"What's next now for AA/US possible merger'

[Turtle21]

Hi Pvt. Lee. Pay isn't the only important part of a contract. The choice we had at US Stupidways with the AWA genious (wunderkind) Parker at the helm was getting a couple dollars more per hour (YEA for the AWA guys) but raping us with work rules, scope, min fleet, min utilization rate and they are still trying to do the same with the AA "term sheet". Oh ya and I would have had to have their two month guys as my captain...sounds to me like you are right and we passed up a great deal...Private. Thanks for all your help.

The soldier didn't care one whit about this mess until trying to score with a AWA pilot. Beer goggles will make anyone a sniveling worm.

 

[General Lee]

The soldier didn't care one whit about this mess until trying to score with a AWA pilot. Beer goggles will make anyone a sniveling worm.

Hahahahahhahhahahhhahahaha. You Easties are gonna get worked over so bad! What a train wreck!


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[cactusboy53]

The 9th made it abundantly clear. No injunction. Maybe Silver thinks she is above that. USAPA has freedom to bargain. Members that don't like the outcome can sue once a contract is ratified. The 9th also cited the SCOTUS for the standard that a plaintiff will have to prove in order to be successful in a DFR suit. The plaintiff will have to prove the union acted in a way that is arbitrary and outside a wide range of reasonableness.

Good luck.

Here is what the 9th said about "free to bargain"....: "We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA."

Here is the "abundantly clear" statement from the 9th in the entire CONCLUSION: "For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED. No costs to either side."

I'm not an attorney, but if you read the ENTIRE decision from the 9th you should walk away with the following:

1. Was ALPA "free to abandon" the Nicolau seniority list? ALPA already looked at the process and found no wrong doing. They delivered the completed list to US Airways. As such, I think the answer to that question is "NO".
2. The 9th said it was simply not ripe (2-1 Bybee dissenting) with out a joint collective bargaining agreement that did not include the Nicolau list (paraphrasing). It seems then that IF a collective bargaining agreement is struck between the company and USAPA (or who ever the agent is) that has something OTHER than the Nicolau seniority list....you have just crossed the RIPE line (IMHO).

Here is the document if you wish to read it yourself: http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/9th.../Doc046-1_AddingtonDecision_Ninth_Circuit.pdf

CB

 

[igneousy2]

Here is the document if you wish to read it yourself: http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/9th.../Doc046-1_AddingtonDecision_Ninth_Circuit.pdf


CB

Thanks for posting the entire case..it's been a boring rainy night at the crash pad so I actually read the decision cover-cover.

I had only previously read the opinion pretty quickly but now that I have read the entire document I have to say that I wouldn't be so confident that the West has a slam dunk case once a CBA is formed.

I think the most telling view of how the judges view this case is the statement in the notes on 8009...

The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA.

After reading this note and then re-reading the case (especially the notes), I have changed my opinion, and it seems to me that the judges that delivered the majority opinion do not believe that Nicolau is binding upon USAPA. I think the pilots are drawing the circles small...a circle for seniority, circle for work rules, a circle for pay rates, and this whole Nicolau award is just one of the little circles. The judges are drawing a bigger circle around the entire process of the new CBA which includes the seniority list as just one part. Once there is a CBA, then the CBA would be judged in the treatment of the west pilots in it's entirety. The "binding arbitration" was a tool that ALPA used to ensure it provided fair representation to both sides. USAPA will have to figure out some way to ensure fair representation to all pilots on it's own but I no longer believe that they are somehow bound by the Nicolau award. For example a CBA that gave the East their DOH, but pay protected the West based on a ratio might be able to pass muster.

​

 

[Turtle21]

Here is what the 9th said about "free to bargain"....: "We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA."

Here is the "abundantly clear" statement from the 9th in the entire CONCLUSION: "For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED. No costs to either side."

I'm not an attorney, but if you read the ENTIRE decision from the 9th you should walk away with the following:

1. Was ALPA "free to abandon" the Nicolau seniority list? ALPA already looked at the process and found no wrong doing. They delivered the completed list to US Airways. As such, I think the answer to that question is "NO".
2. The 9th said it was simply not ripe (2-1 Bybee dissenting) with out a joint collective bargaining agreement that did not include the Nicolau list (paraphrasing). It seems then that IF a collective bargaining agreement is struck between the company and USAPA (or who ever the agent is) that has something OTHER than the Nicolau seniority list....you have just crossed the RIPE line (IMHO).

