US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Black Swan]

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

Your argument makes no sense. How do you "bake" this in the price? Baked in as much as a non hedged carrier can be with regard to oil prices. Oil ups and downs hit this stock regularly. The effect of a win or loss on LOA 93 would be an event that would move the stock significantly on the day of the event, then it would smooth out. Tell us what is "baked" in- the win or the loss?

 

[CallawayGolf]

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.

What's the statute of limitations on a violation of a signed agreement between multiple parties wherein each party agrees to abide by the terms contained therein?

 

[luvn737s]

I think that had you actually been in our situation you would have been a big proponent of USAPA...had you actually endured what we did.

Poor you. Complaining about how I can't feel the pain of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I was actually a pretty strong supporter of AWAPPA (envision a "thinking man's USAPA with integrity and experience. Better yet, don't compare it to USAPA at all. )

Before you whine anymore about how tough it is to be you, ask an AWA pilot who was here during the Franke tenure or about how ALPA came to be at AWA.

AWA never had the access at ALPA national that USAir enjoyed and ultimately threw away in a temper tantrum. If they had, there would never have been a Wye River debacle.

 

[BoeingBoy]

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.

Just my opinion, but Silver is primarily (maybe solely) ruling on contract law as it pertains to the companies rights/responsibilities per the TA. Note that the TA doesn't address separate ratification, only separate MEC's "until the merger of the two MEC's". USAPA did merge/change the two MEC's into one BPR.

It would be the result of the ALPA seniority integration process that USAPA inherited, since the process was followed to completion prior to USAPA. Just like the working agreements - USAPA inherited the ratified agreements, not the various bargaining proposals that went back and forth during the process of reaching those agreements. USAPA is free to negotiate the seniority list result, just as it is now negotiating the working agreement, but always within the boundaries of it's DFR responsibilities. Since seniority is a zero sum game, changing that result will invariably result in one side gaining at the others expense, so USAPA must tread very carefully. The "wide range of reasonableness" argument would hold water if there were no completed integrated list, but there is. So the real question is whether USAPA can change that list to satisfy one side at the expense of the other.

Jim

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

What's the statute of limitations on a violation of a signed agreement between multiple parties wherein each party agrees to abide by the terms contained therein?

Don't know. Under the RLA a DFR claim I believe is a 180 days.

However if it is found that what you imply trumps USAPA's rights and authorities under the RLA and they have no authority to deviate from a previous agreement, their responsibility to that agreement would be equal to both East and West pilots as previously agreed to. I would expect the east pilots to want the agreement that called for independent votes to be carried out to faithfully execute the prior ALPA agreement if it is binding on USAPA. Either USAPA has the authority under the RLA act to alter it or they don't? Right? Isn't that what this whole thing is about? Whether USAPA has the legal right to act for it's members without restriction or bound to the terms of the prior agreement made under ALPA?

 

[Phoenix]

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.

Liable for no longer having two MECs? The pilots voted for it! And no, the company doesn't have a hybrid DFR to ensure the union has two MECs according to the TA...... Wait for it......... It's an internal union dispute.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Tell us what is "baked" in- the win or the loss?

Try reading...

What's baked in is a company win. Costs will stay the same as they've been (more or less since there's always some fluctuation in costs). So why would the stock drop if nothing changes? On the other hand, what's to say that the downward movement of the stock price is due to the company loss on LOA 93 pay? Just look at the chart - no matter what range of time covered, there are ups and downs. Have all those ups and downs for the last 6 years been due to LOA 93? Finally, as I've mentioned already, why are all the airline stocks down today - some more than LCC? Surely even you don't claim that's because of any LOA 93 result. Stocks fluctuate in value due to many factors. Saying a change one way or the other is due to one specific event when all airline stocks (and the major indices) are going the same way is pure, unadulterated rubbish. There are other, more important factors at play.

But, hey...keep grasping at that chaff...

Jim

 

[westcoastflyer]

I imagine the USAPA officers are agonizing over how and when to make the LOA 93 loss announcement. It does take a good while to come up with all of the blame and appropriate excuses. Look for the announcement soon, it certainly will begin with "while this was not totally unexpected....."

