US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[hp_fa]

I listened to the oral argument late last night and have been very busy with RL stuff today so this is my first chance to post anything. I have only listened to the audio once so I am sure that I missed some nuances in there. I'll try to listen again in the next few days.

Early impressions.

1. Seham did not seem to raise the issues revolving around the jury instructions as much as I expected.

2. It was Andy Jacob who used my least favorite phrase, "gold standard".

3. It would seem to me that Andy Jacob's pause was while he was looking for the paragraph that contained the sentences that the judge was referring to in his question. The fact that the other judge chimed in to say where it was leads me to that observation.

4. I'm not sure that I fully understand the female judge's question of what would happen if they chose to affect female pilots by some action. I thought it was a poor analogy for what I thought she was trying to get answered.

5. Seham did not seem to attack Judge Wake very much.

The biggest reason that I have been against the USAPA (and East ALPA's once Nicolau's decision was announced) position in this case is one of public policy, specifically that arbitration results will not be subject to legal review absent extraordinary conditions. A decision in favor of USAPA would greatly undermine that fundamental principle and invite mischief in any future arbitration in any other issue by any other parties to those arbitrations. Not just pilots, labor unions or others such as them. It would open the door for any loser in an arbitration to seek judicial relief to deny or delay the implementation of the arbitration result. Full and final would not have the same meaning that we currently believe that it does.

OK, rightly or wrongly, here is my guess on what happens. West wins, in part because they won in the district court and I didn't see enough from Seham to cause the judges to overturn Judge Wake and his Conclusions of Fact and Law. The 9th reconciles the various case law with the facts and finds that the West pilots case, under these circumstances, was ripe and that any failure to have brought the case much later would have caused West to perhaps lose any right to seek redress because they would have failed to seek relief in a timely fashion.

I could well be wrong, but that is how I currently see it.

Oh, by the way, under normal court procedure (as I understand them) the case has already been decided. That would have been done yesterday after the hearing. What we are now going to wait on is the judges to get their clerks to research and then write an opinion that explains their result. That is what we will all be waiting to find out.

 

[oscarjazz]

I listened to the oral argument late last night and have been very busy with RL stuff today so this is my first chance to post anything. I have only listened to the audio once so I am sure that I missed some nuances in there. I'll try to listen again in the next few days.

Early impressions.

1. Seham did not seem to raise the issues revolving around the jury instructions as much as I expected.

2. It was Andy Jacob who used my least favorite phrase, "gold standard".

3. It would seem to me that Andy Jacob's pause was while he was looking for the paragraph that contained the sentences that the judge was referring to in his question. The fact that the other judge chimed in to say where it was leads me to that observation.

4. I'm not sure that I fully understand the female judge's question of what would happen if they chose to affect female pilots by some action. I thought it was a poor analogy for what I thought she was trying to get answered.

5. Seham did not seem to attack Judge Wake very much.

The biggest reason that I have been against the USAPA (and East ALPA's once Nicolau's decision was announced) position in this case is one of public policy, specifically that arbitration results will not be subject to legal review absent extraordinary conditions. A decision in favor of USAPA would greatly undermine that fundamental principle and invite mischief in any future arbitration in any other issue by any other parties to those arbitrations. Not just pilots, labor unions or others such as them. It would open the door for any loser in an arbitration to seek judicial relief to deny or delay the implementation of the arbitration result. Full and final would not have the same meaning that we currently believe that it does.

OK, rightly or wrongly, here is my guess on what happens. West wins, in part because they won in the district court and I didn't see enough from Seham to cause the judges to overturn Judge Wake and his Conclusions of Fact and Law. The 9th reconciles the various case law with the facts and finds that the West pilots case, under these circumstances, was ripe and that any failure to have brought the case much later would have caused West to perhaps lose any right to seek redress because they would have failed to seek relief in a timely fashion.

I could well be wrong, but that is how I currently see it.

Oh, by the way, under normal court procedure (as I understand them) the case has already been decided. That would have been done yesterday after the hearing. What we are now going to wait on is the judges to get their clerks to research and then write an opinion that explains their result. That is what we will all be waiting to find out.

It was clear that ripeness is the only issue under consideration. It is a difficult call to see which way they will lean. It still raises a central issue, if USAPA wins on ripeness then they know that if they complete a DOH list by negotiation, then they will have violated DFR and they are back to square one. The company knows that if they agree to a DOH list, they will face damages for breach of contract.

USAPA is pretty much boxed into a corner here, where delay is their only victory. For some, logic has flown out the window and they don't care how bad their career is as long as they delay the Nicolau. It is pretty sad to watch.

 

[cleardirect]

It has been reported that V.P. Labor Al Hemenway, Beth Holdren, corporate counsel, Paul Jones and outside corporate counsel Robert Segal were present.

That's a lot of horse power. Why were all 4 of them there? They could read the transcripts and listen to the tapes just like us, why the major presence?

Anyone care to read the tea leaves?

My best guess.

First to show the company flag. More for USAPA than anyone else.

Second to observe the body language and demeanor of the judges. Transcripts and audio is OK but on the subtle things.

Third this case is holding up the business of US Airways. Either just normal business or a merger, the company wants the thing done.

If the court finds it not ripe it is going to be a long time before anything good comes to this pilots group.

But now ask the question why did usapa have at least 5 pilots on FPL plus 4 attorneys plus expenses at the hearing? They could not listen to it or read the transcripts as well.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

Seham. All hat, no cattle.

How cute. It seems to me that you and the rest of the west are whistling past the graveyard. Go ahead, whistle all you want. It is less than interesting the way you west people write about knowing what is going to happen before it does. :down:

 

[Phoenix]

But now ask the question why did usapa have at least 5 pilots on FPL plus 4 attorneys plus expenses at the hearing? They could not listen to it or read the transcripts as well.

