US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Move2CLT]

Thanks for the well wished SH and for your support all these years.

Don't worry, the west says this will all be over in April, so things should be boring on here. ;-)

Happy New Year to you.

No one here said it would be over Pi. That's up to you guys. By the sound of it, an appeal and run at SCOTIS is in the works post April.

To most it may be over, but I'm sure your battle will continue.

At least you guys were smart to drop the injunction fight. Looks like its permanent now.

Maybe there is some common sense over there.

Heard from the teamsters yet? They don't seem to be in too be a hurry to answer questions.

 

[Pi brat]

Physically the parts are still here. But, as you stated, it is not the same airline. New bosses, new ticker, new business plan, etc.

What you guys gave up was for a company that is now gone. Those IOUs you think you are owed aren't good anymore. And to try to collect them via the west is not gong to happen.

Sure, we may have needed a merger, but it was a few years down the road. You guys needed it then, at that moment.

Big difference. And no matter how badly sealbeater wants his story to be true, fact is we weren't close to bankruptcy. You guys were in it for a second time and you were out of time.

Happy New Year and another year on LOA93 and no new contract. I have a feeling some news coming out in the next couple weeks isn't going to make it happy for long.

I have never said the IOUs, as you call them, should be paid for by the west. I understand why you don't want DOH, it's just that no DOH doesn't equal that Nic was fair.

We won't be on LOA 93 for the rest of the year, right? It's all going to be OVER in April, I've got the quotes to prove it. 🙂

 

[Pi brat]

No one here said it would be over Pi.

Heard from the teamsters yet? They don't seem to be in too be a hurry to answer questions.

Many or your guys have said it would be OVER. Their words. I have a whole list of quotes I'm saving for April.

The beginning of the end may have already happened and things could be wrapped up before the end of 2012, or we could be 2-3 more years out. I don't know and it's not up to me.

 

[cleardirect]

Many or your guys have said it would be OVER. Their words. I have a whole list of quotes I'm saving for April.

The beginning of the end may have already happened and things could be wrapped up before the end of 2012, or we could be 2-3 more years out. I don't know and it's not up to me.

I think what the west is saying the seniority fight will be over by April. Once Silver rules that should be the end. The company will point to the court and say the court said. an appeal is not going to matter. Once the company makes up their mind and it will time to move towards a contract or merger. If there is a merger the company is going to say the seniority dispute is over so investors don't worry.

An appeal does not matter. Even if the court says not ripe or you can do something other than the Nicolau They can still stand on the Nicolau. they need to move forward and are not going to wait much longer. So yes the seniority issue will be over by April. The usapa leadership issue should be over by April too.

 

[Ames]

I think what the west is saying the seniority fight will be over by April. Once Silver rules that should be the end. The company will point to the court and say the court said. an appeal is not going to matter. Once the company makes up their mind and it will time to move towards a contract or merger. If there is a merger the company is going to say the seniority dispute is over so investors don't worry.

An appeal does not matter. Even if the court says not ripe or you can do something other than the Nicolau They can still stand on the Nicolau. they need to move forward and are not going to wait much longer. So yes the seniority issue will be over by April. The usapa leadership issue should be over by April too.

Well said. I, too, will go on record to say that the seniority fight will be over upon Judge Silver's ruling. There is no doubt the east will continue to stamp their feet, hold their breath, and cry but the fight will be over. Tantrums will continue but they will be totally impotent.

 

[Pi brat]

I think what the west is saying the seniority fight will be over by April. Once Silver rules that should be the end. The company will point to the court and say the court said. an appeal is not going to matter. Once the company makes up their mind and it will time to move towards a contract or merger. If there is a merger the company is going to say the seniority dispute is over so investors don't worry.

An appeal does not matter. Even if the court says not ripe or you can do something other than the Nicolau They can still stand on the Nicolau. they need to move forward and are not going to wait much longer. So yes the seniority issue will be over by April. The usapa leadership issue should be over by April too.

This might surprise you, but I can say that you might be right about most of the above(how is that for qualifying?) I really don't have the legal knowledge to say for sure, but sounds plausible. The one thing I wonder about is the USAPA leadership issue you raise. Your buddy uhaul is planning on voting for Cleary and Co. I feel they will appeal, and even if it is really irrelevant, it could take time. Then we have the whole issue of a contract. The company and the NAC are way off. How do we settle that? So, in reality, it's not over in April, it's just back to 2007, right?

