US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Move2CLT]

Ripeness does not equal guilt.

RR

But the merits of the case do.

 

[Move2CLT]

One more star to add to the kaleidoscope for a future DFR (if the 9th really means anything) will be a ratification vote in the rear view mirror.

And an injunction preventing implementation of the new contract.

 

[Move2CLT]

Sorry, 25th floor. The one they will be jumping from when Kasher comes calling. The western unit will be in full panic!

Only nine floors in Tempe sport.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Only nine floors in Tempe sport.

Yeah, Parker & Kirby would never have an office that high up. To afraid someone would throw them out the window.

 

[Phoenix]

And an injunction preventing implementation of the new contract.

The whole contract or just the parts that can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that they are wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Of course what the 9th did not do is important (they found no harm), but what is more important is what they DID DO. Specifically two things,

1. They left USAPA to bargain with the company to establish a final product...

"We leave USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR," with the interests of all members in mind.

and 2. They provided a reference to the SCOTUS standard by which the final product will be judged for fairness.

[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reason- ableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’

Whatever one may think of Seham, those two facts alone are worth every penny he received (oh and the fact that the West likes to badmouth him makes it even better ).

1. And this good faith bargaining is controlled by the language of the Transition Agreement. The majority opinion at the Ninth conveniently failed to comprehend the terms contained in the TA. Instead they kicked the can down the street rather than providing a remedy to the dispute between the parties.

Wake, Bybee, Management and now Silver have all comprehended the impact the TA has on USAPA's "bargaining in good faith pursuant to its DFR".

2. The "wide range of reasonableness" provision has never been tested by any court against a Transition Agreement which was signed by all parties or their agents, and which provides the SLI steps in clear and unambiguous language. The existence of the TA mitigates the scope of any range of reasonableness down to a narrow and pre-defined process: negotiate-mediate-arbitrate. Therefore a process of negotiate-mediate-arbitrate-renege-redo fails this pre-agreed standard of reasonableness.

Where is $eham these days? have you seen him in CLT? Has he filed any documents with the multiple courts USAPA is now a litigant in lately? He lucked into two liberal judges on the most liberal court of appeals in the nation and found them to be favorable to the plight and seedy practices of a labor union. Yes, that is a shockingly good return on investment.

The next test of your theory will either come out of the district court in NY or in PHX. If the NY matter is dismissed of if USAPA loses its status quo claim, then we will have yet another court that agrees that the Ninth did not resolve the SLI issues as you claim. Likewise the rulings out of Silver's court will very likely affirm that USAPA is not free to negotiate a seniority list that has already been determined by the TA. It may still take a few more years to sort out, but you can be certain in the mean time that Management will not accept USAPA's new list unless a court gives them no other choice. I would give that outcome a probability of something very close to zero.

 

[A320 Driver]

Wake, Bybee, Management and now Silver have all comprehended the impact the TA has on USAPA's "bargaining in good faith pursuant to its DFR".

2. The "wide range of reasonableness" provision has never been tested by any court against a Transition Agreement which was signed by all parties or their agents, and which provides the SLI steps in clear and unambiguous language. The existence of the TA mitigates the scope of any range of reasonableness down to a narrow and pre-defined process: negotiate-mediate-arbitrate. Therefore a process of negotiate-mediate-arbitrate-renege-redo fails this pre-agreed standard of reasonableness.

The only one of those 4 entities mentioned that even matters is Silver. The balance of your post is nothing more than your opinion...a guess. The 9th fooled you once. It could happen again.

Driver B)

 

[nic4us]

Judge Wake (and I heard even the Addington Plaintiffs) stated pre trial that USAPA was not delaying negotiations (thus your supposedly delayed "vote.") That particular argument was rendered moot early on.

But I always say that trial never happened. Guess I better stick to my own logic.

Good luck to you on round two. Remember, the T'way guys are now at the 10 year mark in their DFR quest. And they actually have a good case!

RR

1. The TWA suit was against ALPA. Any future DFR at LCC would be against both usapa and LCC. Huge difference, and the West pilot class has a better case than the TWA pilots.

2. Actually BB is wrong. usapa could get a 100% ratification vote for a non-Nic contract and still get sued. There are some 500 or so objector challengers who would not be participating in usapa's seniority theft vote, who, usapa still owes a DFR.

3. The SCOTUS definition of "outside of reasonableness" is the very thing usapa attempts. "irrational or ARBITRARY".

ar·bi·trar·y [ rbə trèrree ]

: based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles

In our case DOH is the very definition of ARBITRARY. The east "wishes" to renege on a binding arbitration, because their personal "feelings" are that the Nic is unfair, regardless of the objective facts of our case, the reason for its creation or the industry principles that led to its creation.

 

[CallawayGolf]

The only one of those 4 entities mentioned that even matters is Silver. The balance of your post is nothing more than your opinion...a guess. The 9th fooled you once. It could happen again.

Driver B)

Well at least my opinions/guesses have some reasonable thought behind them. $eham, Cleary and most USAPA supporters on this board seem to think the Ninth cleared up the SLI issues and left USAPA a clear path to submit it's own list. Management is so convinced that this did not happen (made worse by the Ninth's actually) that they filled a DJ to gain legal clarification and remedies to move the process towards a resolution. USAPA is so convinced otherwise (or are just acting on Cleary's narcissistic irrationality) that they have actually claimed the Company has violated the status quo by failing to accept a change to the NIC. Both of these courts can be used to ascertain the strength of USAPA's interpretation of what the majority on the Ninth have said. Wake's rulings will have an impact on future proceedings and already have in Silver's court. Bybee's dissenting opinion may not carry much weight, but Management most certainly does matter in this process.

