US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

Swan,

What the 9th said was very straightforward. Not ripe.

We all get it. It took the company about 2 seconds to figure out how screwed they are in this mess if they collude with usapa.

Lets see, anybody besides Siegel figured that one out. Oh,,yeah,,both Wake and Bybee. Even Graber and Tashima eluded to it in their decision.

The only lawyer who does not get it is Seeham. But then again, he has been wrong about everything to date. "We can get DOH by offering a cost neutral contract" What a putz.

Yes, Nic, they did say NOT RIPE. That, was obvious. Obvious except to Leonidas. Back to the old, old schooling for you, HOW DO YOU SUE IN AN AUTO ACCIDENT BEFORE THE ACCIDENT TAKES PLACE? Easy, YOU CAN'T! Now that the collision has happened, you can sue. But wait, what if it was YOU who was texting, and caused the accident? You can clearly sue, but do you have a case with merit? No. Do you have a right to sue if the Nic is not used and a contract is realized. Absolutely. Does your case have merit? PROOF.
AND, just because you can now sue,when you get your Non Nic, that is all it means. So yes, it will be unquestionably ripe. All that means is you met the criteria for an ATTEMPT to prove damage. Your Leonidas seems to have the legion convinced UNQUESTIONABLY RIPE means WITH MERIT. Two different animals friend. So now, you have to have the BB PROOF claim to make. The 9th already said the Nic was not a requirement. So you went forward without ripeness, and now that you figured that out, you still don't get the MERIT part yet as you seem to associate ripeness with merit, with the backing of the crack legal squad.

 

[Black Swan]

That's what you're conveniently ignoring: any non-Nicolau gets compared to the Nicolau to evaluate USAPA's DFR. DOH in a vaccuum is not unfair, but the problem for you is that DOH as compared to the Nicoalu was already found by one jury to be a DFR Wanna wager what the odds are that any future judge or jury will come to the same conclusion? Start with metaphysical certainty and back off a hair.

The Nicolau does not go away. USAPA eliminated any sort of consensual agreement when they eliminated the West as a separate entity. The company knows this which is why they constructed their declaratory action around Nicolau/non-Nicolau. Either it is, or it isn't. Your brain trust made this an all or nothing contest against not merely the West, but against the sanctity of arbitrations. Brilliant move. Not.

Since you are leading the charge, and getting the boys to pay. What requirement is there that the Nic has to be used after the 9th said it didn't? You clearly saw it. How can you honestly tell your people this? The 9th clearly stated it, yet you come right back and insist it does. After the ripeness debacle, I say you are 0 and 1. Soon to be 0 and 2. There are a multitude of ways to integrate seniority lists, the Niclolau being one of them, not necessarily the ONE. Bargaining position in an internal union dispute. Not law, not required. Only no damage. You, have to make the merits of your damage. Every other union going DOH does not bode well for your argument. What makes you so special you require a special way in the eyes of the law? Please cite the statute that says the Nicolau is the required way this dispute has to be resolved. Damage is the only criteria. Not methodology. Look at the Nat l Academy discussion of airline labor integrations. There are many many ways to do it. None are cited as required, only available ways. Damage to one side the only consideration. Citing the non use of Nicolau will not cut it. No way.

 

[aquagreen73s]

What requirement is there that the Nic has to be used after the 9th said it didn't?

Here we go again...remedial instruction for the millionth time.

Whatever is used has to be fair. Fairness will be measured against the abitration result. Like ALPA, USAPA is free to abandon the result, but whatever they come up with has to be fair. When every West pilot loses and every East pilots gain versus the Nicolau, there's a problem. The yardstick will forever be the Nicolau and it matters not who the union is. Arbitrations just don't disappear, and that's USAPA's problem. That's where the founders outright lied to the East pilots. If the Nicolau did disappear, than the West never would have gotten a trial nor would the company have won on USAPA's motion to dismiss the declaratory action.

The company has the added complexity of the arbitration result being memorialized in the Transition Agreement. The arbitration result was accepted by the company in December of 2007. To accept something other than the arbitration result is effectively a modification of the Transition Agreement. Problem is, the company can incur liability by agreeing to something else if the party they are dealing with - USAPA - breaches its DFR in modifying the TA.

If the company didn't take USAPA up on their offer of a concessionary contract in exchange for DOH three years ago, then they certainly won't deal away from the Nic given the jury verdict. The company is many things, but they certainly aren't stupid. Status quo for many years, and that's perfectly acceptable to the West.

Enjoy LOA93.

 

[luvthe9]

Enjoy LOA93.

We will, You guys enjoy the stagnation and those ever plummeting property values, and let's not forget about the heat.

 

[Black Swan]

Here we go again...remedial instruction for the millionth time.

Whatever is used has to be fair. Fairness will be measured against the abitration result. Like ALPA, USAPA is free to abandon the result, but whatever they come up with has to be fair. When every West pilot loses and every East pilots gain versus the Nicolau, there's a problem. The yardstick will forever be the Nicolau and it matters not who the union is. Arbitrations just don't disappear, and that's USAPA's problem. That's where the founders outright lied to the East pilots. If the Nicolau did disappear, than the West never would have gotten a trial nor would the company have won on USAPA's motion to dismiss the declaratory action.

The company has the added complexity of the arbitration result being memorialized in the Transition Agreement. The arbitration result was accepted by the company in December of 2007. To accept something other than the arbitration result is effectively a modification of the Transition Agreement. Problem is, the company can incur liability by agreeing to something else if the party they are dealing with - USAPA - breaches its DFR in modifying the TA.

