Former AWA Pilot writes the truth

[Carl S.]

Metrojet, you are reading too many USAPA legal updates that are way off in accuracy. Did you like the last update Q&A that stated that USAPA and the Company agree that a non-nic is legal! Then why the DJ? The spin comes from both sides, but the inaccuracies rain down from USAPA, just like leaving the last part of that sentence off from the 9th ruling always that changes the whole statement. USAPA is managing your expectations again, just like how you were mislead during the senority arbitration process.

 

[charlie2]

Metrojet, you are reading too many USAPA legal updates that are way off in accuracy. Did you like the last update Q&A that stated that USAPA and the Company agree that a non-nic is legal! Then why the DJ? The spin comes from both sides, but the inaccuracies rain down from USAPA, just like leaving the last part of that sentence off from the 9th ruling always that changes the whole statement. USAPA is managing your expectations again, just like how you were mislead during the senority arbitration process.

Headin' out to the beach with the grand kid in a moment but wanted to ask again...Are you saying that during negotiations when the company accepts a section of the contract it becomes a contract? Are you saying that when a section is "accepted" it can't be re-opened during negotiations? I think that ultimately the (many) courts involved will say that sections can be re-opened up until the contract is ratified by the members. Even after ratification a section can be re-opened the result being possibly an LOA.

 

[Captzaahlie]

--------

 

[becket]

Headin' out to the beach with the grand kid in a moment but wanted to ask again...Are you saying that during negotiations when the company accepts a section of the contract it becomes a contract? Are you saying that when a section is "accepted" it can't be re-opened during negotiations? I think that ultimately the (many) courts involved will say that sections can be re-opened up until the contract is ratified by the members. Even after ratification a section can be re-opened the result being possibly an LOA.

Good question. You should ask a Jury....OH that's right. You did.

What did the Unanimous jury conclude inside of 90 minutes again?

 

[cactusboy53]

Catcusboy53 -

You never answered my question about the fairness of how all furloughed pilots would be from the east with the LAS closure (if Nic was used)

But - it is moot - and you are INCORRECT that the Nic is part of our Current CBA (like a LOA or side letter) - it is a totally separate document - sort of like an addendum to an unsigned or not yet effective contract. It is simple law - but you continue to believe that is part of a contract (see joint collective bargaining contract definition) - which all of us get to vote on.

Metrojet

Fair is the event that takes place in your county seat each summer. I'm really tired of the constant bellyaching about how "the Nic isn't fair".

You are right, it is moot. The courts will finish this, and I am correct. The courts will tell you that a final and binding agreement will not be vacated based on the perceived fairness of said product of an agreed upon process. USAPA is bound by LAW to fairly represent all US Airways pilots (not just those that are based east of the Mississippi). As the new CBA USAPA is bound by LAW to abide by all contracts, agreements, letters of agreements and conditions thereof.

It's going to be a long fall to reality, bub. I hope you have your parachute on. Cleary & his gang are busy feathering their nests for as long as they can.....while telling you "all is well!!".

 

[charlie2]

Good question. You should ask a Jury....OH that's right. You did.

What did the Unanimous jury conclude inside of 90 minutes again?

So you agree we can negotiate?

 

[becket]

So you agree we can negotiate?

Not seniority...after binding arbitration. A jury found that it violated the law to do so. Remember?

 

[charlie2]

Not seniority...after binding arbitration. A jury found that it violated the law to do so. Remember?

Two separate issues. The DFR suit wasn't about a unions right to re-open sections of a possible future contract during negotiations. It was a not-yet ripe attempt to collect damages from USAPA and yes to try and force the nic on us. I doubt Judge Silver will tell the company that they can't re-open sections, she doesn't have the authority to meddle with the RLA. So, once the companies suit is decided we will then put a DOH list in the contract and after it is ratified and only after it is will DFR II start. If DFR II is won by the west I doubt a judge would have the power to un-do a negotiated contract that would cost the company alot of money. Off to the beach again...happy fathers' day to all.

 

[The Rookie]

Two separate issues. The DFR suit wasn't about a unions right to re-open sections of a possible future contract during negotiations. It was a not-yet ripe attempt to collect damages from USAPA and yes to try and force the nic on us. I doubt Judge Silver will tell the company that they can't re-open sections, she doesn't have the authority to meddle with the RLA. So, once the companies suit is decided we will then put a DOH list in the contract and after it is ratified and only after it is will DFR II start. If DFR II is won by the west I doubt a judge would have the power to un-do a negotiated contract that would cost the company alot of money. Off to the beach again...happy fathers' day to all.

Putting a DOH list in the future joint contract violates LOA 96 (AAA-AWA Transition Agreement). This LOA was ratified by the pilots of both America West and US Airways in 2005 and is a legal part of both groups Collective Bargaining Agreements which USAPA has inherited.

I'll once again remind everyone what the Transition Agreement says in regards to the integrated seniority list:

The seniority lists of America West pilots and US Airways pilots will be integrated in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy and submitted to the Airline Parties for acceptance. The Airline Parties will accept such integrated seniority list, including conditions and restrictions, if such list and the conditions and restrictions comply with the following criteria:

1. no "system flush" whereby an active pilot may displace any other active pilot from the latter’s Position; and

2. furloughed pilots may not bump/displace active pilots; and

3. no requirement for pilots to be compensated for flying not performed (e.g., differential pay for a position not actually flown); and

4. allows pilots who, at the time of implementation of an integrated seniority list, are in the process of completing or who have completed initial qualification training for a new category (e.g., A320 Captain or 757 First Officer) to be assigned to the position for which they have been trained, regardless of their relative standing on the integrated seniority list; and

5. does not contain conditions and restrictions that materially increase costs associated with training or company paid moves

This is a three party document between the East, West and the Company. The Company is on the legal record to have accepted the Nicolau list in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy as per this Letter of Agreement.

However, the East and the Company would be certainly happy to alter this document to achieve their goals. The East wants a DOH list and the Company knows they can extort a concessionary deal to make this happen.

This leaves the under-represented West pilots. The only reason the Company filed the Declaratory Judgement is to receive a "get out of jail free" card from any future litigation from the West pilots who are having the Transition Agreement altered without their consent by the Company and the East.

Simply, the Company doesn't care which list get used. They just don't want to be sued by the West by violating the Transition Agreement, which legally binds the Company, East and West to the Nicolau seniority list once a joint contract is obtained.

 

[charlie2]

I'll try again. Previous contracts and LOA's can be changed. If they couldn't we'd be working under great work rules and pay but that was changed by an LOA (93). You're saying LOA 96 can never be changed by a future LOA or contract and we are saying it can and will be. This stuff is never written in stone or will ever be...it is always amendable...still waitin' on the grand kid to show up...have a good one