US Pilot Labor Thread 11/3-11/9

[fodase]

Wether or not we get an injunction is up for grabs, the dfr is where it's at, getting a judge to accept the case is the biggest hurtle, if the judge accepts jurisdiction usapa is done, as the evidence for the west case is overwhelming.

 

[hp_fa]

My take on this is that if the judge thought the injunction proposal had merit he would issue it for some limited time, say 30 days, while he looked into it further. The fact that he has done nothing does not bode well for it.

You may be correct but I tend to believe that Judge Wake is going to grant, at least in part, relief to the plaintiffs and allow the case to proceed. I say that because it would not have taken much time to issue and Order denying the relief and/or dismissing the matters before the Court. However, again, you may be correct.

Judge Wake, as a local Phoenix attorney, had an excellent reputation for always being prepared and for his ability to practice law in a skillful and ethical manner. As a judge he also has a reputation for fairness and the matters that I am aware of that have gone before him have been handled on an even-handed basis.

I suspect that what is happening is that he has his clerks fully and independently researching applicable law and discussing, with the Judge, the merits of the issues before the Court starting with the jurisdiction and venue issues to make certain that any Order he issues will be appropriate under the circumstances and will be able to stand any scrutiny at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Considering that the evidenciary hearing and oral arguments went on for over six hours, this takes time to review. Additionally, it is highly likely that he wanted an official transcript from the court reporter to both review and be able to cite.

We will just have to see what comes out in the next few days.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

My thought is just the opposite. If the judge dismisses the case, he is in essence saying that it has no merit, since there is nowhere else it could be heard. Therfore, he would want to make "double sure" that he does it for the correct reasons. Just to order an injunction (in essence a TRO to prohibit furloughs from the west), something that is done many times each day, would cost him nothing. It would only allow him time to decide further. I'm sure that the urgency of the issue and it's effect on individuals was explained to him, so he must know that expediancy is in order. The ONLY reason I can think of, other than the fact that he may just "be busy", is that this has little or no merit and he sees no reason to allow it to draw out forever.

By the way, DFR lawsuits have always been viewed as virtually impossible to win, due largely to the vagueness of the requirement of "adequate" representation. Also, since there has NOT been any contract implemented since USAPA has been on the property, I'd say the chances of winning a DFR are between slim and none.

 

[hp_fa]

As I said, you may be right......

 

[Elevation]

The injunction to stop furloughs will not happen it seems to me by observing Judge Wakes questions in the court room. The DFR it seemed to me was the big issue with the Judge and the one that may have the best chance of prevailing. On a side note it was extremely disturbing to see USAPA and the Company's consul conferring with each other on how they should respond to some of the judges questions. "Even the hand of the devil is warm on a cold night"

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Wether or not we get an injunction is up for grabs, the dfr is where it's at, getting a judge to accept the case is the biggest hurtle, if the judge accepts jurisdiction usapa is done, as the evidence for the west case is overwhelming.

The TWA pilots, the MDA pilots and several other groups at US Airways have outstanding DFR's against ALPA, one at least 7 years old and still going. All of them were told their cases were overwhelming. Maybe one or more of them are, maybe one might even be settled in another few years. Good luck with your 10 year money pit DFR case and the settlement that will leave you wanting, aka COMair/ASA RJDC suit that was settled 8 years later.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Judge Wake stated that if he found that the court had jurisdiction, then he'd schedule a DFR trial for the first week of January, 2009. That, in addition to his question to Mr. Harper as to whether money damages from USAPA would make the West furloughees whole should the result of the trail be that a DFR breach had occured.

 

[Metroyet]

The TWA pilots, the MDA pilots and several other groups at US Airways have outstanding DFR's against ALPA, one at least 7 years old and still going. All of them were told their cases were overwhelming. Maybe one or more of them are, maybe one might even be settled in another few years. Good luck with your 10 year money pit DFR case and the settlement that will leave you wanting, aka COMair/ASA RJDC suit that was settled 8 years later.

