US Pilots Labor Discussion

[BoeingBoy]

If we were still ALPA this probably would not come into play. But since USAPA has always had them as active members, they CANNOT implement a NIC list that does nothing but staple them to the bottom...ie. No fair representation. There would be questions as to the companies liability in this as well.

Using that logic, every pilot would have a DFR claim because they were stapled below pilots already present on the property when they were hired. That's as silly as a FO claiming DFR because he/she isn't paid the same as the captains on the same equipment. Different treatment only rises to the level of a DFR claim when it only applies to select specific individuals - NOT everyone who climbs the seniority ladder.

What you have is a hangup on the "what's reality now" vs the reality that existed when the merger occurred - the same as USAPA with their C&R's "protecting" westies to their 2007 seat position. The merger date has real meaning while picking some arbitrary later date is just wishful thinking at best, and an attempt to improve the position of the East by using post-merger conditions that helped the east and hurt the west at worst (another potential DFR). USAPA's election didn't put new hires on the bottom of the list any more than it resulted in a FO being paid less that the CO sitting to his left.

Jim

 

[Keroseneuser]

Using that logic, every pilot would have a DFR claim because they were stapled below pilots already present on the property when they were hired. That's as silly as a FO claiming DFR because he/she isn't paid the same as the captains on the same equipment. Different treatment only rises to the level of a DFR claim when it only applies to select specific individuals - NOT everyone who climbs the seniority ladder.

What you have is a hangup on the "what's reality now" vs the reality that existed when the merger occurred - the same as USAPA with their C&R's "protecting" westies to their 2007 seat position. The merger date has real meaning while picking some arbitrary later date is just wishful thinking at best, and an attempt to improve the position of the East by using post-merger conditions that helped the east and hurt the west at worst (another potential DFR). USAPA's election didn't put new hires on the bottom of the list any more than it resulted in a FO being paid less that the CO sitting to his left.

Jim

I never stated how I thought it would turn out. Only that in the opinion of some lawyer types that it has enough merit to have to be run through the legal process to figure it out.

Remember, for the group of 800 we are talking about, they don't have to win the case to win. All they would need to do is slow any implementation down to a crawl. I am told win or lose, it has enough teeth to do that. To my knowledge there has never been a situation like we are in now, new union in the middle of a merger and all the legal questions of representation that go with it. It's not so much a question of C&R's as it is of ANY representation. Current NIC list would fall into the "No representation at all" for 800 members that have paid dues for the entire existance of USAPA.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Remember, for the group of 800 we are talking about, they don't have to win the case to win. All they would need to do is slow any implementation down to a crawl. I am told win or lose, it has enough teeth to do that. To my knowledge there has never been a situation like we are in now, new union in the middle of a merger and all the legal questions of representation that go with it. It's not so much a question of C&R's as it is of ANY representation. Current NIC list would fall into the "No representation at all" for 800 members that have paid dues for the entire existance of USAPA.

There is a reason for the uniqueness of this situation....nobody has been dumb enough to try to discriminate against the other party in an arbitration in broad daylight...until you(pl) tried it.

At the heart of the West's DFR claim is the C&BLs. If the West wins on the DFR (already have once), then the C&BLs must bow to federal law. Your 800 can try to file a DFR, but you(pl) are also welcome to bang your head against a wall until the end of time. Nobody will stop you.

 

[Pi brat]

Pi,

First, you have to ignore the purpose of the transition agreement to even have the questions you have.

Nothing arrogant there. It's amazing how often you can tell me what I'm doing.

I have not ignored it. What I have done is go through looking at it from a different point of view to see if I can understand the USAPA argument. The great Aquaman made a false statement as the TA doesn't say it will be implemented. Does it matter? I don't know, we will see, but BOTH sides of this have tunnel vision sometimes and say thing are there that aren't. Clear?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Certainly anyone can file a DFR for any reason. Making it to, never mind past, the initial hearing is the problem for a suit like the one you've mentioned (remember that the RICO suit ruling from the District court took all of a month from the initial filing). This isn't the bible - God didn't create the universe in 5 days and USAPA on the 6th out of nothing. USAPA is bound by pre-existing agreements which call for placing new hires at the "new" US below those already on either list at the time of the merger, just as much as USAPA is required to protect the interests of the west pilots every bit as much as the interests of the east pilots. Like I said, why should a new hire at "new" US have a DFR claim that no new hire has ever had, just because the union changed?

Jim

 

[jetjok1]

I never stated how I thought it would turn out. Only that in the opinion of some lawyer types that it has enough merit to have to be run through the legal process to figure it out.

