US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/14-10/22

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richard

Veteran
Dec 15, 2005
2,084
2
Here's the new pilots' labor thread--we will change it over based on number of posts rather than dates from here on--

As a reminder, please read the rules of the board at the top of the US Airways Forum PRIOR to posting.....some of you are still getting a little too personal.

Thank you.
 
NYC Bus:
I never said you were "the leader" of posts made; as you show you are far from it. I merely questioned why someone "without a stake in this fight" would comment so much. It appears to me that the only ones without a stake are the top 500 A-330 PICs so I assumed that is what you are holding.
Frankly, I have no interest in who you are, I merely made an observation. Edward deleted my post and gave me a warning so I guess difference of opinions or personal observations are taboo.
I expect that US Titanicways is not long for this world, so in the end all this discussion is a waste. At least someone is benifiting, namely US Aviation, Lee Seham and Doug Parker. Everyone else will be "the biggest losers".
 
I have a question for those that have seen the "List". Are there any pilots on the list, from either side, who have never been furloughed, that were placed below another pilot that was hired after them?
 
Absolutely - after the "517" from the East side due to the widebody jobs, the list was constructed by straight seniority not longevity. The ratio of jobs on the various narrowbodies that each side brought to the merger created the ratios used to blend the two lists together. So on the list a West 757 captain could well be above an East 737 captain hired earlier. Of course, on both pre-merger lists there were undoubtedly 757 captains hired after some of the 737 captains.

Jim
 
For the life of me i cannot understand his award to AWA in this arbitration.
Thx for posting the interview above.

" From the Floor: Of all the awards you have issued, has there ever
been one or more than one where you have issued the award and
then the next morning or the next week realized it was flat out
wrong?

George Nicolau: I don't think so. I really don't. There must be
some out there but I just can't recall them now."


I can think of one mistake after this 2003 interview and would love to hear his reply today.

FA
 

Impressive record, to be sure.

But at one point, on page 234 at the conclusion of his narrative on getting the recovered alcoholic pilot his job back, Nicolau says to the interviewer: "Sometimes you get it right."

I agree with that sentiment, but it is also a tacit acknowledgment of the truth of the corollary to that statement, i.e. "Sometimes you get it wrong, too, George."
 
Impressive record, to be sure.

But at one point, on page 234 at the conclusion of his narrative on getting the recovered alcoholic pilot his job back, Nicolau says to the interviewer: "Sometimes you get it right."

I agree with that sentiment, but it is also a tacit acknowledgment of the truth of the corollary to that statement, i.e. "Sometimes you get it wrong, too, George."

...and sometimes pilot groups get it wrong. Nicolau stands by the award today. There is no one experienced in mergers, either pilots or arbitrators, other than the East pilots, who think Nicolau got it wrong. Nicolau was not a "senile old man" when his award was made, and the personal attacks made by the East pilots show a total lack of decorum or maturity. He is still a highly respected professional arbitrator.

When you look around and everyone, including judges and juries, say you are wrong then it might be time to look in the mirror and say "maybe it's me?" USAPA seems immune from this type of self reflection and continue to labor on as if they have the sole grip on reality. In the mean time, their pilots suffer from this fundamental disconnect with the reality of the world. Let's hope the appeals court puts the final stamp on this fool's errand.
 
For the life of me i cannot understand his award to AWA in this arbitration.
Thx for posting the interview above.

" From the Floor: Of all the awards you have issued, has there ever
been one or more than one where you have issued the award and
then the next morning or the next week realized it was flat out
wrong?

George Nicolau: I don't think so. I really don't. There must be
some out there but I just can't recall them now."


I can think of one mistake after this 2003 interview and would love to hear his reply today.

FA

The award was not to AWA. Once that is understood, the decision is completely logical and fair.

The decision is not a mistake just because the east did not get their way.

The award is a balanced combination of what the AWA MC was asking for, and what should have been a reasonable request from the east MC. Big surprise, you did not get the totally unjust position you asked for, after being told repetedly that position was untenable.

Mr. Nicolau recently took a ride in a CAF B-17. Among the crew a retired AWA pilot.

No mistakes in this award, huge mistakes by the east forming usapa to intentionally discriminate against the West, and try to circumvent their own contractual obligations.
 
Well it looks like USAPA has another arbitrator to hate/blame. It appears that USAPA did not make their case. Sounds familiar.

BTW the same burden of proof applies to the snap back grienance. Any guesses how that one is going to turn out?

I remember a list that someone posted of all the good things that the east was going to have happen to them. This was one of them. Another defeat, it has got to start to hurt after awhile.


