AA Pilot Leader Wants America West Pilots in Seniority Talks - Article

[Turtle21]

NOT TRUE.

USAPA proved it is possible to Veto an arbitrators ruling

A lot of folks are not clear about what USAPA actually did. USAPA did not "veto" an arbitration award. USAPA in fact did nothing with the Nicolau Award, and doing nothing with it is what made folks upset.

Former members of ALPA merely read the contract carefully and followed an option in it (the 2005 TA that governed the merger)... they chose to do nothing with the Nic....and doing nothing with the Nic was indeed an option legally provided for in the 2005 TA. (The courts have ruled so several times).

The West failed to understand that arbitrations do not have any inherent power.

The contract is what matters. The West never had a DFR because USAir and USAPA both followed the contract... and but for some political grandstanding judges from Arizona, the West would have been able to come to grips with reality sooner.

In the present merger the governing contract requires that a NEW JCBA Contract will be completed before arbitration is started, and once the arbitration award is complete it will immediately be incorporated into the JCBA.

Its all about the contract. The company and the unions know exactly what made the Nicolau Award irrelevant, and they agreed to terms that will avoid those pitfalls.

Just like with every merger since USAir/AWA, the SLI negotiations will be completed, by arbitration if necessary, after the JCBA is finished, and the results will immediately be incorporated into the contract.

 

[St. Nic]

My prediction is that the Nic will stick and the whole of USAPA will be out-USAPA'd.

Status quo. Three lists. East, west and AA. Relative slotting. The 2005 AWA hires with 8 pilots hired after them should be happy being slotted in with 2013 hires on the east.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

Turtle, what was it that the court said? Something like, "the case was not 'ripe' because there wasn't a change to the status quo - and thus it was difficult to prove demonstrable harm.

I would not be surprised one iota if an arbitration panel treats this as a three-way merger of seniority lists - because as of right now... well, it's three lists.

Personally, I think the whole process of evading implementing the initial award was quite "disingenuous" - but the law isn't concerned with such things.

As a result, I don't believe an arbitrator would force a previous decision made years prior - because that decision was rendered upon the circumstances at that time - a snapshot. The award made the assumption that it would be implemented approximately at that period in time, not 2014/15. Now, to attempt to push all the toothpaste back in the tube is a bit of a tougher task.

 

[General Lee]

The problem here is that the Easties didn't like the award, and made sure there was no contract agreed upon unless the Westies gave in on their demands. They wanted the status quo because it kept them separate and the Westies weren't allowed to claim future upgrades in the Eastie's backyard. That's the truth.

And Spaulding, the seperation of the groups kept integration from happening, which kept the Westies in PHX with fewer upgrade opportunities. It's really not much different there in PHX as it was after the binding award. Everyone, including Parker and the Easties, agreed to abide by the award beforehand, and signed on the bottom line. The East and West both had Nicolau as a choice for the arbitrator, and both agreed to his appointment. I think the next 3 arbitrators will pick that up very quick and see the Easties for what they did, which was avoid a binding award by not agreeing to a joint contract unless the Westies gave in on their demands. That doesn't mean the NIC award wasn't fair, he gave a great written explanation, you should read it.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Turtle21]

Turtle, what was it that the court said? ..

The 9th said (and SCOTUS let stand) that the West lawsuit was not ripe for adjudication until a new contract. A few more lawsuits occurred buy no West claims were sustained. Both USAir and USAPA prevailed in all cases.

But at this point the opinions of the courts are of limited effect because there is a contract that governs how all parties are proceeding. No one is contesting or suing about the provisions of the contract, the Protocol Agreement.

....
I would not be surprised one iota if an arbitration panel treats this as a three-way merger of seniority lists - because as of right now... well, it's three lists.

Personally, I think the whole process of evading implementing the initial award was quite "disingenuous" - but the law isn't concerned with such things.

As a result, I don't believe an arbitrator would force a previous decision made years prior - because that decision was rendered upon the circumstances at that time - a snapshot. The award made the assumption that it would be implemented approximately at that period in time, not 2014/15. Now, to attempt to push all the toothpaste back in the tube is a bit of a tougher task.

