US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Keroseneuser]

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!

The 3000 pages is probably about right. Since the rulings of the 9th all came about after USAPA came into being, and all furloughed pilots were back flying prior to USAPA and had been back several years and paying dues when the 9th ruled "all active members east and West" I think there is a huge can of worms getting ready to break out no matter which way it goes.

Unless there is some part of the court documents that specifically says "All Pre USAPA" members. But then they would not be speaking to USAPA in the ruling.

The classic paradox of government. Make a ruling that is impossible to comply with.

 

[BoeingBoy]

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.

Simple - courts are very reticent when it comes to overturning an arbitrator's award. The award is presumed to be fair absent proof of fraud, partiality, etc and the statute of limitations has run out on claiming that. Besides, as I said before, USAPA can't be successfully sued for DFR because of using the arbitrated arbitrated award - they had no role in reaching that award. The award didn't originate with USAPA any more than a FO making less than the CO he's flying with.

Also remember that equal representation is no guarantee of equal treatment - again the FO making less than the CO example. As long as every new hire has and will go below those already on the same seniority list, there is no unequal representation. All a merger does is introduce a second list to be combined with the other list - how the list are combined is where the DFR lies, and USAPA didn't combine the lists - Nic did and he has no duty to represent any specific individual(s).

Any of those 800 or whatever number is free to reach into their pocket and pay a lawyer the few grand to file a DFR suit against USAPA, but getting past a motion to dismiss is a tall hurdle to leap.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

The classic paradox of government. Make a ruling that is impossible to comply with.

Don't make the mistake of treating USAPA attempts to get out of the arbitrated award the same as USAPA accepting the arbitrated award. For DFR purposes that's a night and day difference. The 9th addressed USAPA because they are the recognized representative of east and west pilots now. The DFR comes from trying to get out of an arbitrated award that was agreed to be final and binding by both sides. Your scenerio doesn't apply to DFR issues at all, which is why it would most likely be dismissed without a hearing.

Jim

 

[Keroseneuser]

Also remember that equal representation is no guarantee of equal treatment - again the FO making less than the CO example. As long as every new hire has and will go below those already on the same seniority list, there is no unequal representation. All a merger does is introduce a second list to be combined with the other list - how the list are combined is where the DFR lies, and USAPA didn't combine the lists - Nic did and he has no duty to represent any specific individual(s).


Jim

The 800 are not new hires in this context. The 800 are pre year 2000 hires. Who were back on the property paying dues when USAPA came into existance.

So by the way the 9th ruled "All members interests in mind" they specifically said all members of USAPA, not ALPA. This seems to indicate that both sides would have a "harm" case no matter which way it went.

Will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I am sure we will get to see it in the years to come.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The 800 are not new hires in this context. The 800 are pre year 2000 hires. Who were back on the property paying dues when USAPA came into existance.

Sorry, my shorthand.

So by the way the 9th ruled "All members interests in mind" they specifically said all members of USAPA, not ALPA. This seems to indicate that both sides would have a "harm" case no matter which way it went.

If a court orders USAPA to use the Nic (or finds not using it is a DFR violation), a DFR suit against USAPA for using Nic is a sure failure. Following the law doesn't make a failure to represent, but not following it does. I just don't know how to make it any clearer. In a sense, you're doing what Pi is - focusing so intently on a few words that you lose sight of the overall meaning of the ruling.

The 9th only ruled on one issue - ripeness. Everything they said except for the factual background of the case is there to support that one ruling. Despite all attempts to claim otherwise, all the 9th did beside ruling "not ripe" was remind USAPA of it's DFR duty. If ultimately that duty means accepting the Nic then any DFR suit for using the Nic is fruitless.

Jim

 

[Phoenix]

The 3000 pages is probably about right. Since the rulings of the 9th all came about after USAPA came into being, and all furloughed pilots were back flying prior to USAPA and had been back several years and paying dues when the 9th ruled "all active members east and West" I think there is a huge can of worms getting ready to break out no matter which way it goes.

Unless there is some part of the court documents that specifically says "All Pre USAPA" members. But then they would not be speaking to USAPA in the ruling.

The classic paradox of government. Make a ruling that is impossible to comply with.