Grievance Update TA #8 Operation of Large Small Jets


We are very disappointed to report that the Arbitrator denied the Union’s grievance in TA Dispute # 8 concerning the number of Large Small Jets the Company is authorized to deploy.

In a contract case, the Union has the burden of proof and the Arbitrator concluded that due to the “enormity of the contractual changeâ€￾, USAPA did not sustain their burden.
 
Well it looks like USAPA has another arbitrator to hate/blame. It appears that USAPA did not make their case. Sounds familiar.

BTW the same burden of proof applies to the snap back grienance. Any guesses how that one is going to turn out?

I remember a list that someone posted of all the good things that the east was going to have happen to them. This was one of them. Another defeat, it has got to start to hurt after awhile.


Grievance Update TA #8 Operation of Large Small Jets


We are very disappointed to report that the Arbitrator denied the Union’s grievance in TA Dispute # 8 concerning the number of Large Small Jets the Company is authorized to deploy.

In a contract case, the Union has the burden of proof and the Arbitrator concluded that due to the “enormity of the contractual changeâ€, USAPA did not sustain their burden.

Grievance Update TA #8 Operation of Large Small Jets


We are very disappointed to report that the Arbitrator denied the Union’s grievance in TA Dispute # 8 concerning the number of Large Small Jets the Company is authorized to deploy. He issued his final decision on October 13, 2009.

In a contract case, the Union has the burden of proof and the Arbitrator concluded that due to the “enormity of the contractual changeâ€, USAPA did not sustain their burden. His decision was based on facts he drew from the hearing and specifically, that the Parties (ALPA and US Airways) had not adequately communicated the changes. The Arbitrator concluded that there was no “evidence in the record that any such dramatic result was ever discussed during bargainingâ€.

The record at arbitration clearly showed that the ALPA Director of Representation, Bruce York, and General Counsel, Mike Abram (the “Pope of Scopeâ€) participated in telephone conversations with Company negotiators, without a single pilot member from either the East or West present; it was those telephone conversations which clearly swayed the Arbitrator.

“The Company’s testimony is unrebutted in that no result of this nature was mentioned and that, indeed, the ALPA lead negotiators were well aware the intended goal was to negotiate expanded options applicable to a discrete range of 93 aircraft, not to cut back on existing prerogatives. Jerrold Glass, lead negotiator for the Company in the TA negotiations, testified he spoke with ALPA’s lead negotiators at the time, Bruce York and Mike Abram, and expressly discussed why the “93†– derived from the combined authority for CRJ-900s at Affiliate Carriers - was chosen. And, he testified, Mike Abram said “Oh, 55 plus 38. I get it.â€

Although we are very dissatisfied with this decision, it is important to keep the following points in mind:

1. The Company’s authority to deploy Large Small Jets is that which it was prior to the combination of US Airways and America West. Specifically, 38 CRJ-900’s from the West Agreement and 55 LSJ’s at Participating Affiliate Carriers, as well as 60 LSJ’s at Wholly Owned Carriers in the East Agreement.

2. When the pilots of this airline were represented by ALPA, ALPA National alone retained the bargaining rights. In other words, ALPA National had the authority to make agreements on our behalf. In this specific instance, the 5,000 pilots of our combined airline were represented by 2 lawyers. Those 2 lawyers, in an effort to “get a dealâ€, cut the East and West pilot negotiators out of the loop. Bruce York and Mike Abram negotiated the terms and conditions of the Transition Agreement over the phone.

3. The USAPA Constitution and Bylaws, as well as policies and procedures that we have implemented, will prevent a tragedy such as this from happening again. Specifically, negotiations can never take place without the NAC present for all discussions. USAPA will never permit attorneys to make agreements with the Company. At USAPA, pilot ratification of agreements is mandatory.

We anticipate that the final text of the actual decision will be available early in the coming week, after which it will be posted to the USAPA web site.
 
Gee what a surprise!

USAPA is BLAMING somebody else for their continued failures. Nothing is ever their fault. Nothing.

Spin, Spin, Spin. :lol: :lol:

It's only been a year and a half of endless empty promises, failures, finger pointing, and blame.

Is this the "highly democratic, professional Union" That all you supporters had in mind?
 
They drop the ball and then blame gravity!

All the players knew exactly what transpired, yet USAPA still pursues the grievance and acts ASTONISHED at the outcome. Standing in the way in order to draw the foul might work in basketball, but it looks ridiculous in labor relations.

(Psst, USAPA. No one is taking you seriously. Call 1-800 REAL UNION and order a real union before its too late. )
 
They drop the ball and then blame gravity!

