US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

Yes, when you make a contract with someone you abide by the terms of the contract.

How was it fair to make guys who could not hold Captain at PSA senior to Piedmont Captains?

You can beat your head and chest all you want. The law is not on your side. Sorry you don't like it. The 9th backs it. Keep reading.

 

[cleardirect]

[/u][/i]


Aqua, this is the issue that keeps confounding you. You need to get it straight, this is negotiating stuff, internal union mechanisms. You are trying to continue with the internal union proposal being case law, it is no such animal at all.It is truly amazing that one who purports to be an attorney, and a founder of Leonidas, can continue to pump misrepresentations of the facts, when you know them to be such.You are correct, it is difficult to overturn arbitrations. But arbitrations that are internal union mechanisms and proposals are not case law. Easily changed, as they are merely bargaining proposals, not resolutions. As we saw, the Nicolau was easily dropped, simply by voting in a new bargaining agent,(USAPA) and agreeing to a different mechanism of determining seniority. Once more, again, the 9th Court of Appeals decision.

["i]We note, as the district court recognized, 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. See Diss op. at 8021-22."[/i]

Nicolau was easily dropped? Really, Nicolau still seems to be around as it is cited in all of the legal cases.

What would that new "mechanism" for determining seniority be? Negotiating with the company? Because you can't negotiate with the west. Do you really want to involve or negotiate with the company for seniority? You think that you east pilots can negotiate with the company leaving west pilots out of the deal and not find yourselves in a DFR situation?

Tell us, how free was ALPA to abandon the Nicolau? If they could don't you think ALPA would have changed or abandoned it in order to save the property? Why didn't ALPA just abandon the Nicolau award?

 

[Black Swan]

Nicolau was easily dropped? Really, Nicolau still seems to be around as it is cited in all of the legal cases.

What would that new "mechanism" for determining seniority be? Negotiating with the company? Because you can't negotiate with the west. Do you really want to involve or negotiate with the company for seniority? You think that you east pilots can negotiate with the company leaving west pilots out of the deal and not find yourselves in a DFR situation?

Tell us, how free was ALPA to abandon the Nicolau? If they could don't you think ALPA would have changed or abandoned it in order to save the property? Why didn't ALPA just abandon the Nicolau award?

There are no West pilots according to you, unless you conviniently want to trot them out to make a point. There are merely USAirways Pilots, some of which are disgruntled and somehow managed to all get based in PHX. That group may be made up of pilots based in CLT or PHL in the future, and counter with a damage argument all their own. We shall see. There is no damage. Only a bargaining proposal that may not make the damage "plaintiffs fear...."

Why didn't ALPA abandon the Nicolau Award? Got me, but it cost them a lot of members and money. I guess they just didn't think we would leave would be my best answer.

 

[CallawayGolf]

[/u][/i]


Aqua, this is the issue that keeps confounding you. You need to get it straight, this is negotiating stuff, internal union mechanisms. You are trying to continue with the internal union proposal being case law, it is no such animal at all.It is truly amazing that one who purports to be an attorney, and a founder of Leonidas, can continue to pump misrepresentations of the facts, when you know them to be such.You are correct, it is difficult to overturn arbitrations. But arbitrations that are internal union mechanisms and proposals are not case law. Easily changed, as they are merely bargaining proposals, not resolutions. As we saw, the Nicolau was easily dropped, simply by voting in a new bargaining agent,(USAPA) and agreeing to a different mechanism of determining seniority. Once more, again, the 9th Court of Appeals decision.

["i]We note, as the district court recognized, 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. See Diss op. at 8021-22."[/i]

ALPA and USAPA were both equally free to abandon the Nicolau award based on the terms contained in the Transition Agreement. So whatever options ALPA merger policy may have offered and whatever course of action the Transition Agreement provided for abandonding binding arbitration is equally available to USAPA. Nothing more; nothing less. Doesn't it seem odd that the Ninth's majority opinion doesn't reference the Transition Agreement with the Company and the two pilot groups in this part of their opinion? This is the fatal flaw with using the Ninth's opinion on Ripeness to predict the outcome based on the merits. If they had listened to the claims made on the merits they wouldn't have missed the 800lb gorilla in the room known as the TA.

