US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[boeingplt]

I posted this months ago during the same discussion with Megasnoop. Never heard a reply, but my question both then and now is why do you build a pay table out to 2011 if there is a snapback at the end of 2009?
View attachment 8617

Because the pay table is in LOA 84 and the "snap back" - not a fan of that term BTW - is in LOA 93. Have you even bothered reading those documents?

Not sure who constructed the table to which you refer but the only ones that matter are the ones in the LOAs

 

[nic4us]

So back to the one issue that I think will control the case, ripeness. One judge quoted right out of Ramey (the infamous pp 278-279),

"For these reasons we do not require nor even permit union members to bring suit against their union simply because the union has announced their future intentions to breach its duty."
Just in my opinion, for AOL to win, the 9th needs to either find a way around Ramey or outright reverse their previous Ramey decision.

Snoop,

good post, but I have one thing for you. There is a third course for the 9th regarding Ramey. The case is ripe, and does not contradict Ramey, because usapa did more than announce an intention to breach its duty, they actually did breach their duty by their actions.

 

[usabusdriver]

As to the arbritation for the pay, it's a different animal, as the arbitration would be regarding the definition of that section of the contract, which both parties are bound by. The underlying thought of the seniority integration is the fact that it was an internal ALPA policy, to determine the merging of the lists, and such, ALPA is no longer in control, USAPA isn't bound by it, and ALPA did the disservice by attempt to negotiate around their own process.

Crzpilot,

Do not forget that the Transition Agreement, an amendment to both contracts defining a path towards a joint contract, spells out the process for pilot seniority integration, so the difference that you state separating the two issues is not that clear in my opinion.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The biggie, of course, is LOA84/93 pay, wear we rely heavy on ALPA language/intent.

Ya'll need to pick a story and stick to it. Capt Underpants says that the company wrote the LOA 93 language then you call it "ALPA language." Can't be both.

Jim

 

[88 B.T.D.]

Post removed

 

[HPDriver]

Ya'll need to pick a story and stick to it. Capt Underpants says that the company wrote the LOA 93 language then you call it "ALPA language." Can't be both.

Jim

The biggie, of course, is LOA84/93 pay, wear we rely heavy on ALPA language/intent. We'll see. Meanwhile, you get a lot more credibility sticking with truth on results, not making them up.

Needs to work on his understanding of "wear" vs "where" as well.

 

[Captain Underpants]

I agree that the freeze applied to LOA 84 pay rates has an end date.



I basically agree although I think the retroactive increases are open to debate. I do believe that applying the LOA 84 raises going forward is a possible outcome of the arbitration. I didn't include any discussion of that because I was only talking about what the 1/1/2010 rate would be could be and the retroactive increases are unlikely in my opinion.

Jim

Jim,

I dug LOA 84 out of my files and it contains a chart and pay table as part of the agreement. The pay rate in the chart for "2009 and beyond" is "as per restructuring agreement". The pay table shows a 5/1/08 group 2 C/O rate of 174.85 which is the exact rate that USAPA is quoting to take effect on 1/1/2010.

The restructuring agreement rates are indisputable because the exact rates are spelled out in the agreement in a table format modified after 5/1/08 only by the subsequent continuous annual 3% status quo period increases. The contract clearly states that 2009 and beyond rates will be the restructuring agreement rates.

The question is does LOA 93 continue to modify the restructuring agreement rates after the pay freeze expires.
...Line #1 I think we can agree no longer applies because it has expired.
...Line #2 also expires as it appears it is conditional on line #1 still being in effect.

The 2009 and beyond rates have already been negotiated and are clearly listed in the contract.

underpants

 

[HPDriver]

Jim,

I dug LOA 84 out of my files and it contains a chart and pay table as part of the agreement. The pay rate in the chart for "2009 and beyond" is "as per restructuring agreement". The pay table shows a 5/1/08 group 2 C/O rate of 174.85 which is the exact rate that USAPA is quoting to take effect on 1/1/2010.

The restructuring agreement rates are indisputable because the exact rates are spelled out in the agreement in a table format modified after 5/1/08 only by the subsequent continuous annual 3% status quo period increases. The contract clearly states that 2009 and beyond rates will be the restructuring agreement rates.

The question is does LOA 93 continue to modify the restructuring agreement rates after the pay freeze expires.
...Line #1 I think we can agree no longer applies because it has expired.
...Line #2 also expires as it appears it is conditional on line #1 still being in effect.

