US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

How is it fair that a west 2006 new hire can hold Widebody International f/o with the nic. ......career expectation? LOL

From the CLT update. This is your own rep talking.

You are loving life because you are only in the 21st year of your career and you’ve already been promoted to a reserve First Officer on the 737, great! Do you know your reserve responsibilities and when you must be available to answer when crew scheduling calls? Believe it or not, many of our pilots don’t

Because you had 21 year RESERVE 737 pilots. That was your career expectation. GET IT!!!!!

ps. How slow do you guys have to be that after 21 years you still can figure out what you contract says? Oh wait I just answered my own question. Because after 21 years you guys don't know what your contract says how can we expect you to understand Merger Policy and words like final and binding. Words like pre -merger career expectations. Honor or integrity.

 

[nic4us]

I understand that. I just don't understand the reasoning the Easties are trying to promote that the arbitration was just to reach a "bargaining position" to somehow use against the Company. That just does not make sense.

The premise is that seniority is guaranteed through the contract, and like all sections of the contract it is negotiable.

Using terms like "bargaining proposal" and "internal union process", are all just rationalizations of why "final and binding" somehow does not apply to usapa. Not that it gives leverage agiant the company.

We all know differently, however, because usapa is now the representative of the two groups who entered into the arbitration. There is no legitimate union objective to reorder the list, because as you point out, the order of the list has no bearing on negotiating the rest of the contract.

After the fact, usapa came up with their "legitimate union objective", that being that a Nic inclusive contract would not pass mambership ratification. However, this impasse arguement falls flat for many reasons, the biggest being that the impasse is a self-imposed result from the group that is not honoring its "final and binding" commitment.

 

[cleardirect]

Since the seniority debate is going nowhere let’s move to another law suit usapa started. The PBGC case. Just a few tidbits from the PBGC and what they think of usapa and the law suit. Really will you guys just follow anyone down any rabbit hole if it sounds good?

In rejecting USAPA’s motion, the court held that plaintiff failed to meet a single one of the four required showings for such relief. Now, with little having changed other than the retirement of Judge Robertson, USAPA seeks a reversal of that ruling with a “renewed” motion for preliminary injunction. USAPA tries to cloak the fact that it is essentially rearguing its denied motion by selectively culling various statements from depositions and other discovery that have occurred since its motion was denied. None of this material comes close to providing a basis to reverse Judge Robertson’s soundly reasoned decision.

This sounds like the east pilots want another do over. Imagine that!

Moreover, USAPA utterly fails to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to support the extraordinary relief it seeks

.

Finally, attempting to make a virtue of necessity, USAPA asserts that “it is absolutely impossible to know the likelihood or size of recovery of potential claims,” purporting to have found “hundreds of millions in unexplained losses.” USAPA Brief at 29. As shown below, USAPA has not demonstrated any unexplained losses. But even if it had, USAPA confuses potential claims with likely recoveries. As a practical matter, recoveries of that magnitude are unimaginable under any realistic scenario.

Do you think that you are getting your pension back?

USAPA’s unsubstantiated and speculative allegations do not meet that standard, as Judge Robertson held. A. USAPA has not shown that there is likely a meritorious claim against the former Plan fiduciaries. USAPA has alleged a series of “questionable circumstances” or “suspicious occurrences” involving the Plan. When the evidence is examined, however, USAPA falls far short of showing the likelihood of a meritorious claim against the Plan’s former fiduciaries. The contention that the Plan’s $2.1 billion funding shortfall at termination was proximately caused by misconduct by the former fiduciaries is unsupported and highly dubious.

While a pension plan’s assets must be prudently invested and properly diversified, USAPA does not come close to showing that losses from certain investments give the Plan a meritorious claim against its former fiduciaries for breach of duty. USAPA cannot rely on hindsight to second-guess decisions to make specific investments, but must look at information that was available at the time.

 

[cleardirect]

USAPA asserts that it has identified “more than 150 specific investments that lost between 30% and 90% of their value,” questioning whether the Plan’s investment managers followed the Plan’s investment guidelines or adequately protected the Plan from loss. USAPA Brief at 10. For purposes of its motion, plaintiff relies on the testimony of Robert Lee Whitt, a pilot member of USAPA with no professional experience in securities or pension investments.55 Mr. Whitt testified at his deposition that he, in turn, relied on Mark Butler, another pilot member of USAPA, on the subject of securities. Ex. 8, Whitt 12:3-21. Mr. Butler testified that he is a licensed broker and owns a securities broker/dealer firm, but lacks any professional experience or credentials in advising employer-sponsored, defined benefit pension plans

I guess if you can fly and airplane you know everything about everything.