As you say there are three lists. Not only are they the status quo, but also the Protocol Agreement stipulates that all participating merger committees indeed agree that the three lists are the status quo. In other words there is by contract no dispute regarding the fairness or equity of the status quo, and thus no arbitration in that regard.

 

[johnsonrod]

A lot of folks are not clear about what USAPA actually did. USAPA did not "veto" an arbitration award. USAPA in fact did nothing with the Nicolau Award, and doing nothing with it is what made folks upset.

Former members of ALPA merely read the contract carefully and followed an option in it (the 2005 TA that governed the merger)... they chose to do nothing with the Nic....and doing nothing with the Nic was indeed an option legally provided for in the 2005 TA. (The courts have ruled so several times).

The West failed to understand that arbitrations do not have any inherent power.

The contract is what matters. The West never had a DFR because USAir and USAPA both followed the contract... and but for some political grandstanding judges from Arizona, the West would have been able to come to grips with reality sooner.

In the present merger the governing contract requires that a NEW JCBA Contract will be completed before arbitration is started, and once the arbitration award is complete it will immediately be incorporated into the JCBA.

Its all about the contract. The company and the unions know exactly what made the Nicolau Award irrelevant, and they agreed to terms that will avoid those pitfalls.

Just like with every merger since USAir/AWA, the SLI negotiations will be completed, by arbitration if necessary, after the JCBA is finished, and the results will immediately be incorporated into the contract.

Since when is it fine to enter into a binding arbitration agreement and then back out of it (or not enforce it) when you don't like the result? How do you define "binding?"

Should not surprise me since so many in our industry get divorced because of infidelity. I see it everywhere. Evidently, "binding" agreements mean little to pilots.

 

[Turtle21]

Since when is it fine to enter into a binding arbitration agreement and then back out of it (or not enforce it) when you don't like the result? How do you define "binding?"

Should not surprise me since so many in our industry get divorced because of infidelity. I see it everywhere. Evidently, "binding" agreements mean little to pilots.

A contract is a contract. Its terms are truly binding, the fine print and all.

Indeed the 2005 TA that governed our merger was obviously binding... just not in the way the West assumed (and it cost them millions in their failed attempt to force their assumed wishes contrary to the binding contract).

The contract had contingencies that the West demanded (and didn't like when the East used them). To the West's chagrin, they have been bound by court order twice to abide by those contingencies... and a federal judge was bound by court order also.

The contract is binding. Assumptions are not.

 

[Bringupthebird]

I would not be surprised one iota if an arbitration panel treats this as a three-way merger of seniority lists - because as of right now... well, it's three lists.

No the arbitration is between the AA list and the US list. They have no reason to re-do the HP/US seniority list as it was completed per all signed agreements and protocols and accepted by the company as the list. USAPA chose to drag out contract implementation my failing to negotiate in good faith, but that doesn't make the NIC invalid. USAPA's feeble argument "that was the other union, not us" (when the members are exactly the same) will be laughed out of court immediately. So too will their so-called "Legitimate Union Purpose" doublespeak which has not been evidenced by any tangible benefits to the membership (including the promised new contract) since it's inception.

If they want to open up the HP/US arbitration, why can't AOL demand that all previous SLI integrations be re-arbitrated?

The panel's choice will be very obvious : NIC+APA= combined SLI using whatever integration methodology they choose. Anything else sets up a protracted and indefensible battle.

 

[johnsonrod]

A contract is a contract. Its terms are truly binding, the fine print and all.

Indeed the 2005 TA that governed our merger was obviously binding... just not in the way the West assumed (and it cost them millions in their failed attempt to force their assumed wishes contrary to the binding contract).

The contract had contingencies that the West demanded (and didn't like when the East used them). To the West's chagrin, they have been bound by court order twice to abide by those contingencies... and a federal judge was bound by court order also.

The contract is binding. Assumptions are not.

If the contract is binding, then why did USAPA disagree or not enforce the Nic award?

 

[Turtle21]

If the contract is binding, then why did USAPA disagree or not enforce the Nic award?