Here is the document if you wish to read it yourself: http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/9th.../Doc046-1_AddingtonDecision_Ninth_Circuit.pdf

CB

I assure you I am very familiar with it and have read it numerous times, from the 9th's own library of published opinions Here, and not from USAPA's or Leonidas' site (in the off chance they aren't exact copies).


Using the 9th's opinion to speculate on the outcome of this dispute is not very reliable, because after all, the 9th court's opinion was merely a direction to remove the inunction, and provided for the pilots to know what to expect from the courts in the future, after they finish their negotiations with the company.

The relevant information for us is what we 1) cannot do now, what we 2) can do now, and what conditions must be met for us to 3) do something different in the future. Making predictions about the outcome of this dispute are only speculative (and denying the dispute is stupid), but the 9th did provide clear direction for what we cannot do, what we can do, and provided the conditions for the next DFR suit, in the event someone wants one. The 9th even cited a SCOTUS standard or threshold to be surmounted to prove that a DFR occurred, should anyone that is thinking of a future DFR wish to have a heads up before spending another $2Mil.


The 9th told us what we cannot have or do--No injunction during internal disputes:

there is no disputing that this case would be the first time we [the 9th] allowed a DFR suit to proceed in a collective bargaining/ contract negotiating context before the CBA at issue was ratified. Such a departure from the norm would invite parties to bring suit long before internal disputes have had a chance to work themselves out.


To be sure, the parties’ interest would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute , but that is not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim.

The 9th told us what we can do, ie. continue to bargain with the company, with the knowledge of when a DFR may be brought:

..it is uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever would be effectuated.

Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately is.

Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.

“in light of the well-established federal policy of avoiding unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of unions and according considerable deference to the interpretation and application of a union’s rules and regulations”.[think about that for a bit]. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith [with the company] pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.

“a claim can be brought only after negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been reached.”

In the grievance context, too, we have required that a final outcome be reached before allowing a suit based on a union’s allegedly violative conduct that led to the decision.

And the 9th cited the SCOTUS standard of DFR that must be met:

“[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’

Silver may well think that she can establish an injunction that the 9th saw fit to dismiss. Silver may think that there is no internal union dispute, contrary to the findings of the 9th. Silver may think that a looming merger is really not a contingency that the 9th could have had in mind as a reason not to judicially intervene before a contract is ratified.

Who knows how the internal union dispute will work itself out, or if courts will feel the need to intervene in spite of the 9th's clear choice not to.

Who knows how it will work out, but if I were a judge I would not make a decision that contradicts the 9th, unless I were on the SCOTUS .

 

[cactusboy53]

The only question in front of Judge Silver is whether or not the company is going to be free from litigation should they decide to accept a list other than the Nicolau (basically).

IF Judge Silver says the company is free from harm, USAPA is still NOT. IF Judge Silver says Doug is a big boy and on his own, both the company, USAPA (& any other party involved in a seniority integration) will be co-litigants to DFR (when the plaintiffs party decides to pull the trigger).

While you both are sharp and educated (likely to the same degree that I am), you should remember these points:

1. A senior arbitrator and two pilot neutrals came up with the Nicolau seniority list. It was never found out of compliance of the ALPA merger policy (which is now generally mirrored in the McCaskill /Bond legislation).
2. No seniority list / arbitration has EVER been overturned by the court system (ask Mike Cleary & Randy Mowrey....they said the same thing in June 2000).
3. The only lawyer that told USAPA (after USAPA shopped SEVERAL lawyers) that DOH was a slam dunk, it now off payroll. His counsel was expensive and failed to produce the results that USAPA was seeking.
4. 2 seasoned federal judges agreed with the Nicolau seniority arbitration and the DFR lawsuit.
5. A jury of peers found USAPA guilty of DFR in LESS than 90 MINUTES based on court testimony.
6. If the company is not given a "bye" on liability in a DFR lawsuit, do you think Mr. Parker will endanger LCC's position with further guaranteed litigation?

I think Tuesday will bring a conclusion to these proceedings. The question in front of Judge Silver may not be as black & white as ..."You must use the Nicolau list". The company is the party seeking clarification on liability.

I'll be in Philly with a Coke and a bag of microwave popcorn.

PS Everything from the Leonidas site is truthful and verifiable. No really, it is.

