US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Reed Richards]

There are only two plausible reasons that the company might actually accept this NAC proposal (if it really exists at all.)

1. There is a merger coming in the near future, and the process is stilted by Tempe's inability to get the last merger completed. They need a contract to finally make the airline one airline, not two. (This is unlikely, IMHO.)

2. Kasher ruled in favor of the pilots, and the company needs the new contract to bring east pay down to earth from what LOA 84 pay rates would be. (This is more plausible.)

If Kasher has completed his work, or has at least gotten past the executive committee step, then ethically he should publish the award. There is no reason he should sit on it any longer.

3. We probably lost the whole enchilada, and the Company sees the smashed expectations of our pilots as an opportunity to scoot in with some lower rates of pay, and maybe some Trojan Horse scope changes, maybe even PBS (nooooooo!)

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

You tell lies. You just absolutely lied.

I'll give you one chance to apologize before showing you how stupid you are. I've posted the quotes from the majority opinion before and will be happy to demonstrate your ignorance once again.

Jim

 

[luvn737s]

then ethically he should publish the award.

Say "ethically" again. It sounds so funny when you say it.

 

[Rookie Jr]

The court already decided. If Silver gets involved with an INTERNAL UNION issue, it will go right to the 9th again. And we all know how that turned out. The Desert Judge got SPANKED by the young clerks!

"http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/06/04/09-16564.pdf.

I guess you don't have a clue what the DJ case is about either. Judge Silver won't be getting involved in an "internal union issue". She will just be telling the company whether it can reneg on an agreement with impunity. We'll see how that goes Dec. 1.

Keep spinning, Swan. Fun to watch.

PS: My wife teaches 2nd grade. Perhaps she can help you with your reading skills.

 

[Black Swan]

I'll give you one chance to apologize before showing you how stupid you are. I've posted the quotes from the majority opinion before and will be happy to demonstrate your ignorance once again.

Jim

Say it ain't so Joe!

My counter to ANYTHING YOU SAY.

The 9th, one more time COACH!


[8] Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, 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.3

Like Wake, this has become a sad hobby for Boeing Boy.

 

[Black Swan]

There are only two plausible reasons that the company might actually accept this NAC proposal (if it really exists at all.)

1. There is a merger coming in the near future, and the process is stilted by Tempe's inability to get the last merger completed. They need a contract to finally make the airline one airline, not two. (This is unlikely, IMHO.)

2. Kasher ruled in favor of the pilots, and the company needs the new contract to bring east pay down to earth from what LOA 84 pay rates would be. (This is more plausible.)

If Kasher has completed his work, or has at least gotten past the executive committee step, then ethically he should publish the award. There is no reason he should sit on it any longer.

Kasher is coming, and it is going to put all of this to rest. He is quite the author, be patient. 😀

 

[luvn737s]

"PROJECT ZANZIBAR"

You east folks have a rare talent for holding onto straws, I'll have to give you that.

Intelligence, honor, integrity - not so much.

 

[Rookie Jr]

There are only two plausible reasons that the company might actually accept this NAC proposal (if it really exists at all.)

1. There is a merger coming in the near future, and the process is stilted by Tempe's inability to get the last merger completed. They need a contract to finally make the airline one airline, not two. (This is unlikely, IMHO.)

2. Kasher ruled in favor of the pilots, and the company needs the new contract to bring east pay down to earth from what LOA 84 pay rates would be. (This is more plausible.)

If Kasher has completed his work, or has at least gotten past the executive committee step, then ethically he should publish the award. There is no reason he should sit on it any longer.

Number 1 is most likely.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Kasher is coming, and it is going to put all of this to rest. He is quite the author, be patient. 😀

"Be patient," you say?

17 months since the close of evidence submission, and we're supposed to "be patient"?

Really???? You actually said that????

 

[Rookie Jr]

I'll give you one chance to apologize before showing you how stupid you are. I've posted the quotes from the majority opinion before and will be happy to demonstrate your ignorance once again.

Jim

Don't waste your time, Jim. Swan's not worth it. Not interested in facts. Just spews maniacal absurdity and claims it to be fact. He then calls those with truth and facts liars because he has no other defense against his own stupidity.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You insisted on being stupid so here it is - from the majority opinion:

"Five months after certification, USAPA presented a seniority proposal to the airline. The proposal incorporated date-ofhire principles. Although the proposal contained some protections for West Pilots, it was not nearly as favorable to West Pilots as the Nicolau Award. The airline had not yet responded to the proposal when the district court entered its permanent injunction."

"We conclude that this case presents contingencies that could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the accompanying injury."

So there you have it. The 9th said that USAPA's proposal "was not nearly as favorable to West pilots" as the Nic, and that USAPA's proposal if in the contract would cause that "accompanying injury".

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

Comparing west pilots to pedohpiles won't get you far either. We'll leave that (upskirt) little ditty to you easties.

Where did you get that? First of all, he was referring to BB, who is a former eastie. Then, he compared him to Joe P., and Joe was not accused of being a pedophile.

Let's drop the upskirt crap, okay?

 

[Rookie Jr]

"Be patient," you say?

17 months since the close of evidence submission, and we're supposed to "be patient"?

Really???? You actually said that????

Consider the source.

 

[BoeingBoy]

he was referring to BB, who is a former westie.

That explains why you automatically assume anything I say is wrong... The former pilot is confused.

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

You insisted on being stupid so here it is - from the majority opinion:

"Five months after certification, USAPA presented a seniority proposal to the airline. The proposal incorporated date-ofhire principles. Although the proposal contained some protections for West Pilots, it was not nearly as favorable to West Pilots as the Nicolau Award. The airline had not yet responded to the proposal when the district court entered its permanent injunction."

"We conclude that this case presents contingencies that could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the accompanying injury."

So there you have it. The 9th said that USAPA's proposal "was not nearly as favorable to West pilots" as the Nic, and that USAPA's proposal if in the contract would cause that "accompanying injury".

Jim

We have absolutely NOTHING other than the big COULD. I COULD shoot you, but I won't. USAPA COULD put out a proposal that gives Flight Attendants pilot seniority, but they won't. Judge Silver COULD rule USAPA has to reorder the seniority list by birthdate. COULD is NOT DOES as you imply. The bottom line. NO APOLOGY, your case is weak, at best. Then, the DFR case would have to go to court, and they would have to PROVE that the COULD became harm.
When COULD is replaced with DOES, you have a case. Dismissed

[8] Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, 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.3