ALPA had a merger policy that avoided any responsibility of the bargaining agent by persuading its members to outsource a resolution (how ironic that ALPA would hang someone out to dry, no, don't say its so ). So much for ALPA's immunity. 😛

The 9th was very observant that neither the West nor the East have given the company any seniority lists, having yet to settle the internal seniority dispute (whiny web posts notwithstanding). One more added irony is that USAPA will be fully responsible for any representation that it performs on behalf of all pilots, and the 9th was wise to leave them free to bargain (whiny web posts notwithstanding). The courts had ample opportunity, all the way to SCOTUS, to dictate USAPA's bargaining proposal, and not only did they leave them to bargain, they reversed an attempt to judicially intervene. Now the West is hanging its hat on the hopes that the Company can find a court to reverse the SCOTUS decision to stay out of it until it runs its course.

You are correct, USAPA has an impossible task, as they will stand an almost certain lawsuit no matter what action they take, and the company is in no hurry to give anyone a pay raise. The one consolation we can all have is that USAPA has a direct responsibility to represent all of its pilot, which ALPA never even wasted its time trying to do. We will all have our chance to sue USAPA for DFR once a contract is ratified, and then the lawsuits can keep on going, and going, and going, just like the Eastern lawsuits that are still going on.

 

[Move2CLT]

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

Excellent post.

 

[Pi brat]

I just don't know how to make it any clearer. In a sense, you're doing what Pi is - focusing so intently on a few words that you lose sight of the overall meaning of the ruling.

I have told you more than once to stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[cleardirect]

This entire discussion about the 800 might have a claim because they were members when usapa became the bargaining agent is a waste of time.

The only thing that matters is:

Policy Initiation Date

That point in time where the snap shot takes place what happens AFTER that date is because of the merger. Not pre merger. So if 800 furloughed pilots are returned who cares. Where were they on the PID.

That is why usapa's argument about wanting expert witnesses to prove what happened POST merger will not happen. It happened AFTER the PID.

 

[crazystnic]

Vote no. Vote no until you retire. Who cares. Just understand that the Nicolau like PBS is going to be part of the next contract.

If you don't like PBS vote no. But you are not going to get a new contract without it. You are not going to get a contract without the Nicolau.

you are weak, see above statment, that is why we may end up wtih PBS....
from everyone I know.. have talked to Republic, and Best friend at CAL..
they hate PBS.

 

[Pi brat]

The only thing that matters is:

Policy Initiation Date

Except to Mr. Nicolau. From the opinion and award:

In the exercise of caution, we have also constructed the list on a
no-growth basis, using the fleet as it existed on January 1, 2007, and
giving no weight to pre-merger orders except to the extent that any
such additions were in place as of January 1, 2007. Our judgment as to
the fleet is based, not on asserted expectations as both sides urged,
but on reality. Particularly in this day and age, with airline instability a
way of life, it makes little sense to rely on pre-merger projections. This
is especially the case here when the financial picture of both airlines
was less than optimum. A January 1, 2007 list also is a closer
reflection of reality on the merged airline.


Have any of you guys actually read the whole thing?

 

[crazystnic]

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
[/quote

Lawsuits, courts and all can waste a lot of time..
I'm all in....

 

[crazystnic]

This entire discussion about the 800 might have a claim because they were members when usapa became the bargaining agent is a waste of time.

The only thing that matters is:

Policy Initiation Date

That point in time where the snap shot takes place what happens AFTER that date is because of the merger. Not pre merger. So if 800 furloughed pilots are returned who cares. Where were they on the PID.

That is why usapa's argument about wanting expert witnesses to prove what happened POST merger will not happen. It happened AFTER the PID.

PID is a WEAK alpa policy.. nothing to do with it.

 

[Move2CLT]

Except to Mr. Nicolau. From the opinion and award:

In the exercise of caution, we have also constructed the list on a
no-growth basis, using the fleet as it existed on January 1, 2007, and
giving no weight to pre-merger orders except to the extent that any
such additions were in place as of January 1, 2007. Our judgment as to
the fleet is based, not on asserted expectations as both sides urged,
but on reality. Particularly in this day and age, with airline instability a
way of life, it makes little sense to rely on pre-merger projections. This
is especially the case here when the financial picture of both airlines
was less than optimum. A January 1, 2007 list also is a closer
reflection of reality on the merged airline.


Have any of you guys actually read the whole thing?

Yes we have. Especially the award part.

How about you.

 

[Move2CLT]

[quote name='crazystnic' timestamp='1322431970' post='848454']
[quote name='BoeingBoy' timestamp='1322413398' post='84
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


Lawsuits, courts and all can waste a lot of time..
I'm all in....
[/quote]
But if you can't get an injunction then life goes on while you waste your own money.

So have at it.

And how about figuring out what quote tags are.