 

[cleardirect]

I am not referring to your DFR aspirations. That is not the issue here. The issue is you made a statement that there is case law that an arbitration cannot be overturned. I countered with the 9th ruling that clearly, made it obvious the Nicolau is merely a bargaining position, not binding. You keep coming back, with DFR arguments. I am obviously aware of the possibility of ANYONE being hurt by a seniority integration, not just the west. I am well aware, the 9th said the West may NOT actually be harmed as they fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau. So you may, or may not be harmed by the Nicolau not being used, as it clearly looks like it will not by USAPA. So we will all just wait to see what transpires in lets' see, 5-10 years. More from the 9th........


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 ulti-
mately is. Because these contingencies make the claim specu-
lative, the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.



It could not be any clearer, yet you, and your cohorts cannot get it. Not my fault you continue to chase shadows. I guarantee that Arizona Judge coming up gets it. If she doesn't? The 9th will make it painfully obvious what she HAS to do.

Maybe you will understand it this way. Arbitration is final and binding on people with the integrity to live up to their agreements. If one party decides that the rules don't apply social construct breaks down and it takes awhile to fix the outcast.

Do you think with their track record of following through with deals anyone is anxious to make a bargain with the Palestinians? They have a history of agreeing to “Final and binding” deals and walking away. If the west had known what dishonest and untrustworthy people you east pilots were we may have done things differently. But now we know what and who you are. We will let the federal government deal with you and your kind.

 

[mrbreeze]

Quite a fantasy. If you'd care to back any of it up with facts I'd be happpy to read them.



Well, you get points for one thing - east pilots voted for the LOA's during the two bankruptcies in an effort to keep their jobs. It's just a shame that all those concessions weren't enough to do that. The merger is what allowed you to continue having a job, and the expectations that you have now grown so accustomed to that they'
re carved in stone for you. The expectations that you demand be fulfilled no matter what price the west pilots pay wouldn't exist without the merger.



And that's one of your biggest errors - you've "paid" for nothing in this merger. You've come to work under the contract the east pilots agreed to, nothing more. Yet you claim some big prize is due you for just doing your job under the terms and conditions you agreed to. I guess it's a good thing you're on LOA 93 - if you were getting LOA 84 pay, or God forbid parity +1%, you'd be demanding to be an A380 captain...

In early 2005 you and the rest of the easties were facing not having a job. Along came the merger and so far LCC is still in business. All I hear from the majority of easties is "gimme, gimme, gimme" at the expense of the westies.

Jim

There you go again, arguing for the sake of argument......with no dog in this fight, I would add.

Yes, the pay cuts came before the merger, but they did keep the company flying.....THANKS TO THE PILOTS STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE!

Management chose the merger route after the pay cuts were in play, which I am sure is the thing that attracted Doug Parker's attention. Had it not been for the low wages, the merger would have never happened.

Split hairs all you want....you are driving yourself nuts and always have in that area, but the bottom line is that the pilots invested in this airline. It's still there, just merged into a different corporation.

I do not for a second believe it is right for me to expect to take anything from the West pilots, however, I will fight to the last hour to protect the job that I have poured everything into.

Now.....I don't know your history, but I expect it is similar.......You chose and fought for your best route of escape. You probably left here with as much cash as possible, but never worked under LOA93. You and Capt Harry were busy on the ALPA boards. I will not say that you encouraged the LOA93 vote, because I am not sure on that. I flew with Capt Harry just 2 weeks after LOA93 was voted in. He was quite the salesman for LOA93 and did all he could to sell it to the pilots. When I flew with him, he couln't help but brag about how he was all set up for his retirement in just 3 weeks, now that LOA93 was passed. Talk about throwing people under the bus. As for you, I doubt you suffered much from the paycuts and the disaster callled LOA93....so don't judge the rest of us when you haven't walked that road. Whether we voted for or against LOA93, we are stuck with it and it did keep us flying and attracted a merger partner.

breeze

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Boy, you faired better than I did. I went back 1641 numbers and 23%... and I was a blockholding B727 Captain. And after USAir shuffled the time around the bases to neutralize the conditions and restrictions, I was barely able to hold 737 Reserve Captain in my own domicile.