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Just my opinion, but Silver is primarily (maybe solely) ruling on contract law as it pertains to the companies rights/responsibilities per the TA. Note that the TA doesn't address separate ratification, only separate MEC's "until the merger of the two MEC's". USAPA did merge/change the two MEC's into one BPR.

It would be the result of the ALPA seniority integration process that USAPA inherited, since the process was followed to completion prior to USAPA. Just like the working agreements - USAPA inherited the ratified agreements, not the various bargaining proposals that went back and forth during the process of reaching those agreements. USAPA is free to negotiate the seniority list result, just as it is now negotiating the working agreement, but always within the boundaries of it's DFR responsibilities. Since seniority is a zero sum game, changing that result will invariably result in one side gaining at the others expense, so USAPA must tread very carefully. The "wide range of reasonableness" argument would hold water if there were no completed integrated list, but there is. So the real question is whether USAPA can change that list to satisfy one side at the expense of the other.

Jim

But didn't US Airways agree to a process with the parties under which the joint contract would be submitted to both East and West pilots for independent ratification votes? Certainly that conclusion would hold them responsible to that process? The number of anti-nic pilots on the East would probably vote no for the foreseeable future until or unless the contract proposal from US Airways was so lucrative it would overcome it. If it is determined the provisions that were previously agreed to our sacrosanct, then the East pilots would have a DFR claim against the union and the company if the union didn't carry out that provision. It's the same as the West class filing a lawsuit because the union didn't carry out the terms of the previous agreement and claiming the company is a party to it.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Don't know. Under the RLA a DFR claim I believe is a 180 days.

However if it is found that what you imply trumps USAPA's rights and authorities under the RLA and they have no authority to deviate from a previous agreement, their responsibility to that agreement would be equal to both East and West pilots as previously agreed to. I would expect the east pilots to want the agreement that called for independent votes to be carried out to faithfully execute the prior ALPA agreement if it is binding on USAPA. Either USAPA has the authority under the RLA act to alter it or they don't? Right? Isn't that what this whole thing is about? Whether USAPA has the legal right to act for it's members without restriction or bound to the terms of the prior agreement made under ALPA?

Obviously you are correct on the 180 days for a DFR under the RLA. However, with the Company being a party to the TA they cannot sue USAPA for a DFR any more than the west pilots could sue the Company for a DFR. These are all hybrid issues where the RLA must be complied with but the rights and responsibilities of both pilot groups, USAPA and Management are so intertwined that the RLA may not account for the circumstances in question here. My original point was more of a curiosity as to if AOL leadership ever considered a DFR claim on the elimination of or the pre-mature merging of the MECs in violation of ALPA merger policy.

And that is likely the real question before the courts, or it will be. That is, since the TA established the ALPA merger policy to be used without exception then does a change in representation eliminate the ALPA policy since USAPA policy is obviously different, or does the language of the TA disallow the use of any other method of integrating the groups independent of who the CBA may happen to be? The TA clearly calls for the APLA policy and process to be used and that makes me wonder why the elimination of the MEC didn't result in a legal prayer for relief.

What is humorous is that it was the east who formed USAPA and subsequently eliminated separate representation for the west, but now that it seems very clear that the NIC will be required by court order, the east wishes to return to separate ratification so as to prevent a combined 50%+1 majority to decide on a new JCBA. When it favors the east to eliminate west representation the east seeks to strip it away; however, when it seems to favor the east to have separate representation, then they have no moral quandary in seeking to reverse course and give the east the sole power to reject a NIC-inclusive JCBA. Don't you guys ever tire of being on the wrong side of every integrity issue that the east pilot group encounters? Life is so much more enjoyable and rewarding when you just live up to your agreements rather than trying to dodge them at every turn.

 

[BoeingBoy]

However if it is found that what you imply trumps USAPA's rights and authorities under the RLA and they have no authority to deviate from a previous agreement, their responsibility to that agreement would be equal to both East and West pilots as previously agreed to.

