US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

They absolutely do not care about the damage done as long as they get the Nic.

Pi, thanks for this. Who has done the most damage to the east pilot careers? Going forward every eastie needs to ask himself how much more damage they are willing to accept in the doh jihad. The choice is indeed clear, who do you want leading this group into an SLI with DAL/AA? Alternativelly who do you want negotiating a contract for you if a merger doesn't happen?

 

[Pi brat]

Pi, thanks for this. Who has done the most damage to the east pilot careers? Going forward every eastie needs to ask himself how much more damage they are willing to accept in the doh jihad. The choice is indeed clear, who do you want leading this group into an SLI with DAL/AA? Alternativelly who do you want negotiating a contract for you if a merger doesn't happen?

Who has done the most damage to east pilot careers? George Nicolau.

I don't want Ferguson, Holmes and Koontz leading me through any merger.

 

[Pi brat]

Wow Pi, I thought you less naive.

Any other eastie disagree with me?

Didn't think so.

Why did you wait so long for an answer?

I don't not believe Those guys are Cleary puppets. I imagine the believe they think along the same lines, if that is what you mean, but I know that they have had differences of opinions with Cleary and Mowery and don't just tow the line. I think I know Jamie well enough to know that he is his own man.

Cleary and Mowery are not running, that is the one fact we know.

 

[Pi brat]

The court could never remove all of the Company or USAPA's risk over being released to self-help. The Company didn't ask the court to produce a JCBA or to circumvent the RLA in this matter. Rather they simply asked for a legal resolution to the most pressing issue in play over the past five years...would a non-NIC seniority list be illegal according to the RLA given the specific facts in this case. Once that is settled (again), negotiations will proceed without judicial intervention or oversight.
[/quote

It thought the 9th answered that, but on well, we will see. You may have it nailed.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Who has done the most damage to east pilot careers? George Nicolau.

Your DNA is showing....

Jim

 

[Move2CLT]

Your DNA is showing....

Jim

Good one. And here I thought it was ALPA.

I'm sure it's second on his list.

 

[Move2CLT]

Why did you wait so long for an answer?

I don't not believe Those guys are Cleary puppets. I imagine the believe they think along the same lines, if that is what you mean, but I know that they have had differences of opinions with Cleary and Mowery and don't just tow the line. I think I know Jamie well enough to know that he is his own man.

Cleary and Mowery are not running, that is the one fact we know.

I don't have to wait for an answer because I can hear the other easties laughing at you.

 

[Move2CLT]

Who has done the most damage to east pilot careers? George Nicolau.

I don't want Ferguson, Holmes and Koontz leading me through any merger.

But you're fine with the easties who got you LOA 93, kept you on LOA 93, got you enjoined, and now parked?

That's better?

 

[Move2CLT]

Nice work easties, you have Parker right where you want him.

Feb. 2, 2012!

January 2012 Bests
Best Jan. A14 ever!
Best Jan. MBR ever!
Best Jan. completion factor ever!
Best single-day DOT MBR ever! (1.15 – Jan. 31)
Best single-day DOT A14 ever! (96.1% – Jan. 31)
Best monthly average MELs* ever!


Robert


* The Technical Operations team set a new average monthly Minimum Equipment List (MEL) record in January of 79 items per day at the morning startup for the entire mainline fleet. An MEL allows an aircraft to fly with non-flight critical equipment inoperable, such as auxiliary power units (APUs), lavs, galley equipment or seats.

 

[CallawayGolf]

It thought the 9th answered that, but on well, we will see. You may have it nailed.

You thought the 9th answered what, if a non-NIC seniority list could be used? They officially said the courts lack jurisdictional authority to review the merits of a CBA until it is ratified. They then remanded the case back to the district with instructions for it to be dismissed due to lack of ripeness. The 9th thus clarified that a DFR cannot be breached until the specific action has been taken which results in an unfair treatment of its members. They never answered the question on the NIC but left it to the Union and the Company to proceed without judicial intervention knowing (or hopefully knowing) how to achieve a CBA that does not violate either party's legal duties and obligations under the RLA. No decision on the merits, period.

The DJ presents a very different legal matter and it has a very different standard of ripeness as it is designed to prevent future harm to a party in advance of the triggering event. Thus Management is asking a valid, legal question which the 9th did not answer - does a non-NIC list constitute a DFR given the transition agreement between the two groups of pilots and the Company. Because of the DJ statutes, she can look at the TA and the NIC award and determine if the various parties are bound by the arbitration in such a way as to constitute a DFR breach by USAPA and collusion by Management if this list is set aside for any reason. Addignton I provides ample evidence for her to review and make a summary judgement decision on.

However, even if Addington I did not exist, I believe there is enough information already presented in the DJ matter for her to determine that the TA is legally a collective bargaining agreement under the RLA. If she makes that determination then it should be a simple matter to conclude that 1) USAPA and Management are bound by the terms of the TA in the same way as they are bound by their other CBA(s) in place regardless of who the bargaining agent is, and 2) that the SLI process and the binding portion of that agreement remains in full effect today. She could shock me by making a different ruling, but when you boil everything down, these inescapable facts lead to only one likely judicial conclusion - Count 1.

 

[Pi brat]

Your DNA is showing....

Jim

As is yours. Maybe I should have added one of your smileys.

 

[Pi brat]

The DJ presents a very different legal matter and it has a very different standard of ripeness as it is designed to prevent future harm to a party in advance of the triggering event. Thus Management is asking a valid, legal question which the 9th did not answer - does a non-NIC list constitute a DFR given the transition agreement between the two groups of pilots and the Company. Because of the DJ statutes, she can look at the TA and the NIC award and determine if the various parties are bound by the arbitration in such a way as to constitute a DFR breach by USAPA and collusion by Management if this list is set aside for any reason. Addignton I provides ample evidence for her to review and make a summary judgement decision on.

However, even if Addington I did not exist, I believe there is enough information already presented in the DJ matter for her to determine that the TA is legally a collective bargaining agreement under the RLA. If she makes that determination then it should be a simple matter to conclude that 1) USAPA and Management are bound by the terms of the TA in the same way as they are bound by their other CBA(s) in place regardless of who the bargaining agent is, and 2) that the SLI process and the binding portion of that agreement remains in full effect today. She could shock me by making a different ruling, but when you boil everything down, these inescapable facts lead to only one likely judicial conclusion - Count 1.

So if it your opinion that if the SLI did not violate the tenants of the TA, then it is illegal to use anything else? Or will she be deciding if USAPA has a legitimate union objective in changing the Nic?

 

[Move2CLT]

Sad that AA management's term sheet for its pilots is still beats LOA 93.

 

[BoeingBoy]

for her to determine that the TA is legally a collective bargaining agreement under the RLA.

If anybody really doubts that there's just no way they have a grasp on reality. How many LOA's have existed for how long. Has the union, after the fact, been able to pick and chose which parts of any LOA to ignore? The same technically applies to the company, but they have that "fly then grieve" ace up their sleeve.

Jim

 

[Pi brat]

If anybody really doubts that there's just no way they have a grasp on reality. How many LOA's have existed for how long. Has the union, after the fact, been able to pick and chose which parts of any LOA to ignore? The same technically applies to the company, but they have that "fly then grieve" ace up their sleeve.

Jim

I think most people accept that the TA is legally a collective bargaining agreement under the RLA. The question is can it be changed? Is it the same as any other section? Does the law allow the union to negotiate it?

I'd have to go back and look, but I think Szymanski says that it is a collective bargaining agreement.

Have you read the briefs?