US Pilots' Labor Discussion 11/17-11/30..ALL Pilot Labor Issues Discussed HERE

[BLT]

Seham states with a straight face that "final and binding is a meaningless term". I didn't know that Seham knew the Jedi mind trick. I guess thats why we pay him so much money.

 

[cleardirect]

Seham states with a straight face that "final and binding is a meaningless term". I didn't know that Seham knew the Jedi mind trick. I guess thats why we pay him so much money.

I think arbitrators that make a very good living issuing final and binding ruling would disagree that their work is meaningless.

But I suppose the company could consider the $35 million that usapa won using FINAL AND BINDING as meaningless. So if the company does not pay is that OK? Because according to the USAPA general counsel final and binding has no meaning.

Guys like this are very dangerous. When you start to apply situational logic and ethics when situations change it usually bite pretty hard.

 

[ChuckBewFarley]

Any guess what this video cost us?

Lee's kid need the new GI Joe with the Kung Foo grip for Christmas?

Did Lee actually study this case at all? Did he see the "Bradford Letter"?

The founders set out from day one to disenfranchise the west group.

Is usapa really trying to get a contract???

YGTBSM!!!

Thanks Mikey for spending MY money in this fashion. You need to check out the term- FEATHERBEDDING. You're the master!!!

 

[usabusdriver]

Any guess what this video cost us?

Did Lee actually study this case at all?

My perspective is that the video is truly a fine example of argument by exclusion that Seham uses, it seems, quite often.

His rationale that the Addington case and the Breeger cases viewed in terms of ripeness are the same fact pattern yet different outcomes because of jurisdictional locations, really is a prime example of his obfuscation of the singular difference that is key to the argument and his lack of standing in the ripeness issue by exclusion of a significant difference. That difference is the Transition Agreement or TA.

The TA is an amendment to the two CBA’s, east and west, that delineates a path towards a single joint contract. In the TA it describes the methodology to be used for pilot seniority integration. That methodology outlined in the TA is what the west pilots have been arguing is an obligation that usapa inherited from the prior representational agent and is bound to honor. The pilots in the Breeger case have nothing that is similar to the TA which specifies integrated seniority.

The other problem is that SSM&P has cited a case and used it in a diametrically opposite argument in one of their motions, I cannot remember the specific case or which motion it was as there have been so many, but it is in the record, where they argued that even though a section or portion of a collective bargaining agreement has not yet been ratified, the company’s explicit acceptance of that section gave to it the same holding as if the section had been ratified and implemented. That can be extrapolated to this argument concerning ripeness. The usapa “bargaining proposal†for an integrated pilot seniority list is not akin to the same bargaining as, let us say, section three, pay rates. The company does not “counter†the proposed seniority list by stating, no we want to see nycbusdriver have a higher seniority number on this list, and nic4us a lower seniority number, they either reject it or accept it as they did with the Nicolau award. Once they accept the “bargaining proposal†for an integrated pilot seniority list, it effectively is the same as if the contract has been implemented because that section is not going to change. There will not be any “negotiating†concerning where individual pilots or groups of pilots reside on the integrated pilot seniority list to garner additional votes for passage of a tentative agreement following a failed ratification attempt.

The extra diversionary argument Seham throws in about the court’s acceptance of the Addington case under the pretense of delay by usapa and plaintiffs depositional admission that usapa is not engaged in actively delaying negotiations shows the case is not ripe is laughable at best, and is really a detriment to the ripeness argument to the court of appeals because of time constraints and clarity of issue.

It is my opinion that the usapa ripeness argument is not nearly as strong as Seham is implying, and will not be persuasive to the ninth circuit. We shall see, Cleary surely seems convinced it's a winner.

 

[hp_fa]

I had issues with the ripeness argument from the start, based in no small part that Seham actually argued both under-ripeness and over-ripeness. Sorry Seham, you can't have it both ways.

 

[ROACLT]

I guess in the next 60-90 days, all arguments will be answered one way or another on legal matters.