Thats nothing.. ALPA has 35 reps on FPL sitting at home in their Lazy Boys.. the Court TV channel is still droning away in the background as they snore.. and the bowl of popcorn is still full.. when they awake they'll think they missed it.

 

[ableoneable]

How cute. It seems to me that you and the rest of the west are whistling past the graveyard. Go ahead, whistle all you want. It is less than interesting the way you west people write about knowing what is going to happen before it does. :down:

In contrast to USAPA's very circumspect analysis?

 

[Phoenix]

What if the majority of management or stockholders voted to disregard the existing pilot CBAs because the previous agent had been decertified?

No one is disregarding the existing CBA or intending to do so. Stay on topic.

 

[Metroyet]

How cute. It seems to me that you and the rest of the west are whistling past the graveyard.

Those are just the same hopeful, delusional expectations that continually let you down. I would think you'd recognize that by now.

 

[Reed Richards]

Interesting day yesterday.

Those of us listening to Lee Seham for over the past 2 years plus heard absolutely nothing new from him on the recording. As to the Ramey decision, a search of “participants†in that case might find a familiar face. I know the Addington lawyers had to search high and low to find a case they thought showed the intent before the action being a DFR, but Ramey was simply the wrong one to use. Even Judge Graber had to go to an extreme to present a possible scenario that might show an early DFR…her example was so far away from the reasonableness of the USAPA proposal, it was hard to even pretend it ever being a real proposal. I am not sure of her point, unless it was to say there might indeed be a case where the concept of intent only in a DFR might apply. I simply don’t know.

I did not care for the USAPA Communication that referenced Andy Jacob’s silence. I am sure every lawyer that stands before that court has a slightly different style and delivery. I think he got across, right or wrong, exactly what he meant to get across. I could not imagine the Judges ruling simply on the courtroom presence of the lawyer rather than the law they present. The Judges seemed particularly well read on the briefs, and were pointed in their questions, including the ubiquitous final and binding question, which raised its head right off the bat. I say don’t cheer the question before you hear the reply, and note the lack of much further questioning from the bench on that matter. I could not have imagined the question not at least being asked. The rest was almost all ripeness.

Of all the comments and questioning, I keep going back to that of Judge Tashima. He seemed to understand clearly the concept of “impasse,†and I am not even sure he ever used that particular word. Status quo was nobody getting a contract, nobody getting any improvement in lifestyle. He seemed to understand the situation pre USAPA. Not really the issue at hand, but it speaks to why USAPA is even here. He may indeed find that USAPA had no right to its own bargaining proposal for seniority. But at least he understands if he rules the DFR was ripe, as I think Judge Bybee said…we would then be back to a “war of attrition.â€

I could go on ad nauseaum about the possible outcome in the Ninth. I have an opinion, but it simply means squat now. The real discussions should be about Plan B’s on both sides. I think I already know what the East pilots will do, so I will leave you all until a decision is rendered. I will personally from here on out only speak of East and West, as I cannot even grasp now us ever sharing cockpits. I don’t say that as flame bait, nor have I always believed it to be true.

See you in a few months,

RR

 

[Hate2fly]

Those are just the same hopeful, delusional expectations that continually let you down. I would think you'd recognize that by now.

Hey Metroyet,

When is the army going to put out a new update? Your boy seemed lost without the power point presentation and without the judges help! Man that was painful to sit through. We didn't get to hear much from Bush's boy. He probably made up his mind already. I'm sure he loves unions.

Don't worry it really doesn't matter which way it goes...............we will always have our vote!

I still feel like your boy the judge got it wrong in the desert.

So much to look forward to........MDA/LOA93

Hate

 

[cleardirect]

Thats nothing.. ALPA has 35 reps on FPL sitting at home in their Lazy Boys.. the Court TV channel is still droning away in the background as they snore.. and the bowl of popcorn is still full.. when they awake they'll think they missed it.

So what does how ALPA do things have anything to do with usapa? Are you trying to become ALPA light or is it just happening?

Who cares what ALPA does I am not sending them money anymore. It is usapa and the 5 FPL junkies that I am concerned and asking about? How about staying on point and answering my question. Are you not at least interested in how usapa spends your money?

 

[exB717Flyer]

The real discussions should be about Plan B’s on both sides.

Our only plan is to get a combined CBA. Yours seems to be the opposite. Am I missing something?

..., as I cannot even grasp now us ever sharing cockpits.

I can. If ex-TWA pilots and AA pilots can share a cockpit anybody can.

 

[Phoenix]

So what does how ALPA do things have anything to do with usapa? Are you trying to become ALPA light or is it just happening?

Who cares what ALPA does I am not sending them money anymore. It is usapa and the 5 FPL junkies that I am concerned and asking about? How about staying on point and answering my question. Are you not at least interested in how usapa spends your money?

I'll help you.. on topic.. I fully support your right to advocate and vote in any duly constituted election. If you want ALPA back because you think they will have less than five FPLers then you are far too intelligent for me to tangle with. I fold.

Cheers. 🙂

 

[nic4us]

Your boy seemed lost.......................Bush's boy......... I'm sure he loves unions.

Don't worry it really doesn't matter which way it goes...............we will always have our vote!

......... your boy the judge got it wrong in the desert.........


Hate

Hate,

You seem to be very fond of this expression so I will use it in a sentence.

Boy!after a night out with the boys, usapa's communication boy, would have given his youngest boy, to hide his Continental strike experience!

Yeah, run on, I know, but you get the point.

 

[HPDriver]

So much to look forward to........MDA/LOA93

Hate

If that's all you have to look forward to, you're going to have a LONG year.