US Pilots Labor Discussion

[767jetz]

Sure didn't take long for you to come back from your self-imposed exile. What happened? Did the UAL guys run you off their board?

Any merger policy relying arbitration as the main method of integration is NOT a merger policy. It's a cop-out.

Yawn.

Same old stuff from the same old guy. Hey, what can I say. Rainy day. Nanny has the kids. Wife is home sick. The entertainment here is better than what's on cable. 😛

Your other comment shows how desperate you are to rewrite history and facts to suit your needs. Arbitration is not the MAIN method of integration. Not for this or any other dispute, inside or outside this industry. Step #1: NEGOTIATE. Step #2: MEDIATE. Step #3: ARBITRATE. That you chose to skip over #1 and #2, and go all in for option #3 is your own doing. That blame lies squarely at your (the east pilots) feet and no one elses. Leave it to you to sidestep responsibility and accountability for your collective choices. I expect nothing less from you. Keep clicking your heels Dorothy. Your fate rests with the courts, not some magical wizard. (And unfortunately for you, you are on the wrong side of the law.)

And for the record, I never imposed any exile. I choose (as did many others) not to respond to most of the flame bait around here, which is all that really comes from most of the windbags of the east, since endlessly flapping your lips about the same old garbage doesn't serve any purpose except to keep your dream alive. Every once in a while there's some misinformation worth correcting. Beyond that, your blabber is irrelevant and inconsequential. Have a nice day anyway. 😉

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG83596C_GY

Really follow his lead! become members and join the process!

 

[Bear96]

Correct this ABC news article then.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=10829399

Sorry, but what is it that needs to be corrected?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

HATE, can I borrow your FLYSWATTER, next thing ya know maggots will be showing up! MM!

 

[Bear96]

BEAR, you should call ALPA and tell them that too, because if you look at ALPA's filing in the NAUGLER v ALPA then all those boys made the same mistake! MM!

Could you elaborate?

All I am aware of is an argument as to whether a case is ripe, not anything about DFR or the Nic list.

But I have not been following that case too closely, so if you are saying that in Naugle ALPA is agreeing with the East about the Nic list or DFR issues, I must have missed it, so please cite to what you are referring.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Yawn.

Same old stuff from the same old guy. Hey, what can I say. Rainy day. Nanny has the kids. Wife is home sick. The entertainment here is better than what's on cable. 😛

Your other comment shows how desperate you are to rewrite history and facts to suit your needs. Arbitration is not the MAIN method of integration. Not for this or any other dispute, inside or outside this industry. Step #1: NEGOTIATE. Step #2: MEDIATE. Step #3: ARBITRATE. That you chose to skip over #1 and #2, and go all in for option #3 is your own doing. That blame lies squarely at your (the east pilots) feet and no one elses. Leave it to you to sidestep responsibility and accountability for your collective choices. I expect nothing less from you. Keep clicking your heels Dorothy. Your fate rests with the courts, not some magical wizard. (And unfortunately for you, you are on the wrong side of the law.)

And for the record, I never imposed any exile. I choose (as did many others) not to respond to most of the flame bait around here, which is all that really comes from most of the windbags of the east, since endlessly flapping your lips about the same old garbage doesn't serve any purpose except to keep your dream alive. Every once in a while there's some misinformation worth correcting. Beyond that, your blabber is irrelevant and inconsequential. Have a nice day anyway. 😉

The dream is more than alive. It actually materialized the day ALPA was booted from this property.

As for the law, You're sadly mistaken. You'll see that soon enough.

 

[Bear96]

Why can't you folks grasp the difference betwwen a "ripe" case and a "winning" case? Just because an issue becomes "ripe' does not mean that you will prevail on the issue.

Yes, and of course we have no idea how it will play out if/when it becomes ripe and goes back to the District Court. 🙄

If only there was some indication of how the District Court may rule on the DFR issue . . .

 

[cleardirect]

Could you elaborate?

All I am aware of is an argument as to whether a case is ripe, not anything about DFR or the Nic list.

But I have not been following that case too closely, so if you are saying that in Naugle ALPA is agreeing with the East about the Nic list or DFR issues, I must have missed it, so please cite to what you are referring.

This is how usapa spun a footnote in a filing to dismiss a DFR case against ALPA.