Personally, I think Callaway is wrong on that point unless it can be shown that USAPA changed the representive structure solely for the purpose of negating an agreement it inherited. Note that the maintenance of separate MEC's is an ALPA policy, not an agreement between the two sides or three if you count the company. No agreement exists that I know of that says the separate MEC's have to be maintained, even if ALPA were still the CBA (although ALPA would probably follow it's policy).

As I said before, Silver will be deciding what the companies rights/responsibilities are as they pertain to the integrated list as specified in the Transition Agreement. Must the company stick to the list it accepted as being in compliance with the TA or can the company negotiate a different list? That is an agreement that the company is a signatory to, not an ALPA policy. Silver can do that without saying a word about potential or actual DFR.

In short, USAPA inherits agreements reached by ALPA - the end products of policy, negotiation, etc. USAPA does not inherit policy from ALPA - representative structure of LEC's that make up MEC's, roll call vote based on pilots in a base and not members, even the process of reaching a single list. So USAPA inherits the TA, but not the policy that there be two separate MEC's until integration.

Jim

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

Obviously you are correct on the 180 days for a DFR under the RLA. However, with the Company being a party to the TA they cannot sue USAPA for a DFR any more than the west pilots could sue the Company for a DFR. These are all hybrid issues where the RLA must be complied with but the rights and responsibilities of both pilot groups, USAPA and Management are so intertwined that the RLA may not account for the circumstances in question here. My original point was more of a curiosity as to if AOL leadership ever considered a DFR claim on the elimination of or the pre-mature merging of the MECs in violation of ALPA merger policy.

And that is likely the real question before the courts, or it will be. That is, since the TA established the ALPA merger policy to be used without exception then does a change in representation eliminate the ALPA policy since USAPA policy is obviously different, or does the language of the TA disallow the use of any other method of integrating the groups independent of who the CBA may happen to be? The TA clearly calls for the APLA policy and process to be used and that makes me wonder why the elimination of the MEC didn't result in a legal prayer for relief?

What is humorous is that it was the east who formed USAPA and subsequently eliminated separate representation for the west, but now that it seems very clear that the NIC will be required by court order, the east wishes to return to separate ratification so as to prevent a combined 50%+1 majority to decide on a new JCBA. When it favors the east to eliminate west representation the east seeks to strip it away; however, when it seems to favor the east to have separate representation, then they have no moral quandary in seeking to reverse course and give the east the sole power to reject a NIC-inclusive JCBA. Don't you guys ever tire of being on the wrong side of every integrity issue that the east pilot group encounters? Life is so much more enjoyable and rewarding when you just live up to your agreements rather than trying to dodge them at every turn.

It's a legal question considering what's going on. A new union was elected and acted on what it thought was authority to move beyond what was previously agreed to. If their is some legal declaration that the prior agreement is still in force and cannot be modified then the union would have to act accordingly and hold separate ratification votes or be sued or threatened to be sued as in the current case. USAPA is an entity and doesn't strike me as either east or west but if the law declares that east and west are still entities with legal right to what ALAP agreed to on their behalf which was agreed to by the company, then the responsibilities to administer the previous agreement to both parties would be in force.

It goes back to where it seems all this started. It seems to me USAPA was formed to break a stalemate and was believed to be legal solution to craft a way forward and the judge is going to legally determine whether they have the authority or are bound to the process that ALPA set and the company agreed to. If they don't have that legal right then it goes back to what ALPA agreed to which contained separate votes as part of the process to achieve a joint contract containing the seniority list created under their process.

 

[Phoenix]

Obviously you are correct on the 180 days for a DFR under the RLA. However, with the Company being a party to the TA they cannot sue USAPA for a DFR any more than the west pilots could sue the Company for a DFR. These are all hybrid issues where the RLA must be complied with but the rights and responsibilities of both pilot groups, USAPA and Management are so intertwined that the RLA may not account for the circumstances in question here. My original point was more of a curiosity as to if AOL leadership ever considered a DFR claim on the elimination of or the pre-mature merging of the MECs in violation of ALPA merger policy.