Remember, for the group of 800 we are talking about, they don't have to win the case to win. All they would need to do is slow any implementation down to a crawl. I am told win or lose, it has enough teeth to do that. To my knowledge there has never been a situation like we are in now, new union in the middle of a merger and all the legal questions of representation that go with it. It's not so much a question of C&R's as it is of ANY representation. Current NIC list would fall into the "No representation at all" for 800 members that have paid dues for the entire existance of USAPA.

" Remember", It takes money to fight that horse.... and i'm not willing to chase that hallucination. Enough is enough! Why don't you go to work for management and be one of those middle managers who sits around at his desk all day and dreams up ways to screw the flying public with some more "fees to fly".

 

[BoeingBoy]

The great Aquaman made a false statement as the TA doesn't say it will be implemented.

It may not say it verbatim but that is the clear interpretation of intent. By parsing every word you're so focused on the bark of a single tree to see the forest surrounding you. Once again for those mentally challenged, the TA's sole purpose is to make the transition to a fully integrated single carrier (Gee, wonder why they call it a Transition Agreement). The TA spells out the steps needed for that in the case of the pilots - single ops certificate, SLI, single contract. Without implementing the SLI, how does the company reach that goal of becoming a single fully integrated carrier?

As I said, you have to ignore the purpose of the TA to even raise the point you did...

Don't try to understand the USAPA argument - it's a waste of time to try and read reason into any of their arguments. USAPA is just using whatever argument they can make up to justify their actions. Just take the latest begging to mediate all over again. With who - some undefined "west" that doesn't legally exist? USAPA claimed (and lost) that there wasn't even a West class. What if no consensus can be reached just like the first mediation? No suggestion of final and binding arbitration? Reading reason into those tea leaves is a fruitless endeavor for what is really just another delay tactic (or worse, an attempted "gotcha" aimed at removing the PHX reps).

Jim

 

[Keroseneuser]

" Remember", It takes money to fight that horse.... and i'm not willing to chase that hallucination. Enough is enough! Why don't you go to work for management and be one of those middle managers who sits around at his desk all day and dreams up ways to screw the flying public with some more "fees to fly".

Jeez, get pissed at me all you want. I am not one of the ones we are talking about. There are something like 750 of the pre 2000 hired guys that got the staple action in NIC. If USAPA pursues a NIC list that does not address them in any way other than the staple that NIC gave them, you can bet we will see it show up in court. Now how long would that take? Who knows. We are talking about a legal system that has awarded damages to criminals shot in the act of robbing someone. So until we see it go through the court system there is no way to predict how long it will take.

Point is, as long as we are pursuing this through the court system and not trying to see what else we can come up with, we will see every, and I mean every legal angle that is even remotly possible have to be run through the system before anything is implemented.

We are years and years away from a court decided end to this. Tempe knows this and is crapping flowers over their joy at a fixed labor cost for years to come.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There are something like 750 of the pre 2000 hired guys that got the staple action in NIC. If USAPA pursues a NIC list that does not address them in any way other than the staple that NIC gave them, you can bet we will see it show up in court.

Since Nic is an arbitrated list, the chance of success is "a number very close to zero", to quote Parker's comment from another context. I would be very surprised if any such DFR made it to a hearing, and the RICO suit shows how long (or short...) that takes. Dismissing 800 such suits could be done in the same amount of time if filed about the same time.

Remember, USAPA didn't put them on the bottom so who's the DFR filed against? The arbitrator doesn't have a DFR responsibility - he (or she) doesn't "represent" anyone...

Jim

 

[aquagreen73s]

Jeez, get pissed at me all you want. I am not one of the ones we are talking about. There are something like 750 of the pre 2000 hired guys that got the staple action in NIC. If USAPA pursues a NIC list that does not address them in any way other than the staple that NIC gave them, you can bet we will see it show up in court.

Nicolau did address them. Nicolau penned a comprehensive decision even though as an arbitrator he wasn't required to do so. He could have just as easily as published the list and that's it, but he didn't do that. He detailed exactly why he did what he did. He explained why the furloughed pilots were placed where they were. It's all in the Nicolau.

you can bet we will see it show up in court. Now how long would that take?

About as long as it takes for a motion to dismiss. In the RICO case, that was about six weeks. You can't find any case law anywhere that says dissatisfaction with an arbitration result is grounds for a DFR. Yahoos threaten futile lawsuits all the time. Some are even dumb enough to file, but they're dispensed with pretty quickly ala the uSAPa RICO.

