AMR also believes that the west pilots case is ripe!

[General Lee]

Don't have time to pull the transcript. But she took both lawyers to task for not sitting down and coming up with a compromise. I believe this might be why it's rumored ferguson and koontz were at hq with Marty. Seigal and Usapa.

Now if your going back to the ninth and quoting them. Then you should also agree that the case is not ripe. And Usapa is free to negotiate. Not until a final sli. Is completed and the big picture taken into full account. (What extra pay. Security retirement etc). Will they be able to factually determine if the west was harmed by Usapa actions.

I know it's hard for butb to stop taking snipets of orders and using that small piece to sound favorable to his arguement. But you really should read the whole thing. Some people call it denial. And never come out of it

Isn't it ripe for the Westies when they can't bid for upgrades during equipment bids?


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Bringupthebird]

Don't have time to pull the transcript. But she took both lawyers to task for not sitting down and coming up with a compromise. I believe this might be why it's rumored ferguson and koontz were at hq with Marty. Seigal and Usapa.

Now if your going back to the ninth and quoting them. Then you should also agree that the case is not ripe. And Usapa is free to negotiate. Not until a final sli. Is completed and the big picture taken into full account. (What extra pay. Security retirement etc). Will they be able to factually determine if the west was harmed by Usapa actions.

I know it's hard for butb to stop taking snipets of orders and using that small piece to sound favorable to his arguement. But you really should read the whole thing. Some people call it denial. And never come out of it

The link to the transcript is 2 pages back. Thank me later.

When you read it, you will see that she is deferring to the 9th and furthermore the MOU was not a player when the case was before the 9th. It is now and the case is ripe.

Seigel affirmed that there will be no vote on a JCBA and that the MOU was the JCBA and that any differences would be hammered out by arbitration. You had the only vote you'll ever get and that vote triggered the provisions in the TA for implementing the Nic.

It was apparent from Silver's cutting folks off in mid sentence that she wanted to appear that she had a better grasp on the case than she really has. Her desire to return to the negotiations stage with dual representatives and the company as mediator shows that she needs to brush up on RLA rules and airline merger history.

Or better yet, follow the law and just demand that USAPA utilize the Nicolau as the starting point in negotiations with APA. She doesn't need to force it's implementation prior, but she can force USAPA to present the Nic as its list.

 

[TWA Dude]

Don't have time to pull the transcript. But she took both lawyers to task for not sitting down and coming up with a compromise.

So? You're still not getting it. She can recommend whatever she wants cause she apparently doesn't yet comprehend that the Nic was the compromise.

I believe this might be why it's rumored ferguson and koontz were at hq with Marty. Seigal and Usapa.

LoL. I needed a laugh. Keep hoping.

 

[Metrojet]

So now you say the AOL lawyers are doing all of this on their own accord. No direction or input from the west pilots? They have taken up this case Pro Bono and coming up with their own ideas as to the direction to take the West pilots? Interesting.

I may be paraphrasing here, but I believe in your own update, it states the Judge strongly encourages the parties to sit down and come up with something other than what their positions have been?!? Or did the lawyers write that without any consideration of what the west pilots think?


So all mighty one. Tell me how a 3 way works. APA comes to table with their list. USAPA comes to table with their list (probably the East seniority list) and AOL comes to the table with the NIC. Everyone looks at it and says, Uhmmm...why is the AOL list about 3k pilots fat? Oh well you see this is the list that was supposed to be in effect if the east and west ever voted on a JCBA. It never got memorilized in section 22 so we've never used this list. But this is the list we want to start with. Oh ok, well how 'bout giving us the west seniority list and we'll start from there.......

I guess it couldn't work out that way huh? I guess you figure by showing up with the NIC award, you can effectively shoulder out what USAPA puts on the table? Do you feel lucky?

So your telling me that Nicolau is the grand poohbah of arbitrators and everyone looks at him and his decisions as being altruistic and never problematic? His word is written in stone, and other arbitrators will be struck down if they even so much as question any of his decisions (wasn't he fired from baseball arbitration for some reason?) I don't know as I don't run in those circles...

Well said Crz!