Interestingly enough, ALPA has moved for summary judgment, and its current leading argument is that the case is not ripe for adjudication. ALPA, in furtherance of its ripeness argument, cites the Ninth Circuit’s Addington decision to support its assertion that "implementation of a CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR." The importance of this admission cannot be overlooked. ALPA, the Union whose internal merger policy created the Nicolau Award, has now recognized in a federal court filing that not only is USAPA free to bargain towards a single CBA without Nicolau, but the non-inclusion of Nicolau in any future CBA does not automatically constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation.

This is the footnote.

10 The court in Addington noted that “[a]dditionally, USAPA's final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award,” and thus the implementation of a CBA that does not include the Arbitration Board’s merged list would not necessarily be a breach of USAPA’s DFR.
2010 WL 2220058 at *5.

As you can see what ALPA said was that it may not necessarily be a DFR. You never know until you go to trial. What ALPA did not was that it would definitely NOT be a DFR either. This footnote from a group that defends DFR case all of the time. They are never going to admit that even the most clear cut DFR is a DFR. But between Seham and the spin masters at usapa the east masses believe.

As I said earlier this case has sat since July 2 with not action from the judge on the summary judgement.

 

[Bear96]

Thanks, Clear.

So ALPA is accurately citing relevant Ninth Circuit binding precedent in a case in the Ninth Circuit concerning ripeness (as it is ethically required to do), and USAPA is spinning it as an admission from ALPA that USAPA is right on the DFR merits in Addington?

Too funny.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

This is how usapa spun a footnote in a filing to dismiss a DFR case against ALPA.



This is the footnote.


As you can see what ALPA said was that it may not necessarily be a DFR. You never know until you go to trial. What ALPA did not was that it would definitely NOT be a DFR either. This footnote from a group that defends DFR case all of the time. They are never going to admit that even the most clear cut DFR is a DFR. But between Seham and the spin masters at usapa the east masses believe.

As I said earlier this case has sat since July 2 with not action from the judge on the summary judgement.

Actually I think you missed some of it where it talks about the T/A! MM!

 

[Hate2fly]

America West Airlines Inc, et al. · 10-K · For 12/31/04
Filed On 3/14/05 9:54pm ET · SEC Files 0-12337, 1-12649 · Accession Number 950153-5-517

America West Airlines Inc, et al. · 10-K · For 12/31/04...2004, however, extremely high jet fuel prices ...had previously operated profitably, including AWA...we anticipate significant losses for full year 2005.

During 2004, however, extremely high jet fuel prices and excessive capacity throughout the domestic air system began to negatively impact all airlines including the low cost segment of the airline industry as well and several low cost carriers that had previously operated profitably, including AWA, experienced declining earnings.
This, along with increased fuel burn due to increased flying during 2004, resulted in a 48.1% increase in fuel expenses in 2004 over 2003.
In spite of our diligent work to contain our costs, we believe revenues will continue to reflect the excess capacity that exists across the domestic system and fuel prices will remain at, or exceed, record highs. Given these conditions, we anticipate significant losses for full year 2005.

The revenue environment during 2004 remained challenging

In spite of these initiatives, during 2004, we experienced increased low cost carrier (LCC) competition and increased legacy carrier competition, and the results of these two factors can be seen in our unit revenue performance relative to the industry during 2004.

We continue to face considerable challenges in 2005, including competing with legacy carriers that, through a variety of restructuring mechanisms, have reduced labor wages, extended debt maturities and lowered their overall cost per available seat mile. These actions could cause AWA’s cost advantage to diminish. In addition, recent fare initiatives by the major carriers may also cause a reduction in revenue per available seat mile.

Our credit ratings are relatively low, with Moody’s assessment of AWA’s senior implied rating and senior unsecured debt rating at B3 and Caa2, respectively, Standard & Poor’s assessment of AWA’s and Holdings’ corporate credit ratings at B- and AWA’s senior unsecured rating at CCC and Fitch Ratings’ assessment of AWA’s long-term and unsecured debt rating at CCC. In addition, Standard & Poor’s recently placed AWA’s aircraft debt on CreditWatch with negative implications as part of a broader review of aircraft-backed debt. Low credit ratings could cause our borrowing costs to increase, which would increase our interest expense and could affect our net income and our credit ratings could adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing.

If our financial performance or industry conditions do not improve, we may face future downgrades, which could further negatively impact our borrowing costs and the prices of our equity or debt securities. In addition, any downgrade of our credit ratings may indicate a decline in our business and in our ability to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness. See Risk Factors Relating to the Company and Industry Related Risks. Because of our relatively low credit ratings, our borrowing costs may be high and our ability to incur additional debt may be impaired.”

