US Pilots' Labor Thread 6/9-6/16--PLEASE OBSERVE THE RULES

[EastUS]

Grabbing a line from one of your fellow old timers: "You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, and know when to run."

You neglected the line that actually bespeaks of any degree of experience and "wisdom" = "There'll be time enough for countin'..when the dealin's done" 😉

 

[traderjake]

Under ALPA, we have a lot of experience throwing in the towel well before the bell was rung. For once, I would like to see something played out, like adults do.

It's over, some of us just don't know it yet.

Adults honor agreements they make, like binding arbitration.

 

[john john]

Adults honor agreements they make, like binding arbitration.

Binding arbitration awards have been used as barging chips for unions without end

 

[A320 Driver]

It's over, some of us just don't know it yet.

Adults honor agreements they make, like binding arbitration.

Really? I see no honor in putting a 3 year pilot in front of a 20 year pilot on the seniority list. I see no honor in trying to put a fuloughed pilot in front of a flying Captain. Binding arbitration is just a process used when cowardess/greed prevents two sides from coming to a reasonable agreement during negotiations.

Plenty of dishonor in this whole process...on both sides.

Driver B)

 

[nycbusdriver]

Really? I see no honor in putting a 3 year pilot in front of a 20 year pilot on the seniority list. I see no honor in trying to put a fuloughed pilot in front of a flying Captain. Binding arbitration is just a process used when cowardess/greed prevents two sides from coming to a reasonable agreement during negotiations.

Plenty of dishonor in this whole process...on both sides.

Driver B)

Amen!

 

[ussnark]

Adults honor agreements they make, like binding arbitration.

The "binding agreement" was for a certain circumstance and had two other "binding agreements" that had to be executed in order to mean anything. Any adult knows your comment is meaningless in this context, reality.

You seem to be sitting on a one-legged tripod. I would love to see a "merger" agreement that both parties could vote for. Like it would pass in a million years, leaving the US pilots with two different contracts forever.

Some of us, those with experience outside of ALPA, see where that will go and, in the interests of a merged contract, see USAPA as the only workable path. It won't be perfect, but it will be a heck of a lot better than two separate contracts for thirty plus years.

 

[N924PS]

The "binding agreement" was for a certain circumstance and had two other "binding agreements" that had to be executed in order to mean anything. Any adult knows your comment is meaningless in this context, reality.

You seem to be sitting on a one-legged tripod. I would love to see a "merger" agreement that both parties could vote for. Like it would pass in a million years, leaving the US pilots with two different contracts forever.

Some of us, those with experience outside of ALPA, see where that will go and, in the interests of a merged contract, see USAPA as the only workable path. It won't be perfect, but it will be a heck of a lot better than two separate contracts for thirty plus years.

Talk about sitting on a one leg tripod.

Did you happen to conveniently forget that that USAPA has just lost a DFR lawsuit? Still awaiting the remedy and damages. The jury seemed to believe the agreement was binding in this circumstance and I believe the next level of appeal will find the same result.

While my remaining time here is short compared to most, it is a certainty that it will be under two separate contracts. USAPA will be unable to cram down a seniority list/contract that disregards the Nicolau Award.

Neither side will budge, but the law favors the West argument, despite what salesman Seham is selling to the BPR.

 

[ussnark]

Did you happen to conveniently forget that that USAPA has just lost a DFR lawsuit?

No.

Are we done, yet? Did the fat lady sing?

Was there any doubt, at all, that no matter which way the jury "ruled", that an appeal would be filed? Why ever would anyone think that all was said and done when the jury spoke.....

Are you one of those who toss in the towel at the opening bell? Whose spine turns to jello at the whisper of "concessions"? I doubt it, but, man, there sure are more (more than three) east pilots that do that than I would like.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Are we done, yet? Did the fat lady sing?

Yes.

Was there any doubt, at all, that no matter which way the jury "ruled", that an appeal would be filed?

OJ too filed his appeal right after his jury conviction. Wanna wager a guess on the liklihood of him staying behind bars?

Why ever would anyone think that all was said and done when the jury spoke.....

Because in the overwhelming percentage of cases jury verdicts stand. The only hope for USAPA is to identify a reversible error made by Judge Wake. Fat chance, as he did a tremendous job dotting I's and crossing T's. USAPA's chances for a successful appeal are about as close to zero as one can come.

Are you one of those who toss in the towel at the opening bell?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell No!

Whose spine turns to jello at the whisper of "concessions"?

USAPA's? Aren't they the ones negotiating for a pay concession?

 

[hp_fa]

Binding arbitration awards have been used as barging chips for unions without end

John John, this is not the same as what you allude to in your post.

