according to outside Counsel Mike Abram, from Cowen, Weiss, and Simon, who has been an ALPA attorney for over 30 year's, is Article VI, Section 4 of the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws, which spells out the duties of the EC. The EC duties include “…consideration of and action upon the following matters: (1) interpretation of the Constitution and By-Laws...â€

Abram believes the EC has the power to interpret the Constitution and By-Laws, and, if the body finds the Constitution and By-Laws were not followed they have the legal right to intervene, and a number of EVP's this authoity includes "throwing out" the Nicolau Award.

According to AWA MEC Chairman John McIlvenna, at this week's meeting, "Prater delivered the message that he wants the MECs to immediately engage in a process to utilize the JNC and other parties to explore fences and other career progression provisions."

Therefore, it appears the EC's desired alternative is a consensual agreement between the parties that creates fences, shared growth, shared scope protection, and a new combined contract with better pay and benefits.

I endorse this approach; however, if both the East and West pilots do not agree to negotiate some sort of an agreement similar in scope to what Prater presented, and, if the AWA MEC contiues to refuse to comply with the requirements of the EC’s May 24 Resolution, then I believe the EC may have no option but to invalidate the Nicolau Award and the case could be "remanded to another arbitrator for resolution consistent with the Merger Policy."

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[aquagreen73s]

US Airways ALPA MEC Chairman's Message - July 10, 2007

This is MEC Chairman Jack Stephan with a Chairman’s message to the pilots for Sunday, June 10, 2007.


I endorse this approach; however, if both the East and West pilots do not agree to negotiate some sort of an agreement similar in scope to what Prater presented, and, if the AWA MEC contiues to refuse to comply with the requirements of the EC’s May 24 Resolution, then I believe the EC may have no option but to invalidate the Nicolau Award and the case could be "remanded to another arbitrator for resolution consistent with the Merger Policy."

Regards,

USA320Pilot

You do realize you're just being fed what you want to hear, right? There are no grounds, legal or equitable, which would warrant sending this back to arbitrator. You had your day in court and your team royally fumbled. Hence, the stunning loss which you are now stuck with.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I believe the EC may have no option but to invalidate the Nicolau Award and the case could be "remanded to another arbitrator for resolution consistent with the Merger Policy."

If you're so sure, the money's still on the table.....

Finally, as indicated earlier, during the May 21 EC meeting there were a number of EVP's who wanted the Nicolau Award thrown out.

In my opinion, if the AWA MEC will not "utilize the JNC and other parties to explore fences and other career progression provisions" per ALPA persident John Prater's request then I believe this increases the odds the EC could thow out the award at June's meeting.

I'm not an expert on this, but two ALPA EVP's and one US Airways MEC member told me that a large portion of the ALPA EC (not a majority) believe the EC can throw out the Nicolau Award.

Will they? Who knows? Can they? Apparently after speaking to Mike Abram a number of EVP's believe they can.

<snip>

....increases the odds that the Nicolau Award will be thorwn out because the AWA MEC has just told the EC to "pound sand".

USA320Pilot,

As I recall, you offered to bet 700UW over the outcome of the last ALPA EC meeting, to no avail. So let's really see if you have the courage of your words.....

I have $5,000 that says the EC will not unilaterally throw out, invalidate, or void the award at the June 2007 meeting.

Just so there's no "misunderstanding" of the terms, here are the operative definitions:

unilaterally: done or undertaken by one person or party, i.e. - without agreement of both MEC's to modify/invalidate the award.

throw out: to dismiss from acceptance or consideration

invalidate: to overthrow, set aside, or make void (a legal decision) by a contrary decision

void: cause to have no legal force or effect

So, how sure of your sources are you? Or, as you said to 700UW, "I bet you do not have the guts! C'mon big boy, show some courage."

$5,000 for the taking.....if you're so sure of the outcome.....

Jim

 

[AWA320]

You do realize you're just being fed what you want to hear, right? There are no grounds, legal or equitable, which would warrant sending this back to arbitrator. You had your day in court and your team royally fumbled. Hence, the stunning loss which you are now stuck with.