If a merger with AA comes about that could change everything. About a year ago I said I thought we were years away from it being really "done", absent some unseen event. Unless AA is that event, I think we still are. We'll see.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There is a good chance that it will be over in April, although there may be an appeal by USAPA depending on what the ruling is. But I just don't see Silver wading into the DFR issue, which would be about the only thing appeal-able. But you appear to be reading things into the word it that weren't meant...perhaps just to be argumentative. It's my belief, from reading the same posts you did, that it refers to the DJ and a ruling that either the company can only escape legal liability by using the Nic or that the company can't have legal immunity so has to do what it thinks is the least likely to get it sued - which means using the Nic. Either of those and the game is effectively over for USAPA - the company has to bargain in good faith but that doesn't mean it has to agree to every union demand. Bargaining means reaching an agreement, not rolling over for the other side. In my opinion, if Silver rules one of those two ways, the company is well within it rights to refuse USAPA's demand for a DOH based list.

Jim

PS - I see that Clear types faster than I do...

 

[BoeingBoy]

Company's are always evolving and changing, so this whole argument is irrelevant.

You started it and now it's irrelevant. At least you're good for a laugh...

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

This might surprise you, but I can say that you might be right about most of the above(how is that for qualifying?) I really don't have the legal knowledge to say for sure, but sounds plausible. The one thing I wonder about is the USAPA leadership issue you raise. Your buddy uhaul is planning on voting for Cleary and Co. I feel they will appeal, and even if it is really irrelevant, it could take time. Then we have the whole issue of a contract. The company and the NAC are way off. How do we settle that? So, in reality, it's not over in April, it's just back to 2007, right?

If a merger with AA comes about that could change everything. About a year ago I said I thought we were years away from it being really "done", absent some unseen event. Unless AA is that event, I think we still are. We'll see.

Of course many of us are voting for Cleary hairPi. Who else polarizes his own pilots as effectively? Cleary has kept you divided and fighting amongst yourselves for such a long time that he failed to see the shift in support at the last BPR.

And with the only candidates coming out of the east still supporting DOH and/or Nic compromise, why change?

Cleary has run the union into the ground financially. He has now given up fighting the injunction so your union is now completely neutered. He no longer has the BPR majority, and committee members are quitting left and right.

How can we not vote for Cleary?

I expect to see Streble throw in the towel here soon.

 

[Pi brat]

There is a good chance that it will be over in April, although there may be an appeal by USAPA depending on what the ruling is. But I just don't see Silver wading into the DFR issue, which would be about the only thing appeal-able. But you appear to be reading things into the word it that weren't meant...perhaps just to be argumentative. It's my belief, from reading the same posts you did, that it refers to the DJ and a ruling that either the company can only escape legal liability by using the Nic or that the company can't have legal immunity so has to do what it thinks is the least likely to get it sued - which means using the Nic. Either of those and the game is effectively over for USAPA - the company has to bargain in good faith but that doesn't mean it has to agree to every union demand. Bargaining means reaching an agreement, not rolling over for the other side. In my opinion, if Silver rules one of those two ways, the company is well within it rights to refuse USAPA's demand for a DOH based list.

Jim

PS - I see that Clear types faster than I do...

Like with clear, I agree with you on some of your post. It wasn't the word "it" that I had a problem with, it was the word "over". Judge Silver may be a nail in the DOH coffin, it's just that won't make the fight over. "Over" to me means resolution. We still have to have a joint contract before the seniority fight is over. Trust me, that might be the new battle ground. Unless Parker decided he now needs a contract.

As far as your point about the company having to negotiate but not necessarily agree to every demand, I agree and hasn't it always been that way? Couldn't they have negotiated, like Silver asked them about, and just said we can't do that? After Siegal(sp?) testified earlier in the year I thought his opinion was they had to use the Nic, so was the delay really to avoid lawsuits, or just to delay? After all, he is a RLA expert. If USAPA gets the ruling they expect, it still doesn't bind the company to agreeing to DOH, right? I have a hard time seeing the court giving the company immunity. Maybe they just want some extra evidence on their side if they do, but I still have my doubts that that way the purpose of the suit.

 

[Pi brat]

You started it and now it's irrelevant. At least you're good for a laugh...

Jim

I didn't start anything, I responded to a post. If you would take your 20 year grudge blinders off you would see that.

Everything on this board is irrelevant. Of no value other than entertainment. A retired pilot spending his time trying to be relevant, that's what's good for a laugh.

 

[Pi brat]

Of course many of us are voting for Cleary hairPi. Who else polarizes his own pilots as effectively? Cleary has kept you divided and fighting amongst yourselves for such a long time that he failed to see the shift in support at the last BPR.

And with the only candidates coming out of the east still supporting DOH and/or Nic compromise, why change?

Cleary has run the union into the ground financially. He has now given up fighting the injunction so your union is now completely neutered. He no longer has the BPR majority, and committee members are quitting left and right.