The assumption that the Nic was required is not contained in the terms of the contract. The courts have said as much, multiple times.

 

[Turtle21]

No the arbitration is between the AA list and the US list. ....

Predicting the outcome of a game is difficult enough when one is honest about the ground rules... if one's predictions rely on assumptions, then they greatly increase the probability of error.

The arbitration (if there is indeed one, as we expect) will be between the merger committees in order to merge the status quo lists.

All agreed merger committees and the status quo lists are contractual agreements contained in the Protocol Agreement, and thus binding.

 

[johnsonrod]

Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream!!!!!!!

 

[IBNAV8R]

Sounds like a lawyer's wet dream!!!!!!!

How much have lawyers made on this mess so far?

 

[IBNAV8R]

If this goes to binding arbitration, I can't imagine that previous binding arbitration is going to be disregarded by a new arbitrator.

The Eastie's run is over. Dougie thanks you for the huge savings in labor costs over the last 8 years.

 

[Turtle21]

If this goes to binding arbitration, I can't imagine that previous binding arbitration is going to be disregarded by a new arbitrator.

The Eastie's run is over. Dougie thanks you for the huge savings in labor costs over the last 8 years.

Who knows what the arbitrators will find fair and equitable for the new SLI of the three lists, but I expect they won't reveal any emotional attachment they might have to anything.

 

[Bringupthebird]

The assumption that the Nic was required is not contained in the terms of the contract. The courts have said as much, multiple times.

Why then did the courts also refer to an undeniably ripe DFR if USAPA was to implement anything other than the NIC? Why did the courts also warn USAPA of the dangers inherent in disregarding an arbitrated list?

Did you listen to anything the court really said?

Face it, USAPA never had plans to deliver a new contract. They duped you and you sheep bought it to the tune of hundreds of million$$. Now they are spending your money on personal vendettas, and the sheep pen lets them.

I wonder if APA will let you pick reps on your own or not. It could be proven that you are a danger to yourselves and others.

 

[Turtle21]

Why then did the courts also refer to an undeniably ripe DFR if USAPA was to implement anything other than the NIC? Why did the courts also warn USAPA of the dangers inherent in disregarding an arbitrated list?

Did you listen to anything the court really said?

Face it, USAPA never had plans to deliver a new contract. They duped you and you sheep bought it to the tune of hundreds of million$$. Now they are spending your money on personal vendettas, and the sheep pen lets them.

I wonder if APA will let you pick reps on your own or not. It could be proven that you are a danger to yourselves and others.

If you would like to assert that the Nic was/is required then you have the burden of proof. The rhetorical questions you ask are not proof but are instead merely based on assumptions and premises..

Ask Marty to show you one extant legal document that requires the use of the Nic. Just one... Then post it here or a link with page, paragraph, and line number..

After all you have paid Marty, he owes you guys that much.

 

[General Lee]

So, all of you guys, including Doug Parker, didn't sign on the dotted line, accepting the eventual award prior to entering the "binding" arbitration process? You didn't? Really? I think you did..... I guess you forgot that part, or want to.

Your CLT base "Chairman" (?) thinks the additional arbitration panel will be bad for you guys. Do you want me to post that memo? I've got it if you'd like to read it....



Bye Bye----General Lee

 

[Green]

This says it all really.

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/East-West_NIC_DOH_pic.pdf

Interesting to note where the USAPA officers fall on the NIC vs. DOH.

 

[Turtle21]

So, all of you guys, including Doug Parker, didn't sign on the dotted line, accepting the eventual award prior to entering the "binding" arbitration process? You didn't? Really? I think you did..... I guess you forgot that part, or want to.

Your CLT base "Chairman" (?) thinks the additional arbitration panel will be bad for you guys. Do you want me to post that memo? I've got it if you'd like to read it....



Bye Bye----General Lee

I have talked with the CLT rep personally. I know his opinion.

Regarding the Nic, I have asked many times over the years for one person to provide me one document that requires the Nic to be used. Just one document. Just one document that requires the Nic to be used....

Plenty of people have big mouths but not no one has a legal document.