 

[charlie2]

Hey Sulley. Anyways.......You guys were going to EAT it or go CHAP 7. Them's is the facts. AWA got a mortgage and bought your butts. They did. You then agreed on binding arbitration, and your MEC chair even said NIC was a good guy to do it. Then, when NIC was ready to give his award, he told your guy to come around and try to work it out. Did your guy take NIC's advice? NOPE. IDIOTS. You could have changed the pay, the work rules, etc with a NEW contract, but instead, your A320 Captains make less per hour than I do. What a joke. You guys have helped ruin this profession by showing you can say NO to a handshake, a BINDING award that honorable men would abide to because they AGREED to it. But NOOOOOOOO, you instead are just a joke.


Bye Bye---General Lee

That's Colonel Charlie2 to you Private. You are right we were going to go ch 7 which might have much better for us as we might have been able to have a better career elsewhere. But no, Bruce Lakefield and the ex-con at AWA Doug Parker convinced a bunch of suckers to invest in a merger with us. OOOPS! I really feel bad for AWA pilots because even though they try to take credit for "saving" us US Stupidairways pilots they did not and it didn't turn out very well for them. An honorable man takes care of his family doing whatever it takes. Now go eat you grits with a lot of butter Private.

 

[Turtle21]

The only question in front of Judge Silver is whether or not the company is going to be free from litigation should they decide to accept a list other than the Nicolau (basically).

IF Judge Silver says the company is free from harm, USAPA is still NOT. IF Judge Silver says Doug is a big boy and on his own, both the company, USAPA (& any other party involved in a seniority integration) will be co-litigants to DFR (when the plaintiffs party decides to pull the trigger).

While you both are sharp and educated (likely to the same degree that I am), you should remember these points:

1. A senior arbitrator and two pilot neutrals came up with the Nicolau seniority list. It was never found out of compliance of the ALPA merger policy (which is now generally mirrored in the McCaskill /Bond legislation).
2. No seniority list / arbitration has EVER been overturned by the court system (ask Mike Cleary & Randy Mowrey....they said the same thing in June 2000).
3. The only lawyer that told USAPA (after USAPA shopped SEVERAL lawyers) that DOH was a slam dunk, it now off payroll. His counsel was expensive and failed to produce the results that USAPA was seeking.
4. 2 seasoned federal judges agreed with the Nicolau seniority arbitration and the DFR lawsuit.
5. A jury of peers found USAPA guilty of DFR in LESS than 90 MINUTES based on court testimony.
6. If the company is not given a "bye" on liability in a DFR lawsuit, do you think Mr. Parker will endanger LCC's position with further guaranteed litigation?

I think Tuesday will bring a conclusion to these proceedings. The question in front of Judge Silver may not be as black & white as ..."You must use the Nicolau list". The company is the party seeking clarification on liability.

I'll be in Philly with a Coke and a bag of microwave popcorn.

PS Everything from the Leonidas site is truthful and verifiable. No really, it is.

We get it, you think there should be an injunction to use the Nic. Remember, even the 9th acknowledged you have dreams.

Like I said, who knows what Silver will do, but ironically none of your points even address the question before Silver, neither do they address the realities established by the 9th, or the standard of DFR established by the SCOTUS. You are just ignoring them and arguing as if the 9th is irrelevant.

We shall see if Silver is smart enough to do what you haven't.

 

[ALGFLYR]

The only question in front of Judge Silver is whether or not the company is going to be free from litigation should they decide to accept a list other than the Nicolau (basically).

...

I think Tuesday will bring a conclusion to these proceedings. The question in front of Judge Silver may not be as black & white as ..."You must use the Nicolau list". The company is the party seeking clarification on liability.

I think what Silver decides will become important when and if a joint agreement is reached and ratified between USAPA and US Airways. Of course if an agreement between these two parties is never reached due to a merger with American, her ruling won't really matter... It will have no bearing on a seniority list between USAPA and the APA...

 

[General Lee]

I think what Silver decides will become important when and if a joint agreement is reached and ratified between USAPA and US Airways. Of course if an agreement between these two parties is never reached due to a merger with American, her ruling won't really matter... It will have no bearing on a seniority list between USAPA and the APA...

Ummmmmm, NO. I think it would be considered "ripe" if the AWA guys lost out on seniority in a SLI between the APA and USAPA. Maybe you also believe that you can drive that truck that was taken from you in the divorce settlement with your Ex Wife. Riiiiight. You Easties are unbelievable. You continue to try to brush the NIC award under the door, pretending it NEVER happened. Everyone can see you! Maybe you can negotiate this time with the APA, and just tell them THIS TIME YOU WILL PLAY BY THE RULES, unlike LAST TIME..... Last time was just practice, this time with the APA WILL BE FOR REAL.....


Bye Bye---General Lee