This will be over one way or another in 16 months when USAPA has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it cannot deliver on one single promise. 16 more months of LOA 93, no chance of a contract, more lawsuits, and the wasting of millions of member dollars to pay Seham.

A merger can happen any day as well. Either way the death knell for USAPA is ringing.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Judge Wake stated that if he found that the court had jurisdiction, then he'd schedule a DFR trial for the first week of January, 2009. That, in addition to his question to Mr. Harper as to whether money damages from USAPA would make the West furloughees whole should the result of the trail be that a DFR breach had occured.

That would be great. Then he could throw the whole thing out, if he doesn't soon, since any sort of DFR by USAPA hasn't even occurred yet.

If there is ANY DFR here at all, it's against ALPA, for not truthfully representing the arbitration process, and that the arbitrator was not bound by the ALPA principles (you know, the thing about windfalls and all), and they're gone.

Read the RLA representation handbook. It even states that seniority is an internal union matter. It couldn't be clearer than that.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

This will be over one way or another in 16 months when USAPA has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it cannot deliver on one single promise. 16 more months of LOA 93, no chance of a contract, more lawsuits, and the wasting of millions of member dollars to pay Seham.

A merger can happen any day as well. Either way the death knell for USAPA is ringing.

If you think ALPA would be doing any better you are fooling yourself.

Hey, it will be just as easy to blame that on the childish antics of AOL/AWAPPA and the disruption of the incessant foot stomping tantrum of trying to cash that lottery ticket that held things up. You will likely just keep strengthening resolve but keep at it. In the meantime there will be retirements on the East as not everyone will wait till 65, there will be upward movement as people transition to larger aircraft and reserve to block holder an so on. It is just as easy to say pilots on the West will cave over the next few years as time marches on because even with LOA 93, the bleaker picture may be out West.

Enough water flows over the dam and the company may just look to keep things separate for quite some time or longer.

 

[electricjet98]

Dear Former AWA Pilots,

As of the close of business this Friday evening, we have not yet received a decision from the judge regarding his jurisdictional findings concerning our hybrid-DFR lawsuit against USAPA and the company. Most of us at the hearing on October 29th were under the impression that a decision would be rendered this week, but as of yet, none has been forthcoming. We now expect to hear from Judge Wake next week.

We will publish the judge's findings as soon as we receive them. Please relax and enjoy your weekend, and check back Sunday evening for our weekly update.


Thanks for your attention.

Leonidas LLC

 

[hp_fa]

If there is ANY DFR here at all, it's against ALPA, for not truthfully representing the arbitration process, and that the arbitrator was not bound by the ALPA principles (you know, the thing about windfalls and all), and they're gone.

In a message posted on April 20, 2005 a forum member posted a message that addressed the goals and objectives of the ALPA Merger Policy that stated as follows:

Here are the ALPA list integration goals from the ALPA Administrative Manual

SECTION 45 – MERGER AND FRAGMENTATION POLICY 10/31/02

5. The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable agreement is reached, keeping in mind the following goals, in no particular order:

a. Preserve jobs.

b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.

c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.

d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.

e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.

Additionally there is an article circa 2006 (which was when the seniority integration process was ongoing) that discusses the ALPA Merger Policy here. It contains, in part, the following:

“Date of hire is a natural starting point,†Cohen explains,
“but other methodologies have been advocated and used.
One, ‘length of service,’ differs from date of hire in that
length of service does not give credit for time spent on
furlough or other time away from active service. Another,
the ‘ratio’ method, starts the list with a number of senior
pilots from one airline and then inserts pilots from the
other airline at fixed intervals on the list. Some mergers
have combined one of these methods with additional complex
‘conditions and restrictions,’ which place limits on
use of the combined list.

