US Pilots Labor Discussion

[BoeingBoy]

You are saying a corporation CAN TELL A UNION how to negotiate seniority???

How many times have we heard that seniority is negotiable??? Are you saying that the company can't reject a union proposal??? Boy, talk about not fixing stupid...

Jim

 

[Black Swan]

How many times have we heard that seniority is negotiable??? Are you saying that the company can't reject a union proposal??? Boy, talk about not fixing stupid...

Jim

Let them reject one that is in line with a textbook case of Allegheny Mohawk. A standard of fair and equitable labor seniority order. Exactly what DOH is, just like EVERY other group on the property. Another labor law dilettante. They will end up in court for damage from that. You got that integration in your hiring, now you think it is unreasonable. Give me a break. If it was so unreasonable, you should have refused it.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Poor BS - always reaching for another straw. Is seniority negotiable or not??? If it's negotiable like anything else in the contract, what prevents the company from refusing to accept a union proposal?? It is only a proposal, after all - haven't we heard that ad nauseam about the ALPA proposal called Nic???

BTW, hiring is not the same as merging although you seem to be confusing the two.

Also remember what the 9th said about USAPA's proposal harming the west....

Jim

 

[Injunction junction]

So, in your poor understanding of labor relations, you think that stands? You are saying a corporation CAN TELL A UNION how to negotiate seniority??? This is what gets you and Leonidas in hot water over and over. You may be able to handle a simple divorce or personal injury case, but when you stick your nose into labor relations, you are clearly over your head. Right back to the 9th, which clearly understood RIPENESS when you took it too far and went ahead with damage before it happened, if it ever happened. Back to the analogy: Can you go to court to sue for damages in a car accident BEFORE it happens? just because you THINK it is going to happen? You tell me counselor. You obviously failed that part of law school, and your backup Jacobs did too. Unbelievable somebody didn't catch that big F up. The 2 MILLION F UP! Round 2, another MAJOR Leonidas misfire. Just because you live in a right to work state does not mean a company can meddle in an internal union issue and TELL it how to propose a seniority list just because they or you are afraid, or don't understand it. Just because you don't get that concept is totally fine with us, because it will just be another spank job. We will just wait for the NMB parachute team to suit up and get ready for another potential drop into an AZ courtroom gone mad.
I say again, just because your crackpot Wake didn't understand labor and how bargaining positions are just that, and the company or court CANNOT dictate internal union bargaining proposals doesn't mean the rest of us and the 9th don't get it. I guarantee you if Silver doesn't get it, she is going to the 9th just like the Desert Judge. This will be what comes , again.

CONCLUSION
[10] For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’
DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to
the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED.
No costs to either side.

Let me help you with something because you seem to think I am someone else. First I have forgotten more about labor relations and union politics than you will ever understand. I have no idea what AOL is doing but I can cast doubts on your statements of their being in hot water. I have yet to see any mis steps by their legal team and in fact seeing as how you are still on loa 93 and not under a doh integration I would have to say they must be doing something correct.

Now as for the company dictating seniority, you have once again failed to understand the very basic of principles and that is the seniority debate is over and done. The list was produced and you very successfully stalled the implementation. This is coming to its end as we get closer to the declaratory judgement and its findings. Like I tried to tell you countless times already, there is really but one question before the court and that is can LCC be held harmless against west litigation if it fails to honor its agreement as per the transition agreement.

I know you hope and wish but for those of us in the real world who deal everyday with reality, we leave the hopes and wishes to the children.

Injunction

 

[Injunction junction]

Let them reject one that is in line with a textbook case of Allegheny Mohawk. A standard of fair and equitable labor seniority order. Exactly what DOH is, just like EVERY other group on the property. Another labor law dilettante. They will end up in court for damage from that. You got that integration in your hiring, now you think it is unreasonable. Give me a break. If it was so unreasonable, you should have refused it.

Stop while you are ahead please. What you have just start is not at all a principle of law. DOH in this case is so far from fair and equitable that even a 4 grader could understand it. This is the very reason that Nic made the list the way he did. LCC will not end up in court unless it breeches its agreement as per the TA. Now once again YOU CAN NOT TAKE TWO CARRIER WITH VERY UNLIKE SENIORTY LIST AND MAKE IT FAIR WITH DOH! Why can you seem to grasp this very elementary principle?

Injunction

 

[Captain Underpants]

I said that the 9th said that the current USAPA proposal would harm the west.
Jim

Jim,
You are are the right track but the concept of "harm" in the context of DFR is not so simple. Consider this hypothetical which is actually closer to the reality than you might think initially.

