US Pilots Labor Discussion

[traderjake]

More holier than thou condemnations!

Another insightful and informative post from PHX.

 

[BoeingBoy]

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.

To me, the dividing line is when the result is reached. The process as defined in the TA is the ALPA procress only because ALPA was the CBA at that time and their policy held sway. If USAPA (or Joe's Pilot Union) were the CBA at the time the TA was agreed to, then whatever policy that CBA has would be there instead. If there were never a combined list reached and agreed to by the company, USAPA could come up with any list that survived a DFR challenge. But an end product of seniority integration was reached and accepted by the company as being in accordance with the TA. So USAPA can no more undo that end product any more than it can undo the single certificate (also specified in the TA). USAPA can attempt to renegotiate seniority going forward (keeping in mind DFR) just like it's renegotiating the CBA's, but cannot ignore what already exists. Hence the 9th's "does not do the harm the West fears" if USAPA wants any other seniority list going forward.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

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

That's kind of the thinking that got USAPA rolling, ALPA and it's policies were never honorable, so I don't have to honor them.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

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

If it said in accordance with ALPA merger policy and that was part of the policy, why wouldn't US Airways be held to it or suffer the same legal threat. The list is the list because ALPA said it was in accordance with their merger policy but they also said in accordance with that same policy for it to be implemented both parties would have to ratify the contract containing it independently of each other. US Airways wasn't accepting that list produced out of some judicially ordered arbitration but something that came out of a union policy, a union policy they agreed to honor to which some claim they are bound to because of your transition agreement regardless of the union representing the pilots. The same policy required separate ratification. It was a union policy the company agreed to abide by and there were many parts that were inclusive to that policy. With the merger policy as it was agreed to under ALPA, it wasn't the arbitration that was the final step to an integrated list but the subsequent independent ratification into a single agreement. Wasn't that trumpeted by ALPA during the representational vote? Did US Airways ever object to that characterization of ALPA merger policy? By the numerous posts over the years stating how many times your corporate leaders said during ALPA's days the cost to buy that list, i.e. completion in a contract would be cost prohibitive and the pilots needed to figure it out. They new ALPA merger policy required the East pilots to sign off on the Nicalou list with a separate vote and what it would cost. It implies what US Airways perceived those things to complete the integration and the cost of it under ALPA merger policy as agreed to under the transition agreement, which many argue cannot be modified.

 

[fodase]

Dance clowns! Loa 93 just came out, you got what u deserve.

 

[88 B.T.D.]

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.

The problem with separate ratification was that the company was never going to offer enough for east to accept nic and west wasn't budging as seen in blue ribbon com. and the parties would never be released from negotiations with only one side rejecting. The only out back then was if ALPA had taken over one or other MEC.

Now courts will eventually rule and sides will either accept or have it forced on them after cooling off period. (because most likely company will still never offer enough for all of us to accept)

 

[icehead]

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!

Unfortunately I believe you are correct. Let the schadenfreude begin.....

 

[westcoastflyer]

Unfortunately I believe you are correct. Let the schadenfreude begin.....

You heard it here first, the LOA 93 decision is out; yet another HUGE loss for USAPA. What has USAPA accomplished so far, other than endless delays and lost improvements in compensation and benefits for it's "members?"

 

[Pi brat]

You heard it here first, the LOA 93 decision is out; yet another HUGE loss for USAPA. What has USAPA accomplished so far, other than endless delays and lost improvements in compensation and benefits for it's "members?"

I heard you are right, we lost.

 

[Black Swan]

I heard you are right, we lost.

The only thing that is out there is one pilot not on any official committee or having any credible stance saying it. John DuBarry simply put out an e mail saying this, and the West group bought it hook line and sinker. There is NOTHING out.

 

[Pi brat]

The only thing that is out there is one pilot not on any official committee or having any credible stance saying it. John DuBarry simply put out an e mail saying this, and the West group bought it hook line and sinker. There is NOTHING out.

It think the BPR is still in session so I doubt they can, but that's what I heard. Maybe my source was wrong, but it's what I heard.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Sounds like a bad movie about high school...Is it in or is it out??!!

 

[westcoastflyer]

There is an update from CAPTAIN Parella on the USAPA website.

 

[Move2CLT]

I'll post when I stop laughing!!!

Whats left? MDA? Naughler? PIC?

LMAO!!!

 

[Move2CLT]

It is official because you guys are blaming ALPA.