USAPA asks rhetorically “whether the strategies pursued were consistent with the investment guidelines of the Plan.” USAPA Brief at 10. But USAPA does not allege that any particular investment guidelines were violated. In any event, the findings of PBGC’s investigator contradict USAPA’s supposition:

USAPA also argues that the investment losses it cites occurred “without any apparent stop loss mechanism in place.” USAPA Brief at 10. However, USAPA cites no legal requirement for having stop loss mechanisms in defined benefit pension plans, and furnishes no evidence of any professional standard requiring their use. Indeed, Mr. Butler admitted that he did not know of any defined benefit plans that actually do have stop loss orders in place. M. Butler, 82:21-83:3.

So usapa accuses someone of doing something wrong but there is no requirement to do that thing?

The investigative report,
however, determined that “the Master Trust did not hold any shares of US Airways” in its portfolio from December 1, 1999 to March 31, 2003. Ex. 6, 2d Investigative Rep. at 8 (emphasis added); id. at 5. Thus, the investigator “did not find any evidence of a relationship between Tiger and the Plan, much less an improper relationship that caused harm to the Plan.” Id. at 8.

The fatal flaw in USAPA’s analysis is its premise that the both the Plan and the Management Plan were invested in the same assets. They were not. USAPA overlooks the information in Attachment 64 to the plan asset audit, which PBGC produced to USAPA during its initial disclosures in March 2010.63

 

[cleardirect]

7. Collection.
Even if there were a claim for misconduct against one or more former fiduciaries, USAPA presents absolutely no evidence on the likelihood of collection. USAPA never identifies the specific individuals or corporations that may be liable, and certainly provides no evidence of their ability to pay a judgment. Another aspect of the collection problem for USAPA is the statute of limitations, which Judge Robertson identified as one of the “threshold issues” for plaintiff.64

You guys still think you are going to collect? So could it be that usapa misses the RIPE part of the law suit because they waited to long?

When pressed at oral argument, USAPA counsel dodged the issue:

THE COURT: And why, it’s already six, seven years since the plan went bust -- and seven years, you’re complaining about statute of limitations. What statute has not already run?
MR. BUTLER: Well, there are statutes that govern PBGC’s activity. I don’t know. But if there was fraud, if this was somehow hidden, maybe hidden, maybe there is a claim. I don’t know that, Your Honor. All I know is that time is passing, and --
Tr. at 46:4-11. Given USAPA’s assertion that numerous “red flags” have been in “plain sight since the time the Plan was terminated, and have been continuously evident throughout the past 64 Dkt. # 20, Tr. of Mot. Hr’g (Mar. 25, 2010) (“Tr.”) at 3:9-12. seven years,” USAPA Brief at 7, it is USAPA’s burden to answer Judge Robertson’s threshold question. USAPA must, at minimum, explain why the Plan’s potential claims are not already time-barred, and furnish at least some evidence that recovery of half a billion dollars is more than theoretically possible. USAPA has not done so.

I don't know and maybe. Strong answers.

USAPA’s attacks on Mr. Holbrook’s performance in the plan asset audit and his deposition are spurious.

usapa attacking people? Never.

More significantly, USAPA misunderstands the PBGC auditor’s responsibility to look into “potential legal claims” of the Plan.

usapa misunderstanding the rules? Never.

USAPA depicts a “chain of finger pointing” to support its argument that various agency departments were remiss in carrying out this supposed duty. USAPA Brief at 19-23. This whole line of argument is refuted by the testimony of Michael Miller, PBGC’s Rule 30(B)(6) witness on the recovery valuation process.

usapa blaming someone else? Never

2. Inspector General’s Letter
Desperate to buttress its case, USAPA directs the Court’s attention to a letter from PBGC’s Inspector General about a different set of pension plans from the one at issue here.71 The letter addresses pension plans formerly sponsored by United Airlines, which terminated two years after the Plan. Attempting to show a link to US Airways and the Plan, USAPA asserts that the Inspector General's letter (which plaintiff repeatedly mislabels a “report”) identifies “systemic” problems with PBGC’s plan asset audit process. However, the letter nowhere asserts or even implies that the flaws the Inspector General found in work performed on the United Airlines plans apply to the agency’s plan asset audits generally. But even if the Inspector General were so to conclude, it is incumbent on USAPA to show that the discrepancies affected the Plan, and that the effect for purposes of this case was material. USAPA has not met that burden

This is from the PBGC. A agency that had no contact with usapa other than being sued. Seems usapa has managed to irate everyone. This is not about seniority and not about the west pilots. This is about how an organization handles itself professionally. It appears that usapa does not do a very good job.

 

[Code Name V]

Okay, done deal. The limit is three years.

