US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Move2CLT]

You obviously never had a job that is entirely based on seniority rather than merit or you are completely ignorant of what ALPA let Nicolau do to their union.

Nicolau did exactly what was needed and the same thing the most recent mergers have done. relative seniority. DOH is an obsoleted way of merging groups, especially the east, as most were on furlough. The east wants to put a guy that was furloughed most of his time next to a guy that workeed continuously from the day he was hired.

Nope. No way. Relative seniority is the only way now.

 

[malikie]

Nicolau did exactly what was needed and the same thing the most recent mergers have done. relative seniority. DOH is an obsoleted way of merging groups, especially the east, as most were on furlough. The east wants to put a guy that was furloughed most of his time next to a guy that workeed continuously from the day he was hired.

Nope. No way. Relative seniority is the only way now.

Obsolete. That is the problem we have here. We took on a company that has not left the 80's. Their way of thinking, their computer systems, and their view of life. I deal with it everyday in the OCC.

 

[Move2CLT]

Ok, so if you believe everything DP says then the only thing holding him up is six west pilots. DP is afraid of six west pilots suing him and the company.
That is laughable. The company's law team could and would hamstring any lawsuit and draw it out to infinity and beyond.
If a new contract was negotiated without the Nic list and passed the membership referendum, IMHO the west vote could easily be measured.
If a majority of the west voted for the contract, what complaint would the six plaintiffs have that would prevail in court?
Six guys. Come on, DP. Let's get realistic. The east and west are enhancing the profitability of the company and management would like that to continue for as long as possible.
Cheers.

Six guys? You really think it's going to be six guys? Find a lawyer and ask him how all this works.

And a new contract won't work if an injunction prevents you from implementing it. Look, we've put your whole DOH on ice for years now and you haven't taken any steps forward. A contract without Nic would make the next DFR "unquestionably ripe". Parker understands that.

And you guys rare the ones enhancing profitability to the tune of $7.5M a week. That and you make my profit sharing check a little bigger.

 

[Move2CLT]

Obsolete. That is the problem we have here. We took on a company that has not left the 80's. Their way of thinking, their computer systems, and their view of life. I deal with it everyday in the OCC.

We also have a union that thinks it could pull an 80's style work action against the company and get away with it. I deal with that every day.

 

[88 B.T.D.]

......... A contract with Nic would make the next DFR "unquestionably ripe". Parker understands that.

Wow, I actually agree with you, because this will go against the union c and b.

 

[malikie]

We also have a union that thinks it could pull an 80's style work action against the company and get away with it. I deal with that every day.

And this will be the problem going forward. You have workgroups that have no orriginal thought and only dream of how things were done in the past will never be able to moved forward.

 

[BoeingBoy]

A contract with Nic would make the next DFR "unquestionably ripe".

PullUp has obviously forgotten that those 6 are only a small fraction of the class approved by the court. They are the named plaintiffs, not the entire group of plaintiffs.

And in the above quote, I think you meant "without Nic"...

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

Wow, I actually agree with you, because this will go against the union c and b.

Thanks for the catch. Good to know you easties peruse my posts.

BTW, Federal law trumps your little union rule book. An suit against the Nic based on a violation of your C&Rs would be quickly laughed out of court.

 

[nic4us]

The following was taken from an old USAPA mailing in the late summer
of 2007. I had to dig it up to find the relevant items. No, there was
no alleged “boinking” going on at that time. But that is a funny word, sounds like what it means. Here you go:


The legal advice that USPA has had regarding the basis of our claim
that a private arbitration award can be set aside or revisited via
negotiations with the company has been verified by all four law firms
we interviewed. Even two ALPA attorneys agreed.

1. Willig Williams and Davidson of Philadelphia

2. Buchannan Ingersoll and Rooney of Harrisburg, PA – A national labor
firm, management oriented-specializing in the Railroad industry.

3. Duane Morris LLP – of Philadelphia

4. Seham Seham Meltz and Petersen – White Plains NY


5. In two instances ALPA attorney’s substantiated USAPA’s claims. In
Dec 2007 at the 4Q MEC meeting in PIT, Marshall Rogers, CLT captain
Rep, asked USAir ALPA attorney Jeff Small the question. In Jan 2008 at
a meeting in DC, Marshall asked the same question to outside hired
counsel Roland Wilder. In both cases the answer was the same. The Nic
was a product of "ALPA policy" and not binding on another union.
Another union could put in place whatever they felt was appropriate
(within bounds of DFR).

RR,

The relevant factor is that 3 firms, and particularly the ALPA lawyers were assuming you would have all the parties to the arbitration to negotiate a different solution.