How can we not vote for Cleary?

I expect to see Streble throw in the towel here soon.

Sounds like a great plan to me uhaul.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Like with clear, I agree with you on some of your post. It wasn't the word "it" that I had a problem with, it was the word "over". Judge Silver may be a nail in the DOH coffin, it's just that won't make the fight over. "Over" to me means resolution. We still have to have a joint contract before the seniority fight is over. Trust me, that might be the new battle ground. Unless Parker decided he now needs a contract.

As far as your point about the company having to negotiate but not necessarily agree to every demand, I agree and hasn't it always been that way? Couldn't they have negotiated, like Silver asked them about, and just said we can't do that? After Siegal(sp?) testified earlier in the year I thought his opinion was they had to use the Nic, so was the delay really to avoid lawsuits, or just to delay? After all, he is a RLA expert. If USAPA gets the ruling they expect, it still doesn't bind the company to agreeing to DOH, right? I have a hard time seeing the court giving the company immunity. Maybe they just want some extra evidence on their side if they do, but I still have my doubts that that way the purpose of the suit.

Siegel stated very clearly why Management filed the DJ suit. My paraphrase of that testimony is that one party (USAPA via $eham) claimed that the Ninth clarified that USAPA and Management were free to negotiate seniority and that meant that Management had to accept USAPA's non-NIC proposal as a matter of law. Another party (AOL) stated that the Ninth did not absolve USAPA or the Company from liability if a non-NIC list were to be used and a hybrid DFR/collusion lawsuit would be pursued with federal case law in support of such action if the NIC were to be abandoned in the JCBA. Thus the Company, while in federally-supervised/mediated negotiations for a JCBA were being presented with two contradictory views on the legal questions surrounding section 22. Thus choosing either interpretation would place substantial liabilities on the Company from the other party and while the Company had ideas on what should be done (NIC only) they were not qualified to determine which viewpoint was in fact correct as only a federal court can do that.

So, if you don't believe this is testimony is factual then you would be in effect accusing Management and their legal counsel of knowingly committing perjury in judge Silver's court. Do you really belief Siegel, Parker, and the rest of the highly-compensated executives would be willing to commit perjury to gain a delay with no assurances that this course of action would create a greater delay than just telling USAPA they had a list and were not willing to accept another one? The best and most probable answer is that Management could not make the legal determination without the court ruling on a DJ. Furthermore, it seems altogether likely that they filed the DJ to both protect the Company's interests and to bring a resolution to the interminable seniority dispute.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Happy 2012 to all in the pilot thread even my buddy move2charlotte 😀 I hope this is the year you folks can figure out a way to solve this thing & that this is the year I can join my good friend boeing boy in retirement.

 

[Pi brat]

Siegel stated very clearly why Management filed the DJ suit. My paraphrase of that testimony is that one party (USAPA via $eham) claimed that the Ninth clarified that USAPA and Management were free to negotiate seniority and that meant that Management had to accept USAPA's non-NIC proposal as a matter of law. Another party (AOL) stated that the Ninth did not absolve USAPA or the Company from liability if a non-NIC list were to be used and a hybrid DFR/collusion lawsuit would be pursued with federal case law in support of such action if the NIC were to be abandoned in the JCBA. Thus the Company, while in federally-supervised/mediated negotiations for a JCBA were being presented with two contradictory views on the legal questions surrounding section 22. Thus choosing either interpretation would place substantial liabilities on the Company from the other party and while the Company had ideas on what should be done (NIC only) they were not qualified to determine which viewpoint was in fact correct as only a federal court can do that.

So, if you don't believe this is testimony is factual then you would be in effect accusing Management and their legal counsel of knowingly committing perjury in judge Silver's court. Do you really belief Siegel, Parker, and the rest of the highly-compensated executives would be willing to commit perjury to gain a delay with no assurances that this course of action would create a greater delay than just telling USAPA they had a list and were not willing to accept another one? The best and most probable answer is that Management could not make the legal determination without the court ruling on a DJ. Furthermore, it seems altogether likely that they filed the DJ to both protect the Company's interests and to bring a resolution to the interminable seniority dispute.

I guess you and Jim see things differently. He says a company does not have to agree to things in negotiations, while you are saying the noted RLA lawyer Siegel had to go to court in order to get an answer to another lawyers claim that they did. If that happened every time there was a difference of opinion, we would be in court on everything. And, it's not perjury to ask a question, even if I think the party asking the question knows the answer. Do you think that people in this country really only file suits for the reasons they claim?

I don't know what the real reason is. Maybe it is just as the company claims, but it seems a little suspicious at this late date.