PlaneDeal061005_Without the merger, America West.....with fuel prices high and industry capacity in excess, we (like most of our industry) could also face bankruptcy if those fundamentals don’t change.

Q: Why not let US Airways just tank and go belly up? That way there is no bothering with seniority integration or bickering about the way that their employees are being paid more to do the same jobs than we are.
A: The proposed merger is about making our company stronger and bringing in the kinds of assets - gates, slots, and aircraft that allow us to grow our network instantly. Yes, a merger comes with tremendous challenges, including the task of integrating seniority lists. But, we believe that this merger is in the best interests of employees, shareholders and travelers. Without the merger, America West will continue as it has; however, we have to consider the long-term viability of our company and, with fuel prices high and industry capacity in excess, we (like most of our industry) could also face bankruptcy if those fundamentals don’t change.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Thanks, Clear.

So ALPA is accurately citing relevant Ninth Circuit binding precedent in a case in the Ninth Circuit (as it is ethically required to do), and USAPA is spinning it as an admission from ALPA that USAPA is right on the DFR merits in Addington?

Too funny.

What is even funnier is your drawn conclusions after not looking at the whole filing, to your own admission, maybe you should have kept your f/A job at UA! MM!

 

[767jetz]

NO! REALLY!? Thanks for making that clear, could you get some west pilots to understand that? They seem to think that they are entitled to continue on the trajectory of May 19, 2005.

This is where we REALLY disagree. The east are the ones who want to continue on some trajectory from a point in the past when times were good (or at least better) rather than accept the precarious position they were in at the time. East f/o's and furloughees who were once captains think they have some pre-ordained right to recapture that trajectory based on their age and when they started their career at an airline that no longer exists except in name. They do not. Nor does the west.

I don't think any west pilot expects there to continue to be 2 and 3 and 4 year upgrades. They don't want to continue on some trajectory. They do not want to lose, nor should they lose, those upgrades or their relative position they attained up until that point, just because some on the east believe they did not earn it. They most certainly did earn it. At THEIR old company. Just like the east earned (or lost) what they had at YOUR old company.

The west (and the the nic award) seek to preserve what was actually there on the day of the merger, not some prediction of what might have been, should have been, once was, or could have been. It doesn't look to pick a point in the future, retirement in your example, and create some predetermined progression as you are suggesting. It does not look to see how long it took each side to get where they were. The west and the east are entitled to be placed in the same boat (or life raft if you prefer) at a place they were at the time LCC was created to rise and fall with the future tide together. It is simplicity at it's best. Junior pilots remain junior pilots of a bigger whole. Mid pilots remain mid pilots of a bigger whole. Senior pilots remain senior pilots of a bigger whole. Nic went even further to try to protect the most senior east pilots, as well as give a very fair (based on actual attrition from the left seat) 2/3 of upgrades to the east. And remember that until arbitration this was all open to negotiation. The east made no attempt to proffer any ideas, and left the arbitrator to come up with a solution on his own. It's not his job to merge both sides ideas. It's his job to come up with what he determines to be fair. Absent ideas from the east except "we're all in," you got what you got. The rest that the east complain about with regard to moving flying around, closing bases, bidding to new domiciles, growth aircraft, are all a product of merging two airlines.

That the award is so problematic for the east is not a matter of fairness or morality. It is a matter of pre determined expectations, which some would call entitlement. It's this "our way or the highway" that got the east into this mess in the first place. And decisions made since have limited your legal options, absent someone's capitulation. As you said, there may not be a solution you find acceptable. But a solution will eventually be determined and enforced one way or the other. The question is at what cost? That can only be answered by each pilot, east and west. Some here like to say it's the best money spent (or money lost wrt LOA 93). That's fine. That's your right. As long as you all realize that there COULD be some consequences down the road, financially and legally. And as long as you all don't expect the west to just roll over and give up by dragging things on forever. Just as the east claims to be OK with it, so does the west. The insults, tantrums, and flam bait on this forum (for those who partake) changes none of that.

 

[cleardirect]

Actually I think you missed some of it where it talks about the T/A! MM!

I was quoting the usapa update. So it they "missed" anything about the T/A talk to them.

Anything else you want to spout off about that you don't know what you are talking about?

 

[Bear96]

What is even funnier is your drawn conclusions after not looking at the whole filing[.]

Fair enough, and as I said above, if you are saying that in Naugle ALPA is agreeing with the East about the Nic list or DFR issues in Addington, please cite to what you are referring. Because from what Clear posted, I do not see that. All I see is ALPA citing current Ninth Circuit precedent regarding ripeness.