US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

Uh OH, From the company's filing in response to usapa:

So, too, with regard to the Nicolau Award. The Transition Agreement established
a process for integration of the seniority lists – namely, “final and binding” arbitration
between the East Pilots and West Pilots “in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy.” (Sep.
Stmt. [Doc. No. 156-1] at ¶¶ 10-11.) But it also created an obligation on the part of US
Airways to accept the integrated seniority list generated through that agreed-upon process
so long as the specified conditions were met, and it thereby created prospective
substantive rights that inured to the benefit of the pilots and not just process rights. (Doc.
No. 156-1 at ¶ 10.) Once ALPA (as the pilots’ representative) presented the integrated
seniority list to US Airways and US Airways accepted it, if not sooner, those substantive
rights materialized and were not, as USAPA would have it, a mere “tentative agreement
between ALPA and US Airways on a bargaining proposal.” (Doc. No. 152 at 16:27-
17:1.) Thus, even if USAPA’s proffered distinction between “substantive rights” and
“process elements” had support in the RLA jurisprudence, which it does not, the
Transition Agreement undeniably created “substantive rights” with respect to seniority
integration and USAPA inherited that status quo when it replaced ALPA as the pilots’
representative.

II. EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

 

[fodase]

And it get's better:

III. UNIONS NEGOTIATING AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ARE CONSTRAINED BY THE DUTY OF
FAIR REPRESENTATION.
Given that the integrated seniority list generated by the Nicolau Award was
accepted by US Airways as required by the Transition Agreement, which is binding on
US Airways’ pilots (whether represented by ALPA or USAPA), but that USAPA may
seek to amend the Transition Agreement, the next question presented by the defendants’
cross-motions for summary judgment is whether USAPA can now seek to amend the
seniority provisions of the CBAs in a manner that would have the effect of undoing the
Nicolau Award.
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 164 Filed 02/21/12 Page 11 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 8 -
US AIRWAYS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 2-10-CV-01570-PHX-ROS
The Supreme Court has affirmed that a union must comply with its DFR in
negotiating CBAs, and has held that a union breaches its duty in that context if its actions
are arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. See Air Line Pilots v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 654
(1991). There have been numerous cases in which courts have addressed allegations that
a union’s negotiation of particular seniority provisions – precisely what USAPA seeks to
negotiate here in lieu of the seniority list required by the Nicolau Award – constitutes a
breach of its DFR. See, e.g., Bernard v. Alaska Airlines, 873 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1989);
Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1535 (7th Cir. 1992); Gvozdenovic v.
United Airlines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100 (2d Cir. 1991); Air Wis. Pilots Protection Comm. v.
Sanderson, 909 F.2d 213, 216 (7th Cir. 1990); Herring v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
894 F.2d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 1989); Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 892 F.2d 216
(2d Cir. 1989); Dement v. Richmond, F&P R.R., 845 F.2d 451, 457-58 (4th Cir. 1988);
Beardsly v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co., 850 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1988); Zapp v. United
Transp. Union, 727 F.2d 617 (7th Cir. 1984); Jones v. Trans World Airlines Inc.,
495 F.2d 790 (2d Cir. 1974); Ford v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 268 F. Supp. 2d 271 (E.D.N.Y
2003); Nellis v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 815 F. Supp. 1522 (E.D. Va. 1992); see also
Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, No. CV 08-1633-PHX-NVW, 2009 WL 2169164, at
*10-13 (D. Ariz. July 17, 2009) (discussing decisions). These, and other DFR cases
involving bargaining conduct, set forth the applicable legal standard for this Court’s
resolution of the DFR issue as between the West Pilots and usapa

BTW, the company's attorney argued rakestraw

 

[mrbreeze]

Pi,

Waaay more time in right seat than left. This Dan fella seems unbelievable . Anyone who has spent a couple decades learning from an incredible group of captains who behaves in manner you described is hopelessly ignorant!
He is the one Failing CRM.
Hey Dan........start the friggin motor and address your pov at an appropriate time.

FA

Obviously, slimey behavior. A traitor in Webster's definition.

breeze

 

[traderjake]

Dan has no respect for his peers in the East, and no respect for Captain's authority, is not aware of the PH and FOM, and has his own agenda.

Nice try.

You're right about one thing, I have no repect for you.

 

[Pi brat]

I would certainly hope that someone on the NAC was smart enough to at least modify the east system in a new contract - maybe take the west system but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. Of course, hoping any of the NAS is smart is a contradiction of terms and begging to be disappointed...

BTW, your little engine start story reminded me of being in the training department. We'd refer to those slavishly following every word of the book without thought those that "would fly into a mountain-side but follow the book to the letter while they did it." Able to almost memorize the book but no judgement. With all the variables, there really is no set time beyond which it's unsave to delay starting the 2nd engine till you get long enough that it's sure to be at ambient temperature (an overnight, for example). So the book plays it safe - make the time period short enough to remove most doubt. Is any wind blowing through the core, what is the engine temp - 200 or 800 degrees, what is the outside temp - -30 or 110 degrees, etc. Pilots get paid for their judgement, not merely for their ability to memorize. You'd have quit if you ever flew out of INT - having the 2nd engine spooling up as you take the runway because it's only 100' from the parking spot to the runway would drive you crazy with all that book learning but so little judgement.