A new contract is another issue. If Addington prevails at the 9th and USAPA wins the LOA 93 grievance, good luck to US Airways on getting a single pilot collective bargaining agreement.

 

[Metroyet]

We shall see, Cleary surely seems convinced it's a winner.

I honestly believe that 97% of all USAPA members...including the BPR and Seham himself already KNOW this is going to fail. The strategy is to simply delay, delay, delay, and spend, spend, spend in the hopes that somehow they'll get some kind of do over in another business transaction, (won't happen even if there is one).

The East guys cannot possibly be so stupid as to believe that Seham is telling them the whole, unedited truth about their legal positions. His intentional omissions, and tortured logic are leaving a hole big enough to fly a jet through. I simply cannot wait to hear what the plan will be, or who will be to blame next, when the ninth upholds Wake, in it's entirety. My guess is more feigned optimism that the SCOTUS will finally set things right and let them staple 85% of the West because it's what's most advantageous to the East...despite that pesky TA, final and binding arbitration, and company acceptance of the list.

Cleary looks like even he isn't convinced about what he's saying. He knows it's all one big lie. 20 months of wasted energy, millions of dollars, lost negotiation leverage, and vicious fratricidal attempts against the West.

 

[exB717Flyer]

We shall see, Cleary surely seems convinced it's a winner.

Not just convinced, but "supremely confident" the appellate court will rule in his favor. So if USAPA loses one must come to one of two conclusions about Mr. Cleary: 1) he was lying and really wasn't so confident or 2) his misplaced confidence was indicative of very poor judgment. Either way it should raise alarm bells on the East about your elected choice of leadership -- not to mention legal counsel. (Don't get me wrong, counselor Seham has been a source of constant amusement for the Westies. But once Cleary gets over his wasteful legal games it'll be time to get an attorney who is from our own planet.)

 

[cynic]

What are the chances that USAPA could go after SSM&P for inappropriate legal advise?

All SSM&P has to say is that USAPA had already determined their course of action and their advice was simply on the best way to attempt to defend their actions. As long as SSM&P offered any kind of warning that it would be difficult, unlikely or at least not a sure thing to attain USAPA's stated goal of a DOH based seniority list, they would be completely off the hook.

Just like a lawyer that knows his client killed a man, SSM&P has to try and find a way to get a favorable legal decision for their client.

 

[hp_fa]

All SSM&P has to say is that USAPA had already determined their course of action and their advice was simply on the best way to attempt to defend their actions. As long as SSM&P offered any kind of warning that it would be difficult, unlikely or at least not a sure thing to attain USAPA's stated goal of a DOH based seniority list, they would be completely off the hook.

Just like a lawyer that knows his client killed a man, SSM&P has to try and find a way to get a favorable legal decision for their client.

I don't agree that it is as simple as you make it sound.

 

[Reed Richards]

I honestly believe that 97% of all USAPA members...including the BPR and Seham himself already KNOW this is going to fail. The strategy is to simply delay, delay, delay, and spend, spend, spend in the hopes that somehow they'll get some kind of do over in another business transaction, (won't happen even if there is one).

The East guys cannot possibly be so stupid as to believe that Seham is telling them the whole, unedited truth about their legal positions. His intentional omissions, and tortured logic are leaving a hole big enough to fly a jet through. I simply cannot wait to hear what the plan will be, or who will be to blame next, when the ninth upholds Wake, in it's entirety. My guess is more feigned optimism that the SCOTUS will finally set things right and let them staple 85% of the West because it's what's most advantageous to the East...despite that pesky TA, final and binding arbitration, and company acceptance of the list.

Cleary looks like even he isn't convinced about what he's saying. He knows it's all one big lie. 20 months of wasted energy, millions of dollars, lost negotiation leverage, and vicious fratricidal attempts against the West.