I think this is what is feared most about straight DOH. No matter what conditions and restrictions are put on it, there is always some way around them. I mean, what PSA Captain had widebodies in his career expectations? But in no time they held a good number of the Captain positions on former Piedmont 767s. USAir even went so far at one point as to cancel an order for Piedmont 767s and re-order them. It took them out of play for the Kagel C & Rs. I can't prove that is why it was done, but that was the result. I think many of the West pilots fear losing what they have. I understand it because I lived it. Many of the USAir pilots placed senior to me had never held a Captain position.

The AAA merger committee had a reasonable plan. I saw it, looked at the charts and graphs and asked many questions about it. All the work they put into it and then were not allowed to use it. It was the closest thing to middle ground I can think of. The NIC is not an answer, but it might get shoved down our throats by the courts. Straight DOH isn't really an answer either, IMO.

I'm just saying...it's a matter of perspective.

Driver B)

Is that AAA merger comimittee plan you refer to floating around anywhere where a west guy could see it? It's all water under the bridge now, but my curiousity is piqued. I know I've seen you reference it before.

I figure the conditions and restrictions usapa has in mind would remove me of my captain seat, which I held before the merger, in short order as the ebb and flow of the airline takes place. Kind of like you just described. I think usapa's conditions and restrictions were developed with that history in mind, if you know what I mean? And of course the way usapa is going about it is a whole nother story as well, which I'll leave alone here.

What makes me curious about that old AAA merger committee plan is that I wonder if it would have worked under different circumstances, ie. either as it was or if Nicolau had seen enough in there to influence his thinking and came out with something other than the nic as we know it. It's purely academic anyhow, intervening evenst we are all so painfully aware of made it so. I've heard the legend, I can't help but wonder what the committee had in mind before their hands were 'tied.'

 

[Black Swan]

Nicolau was easily dropped? Really, Nicolau still seems to be around as it is cited in all of the legal cases.

What would that new "mechanism" for determining seniority be? Negotiating with the company? Because you can't negotiate with the west. Do you really want to involve or negotiate with the company for seniority? You think that you east pilots can negotiate with the company leaving west pilots out of the deal and not find yourselves in a DFR situation?

Tell us, how free was ALPA to abandon the Nicolau? If they could don't you think ALPA would have changed or abandoned it in order to save the property? Why didn't ALPA just abandon the Nicolau award?

Quote me one missive from the 9th that says the Nicolau must be used, any court, anywhere. Slave law is quoted also, every day in classrooms everywhere. Is it current law, is it enforcable?

 

[cleardirect]

Quote me one missive from the 9th that says the Nicolau must be used, any court, anywhere. Slave law is quoted also, every day in classrooms everywhere. Is it current law, is it enforcable?

If judge Silver tells the company they are liable to the west for using anything other than the Nicolau. What does the ninth have to do with it? The company would then have a choice. Use the arbitration or face a law suit.

BTW you east pilots said the case disappeared like it never happened. a legal nullity. If it is still being cited you think maybe it is not a legal nullity? If the Nicolau is gone why are east pilots still talking about compromise from the Nicolau?

 

[mikey60]

That's been explained numerous times.

Apologize.

Try again explain it instead of lying about it.

 

[Black Swan]

If judge Silver tells the company they are liable to the west for using anything other than the Nicolau. What does the ninth have to do with it? The company would then have a choice. Use the arbitration or face a law suit.

BTW you east pilots said the case disappeared like it never happened. a legal nullity. If it is still being cited you think maybe it is not a legal nullity? If the Nicolau is gone why are east pilots still talking about compromise from the Nicolau?

She isn't. This is just some strange situation you pose. Perhaps she tells the company aliens control the universe, and she has to use their laws. Give me a break. Give me a break about all the stupid ideas you pose about religion, right wing politics, etc. The cold hard reality is the Nic is simply a bargaining proposal that can be used or discarded. This time? Discarded. Sorry. Better luck next time you try to jump someones job in years you never served and cried foul. Give me a break. You are nothing but socialists. Move to Greece if you feel entitled. Check that situation out.

 

[Black Swan]

If judge Silver tells the company they are liable to the west for using anything other than the Nicolau. What does the ninth have to do with it? The company would then have a choice. Use the arbitration or face a law suit.

BTW you east pilots said the case disappeared like it never happened. a legal nullity. If it is still being cited you think maybe it is not a legal nullity? If the Nicolau is gone why are east pilots still talking about compromise from the Nicolau?

