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

[Tail Gunner Joe]

At any rate it is virtually certain to come down to what three arbitrators say.

NOT TRUE.

USAPA proved it is possible to Veto an arbitrators ruling

 

[ragman]

They don't have the numbers this time.

 

[Green]

.....

 

[IBNAV8R]

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

 

[maru657]

I'm sure you can count on AA's pilots devotion to a fair and equitable merger. Unless you consider the TWA mess.

 

[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.