Also, that within bounds of DFR is where all the friction lies. I would venture to say that all the law firms except SSM&P (aka..the union busters) would have told Bradford and Marshall, that their plan failed to pass the DFR litmus test. Oh, wait, one firm did, and it was pretty damaging evidence in Addington.

Further, you now have the warnings from 4 federal judges.


Here is the bottom line. The arbitration is not going away. The Nic is the only accepted system seniority list at LCC. Since the West is unwilling and unable to negotiate any compromise, usapa is completely powerless to even get a non-Nic ratified and lose their "unquestionably ripe DFR".

Seriously, I suggest you go ask any of the above listed attorneys to restate their position in the present context. All will tell you the exact same thing the 9th did. usapa is free to negotiate the contract, and the West is free to sue once the contract is ratified. How many will then tell you the West chances of winning a DFR for a non-Nic DOH contract are about 100%, being that AOL already has a jury verdict and a 9th circuit admonishment of usapa to reference, would be the telling factor of who wants to milk you for money while you lose that "unquestionably ripe DFR".

 

[Move2CLT]

PullUp has obviously forgotten that those 6 are only a small fraction of the class approved by the court. They are the named plaintiffs, not the entire group of plaintiffs.

And in the above quote, I think you meant "without Nic"...

Jim

Yep. Thanks. 88 jumped right on it.

 

[nevergiveup]

Nicolau did exactly what was needed and the same thing the most recent mergers have done. relative seniority. DOH is an obsoleted way of merging groups, especially the east, as most were on furlough. The east wants to put a guy that was furloughed most of his time next to a guy that workeed continuously from the day he was hired.

Nope. No way. Relative seniority is the only way now.

DOH....no restrictions! (I want to live in AZ!)

 

[nic4us]

Ok, so if you believe everything DP says then the only thing holding him up is six west pilots. DP is afraid of six west pilots suing him and the company.
That is laughable. The company's law team could and would hamstring any lawsuit and draw it out to infinity and beyond.
If a new contract was negotiated without the Nic list and passed the membership referendum, IMHO the west vote could easily be measured.
If a majority of the west voted for the contract, what complaint would the six plaintiffs have that would prevail in court?
Six guys. Come on, DP. Let's get realistic. The east and west are enhancing the profitability of the company and management would like that to continue for as long as possible.
Cheers.

It does not take 6 West pilots, it only takes one. Now I estimate there are at least 1200 west pilots willing to sue for any non-Nic, but again it only takes one, and I will state for sure, I am at least that one.

So, you know for sure, there will be a suit, and it is highly likely that an accompanying injunction would bar the implementation of a non-Nic contract. So, you do not get the contract until any future suit runs its course, and then, most likely, you do not get that contract, when it is shown to violate the DFR.

This was all explained before, and in the DJ. Getting a membership to pass a non-Nic, does not get anybody to a new contract.


As an aside, I believe much of what Parker says, but, I hear it very differently from how you do. For instance, Parker says, "we want a joint contract", the east (at least the guy in the CLT crewnews) says ..oh..BS..they want to keep the infighting going and maintain the seperate ops cost advantage. I on the other hand believe him and hear they do indeed want a joint contract,,,,one that has a 25% cost advantage over the competition, eliminates the West LTD, the easts COC language, and completes the merger so they can go about making future decisions.

 

[nic4us]

DOH....no restrictions! (I want to live in AZ!)

Nothing keeping you from moving to the great state of Arizona.

Hey, our centenial is just around the corner, only 100 years as a state. Same time frame as usapa's DOH plan.

PS. you can take my slot in PHX when I go bid the 330 to keep Cleary and Theur in line.

Nic rules!!!!

 

[88 B.T.D.]

..... I on the other hand believe him and hear they do indeed want a joint contract,,,,one that has a 25% cost advantage over the competition, eliminates the West LTD, the easts COC language, and completes the merger so they can go about making future decisions.

And no min fleet or block hours. And if we vote for giving up more than one of these without compensation in the other areas then shame on us, both sides.

 

[aquagreen73s]

PullUp has obviously forgotten that those 6 are only a small fraction of the class approved by the court. They are the named plaintiffs, not the entire group of plaintiffs.

And in the above quote, I think you meant "without Nic"...

Jim

Willful blindness seems to be a trademark of the East. Not all, but unfortunately too many.

And no min fleet or block hours. And if we vote for giving up more than one of these without compensation in the other areas then shame on us, both sides.

From the start this has been Parker's problem, not the pilots'. It's very unfortunate that too many on the East jumped on the "Let's get the West" bandwagon cry of Steve Bradford instead of making Parker fix it with money. Now the Bradford strategy has become a cult on the East, and the cultists are driving (really, already have driven) USAPA off a cliff.