And that is likely the real question before the courts, or it will be. That is, since the TA established the ALPA merger policy to be used without exception then does a change in representation eliminate the ALPA policy since USAPA policy is obviously different, or does the language of the TA disallow the use of any other method of integrating the groups independent of who the CBA may happen to be? The TA clearly calls for the APLA policy and process to be used and that makes me wonder why the elimination of the MEC didn't result in a legal prayer for relief.

What is humorous is that it was the east who formed USAPA and subsequently eliminated separate representation for the west, but now that it seems very clear that the NIC will be required by court order, the east wishes to return to separate ratification so as to prevent a combined 50%+1 majority to decide on a new JCBA. When it favors the east to eliminate west representation the east seeks to strip it away; however, when it seems to favor the east to have separate representation, then they have no moral quandary in seeking to reverse course and give the east the sole power to reject a NIC-inclusive JCBA. Don't you guys ever tire of being on the wrong side of every integrity issue that the east pilot group encounters? Life is so much more enjoyable and rewarding when you just live up to your agreements rather than trying to dodge them at every turn.

More holier than thou condemnations!

 

[BoeingBoy]

But didn't US Airways agree to a process with the parties under which the joint contract would be submitted to both East and West pilots for independent ratification votes?

In a word, no. The TA doesn't specify that there be separate ratification. You could say that separate ratification was assumed as long as ALPA was the CBA, since that was their policy, and if ALPA were still the CBA it would almost certainly follow that policy. But a union's policy is not enforceable on the company unless incorporated into an agreement with the company, any more than the company is responsible for there being a BPR instead of MEC, how BPR members are allocated, etc.

At it's heart, the DJ is entirely about contract law - not a particular union's policies. USAPA's problem is that it inherited ALPA's agreements, including the completed seniority list agreed to by the company. USAPA can no more say "We don't like the policy that resulted in the combined seniority list so we're not bound by it" than they can say "We don't like the tradeoffs that ALPA made in negotiating LOA 93 so we're not bound by it." USAPA inherited the finish products - the combined seniority list and LOA 93. How those finished products were arrived at is immaterial.

Jim

 

[CallawayGolf]

Personally, I think Callaway is wrong on that point unless it can be shown that USAPA changed the representive structure solely for the purpose of negating an agreement it inherited. Note that the maintenance of separate MEC's is an ALPA policy, not an agreement between the two sides or three if you count the company. No agreement exists that I know of that says the separate MEC's have to be maintained, even if ALPA were still the CBA (although ALPA would probably follow it's policy).

As I said before, Silver will be deciding what the companies rights/responsibilities are as they pertain to the integrated list as specified in the Transition Agreement. Must the company stick to the list it accepted as being in compliance with the TA or can the company negotiate a different list? That is an agreement that the company is a signatory to, not an ALPA policy. Silver can do that without saying a word about potential or actual DFR.

In short, USAPA inherits agreements reached by ALPA - the end products of policy, negotiation, etc. USAPA does not inherit policy from ALPA - representative structure of LEC's that make up MEC's, roll call vote based on pilots in a base and not members, even the process of reaching a single list. So USAPA inherits the TA, but not the policy that there be two separate MEC's until integration.

Jim

I agree with your premise about what judge Silver is going to review and render an opinion on, and I very well could be wrong about the TA requiring all parties to abide by the ALPA merger policy even after a new CBA was elected. However if you substitute some other process in place of ALPA, would you hold the same opinion? In other words, if the TA had said "the parties agree to follow the Independent Seniority Integration Process (fictitious policy for example purposes only), then would USAPA still be free from using that process but not free from any independent agreements that resulted from the process prior to the certification of a new CBA? I don't see how changing the CBA could redefine the terms of the TA which clearly call for a certain process to be followed to a successful conclusion. Could they have used a Teamsters, AFA, or ALF/CIO policy in the TA if all parties agreed to do so? As I said I could be wrong as I'm just speculating based on the language of the TA, but I'm not convinced of that yet. Please explain your thoughts on this a bit further.

Thanks.