US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/2- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Black Swan]

Went over to the army of leonidas web page to check out what is being said there......and it's not there.
Guys, I don't know if I'd contribute to an organization that can't keep the website up.
USAPA rocks.

The Army opened fire before the other army was RIPE to be hit. They exposed their position, therefore allowing the 9th to provide the airpower to annihilate. One question for the West army members. Why did you sue BEFORE the case was ripe? Was that Jacobs? Either way, the effect was to blow your chance of damage with the Nic. The 9th was gracious enough to make it very clear the Nic does not have to be in a T/A. So in that light, thank you Addington et. al.

 

[Black Swan]

That is my layman's interpretation also. While the Nic wasn't on trial in the District Court, the use or rejection of Nic was - that's what got the guilty verdict against USAPA. So it would appear that any menaingful tampering with the Nic award could very well end up with the same verdict against USAPA.

Jim

You missed the entire deal. Read what crzipilot highlighted in red. Indisputable evidence the lack of inclusion of the Nic is not an issue.

 

[Black Swan]

What got the "conviction " of USAPA in Wakes' court was a judge who had no understanding of what he was doing, directing a jury that was bound by his anti labor ministrations. This entire thing was a Kangaroo Court. If you think it had any merit, you have proven beyond a doubt you will take only the side who backs ALPA. Justice was served, not in Wakes' court. By the 9th.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Actually Jim, though I respect your opinion, The ruling did specifically state that DFR wouldn't be determined until such time a CBA is voted in, and then it would be determined by what is contained within that CBA

And reduced to as few words as possible, that's exactly what it said - no disagreement there.

and just simply the absence of the NIC would not necessarily constitute a DFR....

Also true. What they didn't say, although you wouldn't know it from posts by some, is that USAPA is free to negotiate a DOH list. The part you didn't quote seem important to me - either USAPA equally represents the West or is subject to a ripe DFR suit. I saw nothing in the ruling that indicated that the Nic was unfair, a "lottery ticket" for the West, etc, so my opinion is that the starting point for measuring equal representation in the seniority debate is the Nic - USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but anything less favorable to the West - fencing them into PHX, for example - could certainly be grounds for a successful DFR suit.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

Phoenix-
Are you at all familiar with USAPA's track record for either negotiating with the company (by torpedoing any merger possibility and antagonizing management with silly newspaper ads) or giving a rats --- about the interests of the west? USAPA is a microcosm of the current US Govenment: disregard the welfare or the opinion of the electorate and do what you want, all the while alienating your allies. That strategy will only lead to their ouster at election time.

Hey, as it applies to USAPA, that's hope we can all believe in!


DUMP USAPA

Sure, call for cards to have a representational election. The 9th has made it very clear that a representational union is not neutered by previous union internal activities or goals in the making.

Any attempt to get a new union is tacit acknowledgement of the effectiveness that was achieved by ousting ALPA.

More power to ya bro.

 

[Black Swan]

And reduced to as few words as possible, that's exactly what it said - no disagreement there.



Also true. What they didn't say, although you wouldn't know it from posts by some, is that USAPA is free to negotiate a DOH list. The part you didn't quote seem important to me - either USAPA equally represents the West or is subject to a ripe DFR suit. I saw nothing in the ruling that indicated that the Nic was unfair, a "lottery ticket" for the West, etc, so my opinion is that the starting point for measuring equal representation in the seniority debate is the Nic - USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but anything less favorable to the West - fencing them into PHX, for example - could certainly be grounds for a successful DFR suit.

Jim

I think there would be no objection to any West pilot being able to bid out of PHX. The company has ordered and had 330's delivered since the merger. They are absolutely entitled to bid that equipment, but they should have to use their date of hire to do so if they come out of PHX.

 

[Crzipilot]

And reduced to as few words as possible, that's exactly what it said - no disagreement there.



Also true. What they didn't say, although you wouldn't know it from posts by some, is that USAPA is free to negotiate a DOH list. The part you didn't quote seem important to me - either USAPA equally represents the West or is subject to a ripe DFR suit. I saw nothing in the ruling that indicated that the Nic was unfair, a "lottery ticket" for the West, etc, so my opinion is that the starting point for measuring equal representation in the seniority debate is the Nic - USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but anything less favorable to the West - fencing them into PHX, for example - could certainly be grounds for a successful DFR suit.