The 2009 and beyond rates have already been negotiated and are clearly listed in the contract.

underpants

Don't hold your breath. The company is closing LAS and moving those pilots to PHX without a bid. They're planning on doing it using an LOA that expired about 5 years ago.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The question is does LOA 93 continue to modify the restructuring agreement rates after the pay freeze expires.

That is indeed the question.

...Line #1 I think we can agree no longer applies because it has expired.
...Line #2 also expires as it appears it is conditional on line #1 still being in effect.

I think that #1 is generally accepted to mean what it says (and I'm confident your "has" expired refers to the 1/1/2010 date).

It's that #2 that is open to interpretation - eventually by an arbitrator.

All the rest - pay tables showing this or that, etc in LOA 84 - don't prove anything about the interpretation of #2 in LOA 93. At this point they only show what would have happened if LOA 93 had never existed.

Just a question - I know that the pay rate is the biggie, but are you looking forward to the return of night differential and int'l override on non-oceanic flights? From what you quoted earlier, even USAPA doesn't mention those returning.

Jim

 

[boeingplt]

Just a question - I know that the pay rate is the biggie, but are you looking forward to the return of night differential and int'l override on non-oceanic flights? From what you quoted earlier, even USAPA doesn't mention those returning.

Jim

The freeze is specific to the pay rate and the expiration date is specific to the freeze. The question is what rate is revealed when you lift the freeze? The order in which the steps were listed lends that question to interpretation - 1) place a freeze on the restructuring rates 2) reduce the rate as frozen by 18%

So when you remove the freeze do you have 1 or 2 ?

 

[cleardirect]

So back to the one issue that I think will control the case, ripeness. One judge quoted right out of Ramey (the infamous pp 278-279),

"For these reasons we do not require nor even permit union members to bring suit against their union simply because the union has announced their future intentions to breach its duty."

Just in my opinion, for AOL to win, the 9th needs to either find a way around Ramey or outright reverse their previous Ramey decision.

The text of a letter sent to the court answering the question further. This is what the lawyer was looking for during the long pause. This is a little beyond my understanding but I guess it makes the point he wanted to about ripeness.

Pursuant to FRAP 28(j) and Ninth Circuit Rule 28-6, Plaintiffs-
Appellees Addington, et al., submit authority to clarify a point raised
yesterday at oral argument.

Judge Tashima asked counsel to explain where Ramey v. District
141 states, “we do not require, or even permit, union members to bring
a suit against their union simply because the union has announced its
future intention to breach its duty.â€￾ 378 F.3d 269, 279 (2d Cir. 2004).
Not having the decision readily available, counsel was unable to directly
call the Court’s attention to footnote 4 that immediately follows this
quotation. This footnote states as follows:

In some limited circumstances, a suit for a preliminary
injunction may be brought based on such an announcement.
However, because the standards for obtaining preliminary
injunctive relief are significantly higher than the standards
for litigating a case after a breach has occurred, the
possibility of maintaining a preliminary injunction
proceeding does not trigger the statute of limitations.
Id. at 279, n.4.

Footnote four clarifies that the Ramey court was addressing
accrual of limitations, not accrual of ripeness. If a claim is ripe for one
kind of relief that satisfies jurisdictional ripeness. Ramey, therefore,
does not preclude finding our claim ripe

 

[nycbusdriver]

I posted this months ago during the same discussion with Megasnoop. Never heard a reply, but my question both then and now is why do you build a pay table out to 2011 if there is a snapback at the end of 2009?
View attachment 8617

What exactly is the source of that pay table? There's no "pay tables" contained in LOA 93. I can write up a pay table to 5/2051 if you like with LOA 93 pay rates. (Parker would probably get really excited over that.) I could even post it to Wikipedia, for that added "legitimacy." It still wouldn't mean a thing if it's not contained in the LOA.

Probably some ALPA clerk got carried away with MS Excel.

 

[Elevation]

Did Seham tell a Wellesley College grad that it was permissible to discriminated against women....LOL

 

[john john]

your point.

What this case says, if USAPA is correct, is that "final and binding" has no meaning and can be ignored - not negotiated away but just ignored. Jim

Because the subject has not come to exists yet
The maintenance airbus heavy maintenance arbitration never came to be only a negotiated water down version

 

[aquagreen73s]

Did Seham tell a Wellesley College grad that it was permissible to discriminated against women....

Yes.