Let's say Nic ruled East was so far gone that the list should be all West first 1-1800 then all East 1801-6000 with immediate bump and flush. All East treated as new hires. Final and Binding etc... The legal questions are the same:

Is "harm" measured by the "injury" of not getting Nic implemented into a new contract even though there is no chance that it could ever be ratified?
Does USAPA have a Duty of Fair Representation to the East pilots to pursue a different and more fair seniority integration or only a DFR to West pilots to somehow try to force implementation of an unfair proposal?

Now back to reality. A West poster here stated the AOL lawyers to try to justify their fees told them "harm" between Nic and DOH was estimated at around $2 million per West pilot. I would agree this is probably very close to the average actual "harm" to West pilots of no Nic although I would define it more accurately as an unobtainable windfall instead of "harm". Multiply this by the total number of affected East and West pilots less the natural mitigating variables and the total "harm/windfall" exceeds $2 billion. The reality questions are:

Assuming the company does not cover the $2 billion "harm" to the East pilots of the current Nic what are the chances East pilots will change their minds and agree to gift the West pilots the $2 billion dollars cash plus up to 17 years seniority?

The other killer problem for the West is with at 4 to 1 guaranteed attrition differential the East will have a larger number of new hires going forward moving up rapidly into higher paying positions that should rightfully be going to the more senior former West pilots. This is happening now and has been ruled legal and in compliance with all contracts and is where the real "harm" to the West pilots accrues. The last reality question is for the courts:

Will the court recognize that the real harm to all our pilots will occur by default by interfering in USAPA's negotiations with the company towards a mutually acceptable and ratifiable solution to the seniority dispute or will they try to force the Nic even though the East pilots have an established legal right to reject a court suggested Nic?

My guess is this Arizona court is smart enough to affirm the precedent of the 9th and follow their legal mandate requiring them to avoid interfering in contract negotiations.

underpants

 

[Injunction junction]

Jim,
You are are the right track but the concept of "harm" in the context of DFR is not so simple. Consider this hypothetical which is actually closer to the reality than you might think initially.

Let's say Nic ruled East was so far gone that the list should be all West first 1-1800 then all East 1801-6000 with immediate bump and flush. All East treated as new hires. Final and Binding etc... The legal questions are the same:

That would never have happened and Nic said this as no staple and no DOH. The east is and would not have been treated as new hires.

Is "harm" measured by the "injury" of not getting Nic implemented into a new contract even though there is no chance that it could ever be ratified?

You can not say that it could NEVER be put into place unless you know for a 100% fact that it could not.


Does USAPA have a Duty of Fair Representation to the East pilots to pursue a different and more fair seniority integration or only a DFR to West pilots to somehow try to force implementation of an unfair proposal?

No not if you had arrangement prior and you seek to void that agreement thru removal of the agent which you will find is against the law.

Now back to reality. A West poster here stated the AOL lawyers to try to justify their fees told them "harm" between Nic and DOH was estimated at around $2 million per West pilot. I would agree this is probably very close to the average actual "harm" to West pilots of no Nic although I would define it more accurately as an unobtainable windfall instead of "harm". Multiply this by the total number of affected East and West pilots less the natural mitigating variables and the total "harm/windfall" exceeds $2 billion. The reality questions are:

I can not comment intelligently on this as I am not up on all the AOL filings.

Assuming the company does not cover the $2 billion "harm" to the East pilots of the current Nic what are the chances East pilots will change their minds and agree to gift the West pilots the $2 billion dollars cash plus up to 17 years seniority?

That statement really didnt make any sense try to rephrase it.


The other killer problem for the West is with at 4 to 1 guaranteed attrition differential the East will have a larger number of new hires going forward moving up rapidly into higher paying positions that should rightfully be going to the more senior former West pilots. This is happening now and has been ruled legal and in compliance with all contracts and is where the real "harm" to the West pilots accrues. The last reality question is for the courts:

All this was taken into account in arbitration and really no need to reinvent the wheel. The east bulit an illegal 5yr fence which COULD result in $$ coming this way. Notice I said could, this is because it takes time and money to sue for damages both of which could be better spent. I do believe that the west pilot would pursue that if this were to drag on BUT I also think that there is another merger on the horizon and given the fact that AA and APA has failed to reach an agreement again this is getting closer and closer.


Will the court recognize that the real harm to all our pilots will occur by default by interfering in USAPA's negotiations with the company towards a mutually acceptable and ratifiable solution to the seniority dispute or will they try to force the Nic even though the East pilots have an established legal right to reject a court suggested Nic?

Keep in mind that the east are in the position that are not as a result if the company but because usapa. What you ask is that the company like the east ignore the fact that they had/have and agreement. Usapa seeks to place the company in harms way by asking that they violate the agreement which would without a doubt produce a law suit for breach of contract and yes the TA is a contract by definition law.