Jim

No Jim, I'd just go with what the captain said. I flew into INT, with you. And had you said "Start all 3", I would have never questioned it, as it was on the safe side. You are out to lunch on this one, just like so many in an attempt to prove your superior knowledge.

Let me give you another example. My philosophy as a F/E and F/O was that if if wasn't going to kill me and I didn't have to write a letter I would go with what the captain said. Now, when I was F/E in my early 20's I was flying into AVL with a very senior captain. We were given X,XXX by ATC. The captain, as PF busted that altitude. I learned to fly in AVL, knew where we were and that we didn't need to be playing hide and go seek. I told the captain and F/O that our assigned altitude was X,XXX and he corrected, but stated that he knew the assigned altitude, he was just taking a peek. He did what was needed, so I didn't say anything else. That was a time when it was required that I stood your ground, and I did.

Jim, you are entitled to your opinions. but you have no dog in this fight. You are retired, have been for several year and you really don't know the complete picture, do you?

 

[fodase]

That Darn Addington just keeps showing on the company's filings.

USAPA states that “a union does not breach its DFR to junior employees merely
by negotiating a seniority system that prefers employees with longer service.” (Doc.
No. 152 at 18:26-27.) That is one way to frame the issue. Another way to frame the
question is to focus not on whether USAPA would breach its DFR to the West Pilots
“merely by negotiating a seniority system that prefers employees with longer service” in
the first instance – but instead on whether USAPA would breach its DFR by seeking a
seniority system that “prefers employees with longer service” only after a different
seniority list was created through a voluntary “final and binding” arbitration between the
East Pilots and West Pilots. Under the former approach, USAPA’s current seniority
demands are measured against a clean slate; under the latter approach, USAPA’s demands
are measured against what previously transpired between the West Pilots and the East
Pilots.
And on those questions, US Airways expresses no opinion. The West Pilots argue
(in accordance with the findings of Judge Wake, which were overturned on ripeness
grounds) that seniority decisions made for the benefit of a majority group at the expense
of the minority lack a legitimate union purpose.

 

[Pi brat]

That Darn Addington just keeps showing on the company's filings.

So fodase, do you ever ask yourself why the company is there?

 

[fodase]

BTW, Thanks for the Job action clowns:

To the contrary, USAPA’s assertion that the harm to US Airways is speculative
ignores the fact that the Western District of North Carolina recently found that USAPA
has already engaged in an unlawful work stoppage. See US Airways, Inc. v. U.S. Airline
Pilots Ass’n, 2011 WL 4485795 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2010).

 

[Pi brat]

Obviously, slimey behavior. A traitor in Webster's definition.

breeze

Breeze,

While I appreciate the support, trader is not a bad guy. He is a good pilot, it is just that, IMHO, his life experiences have led to certain conclusions. We all fall into the trap of applying them unfairly sometimes.

 

[fodase]

So fodase, do you ever ask yourself why the company is there?

As Luck would have it, the company's attorney answers your question:

And that did not occur until
after the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Addington, which vacated Judge Wake’s injunction
that had prohibited USAPA from bargaining for a date-of-hire seniority list

 

[Pi brat]

As Luck would have it, the company's attorney answers your question:

So they punted, hoping that the courts would be the bad guys and in the mean time just accepted the windfall.

 

[fodase]

CONCLUSION
Consistent with standard airline industry practice, the East Pilots and West Pilots
agreed to participate in “final and binding” arbitration to resolve their seniority-integration
dispute. The resulting Nicolau Award was submitted to US Airways, and US Airways
accepted the integrated seniority list as required by the collectively-bargained Transition
Agreement.

 

[fodase]

So they punted, hoping that the courts would be the bad guys and in the mean time just accepted the windfall.

Close, you forgot the fact that windfall was handed to the company by the east pilot's.

 

[mrbreeze]

Close, you forgot the fact that windfall was handed to the company by the east pilot's.

As anyone in the airline industry knows, the East pilots are not into giving out windfalls. That was done by NIC, so we are where we are.

Don't BS yourself.

breeze

 

[Beancounter]

Here is an interesting email sent to a large group of East pilots this evening:

From: USAPA USAPA <defendusapa@gmail.com>
To: xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: TRAITORS!!


YOU IDIOTS BETTER NOT XXXX THIS UP. IF FERGESON GETS IN, IT'LL BE ON YOUR SHOULDERS!

WE KNOW EACH AND EVERYONE ON THIS LIST AND YOU'LL BE GETTING PHONE CALLS IF THE WEST COMES OUT OF THIS THE WINNER.

If this is genuine someone needs to forward an original e-mail to the appropriate authorities. This is a serious matter. I would say pass it on to both the company and the FBI.