Now have usapa adopt the Nic and quit wasting everybody's time.

Yea, that's gonna happen. Maybe tomorrow....Place your bet...Oh yea, you already did..

V

 

[oscarjazz]

Thread creep. What kind of motors do you all have on your 757's, Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce?

 

[CV580ETOPS]

Thread creep. What kind of motors do you all have on your 757's, Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce?

Each USAirways 757 comes equipped with one Rolls engine on the left and one P+W engine on the right. And we just got FAA approved to intermix 'em.allowing MX to hang the P+W on the left and the Rolls on the right when times get tuff....... :blink:


Just kidding..... all the 757's both east and west and the ex-ATA birds the easties agreed to share with us but won't are Rolls Royce powered. Why do you ask ?
cv

 

[CV580ETOPS]

Crazy said: well said, it is hypocritical at best... that's also why I say the Shuttle and Empire should Geet DOH now.... you can't have it both ways... If it's DOH. It's DOH...

[b]Crazy, I actually agree with you. But it is very difficult to undo a list already ratified in a CBL. [/b] To note, the UAL guys did just that back in the 80's, by reordering an already ratified list to move the Scabs lower. SCOTUS said that was ok, as it was done for the greater good of all involved (my words.)

Going back now almost 20 years on both the Shuttle and Empire mergers would be a tough one to do. [/i] The line is being drawn here and now on the importance of seniority. I don’t believe it demeans our effort by not going back decades to fix other integrations. We have to start somewhere.

RR

And you have the audacity to call Jim a hypocrite after posting garbage like that ? YGTBSM !!


cv

 

[Black Swan]

For fun, lets make a list of everybody who has the same thought. All posters are welcome to add to the list, if their is somebody I have inadvertantly left off.

1. Every West pilot.
2. The company.
3. G. Nicolau.
4. Judge Wake.
5. The Addington jury.
6. Judge Bybee. and likely Tashima and Graber.
7. Jeff Freund.
8. John Prater.
9. The ALPA executive council.
10. The American Arbitration Association.
11. The National Academy of Arbitrators.
12. S. Bradford.
13. L. Seham.
14. usapa.
15. The AFA.
16. The IBT.
17. The 9th circuit law clerks.
18. The ATA.
19. The lawfirm of Baptiste and Wilder.
20. (most important, and reason usapa is a failure) Army of Leonidas, and the lawfirm of Polsinelli-Shugart!

Did I forget anybody?

No, you pretty much covered it all. But you spun it to your liking...............You have a great holiday too!

 

[AWA320]

Hot off the presses, the US Supreme court will hold a hearing regarding our case. The hearing will take place In Jan. Ohhhhh I cant wait. I sure hope that the question before the court is on arbitrations.

AWA320

 

[CallawayGolf]

Hot off the presses, the US Supreme court will hold a hearing regarding our case. The hearing will take place In Jan. Ohhhhh I cant wait. I sure hope that the question before the court is on arbitrations.

AWA320

Well let's hope the supreme court justices are willing to hear the details of the case, and more importantly provide for a definitive resolution rather than just prolonging the unresolved issues like the ninth circuit did.

One thing is certain - win, lose, or make a total fool out of himself again - $eham's rates are about to go up.

 

[luvthe9]

Well let's hope the supreme court justices are willing to hear the details of the case, and more importantly provide for a definitive resolution rather than just prolonging the unresolved issues like the ninth circuit did.

One thing is certain - win, lose, or make a total fool out of himself again - $eham's rates are about to go up.

So far, the only one who has really taken anyone for a ride is the doctor/lawyer. That ripeness litigation made a fool not only of the west pilots, but Jacobs himself! 😀

 

[CallawayGolf]

So far, the only one who has really taken anyone for a ride is the doctor/lawyer. That ripeness litigation made a fool not only of the west pilots, but Jacobs himself! 😀

And if the SCOTUS reverses the 9th and affirms Wake & Bybee will you then agree that $eham took everyone on a very expensive wild goose chase? $eham has been soundly rebuked by Wake, Silver, the courts in the RICO case, and the PBGC just to name a few. All Dr. Jacob did was ensure that USAPA couldn’t claim the DFR was past the statute of limitations and provide a great case for the SCOTUS to review or for DFR II should USAPA ever get a JCBA negotiated (probability very near zero).

So no matter how much $eham charges or how many times he gets in over his head in front of an unbiased judge – you are willing to through as much money at him as his pocketbook demands? Do you have any limits on how much $eham should be allowed to fleece the pilots for. Do you demand anything in return beyond not having to vote on a TA so as to avoid the NIC?

 

[prechilill]

That's a very nice post Callaway.