My guess is this Arizona court is smart enough to affirm the precedent of the 9th and follow their legal mandate requiring them to avoid interfering in contract negotiations.

Remember a declaratory judgement is nothing more than an ask of the courts what the responsibilities of all the parties involved are. There is nothing in which affirm thus no interfering with a union what so ever. This is not a case of the courts saying you must do this or you must do that. It is a case however where the court can and will state what each party must do according to the law.

underpants

This mess has dragged on far too long and now LCC is forced to deal with it. The company is the clear winner here as they have enjoyed 5yrs of bk and atsb wages at your and my expense.

Injunction

 

[Reed Richards]

This is not a case of the courts saying you must do this or you must do that. It is a case however where the court can and will state what each party must do according to the law.

Injunction

So the court is "NOT telling you what you must do," but IS stating what each party must do according to the law? Say what??? By definition courts interpret the law.

Do you even read your own comments?

While I am at it, what the heck does the current prelim injunction (your trademark rant) have any bearing on seniority issues..or anything in my life? What am I supposed to be afraid of?

RR

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

Dream on. Keep making up the rules as you go along. Maybe you can convince someone to believe you. I certainly don't. Neither will the court.

So, you agree that binding arbitration is simply a tool. Thanks.

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

Comparing west pilots to pedohpiles won't get you far either.

Nobody "compared west pilots to pedophiles", child. Don't you wish.

The coaches (as in plural) are not being prosecuted for sexual molestation, something you, in particular, seem to be very familiar with. The issue is the cover up, something tempe also seems familiar with. You seem to deliberately misread the situation just to create chaos. Like Mover.

 

[Injunction junction]

So the court is "NOT telling you what you must do," but IS stating what each party must do according to the law? Say what??? By definition courts interpret the law.

Do you even read your own comments?

While I am at it, what the heck does the current prelim injunction (your trademark rant) have any bearing on seniority issues..or anything in my life? What am I supposed to be afraid of?

RR

Nope 🙂

I poorly worded that however I am certain that you got the jest of of my post. Why are you so afraid? You are close to the end of both this case and career. I feel that many of you will retire under the worst contract in aviation. The seniority issue was concluded years ago and like I said your group used its bully tactics to delay the process but it will be.

Injunction

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,
You are are the right track but the concept of "harm" in the context of DFR is not so simple.

In general I'd probably agree with you. However, instead of "what if" situations, the 9th was talking about the current situation in the context of the Addington case. They clearly said that USAPA's proposal would harm the west pilots if implemented - nothing abstract or "what if" about that. That puts a completely different face on BS' "even if it's not the Nic" basis to claim that USAPA can do what it wants without fear of a successful DFR.

I read the 9th dicta first as justifying their not ripe ruling, and second as a big red flag to USAPA - "keep on your current course and you're toast in the subsequent DFR." The 9th mentioned several times that the current USAPA proposal harmed the west and that USAPA has to represent both sides equally. All you and BS have is that the Addington wasn't ripe yet and a fragment of one sentence used to give an example of why Addington wasn't ripe.

Jim

 

[Iclubbabyseals]

AAA pilot group was furlough 40% when this thing happened and they had NO, ZERO expectation of a pilot job at the former usair.

Um, the number, 40%, is way wrong and to say a furloughee has no expectation of a pilot job is just plain stupidity.

Let us talk about the 24% of east flying "gifted" to the west pilots.

Since the east group flew about twice what the west group flew, that represents an increase of almost 50% of flying for the west, allowing at least one third of west pilots to stay on the property, i.e. not furloughed. Which means that the east pilots suffered a temporary decrease in recalling furloughees and advancement just so that some 600 west pilots would not be furloughed. That is a fact. ma'am.

 

[Reed Richards]

Nope 🙂

I poorly worded that however I am certain that you got the jest of of my post. Why are you so afraid? You are close to the end of both this case and career. I feel that many of you will retire under the worst contract in aviation. The seniority issue was concluded years ago and like I said your group used its bully tactics to delay the process but it will be.

Injunction

Do we need to call 911, have you suffered some kind of stroke? HAL made more sense when half his memory was pulled.

Grab another cold one and get back to the game. This can wait.

RR

 

[BoeingBoy]

Let us talk about the 24% of east flying "gifted" to the west pilots.

A good subject. Why did the company "gift" that flying to the west pilots? Because the west was below contractual limits while the east was at least 20% above contractual limits. It appears that the east would have been more than happy to watch more westies get furloughed while they continued to be above contractual limits.

BTW, the terminology used was "traditionally east flying". Since all flying is LCC flying, and has been since the merger, only the contractual limits each side has counts.

Jim