US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Res Judicata]

If for the sake of argument, the Judge found the agreement made prior by the parties ALPA(America West), ALPA(US Airways) are held binding on the successor union, would not it require independent votes to ratify a joint contract by either party? If the successor union is bound by the process agreed to by the previous one, would it not be entitled to the entire process which included independent ratification by either party? It seems you couldn't use the argument, well that doesn't hold true anymore because USAPA replaced ALPA, since the argument being made is that fact changes nothing and things have to be implemented exactly as previously agreed to by the previous legal bargaining parties.

No. You guys thought you were geniuses for dumping ALPA...you did so for no OTHER reason than to remove the West groups ability to fight back...or so you so ignorantly/arrogantly thought 4years ago...now you want ANOTHER do over.

Silver is going to end this via the company. As usual, you guys will sit helplessly on the side lines screaming for attention that will never come. You brought all of this misery upon yourselves...I love it.

 

[Black Swan]

Stick to flying, BS. Hopefully you know more about that...

Jim

LCC$5.34-0.25 (-4.47%) Get real-time alerts
US Airways Group, Inc.


Don't you like those numbers BB in the face of the big WIN? Somebody seems to think differently.

 

[CallawayGolf]

LCC$5.34-0.25 (-4.47%) Get real-time alerts
US Airways Group, Inc.


Don't you like those numbers BB in the face of the big WIN? Somebody seems to think differently.

Do you understand the insider trading laws and how your hypothesis is beyond preposterous? The stock price cannot be reacting to non-disclosed information of material significance. If people are trading stock based on inside knowledge of this or any other matter, then I see jail time in their future.

Hey, didn't you use the same criteria to tell us back in June that US was days away from a major split up and divestiture of assets? It been about 175 days since that prediction so I'm not quite convinced that you have your finger on the pulse of anything that resembles the truth.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

No. You guys thought you were geniuses for dumping ALPA...you did so for no OTHER reason than to remove the West groups ability to fight back...or so you so ignorantly/arrogantly thought 4years ago...now you want ANOTHER do over.

Silver is going to end this via the company. As usual, you guys will sit helplessly on the side lines screaming for attention that will never come. You brought all of this misery upon yourselves...I love it.

If she said the process and agreement ALPA made was held binding on USAPA, wouldn't it be all of it? Both the agreed to process to get a seniority proposal and also the method agreed to that would see it implemented? It would seem if prior agreements of the previous union surrounding your seniority dispute are found to carry over, all the agreements would.

 

[Black Swan]

Do you understand the insider trading laws and how your hypothesis is beyond preposterous? The stock price cannot be reacting to non-disclosed information of material significance. If people are trading stock based on inside knowledge of this or any other matter, then I see jail time in their future.

Hey, didn't you use the same criteria to tell us back in June that US was days away from a major split up and divestiture of assets? It been about 175 days since that prediction so I'm not quite convinced that you have your finger on the pulse of anything that resembles the truth.

Hey, it wasn't me that said it was a win for the company. It was your buddy westcoast flyer who ran with it. I just posted the stock numbers. And I am sure the inside number would get out and you wouldn't even be aware of it, or you would be beat by a mile on the trade.

#29183 westcoastflyer Posted Today, 08:53 AM

Member


Group:Registered Member
Posts:99
Joined:12-August 04
LOA 93 is a loss. Word is that the decision came out November 10th. USAPA and company are in Executive Session debating whether pilots are even entitled to the 3 per cent raises on May 1, 2011 and 2011. Watch the USAPA Spin Machine now!

 

[BoeingBoy]

LCC$5.34-0.25 (-4.47%) Get real-time alerts
US Airways Group, Inc.


Don't you like those numbers BB in the face of the big WIN? Somebody seems to think differently.

If you're gonna go by stock price, AA seems to be paying most for LOA 93...(-37+%)...or maybe HA is paying about half...(-4+%)...or UA...(-4+%)... Heck, all the big carriers are down over 2%...maybe they formed a pact to split the cost of a US loss...

Jim

 

[traderjake]

So do the honorable thing and disclose your source since no one is supposed to be disclosing it.

Rigth after USAPA and it's supporters do the honorable thing and abide by the Nicolau arbitration.

 

[Black Swan]

If you're gonna go by stock price, AA seems to be paying most for LOA 93...(-37+%)...or maybe HA is paying about half...(-4+%)...or UA...(-4+%)... Heck, all the big carriers are down over 2%...maybe they formed a pact to split the cost of a US loss...

Jim

OK, so if the word gets out the company does not have to pay all the money out, the stock drops 4%? All the others dropped lockstep. One would think if what westcoast flyer said was true, the stock would reflect the millions saved wouldn't you? This isn't an event that would be priced in already, it would be a spike up or down either way, and the news appears to be no news.

 

[CallawayGolf]

If she said the process and agreement ALPA made was held binding on USAPA, wouldn't it be all of it? Both the agreed to process to get a seniority proposal and also the method agreed to that would see it implemented? It would seem if prior agreements of the previous union surrounding your seniority dispute are found to carry over, all the agreements would.

Looking for another opportunity to create a delay & diversion? Not feeling too good about the prospects from judge Silver or the whole DJ process?