Jim

Actually I believe they did mention that their duty was not to debate the fairness or unfairness of the NIC, just that simply the exclusion of the NIC is not cause for DFR. In addition I do believe they stated they recognized the fact, that inclusion of the NIC, as stated by both ALPA (the originator of the internal Union Process) and USAPA, that any CBA containing the NIC has a very slim chance of being voted in. That in addition to that, the simple fact of NOT having put out a CBA to vote, is not grounds of DFR either. And if you look a little closer, I believe they are hinting, that making the union include the NIC into any CBA, could in essence be a greater DFR to it's membership, as it would continue the stalemate that both unions have found themselves in.

As discussion point 5 states:

[5] We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the
accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA. Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal
will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new
single CBA. Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.

and the two notes:
1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a
decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution
of the West Pilots’ claim
To be sure, the parties’ interest
would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is
not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse,
in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’
claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any
contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its
membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.

2Plaintiffs’ alleged hardship cannot instead be premised on any delay
caused by USAPA in reaching a single CBA. As the district court noted,
Plaintiffs abandoned their claim that USAPA is intentionally delaying
negotiation of a CBA. Addington, 2009 WL 2169164, at *22 (“During discovery,
Plaintiffs retreated from any notion of deliberate delay on the part
of USAPA.”). The dissent’s assertion that “the absence of a CBA is itself
powerful evidence of a DFR violation,” Diss. op. at 8015, is therefore misplaced.
Although absence of a CBA might be evidence of a DFR violation,
if the violation were based on deliberate delay by the union, it is not evidence
of a union’s improper preference of one seniority system over
another. As demonstrated by ALPA’s similar difficulties in reaching a
CBA, the pilot groups, and individual pilots with their ratification/nonratification
powers, are the major contributors to the absence of a CBA in
these circumstances.

3We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recog-
nized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the
Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA,
is binding on USAPA.

What's note 3 mean to you!??!?!?!

 

[Black Swan]

What went on the Wakes' courtroom, if you could call it that, is unbelievable. The 9th rebuttal is very thoughtful, and well founded. The clerks were really on top of things, and the reality of how a labor organization works. Wake was just a bulldozer hell bent on plowing over a union. Leonides was used by Wake to act out on his anti labor hostility. This is a stark lesson on the abuse of power by a Federal Judge. I wonder how many others were plowed under due to his personal vendettas?

 

[Crzipilot]

Also true. What they didn't say, although you wouldn't know it from posts by some, is that USAPA is free to negotiate a DOH list. The part you didn't quote seem important to me - either USAPA equally represents the West or is subject to a ripe DFR suit. I saw nothing in the ruling that indicated that the Nic was unfair, a "lottery ticket" for the West, etc, so my opinion is that the starting point for measuring equal representation in the seniority debate is the Nic - USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic but anything less favorable to the West - fencing them into PHX, for example - could certainly be grounds for a successful DFR suit.

Jim

Nor have they said that DOH would be unfair either. The explicitly stated they were not going into what was fair and what was not fair. Nor do they say what is a starting point. They simply state that USAPA must negotiate something, and be mindful of the shot across the bow that was made.

they do acknowledge the fact that, the NIC was a none starter for getting a CBA, and the union must come up with something to move off of that.

I feel the tread lightly comment was such, that, coming up with a seniority proposal that uniformly staples all West pilots Junior to any East pilot, would certainly be unfair, and ultimately result in a DFR case. Ultimately, it would be for the union membership to vote on any CBA containing the proposal, and depending on that outcome, would indicate who and how many thought the contract was unfair to their side. Until that happens, there is nothing to sue over. I.E. If something is put out, and 1/2 the west pilots vote for it.......how could it be deemed unfair!?

I guess the Army strategy could now be for the west pilot to vote as a block, against anything NOT containing nic.....HA

 

[Black Swan]

I take note 3 to mean that the Nicolau Award could have been not accepted by ALPA.(ie a windfall, or against ALPA merger policy) We are all aware of this. They chose to accept it, and pass it to Parker and the corp. They could have modified it, they chose not. The same option is now available to USAPA is how I think they meant it. USAPA has the option to take it, or leave it or whatever they choose. It is our "baby." The dissent, Bybee thinks it is binding.

 

[Freighterguynow]

How about DOH with a one-way fence: West pilots may bid any East vacancy based on DOH. East pilots will be fenced out of PHX for 10 years, starting with the new contract, except East pilots can bid a PHX vacancy at the bottom of the list, behind the most junior West pilot.

Meanwhile, USAPA, time to retire the RICO. Holding it over the west's heads has served its purpose.