A few comments, with note that worries about video backgrounds and gavels continue to fascinate those not looking at the law:

Actually, most USAPA members are unsure of the results of the current legislation. They are out flying aircraft and taking care of families and really can only hope for the best. You can be sure that most of them (majority), some of who will be soon hitting the street, are steadfast in their resolve that a probationary pilot should not go ahead of a 17 year unbroken service pilot in seniority. That does not make it so, but you are simply wrong in your observation of lack of resolve.

SCOTUS will probably not take the case based on our perceived importance, nor will they even care about our perceived "injustice." They would only take the case if opinions are at odds in the involved Federal Courts. If the 9th rules in favor of USAPA, they solve that dispute. If they do not, then we have yet another East/West dispute going on with Judge Wake and the deep South at odds. Enter SCOTUS, maybe.

I know you guys desperately need a punching bag, but I don't get the "Cleary" references. USAPA was created and then run by founders for almost two years before Cleary took office as President. I would note he was elected as President by an overwhelming majority, surviving a runoff and an election appeal. All the while potential voter spoilers sat out the festivities..not realizing the effect they could have had on the elections.

Cut and paste the following, my predictions of success (past and current) on "decisionsâ€￾. All but the Addington 9th reference are over a year old, but I don’t expect for a minute you would believe me!

Get enough cards to call a vote 100%

Win the representation election 50%

Closing LAS 95%

Closing BOS 1%

Closing LGA 20%

Reopening my original home base PIT 0%

Win Addington in PHX 10%

Win Addington in SFO 95%

Keep Nic off the property 100%.

My record is spotty at best, but I am sure you guys will remind me of my failures.

RR

 

[electricjet98]

If Addington prevails at the 9th and USAPA wins the LOA 93 grievance, good luck to US Airways on getting a single pilot collective bargaining agreement.

That may actually be the fastest way to a joint contract and the NIC...via BK.

 

[Metroyet]

but you are simply wrong in your observation of lack of resolve.


Win Addington in SFO 95%

I was speaking to the East's obvious strategy. I never said the East lacked "resolve" to rebuild their careers upon the backs of innocent West pilots...I think that's pretty clear. There is enough evidence of that to fill a warehouse. One problem. It's illegal. Jury said so. It only took them 90 minutes to figure that out.

Welcome to the 3% club. Oh, BTW, Boston is toast as are the remaining 15 baby jets. Look for the post holiday annoucement.

 

[nic4us]

My perspective is that the video is truly a fine example of argument by exclusion that Seham uses, it seems, quite often.

The company does not “counterâ€￾ the proposed seniority list by stating, no we want to see nycbusdriver have a higher seniority number on this list, and nic4us a lower seniority number, they either reject it or accept it as they did with the Nicolau award.

If by exclusion, you mean only mentioning a fraction of the facts of the case, you are dead on.

If on the otherhand, by exclusion, you mean pulling BS straight out of thin air, well then you would also be correct.

Hey Lee, you may be correct, "in the context of an open contract, the term final and binding is a meaningless term", unfortunately for your guilty client the contract is no longer "open", the contract entered into by three parties to integrate pilot seniority was closed, when the terms of that contract were fulfilled, and the arbitrator delivered his award and the company accepted it. Your client failed in their DFR by intentionally reneging on that contract, and attempting to change it in the collective bargaining process.

Also, "no federal court has ever", yes they have, a certain federal court delivered a jury verdict against your client, I cannot believe you forgot about that one. However, why don't you tell your client how often an appealate court overturns jury verdicts?

No wonder all these east posters keep making statements like, "federal labor law is being rewritten by Wake", or "the Arizona court has no jurisdiction on matters of the RLA", they are getting this horse manure straight from the source.

 

[ROACLT]

That may actually be the fastest way to a joint contract and the NIC...via BK.

As you may or many not know, there is a move afoot being spearheaded by ALPA, APA, SWAPA, USAPA, IPA, AWA, CWA, IAM, Teamsters, TWU, etc. to extend the same protections to airline workers that Railroad workers have under the RLA. That is that contracts may not be amended by using BK code and any changes must be negotiated even during BK. With Obama in the White House, the policy change stands a better than average chance of success.