All the players knew exactly what transpired, yet USAPA still pursues the grievance and acts ASTONISHED at the outcome. Standing in the way in order to draw the foul might work in basketball, but it looks ridiculous in labor relations.

(Psst, USAPA. No one is taking you seriously. Call 1-800 REAL UNION and order a real union before its too late. )


Gee, I guess its not too late!


"On the heels of very disappointing news, earlier today, we are pleased to report that the Arbitrator has awarded for the Union in Transition Dispute #10, Minimum Block Hours."
 
Gee, I guess its not too late!


"On the heels of very disappointing news, earlier today, we are pleased to report that the Arbitrator has awarded for the Union in Transition Dispute #10, Minimum Block Hours."


Grievance Committee Update #2
Arbitrator Rules for USAPA in TA #10
October 16, 2009



On the heels of very disappointing news, earlier today, we are pleased to report that the Arbitrator has awarded for the Union in Transition Dispute #10, Minimum Block Hours.

This dispute was filed due to the Company’s failure to maintain a minimum monthly block hour average of 8.79 hours per day on the East and 9.87 hours per day on the West. At the time the dispute was filed and heard, the Company had failed to maintain the per day block hour average on the West for the months of September – December 2008.

The Company’s argument at arbitration was that they agreed with the 8.79 and 9.87 hour threshold. And, furthermore they agreed that they must perform the calculation each month. However, they believed that each month is a rolling average based on the previous twelve months. By this calculation, the Company believed they were in compliance with the Transition Agreement.

The Union’s position was that the daily utilization rate must be calculated each month, based on the average daily hours per day that the respective East and West aircraft had been flown during that particular month. To the extent the rate, calculated in that manner, dips below 8.79 hours for East and 9.87 hours for West, in any given month, the Company is in violation of the TA.

It is abundantly clear that the Arbitrator based his decision almost exclusively on the negotiating history of the underlying US Airways East CBA, from which the language and the concepts of minimum block hours were derived. During the hearing phase, this negotiating history was relayed by Captain Donn Butkovic for USAPA. He testified as to the concept of monthly minimum block hours and its inclusion in the July 2002 Restructuring Agreement. The same concept was then repeated six months later in LOA 84. Again in LOA93, we see the same concept of minimum block hours 12 months after the emergence from bankruptcy.

Mr. Bruce Ashby, testifying on behalf of the Company stated that they had intended to change the method of how the monthly measurement would be calculated, from a monthly minimum to a 12 month rolling average.

The arbitrator rejected the Company’s argument stating in the decision;

“The problem for a reader, however, is that the words don’t convey the critical message that the parties jointly intended to effect a massive change to the previously accepted meaning of “measured monthlyâ€. There is, simply stated, no language in either LOA #93 or in the subsequent TA that in any way suggests a twelve month rolling review for purposes of monthly measurement.â€

“Conceding there is no direct definition of the phrase “measured monthlyâ€, the Company maintains the new concept was, nevertheless, expressly aired and discussed with the union chief negotiators. But the evidence falls far short of demonstrating communication of a nature that would allow one to infer such a change to language that is totally silent on the subject. Mr. Ashby candidly concedes the parties were, in September of 2004, in a “burning hurry†to get a deal done, that he and his committee drafted the language at issue after explaining the concept to ALPA.â€

The Arbitrator further provides the following analysis for his decision:

“The rolling twelve month review, however reasonable and responsive to the challenges confronting the Company, was, to these parties, a novel and arcane concept. If the previously understood and relatively straightforward meaning of “measured monthly†were to be modified in this fashion, it was incumbent on the bargaining parties to make the change in considerably more explicit detail. In the absence of any such language, USAPA’s claim that “measured monthly†meant the same, in LOA #93 and in the TA, as it had always meant to the bargaining parties is forceful and ultimately controlling. For these reasons, the grievance will be granted.â€

We are in the process of collecting the required signatures from the members of the System Board of Adjustment. Once that process is complete, which may take a week; we will post the decision on the USAPA web site.

Lastly, the Arbitrator remanded the remedy to the parties for consideration. However, the System Board of Adjustment will maintain jurisdiction in the event of a dispute arising on the question of remedy. Our Board members; John Brookman and Mitch Vasin have already begun crafting a “make whole†remedy for all affected pilots. We will update the pilot group next week as to our progress.


Fraternally,

Tracy L. Parrella
USAPA Grievance Chairman

Dennis Brennan
USAPA Grievance Vice-Chairman

John Brookman
USAPA System Board Member TA #10

Mitch Vasin
USAPA System Board Member TA # 10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.