Here is some discussion on your referral to ancient law. Break out the Burhka.



South Carolina passed a new slave code in 1740, more commonly known as the "Negro Act." The code, which was passed in response to the Stono slave rebellion of 1739, remained largely unaltered until emancipation in 1865. The act also served as a model for the Georgia slave code of 1755. The new code further stripped enslaved blacks of any kind of protection under the law. Punishment for the murder of an enslaved person by a white, for example, was reduced to a mere misdemeanor punishable by a fine. Slaves could never physically attack a white person except in defense of the slaveholder’s life who owned them. They could be executed for plotting insurrection or conspiring to run away, burning a barrel of tar or a "stack of rice," or teaching another slave "the knowledge of any poisonous root, plant, [or] herb." Much of the Negro Act was devoted to controlling minute aspects of a slave’s life. For example, slaves were not allowed to dress in a way "above the condition of slaves." Their clothes could only be made from a list of approved coarse fabrics. Blacks were prohibited from learning how to read and write, and were not permitted to assemble with one another. Blacks in violation of these provisions were subject to flogging.

Criminal trials for enslaved blacks were often held in a local tavern or county store. The mixing of alcohol with the drama of a black defendant on trial often for his or her life created a bawdy and raucous atmosphere. One historian found that between the passage of the Negro Act of 1740 and the beginning of the American Revolution, at least 191 (and probably more) enslaved blacks received the death penalty for a criminal offense. Between 1750 and 1759, nearly 63 percent of the slaves executed were convicted of a violent crime against a white. Another 16 percent were convicted of a violent offense against a slave. Two blacks were convicted of a property crime (arson, burglary or theft), and only one enslaved black was found guilty of conspiring to revolt. Between 1800 and 1854, nearly 58 percent of the South Carolina enslaved blacks executed were convicted of a violent crime and 21 percent for a property offense. Another 21 percent were executed for insurrection, a result of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy of 1822. (If this event were not considered, the statistics for 19th century execution of enslaved persons closely mirror those for the 18th century.)


These were laws on the books in South Carolina. Cited. Do they still apply??

 

[crazystnic]

If judge Silver tells the company they are liable to the west for using anything other than the Nicolau. What does the ninth have to do with it? The company would then have a choice. Use the arbitration or face a law suit.

BTW you east pilots said the case disappeared like it never happened. a legal nullity. If it is still being cited you think maybe it is not a legal nullity? If the Nicolau is gone why are east pilots still talking about compromise from the Nicolau?

If Silver says we have to use the NIC we still have a vote on any contract...

 

[Black Swan]

ALPA and USAPA were both equally free to abandon the Nicolau award based on the terms contained in the Transition Agreement. So whatever options ALPA merger policy may have offered and whatever course of action the Transition Agreement provided for abandonding binding arbitration is equally available to USAPA. Nothing more; nothing less. Doesn't it seem odd that the Ninth's majority opinion doesn't reference the Transition Agreement with the Company and the two pilot groups in this part of their opinion? This is the fatal flaw with using the Ninth's opinion on Ripeness to predict the outcome based on the merits. If they had listened to the claims made on the merits they wouldn't have missed the 800lb gorilla in the room known as the TA.

Another truth twister who goes on the ripeness. The 9th said the Nicolau did not have to be used. Get it? Obviously you don't. Read it Callaway. The ripeness is an entirely different issue, and may never be the issue you crybabies think it is. This discussion had nothing to do with ripeness. No other group on this airline used anything other than date of hire, yet you think the AWA pilot troupe is so special, they will be harmed. Give me a break. Get in line and do it like EVERY other group here. There is no harm. It is only the West pilots who have an issue with this. They have no claim.

 

[crazystnic]

Another truth twister who goes on the ripeness. The 9th said the Nicolau did not have to be used. Get it? Obviously you don't. Read it Callaway. The ripeness is an entirely different issue, and may never be the issue you crybabies think it is. This discussion had nothing to do with ripeness. No other group on this airline used anything other than date of hire, yet you think the AWA pilot troupe is so special, they will be harmed. Give me a break. Get in line and do it like EVERY other group here. There is no harm. It is only the West pilots who have an issue with this. They have no claim.

bravo .. exactly right.