Metrojet

 

[Crzipilot]

Well you two are hopeless. At some point you will come out of denial. If the mic is it. Then you should have been given that injunction. Cyic. Keep dreaming

 

[Turtle21]

...
Or better yet, follow the law and just demand that USAPA utilize the Nicolau...

First of all you could care less if USAPA uses the Nicolau... you want the company to implement it and publish a system bid. If the company published the Nic as the system seniority list with a system wide bid then you would be happy and USAPA would have to be the plaintiff trying to stop it. And I assure you Silver will never tell the company to do that. To do so would be a contractual violation of the 2005 TA. CANNOT DO IT. There are contractual requirements in order to use the Nic. Those requirements have not been met. Silver would be spanked harder than Wake (who was smart enough not to do something stupid like that).

If you want Silver to force the company to use the Nic you must show the 2005 TA requirements have been met and you will immediately have the Nic. Good luck, especially since you voted to nullify the 2005 TA (which was prescriptive with respect to seniority) and voted by 98% to now have a MOU/MTA (that is neutral with respect to seniority.) Neutral... think about what you now have and what you had. That is why you are suing.

Now, LUP.. The LUP question has already been answered by the appropriate authority. That question is moot. Don't believe me? That is because you didn't read Silver close enough to see who it is that must consider if USAPA has an LUP. Go read Silver's Declaratory Judgement Order again.... USAPA and the company can negotiate any change they want to the 2005 TA, including using any seniority regime they wish, but the company needs to be aware they may share in any possible DFR liability, soooo.....the COMPANY must consider whether or not they think USAPA has an LUP for any seniority regime the company decides to agree to. The company agreed to let USAPA abandon the Nicolau for a seniority neutral regime that replaced the 2005 TA. Did you catch it? The company obviously agreed with USAPA and found they had an LUP to no longer demand a Nic inclusive seniority integration. They didn't say Nic cannot be used but they (both) sure as heck dropped the requirement.

USAPA believed it had a LUP to abandon the Nic-prescriptive 2005 TA for a ratification vote opportunity on the 2013 MOU that is seniority neutral... and the company agreed with them... that is why you are suing the company and USAPA. Sorry, LUP question irrelevant now, except for you to consider that you are way behind in the court room without a paddle.

Judge Silver was very clear... USAPA and the Company could negotiate any seniority regime they wished and they were negotiating for an entirely new contract than the 2005 TA. They had every right to change it. They did. It was ratified.

Now AOL can avail themselves of the opportunity Silver gave them to negotiate something with USAPA or they can continue to sit on the side lines and wait until it is all over (screaming integrity matters, the nic or nothing, Eastholes are mean, etc., etc. etc.). Yeah you're right. It makes you feel better. I get it.

How much does feeling better cost?

AOL lawyers already see that there is a remote chance of any damages after the SLI comes out. How much longer will they stick around working on the prospect of a nice commission from damages that are getting more and more remote with every appearance in court? Seen any ALPA lawyers lately?

Negotiate now or accept all the risk. No one cares which AOL decides, but they have less than a week to do so.

Au revoir

 

[Crzipilot]

Put in much better words than I can articulate........

 

[Carl S.]

Silver told the USAPA Schill DOH with C&R's won't cut it, where is USAPA to go if they can not move off this position since 2005? The judge has only asked for more briefs, no rulings yet, so the original point of an injunction is still in play.....USAPA`always claiming victory before a result...

 

[Ocity]

Silver told the USAPA Schill DOH with C&R's won't cut it, where is USAPA to go if they can not move off this position since 2005? The judge has only asked for more briefs, no rulings yet, so the original point of an injunction is still in play.....USAPA`always claiming victory before a result...

Nobody understands what Silver is getting at. She didn't understand her own order. How can 3random west pilots bind the entire west class when there is no west class. Has silver gifted the West their own union flying in the face of all legal premise? Is she going to demand MB 3 way even though MB specifically states it can never be used retroactively to prior mergers?

If she has a plan, she's the only one that knows wtf she's doing.