The Ninth didn't fool me. You can go back an look at my post before their ruling. I very clearly said that the only shot USAPA had was on ripeness. My opinion was that the merits were rock solid but I could certainly understand that ripeness could be viewed through a variety of lenses and it might well result in a "win" for USAPA. A hollow and valueless win for the east, but it certainly pushed the JCBA out for many more years. To me Graber was the real wildcard in that process. She is a liberal but she also considers discrimination contemptible. Must have been a tough choice for her - support big labor which allowed her appointment to the bench or support the rights of a minority group against a majority that seeks to bring harm. I guess she decided not to bite the political hand that feeds her. Nothing shocking; just liberal politics plain and simple.

 

[nic4us]

The whole contract or just the parts that can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that they are wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ?

The entire contract would have an injunction against its implementation.

I would guess that any of the 4 judges that you dismiss as irrelevant would be willing to issue that injunction.

Are you aware that the company is seeking a declaratory judgement in federal court, because they are aware that any usapa negotiated seniority proposal ratified in a JCBA would render that JCBA unusable and moot, once barred by injunctive relief, and that same "ratified" JCBA would hang them on the hybrid DFR meathook with the scab union?

 

[A320 Driver]

The Ninth didn't fool me. You can go back an look at my post before their ruling. I very clearly said that the only shot USAPA had was on ripeness. My opinion was that the merits were rock solid but I could certainly understand that ripeness could be viewed through a variety of lenses and it might well result in a "win" for USAPA. A hollow and valueless win for the east, but it certainly pushed the JCBA out for many more years. To me Graber was the real wildcard in that process. She is a liberal but she also considers discrimination contemptible. Must have been a tough choice for her - support big labor which allowed her appointment to the bench or support the rights of a minority group against a majority that seeks to bring harm. I guess she decided not to bite the political hand that feeds her. Nothing shocking; just liberal politics plain and simple.

Don't forget Toto...

 

[aquagreen73s]

The entire contract would have an injunction against its implementation.

ala Bernard v. ALPA. Bybee said as much would happen and hence the crux of his dissent is: why wait? The case is before the court now (then), the facts won't change, so Bybee was asking the other two, WTF? Why kick the can?

Bybee and Wake were right and Tashima and Graber were wrong, but whatever.

There will be no joint contract so long as USAPA insists on a non-Nicolau (and not just DOH...but anything that is not the Nicolau). It's the Nic or LOA93. Whenever you boys and girls on the East decide you want a raise off of RJ wages and Mesa workrules, let us know and we'll be behind you on the West.

 

[A320 Driver]

Bybee and Wake were right and Tashima and Graber were wrong, but whatever.

Who's ruling stands? So what happens if Silver makes a ruling that is contrary to the opinion of the 9th (Tashima and Graber)?

I bet I know...

Driver 😀

 

[aquagreen73s]

Who's ruling stands? So what happens if Silver makes a ruling that is contrary to the opinion of the 9th (Tashima and Graber)?

I bet I know...

Driver 😀

She can't, and she knows it. She said as much at the Feb 9th hearing. It's very clear that the West does not have a ripe claim until there is a ratified contract. Fine. The facts won't change and we'll do it again but next time, there won't be the benefit of a jury for the East. All $eham had to do was to confuse one juror and it would have been a mistrial. Instead, there was a unanimous verdict inside of two hours. The West needed 12 lay people to agree and God knows you never know who you're getting. One judge on the other hand is a whole different story. Even Tashima and Graber get it as to what the East is trying to do, which is why they plainly told USAPA to go back and bargain in good faith for all Airways pilots, otherwise the West will have a painfully ripe DFR. Reality is that he company isn't going to deal absent court immunity. Good luck getting that Parker. So the question becomes: why would Parker agree to give the East a payraise just so he can be a party to a painfully ripe DFR? Do you guys on the East seriously think you'll ever get anywhere? Do you guys have any clue why the company couched their dec action using "non-Nic" instead of DOH? I'll give you a hint: S22 is now an either/or proposition. DOH lite still goes to trial just as fast as DOH. Until this gets through the thicker skulls (not all, but still too many on the East), then you'll languish on LOA93. Those are the facts.

 

[Hate2fly]

ala Bernard v. ALPA. Bybee said as much would happen and hence the crux of his dissent is: why wait? The case is before the court now (then), the facts won't change, so Bybee was asking the other two, WTF? Why kick the can?

Bybee and Wake were right and Tashima and Graber were wrong, but whatever.

There will be no joint contract so long as USAPA insists on a non-Nicolau (and not just DOH...but anything that is not the Nicolau). It's the Nic or LOA93. Whenever you boys and girls on the East decide you want a raise off of RJ wages and Mesa workrules, let us know and we'll be behind you on the West.

Bybee and Wake are Bush Boys. Something that the Bush Boys never understood, is that they can't get inside of a labor unions negotiating process. Never going to happen and something Tashima and Graber fully understood! Aqua, your world is about to rocked by the LOA 93 pay restoration. We told you how this was going to play out and you wouldn't listen. You always tell us to enjoy LOA93................you guys are going to wish you never made that statement.

Hate