AWA Pilots File Application For Preliminary Injunction

[waveflyer]

It takes a lot of ba!!s to demand anything when you were 13 days away from liquidation.
You'd have been begging every VA, SWA, FDX, AND! AWA for a job if they had not intervened-=
now you think your years of service are owed more than your longevity pay. It's ridiculous... You're good guys- but you're gonna lose worse than mccain will.

 

[Turtle21]

USAPA is all about cramming down a sham seniority list on a smaller pilot group. Hardly the basis of true unionism.

Take up your issue with the NMB, and let them know they certified a sham. Ask them to make it right.

 

[waveflyer]

No- it's certified- but not acting on it's full responsibilities by going after DOH. It's a doug parker wet dream of delays, lawsuits, and LOA 93 in place long after it could be justified.

 

[PlaneDrvr]

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

 

[MCDU]

Good Post. Thanks for the info.

M

 

[charlie2]

Good Post. Thanks for the info.

M

Ditto!

 

[TWA Dude]

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.

True, but I think judges will give deference to an esteemed arbitrator's official opinion. Nicolau got very involved in the innerworkings of a union so a judge wouldn't have to.

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');

A good point, but as I'm already a class member of a DFR suit against ALPA I can attest that the only practical remedy is monetary. In other words, that DFR suit wouldn't help us in our current dispute.

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.

I would agree with that point however the current furloughs have changed things. We are being harmed right now due the actions of the Company and explicit approval of USAPA. Plus, USAPA has decided to play a 'cat and mouse' game with their DOH list and withhold presenting it until all other parts of the contract are negotiated. This is because it benefits the East. If the tables turn and the West starts growing we might hear a different tune.

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.

People on both sides tend to believe what they want to believe. I, OTOH, know full well how much of a longshot the litigation route is. Just being right isn't enough to win.

If I can find fault in your dispassionate discourse it's your tacit approval of the actions of the East. Having witnessed first hand what happens when one union gets to decide all by itself how to integrate a pilot group (the APA) I was very pleased to be going to binding arbitration. So now the East/West integration is devolving into that same scenario. Perhaps it is just throwing darts at a board but one way or another the East needs to pay for their transgressions.

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????

Well, YES! You forget the East is still operating under an inferior CBA. If they want parity they need to play fair. It's sufficient for us to be back to negotiating as equals as opposed to our suffering under their "tyranny of the majority".

 

[Bringupthebird]

The crux is the NMB faulty determination of single carrier which allowed USAPA to wield undue influence over the west pilots and their rights under the transition agreement.

The transition agreement should probably be thrown out and the company allowed to distribute pilots and aircraft however they see fit. While USAPA would howl at being de-clawed, it's a very cost-neutral tactic for the company.

And don't Jerry Glass and Stephen Bradford have matching vanity plates CSTNTRL?

 

[Turtle21]

The crux is the NMB faulty determination of single carrier ..

You may not have much luck convincing the NMB of their "fault", but congratulations for zeroing in on the underlying legal point that effects/affects everything.

 

[Hpilot]

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

Thanks for the laugh. Legal training and no dog in the fight. HAAHAHHAHAHHAHHHA! Some one so educated should know how to hit a spell check button. As they like to say here, "does your mommy know you're on the computer?" Looseeeerrrrrr.