 

[Crzipilot]

MR. SZYMANSKI: So, Your Honor, first of all, I
think -- I thought that it was clear when we argued about the
declaratory judgment action that USAPA's position was that the
Nicolau Award was not its obligation and it did not plan to go
ahead and propose the Nicolau Award or follow the Nicolau
Award.
THE COURT: You said that, I believe --
MR. SZYMANSKI: Transcript from the argument?
THE COURT: Yes. You're prepared to talk. We want
to talk and we will want genuine engagement with the West
Pilots about the seniority proposal and we are proposed to make changes. No changes.
MR. SZYMANSKI: Changes in the date-of-hire proposal,
not changes in the Nicolau proposal.
THE COURT: Well, you never said that. If you had
said that in open Court, then we would have had a hearing at
that time because the issue was what I made quite clear is that you had to go forward. USAPA had to go forward and with an
open mind and that the Nicolau Award was not irrelevant. It
was to be considered.
You know, I, frankly, don't have enough experience
with seniority agreements. I do, to some extent, way back when
I did some of this work, as to whether or not there might be a
fair way, taking into account not only the Nicolau Award, and I am quite aware that it wasn't a unanimous decision and adate-of-hire proposal for seniority.

MR. SZYMANSKI: And, Your Honor, I'm not saying thatthe Nicolau Award is not fair although there were significant
problems with it, and I'm not saying that a date-of-hire
proposal is not fair. We've given the Court cases and
citations to a number of Court decisions that say that a
date-of-hire proposal is within the union's duty of fair
representation and is fair.
But there are a number of other possible proposals
and we were prepared to discuss those with representatives of
the West Pilots and they said no. They did not want to talk
about that.
THE COURT: And taking that as true, they stood
stiff-legged in front of you and said no way? It's Nicolau or
nothing.
MR. SZYMANSKI: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So what you're saying is that that just
broke down the negotiations? You couldn't offer anything?
What would you have offered?

THE COURT: Let's read all of the order which I
thought I was very clear to make the -- all counsel and the
parties in front of me; but I basically said that you could, in fact, go forward and make a decision without the Nicolau Award but I didn't say that you unequivocally could reject it. I said that it was dangerous for you to do that because it was
considered fair. So you had to consider it. Now that's what I said and there's no way you could read that order any other way.

MR. SZYMANSKI: Yes. And when I left this Court, Ivsaid we were going to try to engage them in a discussion to try to resolve it and we did. But they said we don't want to talk about anything other than the Nicolau Award.
THE COURT: Okay.
So, in other words, they, then, didn't comply, as far
as you're concerned, with my order either, which was that USAPA did not have to adopt only the Nicolau Award but had to be fair.
So they stymied you. They were the wall as far as
you're concerned and your client is concerned?
MR. SZYMANSKI: And they are still there, Your Honor.
They have not changed their position

MR. HARPER: But indeed our position is neutral is
not good enough under these set of circumstances for where we
were. On September 7, 2013, the West Pilots had a
Transition Agreement that required the Nicolau to be dropped in to any negotiated -- and that changed on the eighth.
THE COURT: So you are -- you wish to re-merge and
say that now the Nicolau Award, is it for your clients and
nothing else? That despite what I said, which is that USAPA
does not have to accept the Nicolau Award as the only basis
upon which to negotiate a fair seniority agreement -- now,
that's what I said; correct?
MR. HARPER: I think what you said is that if they
abandon the Nicolau without a legitimate union purpose, then
they are substantially at risk.
THE COURT: That's right. But that doesn't mean they
have to adopt it, embrace it. So what happened after that
order that would indicate that, in fact, they were not going to at least consider it?
MR. HARPER: The Nicolau?
THE COURT: Right.
MR. HARPER: He just told you. They have -- from --
Mr. Bradford wrote his first letter back in May of 2007. But
from there clear on through today --
THE COURT: Okay. I heard him today. Give me some
facts now after the MOU was, in fact, made final. What
happened?

MR. HARPER: Their duty -- the breach of the duty was
not to include the Nicolau in the MOU.
THE COURT: And is that as simple as it is?
MR. HARPER: Yes. I think that that is the breach of
the duty of fair representation. They had the duty to insist
on the Nicolau and they didn't.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. They
don't have a duty to insist on it?
MR. HARPER: As part of the negotiations, yes.
THE COURT: Well, you're saying they had to come to
the table. So what we're talking about is what I thought Iresolved which is it can be considered. It should beconsidered. There has been a determination that it's fair butthat doesn't have to be the final decision on seniority.
Now, that's my ruling.

Con't on next...