“There are very few absolutes in this area,†Cohen cautions.
“The same pilot group that advocated a ‘stapler’
merger [so called because one group’s seniority list is
merely “stapled†to the bottom of a larger group’s list]
one time may vigorously argue against it in a later merger.â€

(Emphasis Added.)

Finally, the ALPA Merger Policy can be viewed from a hyperlink in this document.

Frankly reviewing this material provides that ALPA had a policy and followed that policy. If there was any seeming deviation from ALPA policy it was made in favor of the East MEC in that ALPA delayed taking action on the Nicolau award.

My point here is simply that I fail to see any viable potential action against ALPA by East pilots.

 

[Megasnoop]

The injunction to stop furloughs will not happen it seems to me by observing Judge Wakes questions in the court room. The DFR it seemed to me was the big issue with the Judge and the one that may have the best chance of prevailing. On a side note it was extremely disturbing to see USAPA and the Company's consul conferring with each other on how they should respond to some of the judges questions. "Even the hand of the devil is warm on a cold night"

Elevation, your suing the company and USAPA and you "note it was extremely disturbing" that theyre talking to each other?

Take some advice from the other posters. Be prepared to donate to your lawyers for 8-10 years. It took Billy Ford 8 years to "win" his RJ Defense DFR against ALPO. And what did his group get? Not much. The TWA/AMR thing is still going on 7 years later. MDA still slogging along, 4 years after filed. 1 difference between those DFRs and this is that you refuse to be represented. And if you think a win is a win, some Pan Am pilots got a jury win of $150 Milllion over ALPO, only to get nothing on appeal. That case took 8 years, too. Snoop

 

[oldiebutgoody]

In a message posted on April 20, 2005 a forum member posted a message that addressed the goals and objectives of the ALPA Merger Policy that stated as follows:



Additionally there is an article circa 2006 (which was when the seniority integration process was ongoing) that discusses the ALPA Merger Policy here. It contains, in part, the following:

(Emphasis Added.)

Finally, the ALPA Merger Policy can be viewed from a hyperlink in this document.

Frankly reviewing this material provides that ALPA had a policy and followed that policy. If there was any seeming deviation from ALPA policy it was made in favor of the East MEC in that ALPA delayed taking action on the Nicolau award.

My point here is simply that I fail to see any viable potential action against ALPA by East pilots.

Those items were, of course, YOUR opinion. The ALPA East MEC had filed a lawsuit, which was vacated when USAPA became the CBA, with their own take on each of those items.

You needn't reprint any of this crap. We know where each side stands. Each side has an argument. The judge will sort it out. The only thing is, you have to suffer some kind of damage before you can prevail, and to date no one has since there isn't even a combined contract. There may be a DFR later, but I don't see how they can prevail now, with essentially no damages and since they refuse to even be a part of the legal CBA.

If the judge doesn't grant the TRO or injunction preventing the company from furloughing, I doubt he will find anything wrong with their methodology. I think that the TA effectively "hamstrung" the company with conflicting sections, and for that reason the company will prevail, especially since everyone (to my knowledge) has stipulated that the company has the right to furlough as necessary.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I think that the TA effectively "hamstrung" the company with conflicting sections, and for that reason the company will prevail, especially since everyone (to my knowledge) has stipulated that the company has the right to furlough as necessary.

If the TA specified that there would be two lists maintained until pilot integration (East and West with new-hires added at the bottom of each list as appropriate), or specified 4 lists (East, East New-Hire, West, & West New-Hire), the company would be "hamstrung" by the the TA and underlying contract language. Furloughs would come from each side as determined by the company and in inverse seniority order from that side's list(s). This is the course that the company took - furlough from the two sides as they considered appropriate with the order on each side being as though there were 2 or 4 lists.

However, by having 3 lists with all new-hires on a single separate list the underlying contracts make it pretty clear that new-hires are to be furloughed before anyone from either the East or West list.

Of course, one of the problems in bringing a judge into the equation is that they're often clueless when it comes to the seemingly arcane world of airline/employee contracts.

Jim