In all honesty, they did not receive a loss we just didn't get the tube steak they were attempting to slip us.

BTW even if they were able to send this back out who is going to pay for it?? I won't contribute a penny to another arbitration or merger fund for this. I will also stop all dues check off ASAP. Now the other issue is this, the arb panel is a very close bunch so now they throw up in their faces that the most respected arbitrator in the business is not competent!! What do you think the message is you are sending to the panel??? Lets go even further and say they did get this far and they were given DOH do you think that this is over then?? HELL NO back we go again and again and AGAIN!! Stupid isn't it. All of alpa is assured failure if this were to go down.

If you're so sure, the money's still on the table.....
USA320Pilot,

As I recall, you offered to bet 700UW over the outcome of the last ALPA EC meeting, to no avail. So let's really see if you have the courage of your words.....

I have $5,000 that says the EC will not unilaterally throw out, invalidate, or void the award at the June 2007 meeting.

Just so there's no "misunderstanding" of the terms, here are the operative definitions:

unilaterally: done or undertaken by one person or party, i.e. - without agreement of both MEC's to modify/invalidate the award.

You don't really expect him to bet you do you Jim?? Com'on say it ain't so. I say bring on the DFR anyway cause I'm sick of ALPO anyway...
throw out: to dismiss from acceptance or consideration

invalidate: to overthrow, set aside, or make void (a legal decision) by a contrary decision

void: cause to have no legal force or effect

So, how sure of your sources are you? Or, as you said to 700UW, "I bet you do not have the guts! C'mon big boy, show some courage."

$5,000 for the taking.....if you're so sure of the outcome.....

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

Aquagreen73:

Aquadreen 73 said: "You do realize you're just being fed what you want to hear, right? There are no grounds, legal or equitable, which would warrant sending this back to arbitrator."

USA320Pilot comments: That is not what ALPA General Counsel Mike Abram believes. I'm not an attorney or that familiar with the Constitution and By-Laws. However, as I indicated earlier, it is my understanding the EC authority for this action according to outside Counsel Mike Abram, from Cowen, Weiss, and Simon, who has been an ALPA attorney for over 30 year's, is Article VI, Section 4 of the ALPA Constitution and By-Laws, which spells out the duties of the EC. The EC duties include “…consideration of and action upon the following matters: (1) interpretation of the Constitution and By-Laws...â€￾

Abram believes the EC has the power to interpret the Constitution and By-Laws, and, if the body finds the Constitution and By-Laws were not followed they have the legal right to intervene, and a number of EVP's this authoity includes "throwing out" the Nicolau Award.

Aquagreen73's, if you disagree with my comments above then maybe you should discuss this with ALPA President John Prater, the EC, and ALPA's attorney.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[TheLarkAscending]

USA320Pilot, ... If you're so sure, the money's still on the table ... etc., etc. ... Or, as you said to 700UW, "I bet you do not have the guts! C'mon big boy, show some courage."

Response

 

[nostradamus]

Response

You point Lark?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

USA320Pilot comments: Abram believes the EC has the power to interpret the Constitution and By-Laws, and, if the body finds the Constitution and By-Laws were not followed they have the legal right to intervene, and a number of EVP's this authoity includes "throwing out" the Nicolau Award.


USA320,

What Mr. Abram may have left out of the conversation - not that I necessarily disagree with his premise - is that section of the ALPA merger policy regarding disputes regarding meaning or interpretation of the award. The policy states:

"The Arbitration Board will include in its Award a provision retaining jurisdiction until all the provisions of the Award have been satisfied for the limited purpose of resolving disputes which may arise between the pilot groups with regard to the meaning or interpretation of the Award. (AMENDED -
Executive Board October 1991; Executive Board May 1998)"

The EC are not fools. There are specific steps that must be followed in this case since there is a dispute. The Arbitration Board still has jurisdiction and the EC does not have the ability to change or interpret the process as to disputes at this point in time.

I don't know why the east MEC is leading its membership on as to how this process works but it seems everyone is forgetting this one very important step that has to take place before the EC can delve into interpretations.