The only claim the furloughees could possibly have against the union, past or present is for agreeing to arbitrate. That's a sure loser, but it's not the impossibility of trying to say that an arbitrator's decision is a DFR for the union. The union outsources the decision on how to integrate precisely to shield itself from a DFR. Plus, to attack the decision to arbitrate, the DFR would've needed to be filed within six months of the decision to arbitrate. We're way past that. No recourse at all. Hence, another toothless threat from an angry faction on the East. I have no idea why they are pissed about the Nicolau. They got exactly what they brought to the merger.

 

[Phoenix]

A few thousand pages of bitching and moaning proves that there are many contingencies that are yet unsettled as USAPA and the Company remain free to bargain, unconstrained by courts, armchair web-negotiators, or fortune tellers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

A few thousand pages of bitching and moaning proves that there are many contingencies that are yet unsettled as USAPA and the Company remain free to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members — both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified, unconstrained by courts, armchair web-negotiators, or fortune tellers.

There, I fixed that for you. Thanks not necessary.

Oh wait, that's not right either since the 9th put that constraint on negotiations.

A few thousand pages of bitching and moaning proves that there are many contingencies that are yet unsettled as USAPA and the Company remain free to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members — both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified, unconstrained by courts, armchair web-negotiators, or fortune tellers.

There you go...

Jim

 

[Keroseneuser]

Oh wait, that's not right either since the 9th put that constraint on negotiations.

A few thousand pages of bitching and moaning proves that there are many contingencies that are yet unsettled as USAPA and the Company remain free to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members — both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified, unconstrained by courts, armchair web-negotiators, or fortune tellers.

There you go...

Jim

Your highlighted part is what I was speaking of. They are free to negotiate in good faith pursuant to its DFR for all members.

How is the 9th going to justify letting 750 east guys get stapled after they made this ruling. A ruling that was made while those 750 pilots were on the property and activley paying dues? Is that "all active members" before USAPA came to be? Well, that cannot be right, since how can it tell an organization to negotiate in good faith for all members, but only the members that were members before the organization was an organization.

I can see a messy situation developing no matter which way a court may rule. And both side could potentially use the 9ths rulings on the subject to further their position and string this thing out longer.

Just sitting here trying to see how each group is going to perceive this. We don't have east and west. We have East and west pre USAPA, East and west Post USAPA, we have junior west, we have junior east, senior east, senior west, almost retired east...etc etc. Since the 9th ruled that there has been no harm until ratified. But if ratified with NIC, then by the 9th's way of ruling it opens up "harm" to "members" that the 9th ruled must be represented in good faith

No, this crap appears to just be getting started, not ending.

 

[Phoenix]

...

Point is, as long as we are pursuing this through the court system and not trying to see what else we can come up with, we will see every, and I mean every legal angle that is even remotly possible have to be run through the system before anything is implemented.

We are years and years away from a court decided end to this. Tempe knows this and is crapping flowers over their joy at a fixed labor cost for years to come.

We, the pilots on both sides, are not pursuing anything through the courts. The SCOTUS has already stayed out of it and left USAPA and the company to bargain. The company's pursuit of delay through the court will only end up delaying any contract ratification and the following ripe DFR cases that might follow, which may or may not be successful. Most everyone realizes the white elephant in the room is that the only way to pay raises or QOL improvements is through seniority advances as pilots retire, or a ratified contract. One is inevitable, the other, not so much.

 

[Phoenix]

Your highlighted part is what I was speaking of. They are free to negotiate in good faith pursuant to its DFR for all members.

How is the 9th going to justify letting 750 east guys get stapled after they made this ruling. A ruling that was made while those 750 pilots were on the property and activley paying dues? Is that "all active members" before USAPA came to be? Well, that cannot be right, since how can it tell an organization to negotiate in good faith for all members, but only the members that were members before the organization was an organization.

I can see a messy situation developing no matter which way a court may rule. And both side could potentially use the 9ths rulings on the subject to further their position and string this thing out longer.

Just sitting here trying to see how each group is going to perceive this. We don't have east and west. We have East and west pre USAPA, East and west Post USAPA, we have junior west, we have junior east, senior east, senior west, almost retired east...etc etc. Since the 9th ruled that there has been no harm until ratified. But if ratified with NIC, then by the 9th's way of ruling it opens up "harm" to "members" that the 9th ruled must be represented in good faith

No, this crap appears to just be getting started, not ending.

Just started.. Heh, I have an idea. DOH would be a way to do it in a way that would eliminate any arbitrary or unreasonable silliness...... 3,000 more pages to go until we reach the ending of the beginning!