NO.
BS is
1. Failing to abide and accept a federal final and binding decision.
2. Failing to return to the negotiation table last year.
3. Demonizing ALPA for all of your woes, and voting in your little association, and failing to properly represent the interests of ALL US Airways pilots.
PS According to the NMB, there is no East side or West side. We are all one carrier. You kids can fly out here, and those of us interested can fly out there.
PSS Enjoyed a 100% mechanical not long ago, and have a couple of 100% DH's coming up. You could have enjoyed the same, had integrity mattered more than an unachievable DOH.
Well, don't have a dog in this fight; and not sure why I am even posting, as its like a police officer getting in the middle of a 'domestic dispute' However, I do have friends on both sides, talk with them about the whole situation regularily; and just thought maybe (granted a 'long shot' but maybe), I can at least cut through some of the BS. I do have the legal training, but not sure I can compete with the 'arm chair' legal advisors on this forum; and not sure anyone will listen anyway. One friend (a AWA, or I guess a 'Westie' is the term), even emailed me the Transition Agreement for me to review. I have also even read on another thread (or maybe it was another forum, as there are sooooooo many threads on this topic), a Westie (again a former AWA guy), quote from the case; Air Wisconsin Pilots Protection Committe v. Sanderson, as a case supportive of the West side. I have personal read and dealt with Sanderson, interesting read, but it does NOT give any support to the current case. I do highly recommend reading Sanderson, the entire case judgement, thoroughly, and without 'Your personal bias' and maybe You will understand what I am saying.
First BS point; it was
NOT a 'Federal' arbitration. It was a 'Private arbitration' A Federal Arbitration would be an arbitration that was 'order by, and overseen by the NMB' understand their statutory authority.
Second, if you carefully read Sanderson; you will clearly see that the West pilot's DFR suit is again ALPA. Now please follow along, carefully, ALPA had a Policy and Procedure in place, and further had 'a duty' to follow that policy. ALPA 'fail' totally, to follow their 'own policy' ALPA should have presented the list to the company within 30 days (even though there was no stated requirement in the policy), and then moved ahead with a 'combined contract' If/when the East MEC, failed to negotiate, they should have been replace and continue with the procedure. Sanderson, clearly supports this position, as well as, also pointing out (a point that many do Not realize), the real CBA (Collective Bargaining Agent), is ALPA, meaning ALPA National, Not the MEC. Under ALPA's organization, the individual MECs only have authority, granted to them by 'ALPA National' Think about it guys, why do you think that EVERY contract or LOA, has to be signed by the President of ALPA???
Now, for the next argument (or 'rant' in this case) from the West guys; the new union inherits all agreements from the previous union, and must follow ALPA merger policy as stated in the Transition Agreement, right?? However, this is a 'moot point' and a specious argument, as will appear clear as i continue. Counter argument; the sole purpose of that provision (part) of the Transition Agreement, was to fully integrate the two pilot groups under ALPA membership. ALPA failed to fully integrate the two pilot groups, due to their own failure to follow their own 'policy and procedures' (again, great DFR suit, probably a 'slam dunk'); and further created a 'permanent stalemate' that guaranteed that it would Never be successful. As ALPA's own policy called for a 'separate ratification vote' by each pilot group; with any contract containing the arbitration award (I guess just referred as 'Nic'), pretty much guaranteeing a 'no vote' by the East pilots, and any contract that contained anything less than 'Nic, as is' would guarantee a 'no vote' by the West. Hence, the stalement, resulting in NO conclusion.
Now, the reason why I say that the ALPA merger policy argument is a specious argument; is that with the NMB ruling of 'single carrier status' for craft and class, the two pilot groups are now 'one' but operating, as required by law, under separate contracts. The issue of 'seniority' is a function of the 'contract' as Sanderson recognizes, and will be dealt with in contract negotiations. The Nic decision is in direct conflict with the current union's 'C&BLs' and in Sanderson, the Court also points out that any union has a 'legal obligation' to follow their C&BLs, and failure to do so, will be DFR.
That said, the West side, in my opinion, jumped the gun with this suit. They could wait until the new union negotiates a contact that follows DOH or LOS, with 'conditions, restrictions and protections' for all pilots, and file a DFR suit at that point. Problem, if the union followed their C&BLs, and if, in the opinion of the Court, with the 'conditions, restriction and protections' the seniority system created, is 'Fair and Reasonable' (the accepted standard by Federal Courts), then DFR will probably fail. It will not be enough to say that you 'took the seniority' that Nic gave me; as the argument is, you Never actually 'had' that seniority, as Nic was Never apart of a contract. Not to mention that DFR is very, VERY difficult to prove, and normally takes years, years, and YEARS. And, most often unsuccessful! Just ask ALPA about that one.
Again, the West guys best case (again, I believe a 'slam dunk') is/was a DFR suit again ALPA. Problem, the RLA (Railway Labor Act), as a '6 mth' statutory limit for filing a claim under DFR, and your misguided anger led you in the wrong direction and most likely past the time limit.
With regard to furloughs, as I read the Transition Agreement, it requires the Company to respect the 'separate contracts' and furlough based on the separate operations. Just like to 'bonehead' that started a thread stating the company should establish a 'west base' with west pilots in East based, flying East a/c, very much expressly barred in the Transition Agreement.
Finally,
as Sanderson clearly points out (and the citations are there), the Federal Courts are 'very reluctant' (their words, not mine), to interfere with the 'interworkings' of a union.
All of that said, sorry for going on so long, but what can I say, had the time to kill, and besides the game was a blow-out; and just wanted to try to clear up some of the BS.
I know that I am not going to change anyone's mind, will probably get 'bashed' for at least two pages; but don't think that suit will be successful, give the facts and the current situation. And, best case for the West, the Court fully follows the Transition Agreement, still requires 'separate ratification' and still a 'stalemate' and 'NO Nic' and furloughs stand, so that's a WIN????
For what its worth, Now, 'ready, set, GO; RANT AWAY. As, I don't give a rodent's rectum, Not my problem. Good Luck.
PD