Bob

 

[Phoenix]

"The Arbitration Board will include in its Award a provision retaining jurisdiction until all the provisions of the Award have been satisfied for the limited purpose of resolving disputes which may arise between the pilot groups with regard to the meaning or interpretation of the Award.

I doubt that there is a dispute about the "meaning or interpretaion" of the award. It is pretty clear who is where. I think the East would argue there is a dispute about wether or not Niko consulted or read what merger policy is. I think that the East would argue the EC can declare the award invalid because Niko didn't bother to read the terms that stipulate the merger policy.

In other words, the text above basically says that the arbitrator has the authority and resposability to explain the execution terms of the award as it is written, i.e. if jim and johny think it says two different things when the read the award.

The text above does not address who has the authority to evaluate if Niko was sane, capable, and comporting to the merger policy as adopted by ALPA, for which the EC is argualy responsible.

I have every confidence that the EC will discover an interpretation of all the relevant bylaws in a manner that will garner them the most dues. 🙄

 

[ClueByFour]

What we have here is an interesting study in contrast:

The East MEC and Company are, once again, beating their chests about a 13-1 decision to order, in essence, exploratory talks, whereas it's clear the West MEC is going by the advice of their counsel and refusing to do anything which may come back later to look (legally) as if they took any action that might look as if the Nicalou Award is not proper.

Interesting course of action: the East MEC is allowing it's pilot group to believe that they have some leverage in a one-off situation that would require the ALPA EC to go above and beyond it's own bylaws and such (see the part about defending the award and/or the arbitrator retaining jurisdiction). Contrast with the West MEC who is apparently content to allow the codified process to run it's course, and potentially end up in court.

Now, given the track record of East's MEC and counsel versus West's MEC and counsel on the seniority issue, who do you think is more likely to succeed?.

As an aside, what 320 is not saying is that a majority of the EC both thinks they can set aside the award and would vote to do so. In the absence of such, it does not matter a damn what one or two EVPs think.

The West guys have done well for themselves by not overreaching and following the sage advice of their counsel. Near as I can see, the East guys (or the leadership thereof) is hell-bent on trying to circumnavigate the codified process at all costs.

I would not bet against BoeingBoy, except to add the condition that in the unlikely event that the EC does try to set this aside, it will lose it's lunch in the subsequent DFR lawsuit.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I would not bet against BoeingBoy, except to add the condition that in the unlikely event that the EC does try to set this aside, it will lose it's lunch in the subsequent DFR lawsuit.

And that is precisely why I'm confident enough to offer the bet. Apparently USA320 isn't as confident of his "13 to 1" odds.....

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

...the arbitrator retaining jurisdiction....

The arbitrator simply maintains jursdiction about what he said, not wether or not what he said actually followed ALPA merger policy. Obviously he thinks he followed the policy.

In the same way, the EC maintains jursdiction about the bylaws of ALPA (they get to declare what the bylaws say, and retain the right to explain what they declare), but do not have ultimate jurisdiction that they followed the bylaws acurately. That resides in the courts.

Thems the reality. And the reality is that each EC member will explain the bylaws according to the money.

 

[hp_fa]

Executive Committee Resolution vs. Binding Arbitration Award.....hmmm, I wonder which has greater legal precident if this comes into court. Of course if it gets to court it's likely that it will be part of a suit against ALPA for not adopting what their own Constitution, By-Laws or Rules require it to adopt.

 

[TheLarkAscending]

You point Lark?

Why yes, I do indeed point, on occasion. Although, it seems quite an odd question; enjoy that new knowledge about moi! As I'd mentioned in a previous response to you: thank you again for all of your attention and adoration, as all of my other fans have a much higher intellect and far superior wit. It is also quite nice to have your caliber show interest. Thanks ever so much for playing, you may now switch to your other persona!

"You appeal to a small select group of confused people". Fortune Cookie


Please, let us all return our attention to: US Airways ALPA MEC Chairman's Message

 

[700UW]

July 10, 2007?

No autopilot on your computer?