On the other hand, having just reread the Transition Agreement, I'm wondering if USAPA is already violating their DFR and the TA by not continuing to maintain two separate MECs as is called for in Section I

I. Continued Representation of the America West and US Airways Pilots
A. The Airline Parties and the Single Carrier, as defined in Section III. A. below, will
continue to recognize the Association as the collective bargaining representative
of the America West and US Airways pilots under the Act following the
consummation of the Merger Agreement.
B. The Parties will continue to recognize each of the America West and US Airways
MECs as to their authority and responsibility with respect to their respective
collective bargaining agreements until the merger of the two MECs.

Seems like by eliminating the two MECs USAPA attempted to merge the two separate groups prematurely in advance of the JCBA as is referenced in Section III:

III. Single Carrier
<snip>
C. The combining of the America West and US Airways MECs will be governed by
the Association’s Constitution and By-Laws and its Merger and Fragmentation
Policy (“ALPA Merger Policy”).

So while the Ninth may have ruled the use of the NIC wasn;t yet ripe due to the lack of a JCBA, the fact that USAPA has dissolved separate representation prior to the operational pilot integration could be grounds for a DFR on a stand-alone basis. Perhaps this was covered before, but it seems USAPA is open to some liability here since the process was clearly detailed in the Transition Agreement.

 

[BoeingBoy]

One would think if what westcoast flyer said was true, the stock would reflect the millions saved wouldn't you? This isn't an event that would be priced in already, it would be a spike up or down either way, and the news appears to be no news.

Even in a perfect world where the only factor that affects US' stock price is the LOA 93 decision, the current situation - no increase in pay - is baked into the price. Nothing would be saved above what is currently being saved. So a US win would not increase the price since it would not change costs. On the other hand, a US loss would drop the stock price a lot more than a measly 4% - 40% would be more like it. But we're not dealing with that perfect world - just look at the other carriers' stock prices. All down. Is that due to LOA 93 as well???

Seems like you've run out of straws to grasp and only have a little chaff left...

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

DJ Lawsuit Facts: December 8, 2011

Fact - Judge Silver denied USAPA's motion to dismiss.

Fact - Judge Silver granted the West pilots "class" status in the litigation...over the repeated objections of USAPA.

Fact - Judge Silver agreed with US Airways' and AOL's desire for a Summary Judgment to move the case along.

Fact - Judge Silver denied USAPA's request to mediate the DJ lawsuit.

Fact - Judge Silver agreed with AOL's desire to have Summary Judgment replies submitted by February 10, 2012, which is one-month sooner than the Company requested and 4.5 months sooner than USAPA requested.

Fact - Judge Silver denied USAPA's motion for additional discovery, which means Judge Wake's Findings of Fact will be introduced into the case. Judge Wake found "USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts and procedural history, with frequent recourse to the contradiction of confusion…produced by a medley of judicial phrases severed from their environment." In addition, Wake determined a "jury and this court have found USAPA to be motivated by wrongful objectives and abundant evidence supports this finding."

Fact - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which would be the court that hears USAPA’s appeal, only hears about 50% of the appeals filed, and, only overturned or remanded 5.4% of the cases it heard in USDOJ fiscal year 2007, and overturned or remanded 10.0% of the cases it heard in USDOJ fiscal year 2008.

 

[CallawayGolf]

OK, so if the word gets out the company does not have to pay all the money out, the stock drops 4%? All the others dropped lockstep. One would think if what westcoast flyer said was true, the stock would reflect the millions saved wouldn't you? This isn't an event that would be priced in already, it would be a spike up or down either way, and the news appears to be no news.

The shareholders and wall street have already been notified in the most recent 10Q that Management considers LOA 93 grievance to have a very low chance of causing a material financial impact to the company. So why would a confirmed win on what Management already assumed to be a win change the stock price? If investors were concerned about this, they would have already responded to the information in the 10Q.

The Company believes that the union’s position is without merit and that the possibility of an adverse outcome is remote.

 

[BoeingBoy]

BS,

Don't panick - here's some more financial news you can use to claim a win on LOA 93...

European Stocks Retreat

USAPA's win might trigger the collapse of the Euro...



Jim

 

[luvn737s]

West must really be sweating competent leadership at USAPA, this is throwing spaghetti on the wall.

About as much as they fear the earth flying out of orbit. Neither has ever happened before and neither shows evidence of happening anytime soon.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Looking for another opportunity to create a delay & diversion? Not feeling too good about the prospects from judge Silver or the whole DJ process?

On the other hand, having just reread the Transition Agreement, I'm wondering if USAPA is already violating their DFR and the TA by not continuing to maintain two separate MECs as is called for in Section I



Seems like by eliminating the two MECs USAPA attempted to merge the two separate groups prematurely in advance of the JCBA as is referenced in Section III:



So while the Ninth may have ruled the use of the NIC wasn;t yet ripe due to the lack of a JCBA, the fact that USAPA has dissolved separate representation prior to the operational pilot integration could be grounds for a DFR on a stand-alone basis. Perhaps this was covered before, but it seems USAPA is open to some liability here since the process was clearly detailed in the Transition Agreement.

A grievance and or a law suit on that issued would have to have been filed in 180 days. Statue of limitations.

On the other point, if she rules the Nicalou is binding because of the agreement made under ALPA representation on the process and implementation, it would seem she invited all aspects of the agreements binding on USAPA. Why would the east pilots not what that portion of the agreement to be carried out if the prior agreements carry over because they are binding on USAPA? It seems they would.