This originated from an intra-union dispute that arose out of the merger. Your post, to me, suggests that you are confusing union/company negotiations and transactions with union/union negotiations and transactions. This is a union/union negotiation and transaction that arose under ALPA merger policy at the time of the merger. ALPA may be gone, but the binding issues resolved while ALPA was on the property are still binding.

Judge Wake is currently drafting findings of fact and law which will be issued later this month and will accompany both the final and appealable decision from the liability phase of Addington v. USAPA, as well as any Permanent Injunction that he sees fit to issue in that case. I firmly anticipate seeing findings of fact and law which essentially provide:

1. That at the time of the merger both pilot groups were affiliated with ALPA;

2. That ALPA had an existing seniority integration policy that addressed situations that arose when one ALPA represented carrier merged with another ALPA represented carrier;

3. That the AAA MEC and the AWA MEC began seniority integration procedures soon after the merger was finalized;

4. That the AAA MEC supported a DOH/LOS form of integration;

5. That the AWA MEC supported a proportional form of integration;

6. That the parties failed to resolve their differences by negotiations;

7. That when an agreement between the parties could not be arrived at via negotiations that ALPA merger policy provided for mediation and arbitration by an arbitrator that was to be chosed from a list of approved arbitrators;

8. That the parties took the list provided by ALPA and then each party took turns striking potential arbitrators from the list of names provided;

9. That when the process of striking names was completed the remaining name was George Nicolau and he became the assigned arbitrator;

10. That each party then chose a pilot from another carrier from an ALPA provided list to assist Nicolau on the Arbitration Panel;

11. That once the Arbitration Panel was constituted they proceeded with mediation under the terms of ALPA merger policy;

12. That the parties failed to resolve their issues in mediation and commenced arbitration that would result in a full and binding seniority integration;

13. That the parties, as provided under ALPA merger policy, arbitrated their respective cases to the Arbitration Panel through the presentation of multiple witnesses and by the presentation of multiple documents to the Arbitration Panel;

14. That at the conclusion of the arbitration and after deliberations the Arbitration Panel issued a ruling that is now known as the Nicolau Award;

15. That the Nicolau Award provided for a mixture of protected East flying and that the remained of the pilots were integrated via a proportional formula and that furloughed pilots would not be integrated ahead of a non-furloughed pilot;

16. That after the release of the Nicolau Award there was considerable discontent among AAA members;

17. That Stephan Bradford began forming USAPA as a way to circumvent ALPA's merger policy;

18. That evidence at trial established that the primary purpose of USAPA was to nullify the Nicolau Award;

19. That USAPA did win an election and replaced ALPA as the sole bargaining agent for the merged pilot groups;

20. That the USAPA constitution provided for a DOH/LOS formation of a combined senioity list;

21. That plaintiffs filed suit seeking injunctive relief because of their loss of seniority from what had been a full and binding award that was not being defended by USAPA;

22. That after a trial that a jury found that USAPA had breached it's Duty of Fair Representation that it owed to the AWA pilots in connection with seniority integration;

23. That the Court has, as a matter of law, found that an injunction should issue and is so issuing a Permanent Injunction as a judicial remedy in connection with those matters that are solely matters of law that have been presented to the Court and argued before the Court.

Now, belief it or not, that is likely a very short version of the findings of law and fact that will issue from Judge Wake once he completes preparing the various documents that he is preparing to issue later this month.

 

[fodase]

BTW, Judge Wake just accepted all the usapa updates since the trial under the west's brief. Thanks again usapa.

 

[Tiger 1050]

BTW, Judge Wake just accepted all the usapa updates since the trial under the west's brief. Thanks again usapa.

You know what they say! Can't fix stupid...

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

No.

Are we done, yet? Did the fat lady sing?

Was there any doubt, at all, that no matter which way the jury "ruled", that an appeal would be filed? Why ever would anyone think that all was said and done when the jury spoke.....

Are you one of those who toss in the towel at the opening bell? Whose spine turns to jello at the whisper of "concessions"? I doubt it, but, man, there sure are more (more than three) east pilots that do that than I would like.

Denial is oozing from your keyboard, snark. See post #101 for a nice recap of events as they have ACTUALLY transpired.

For the usapa leadership, it appears easier to lie and prevaricate, than it does to admit the truth, to admit they HAVE committed wrongdoing.

It appears to be the same way for their followership.........grasping at straws.

Sad.

 

[EastUS]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell No!

A classic line from an equally classic film. So...you favor the Dean Wormer approach to life then? :blink: I'll pass. The Delta's would have had my vote.

No matter. Nothing typed here will change anything.

Relax. This'll play out as it will, and take whatever time it will. There's not really much to be done but watch as events unfold.

 

[EastUS]

Was there any doubt, at all, that no matter which way the jury "ruled", that an appeal would be filed?

None whatsoever. I seriously doubt that anyone on either side actually expected this to be resolved without tracking it's way fully through the legal system, just for starters.