If the company didn't take USAPA up on their offer of a concessionary contract in exchange for DOH three years ago, then they certainly won't deal away from the Nic given the jury verdict. The company is many things, but they certainly aren't stupid. Status quo for many years, and that's perfectly acceptable to the West.

Enjoy LOA93.

Arbitrations can disappear when they are within a bargaining agents members. And they can change their methodology at any time. Just look at ALPA and the many times they have changed their position. History backs me. The Nic is Not memorialized. The bargaining agent was changed before the two groups integrated, and the position was changed from ALPA s. Oh, and thanks for the standard Enjoy LOA 93. I will. Especially when Kasher comes in with the pay!

 

[aquagreen73s]

We will, You guys enjoy the stagnation and those ever plummeting property values, and let's not forget about the heat.

Stagnation? I just flew with a brand new captain, DOB 1968. It was his second trip off of IOEs and the first time he's been a captain since the commuters. '97 DOH. '99 DOHs on the East are slaving away on the worst reserve system in the industry while I'm enjoying 30 hour layovers at home. Total nights away from home in July is 5 I believe. 90+ hours pay.

Enjoy LOA93.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Wait, scratch that, he's a '98 DOH.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Arbitrations can disappear when they are within a bargaining agents members.

But not when doing so benefits the majority at the expense of the minority.

It's called the Duty of Fair Representation.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Arbitrations can disappear when they are within a bargaining agents members. And they can change their methodology at any time. Just look at ALPA and the many times they have changed their position. History backs me. The Nic is Not memorialized. The bargaining agent was changed before the two groups integrated, and the position was changed from ALPA s. Oh, and thanks for the standard Enjoy LOA 93. I will. Especially when Kasher comes in with the pay!

One more thing.

If what you say is the law, then in Addington USAPA would have prevailed on:

(1) Motion to Dismiss
(2) Motion for summary judgment
(3) motion to vacate notwithstanding the verdict
(4) The 9th would have overturned as a matter of law for what you say.

If what you say is the law, then the company would have lost on:
(1) USAPA's motion to dismiss the declaratory action
(2) USAPA's motion to drop the West.

None of the above happened. So, what's that tell you about what you *think* the law is?

Five federal judges all say you're wrong, not to mention just about every law firm that Bradford interviewed who told him flat out he couldn't get away with everything he wanted.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

.... and damages started in August 2008. Oh, and retirement income is garnishable.

If any of us on the west expect 'damages' we're smoking some good stuff. I've seen enough of our wonderful legal system to completely rule that out, personally. We may prevail, yes, but damages? I wouldn't count on it at all, but certainly not to the extent that anyone's retirment income would be garnished.

 

[toganoflex]

We will, You guys enjoy the stagnation and those ever plummeting property values, and let's not forget about the heat.

The heat is fine - monsoon is kicking in nicely and on schedule.

Thanks for caring about property values but most of us aren't leaving to go east.

And stagnation? I've been moving up every bid period.

Next.

 

[Black Swan]

But not when doing so benefits the majority at the expense of the minority.

It's called the Duty of Fair Representation.

Just because you are the minority does not mean you have been damaged. You are the minority because you are by nature, smaller. That is not the easts problem. It is what it is. You confuse minority with merit, you confuse ripeness with merit.

 

[mrbreeze]

Whatever is used has to be fair. Fairness will be measured against the abitration result.

You guys keep preaching this, when in actuality, the only starting point that will be used to measure the fairness is your premerger position. The NIC is not the starting point.....it has not be installed as your current position and never will be. The NIC is only a proposal, just as the DOH list is.

breeze

 

[aquagreen73s]

Just because you are the minority does not mean you have been damaged. You are the minority because you are by nature, smaller. That is not the easts problem. It is what it is. You confuse minority with merit, you confuse ripeness with merit.

DFR law is quite clear: the numerical advantage does not give the majority the ability to benefit the majority at the expense of the minority.

Your problem is the Nicolau doesn't disappear. USAPA's DFR will always be measured against the Nicolau. Any subsequent union's DFR will always be measured against the Nicolau regarding East/West seniority.

You should have read the fine print on the USAPA election forms. Oh wait, USAPA's founders didn't even have the integrity to truthfully explain DFR law and how it applies to East/West seniority. Well, you're learning it now!

 

[aquagreen73s]

You guys keep preaching this, when in actuality, the only starting point that will be used to measure the fairness is your premerger position. The NIC is not the starting point.....it has not be installed as your current position and never will be. The NIC is only a proposal, just as the DOH list is.

breeze

True in a sense, but it's the yardstick against which DFR is measured. If it wasn't, if it merely didn't have any substantive legal value, then the 9th would have ruled that the West would never have a DFR. The company's declaratory action would have been dismissed. The West would have been completely done.

That didn't happen, and the reason is the law clearly is otherwise. The company wasn't a party to Addington, so the 9th only considered the seniority dispute within the context of an internal union matter. The 9th said the West has to wait to file their DFR until there is a final product from negotiations. If the law were as Seham and BS are saying, the 9th would not have merely said "not ripe, come back later." They would have clearly stated the law as Seham and BS say it is and the seniority dispute would be over.

The company's declaratory action is really the other side of the coin for the West. Instead of an injunction saying that USAPA has to use the Nicolau, the dec action looks at anything but the Nicolau with regards to USAPA's DFR. The problem for the company is that the "negotiation" that USAPA wants to engage in has once before been agreed to with the company in the Transition Agreement. There is a contractual history with regards to the company. Written agreement + execution of the arbitration + acceptance of the result - circumstances far less ambiguous than generic company/union bargaining. This was spelled out thoroughly in the Transition Agreement. Duties and obligations could not be clearer.