I like that DOH/ fence idea.

Rico needs to go ( I felt that way long ago ) .

 

[Groucho]

From the law offices of Flywheel Shyster and Flywheel.
Waldorf T. Flywheel - Sr. Partner
​

Phone rings: Miss Dimple answers- Flywheel , Shyster and Flywheel….Mr. Flywheel? Just a second; I’ll call him. (Calling out) - Mr. Flywheel! There’s a man on the phone. He says he found the book you lost.

Flywheel: Give me the phone, I’ll talk to him. Hello…..Yes this Mr. Flywheel……so you found my book eh?..... Oh, you needn’t bother about bringing it over. You can read it to me over the phone. Start a page 150. That’s where I left off…….Hello! .. Hello! Hmmm (Sneers) He hung up on me. After I go to the trouble of putting aside legal business just to talk to him!

Miss Dimple: Legal business? Why Mr. Flywheel, you were doing a crossword puzzle.

Mr. Flywheel: Well, is doing a crossword puzzle illegal? Say, has that assistant of mine, Ravelli, been in this morning?

Miss Dimple: No sir

Mr. Flywheel: Well when he gets here have him go down to the Post Office and mail this letter.

Miss Dimple: But sir, It hasn’t’ got a stamp on it.

Mr. Flywheel: Well tell him to put it in the mailbox when nobody is looking.

Miss Dimple: But Mr. Flywheel, a stamp only costs 47cents.

Mr. Flywheel: For 47 cents, I’ll deliver it myself.

Miss Dimple: Anyway this letter is too heavy we had better put two stamps on it.

Mr. Flywheel: Nonsense, if we put two stamps on it will be heavier still. On second thought , never mind the letter. It’s just a little invoice to my friends at Leonidas asking for $1.821 million dollars. When we last sent them an invoice like this they came down to the Office to complain. I told them in no uncertain terms they had to pay up. They got mad; all in a huff. I told them to calm down and not leave in a huff. They could stay for a minute and if they were still mad then they could leave in a minute and a huff. If that wasn’t quick enough they could leave in a cab.

The Leonidas guys have been pestering me about doing something about this bill. I suggested they just pay it. I have been very philosophical with them… trying to get them to see things in a different light…

…. A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
…..Anyone who says he can see through women is missing a lot.
… I intend to live forever, or die trying.
… Behind every successful man is a woman, behind her is his wife.
…..Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
… These are my principles, if you don’t like them, I have others.
…..My favorite poem is the one that starts 'Thirty days hath September' because it actually tells you something.

I don’t think these guys respond well the philosophical, we haven’t been paid in full yet,.

Here is the invoice, and it goes back to September of 2009. Who knows how big it is now.

Leonidas LLC
Attn: Jeffrey Koontz
2650 FM 407, Ste. 145-147
Bartonville, TX 76226

September 3, 2009
Invoice No: ******
File No: LEO020-324277
Re: Leonidas LLC vs. Airline Pilots, et al.


Invoice Summary
Current Professional Services $1,678,300.50
Current Disbursements 142,929.37

Total Current Invoice $1,821,229.87


Questions regarding payments or accounts, please call (816) 572-4664
or 1-877-577-7455 or AccountingBilling@polsinelli.com.
For other inquiries, please contact Marty Harper at (602)650-2000
or mharper@polsinelli.com.

Please make checks payable to
Polsinelli Shughart PC
P.O. Box 878681
Kansas City, MO 64187-8681
Wire Instructions:
US Bank
Acct: Polsinelli Shughart, PC
Acct #: 4343953230
ABA #: 101000187
Please reference Invoice No.

 

[Black Swan]

Went over to the army of leonidas web page to check out what is being said there......and it's not there.
Guys, I don't know if I'd contribute to an organization that can't keep the website up.
USAPA rocks.

Aquagreen- what did you do to the Leonides website? Did you guys fold tents so you don't have to pay Jacobs?

 

[Black Swan]

I am guessing Aquagreen 737's is going to vanish for a long time after the advice he gave the Army and all the cash involved. A lot of kids could have gone to college with that $$$$$ What are the wives saying?

 

[RSVP767]

You guys are really missing what the court said. Read the part in RED. USAPA does not have to have the Nic in it. It has a duty to represent the west, yes. But the Nic does not have to be in it. The Nic is cause for the East pilots to sue USAPA for DFR if it went through with it, as it is absolutely contrary to USAPA constitution.

Well said BS. Keep shedding the light!