USAir East West NIC Award Resolution? Very soon!

[General Lee]

UAL received their Single Operating Certificate November 30, 2011. They don't yet have a single seniority list (SSL). Two separate things, SOC is granted by FAA, SSL is negotiated by the unions.

But they still don't fly each other's planes, because each side is still operating separately, under a common name. It still took more than 2 years to get the FAA SOC, but the joint contract and SSL still remain. My point is there is time to sue people, SOC isn't overnight. Thanks for the clarification.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

2 Oct 2012 USAPA Communications Committee

PHX Declaratory Judgment Proposed Decision

Oral argument in the Phoenix Declaratory Judgment case was held earlier today (October 2, 2012) in Phoenix. Judge Silver distributed a proposed decision that, if it becomes final, will grant summary judgment to USAPA, holding that USAPA is free to pursue any seniority proposal, and need not advance the Nicolau award. The proposed decision is not appropriate for distribution until it becomes final because there may be changes.

The argument lasted for more than an hour and included counsel for US Airways, the West Pilot Class and USAPA. Counsel for US Airways and the West Pilot Class argued that the decision should be changed in various respects. Counsel for USAPA reiterated that USAPA was prepared to engage in serious, genuine discussions with the West Pilots over the seniority proposal, and was hopeful the parties would continue to work together to achieve a new comprehensive collective bargaining agreement.

The argument was attended by more than 100 pilots including President Gary Hummel, Secretary-Treasurer Rob Streble and Executive Vice President Steve Smyser. President Hummel stated, “USAPA stands ready to negotiate a contract for all of our 5000 pilots, whether through a merger or otherwise. We are long overdue a contract that brings us up to par with our peers at other airlines such as Delta and United. Now that this obstacle has been removed, we will immediately petition the National Mediation Board to resume section 6 contract negotiations.

The final Order and the transcript of the argument will be posted as soon as they become available.

USAPA Communications

This from the group who walked away from a binding award..... Still, the NIC award was not thrown out, and a potential AA merger is floating around out there, although even that is questionable if AA's creditors somehow get spooked by more bad press. This is gonna get good.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[reepicheep]

Yeah it should be great....wake us in 5 years when something finally happens.

 

[Green]

As we reported last night, attorneys for the West Class filed a motion yesterday afternoon before Judge Silver recommending two additions be made to the Court’s proposed order. The basis for this request is the long and consistent history of USAPA to misconstrue legal principles. Mind you, we are not talking about vigorous advocacy before a court, we are talking about gross mischaracterization of law and facts which are routinely argued by USAPA.

Today, USAPA sent a communication which notified the membership that USAPA is filing a response to the West Class attorneys’ Motion to Add Language. In this communication, USAPA quotes directly from Judge Silver’s proposed order. Aside from the impropriety of directly quoting from the proposal, we will examine the quoted finding of law and then offer the complete legal analysis which the communication fails to provide.

USAPA counsel quotes Judge Silver stating that USAPA is free to negotiate. Not coincidentally, that is exactly what the Ninth Circuit said in the Addington opinion. Again, just as we discussed in last night’s update, Judge Silver made it very clear during Tuesday’s oral arguments that although she disagreed with the Ninth’s ruling in Addington, she is bound by it unless she ultimately decides that the Addington ruling does not apply to the Company’s case. In legal-speak, the issue is whether the ripeness in Addington is distinguishable from the Company’s Declaratory Action. That is the crux of what Mr. Siegel argued for the Company, and also what Mr. Harper argued on behalf of the West pilots.

If Judge Silver ultimately decides that Addington applies to the Company’s Declaratory Action, then the legal effect will be the same for the Company as it is for the West pilots: there can be no ripe claim until there is a ratified contract. It’s there in which the danger lies for the Company because they are required to negotiate with USAPA per the RLA, and it’s precisely those negotiations which build the “aiding and abetting” claim that the West will inevitably make against the Company if they agree to a non-Nicolau. This is the reality of our situation: (i) the Company knows they have to negotiate; (ii) they know USAPA will insist on a non-Nicolau; (iii) they know that a previous federal judge and jury already found USAPA’s non-Nicolau to constitute a DFR; (iv) without a declaration from Judge Silver on any of the claims in their Declaratory Action, they will be walking through a proverbial minefield towards an outcome that will surely saddle them with liability to the West pilots for agreeing to a non-Nicolau seniority integration.

Today’s communication by USAPA appears to intentionally omit the all-important and ever-present restriction to bargaining freedom; namely, the duty to fairly represent. To date, no judge has identified any purpose offered by USAPA as legitimate. In essence, counsel is letting USAPA walk off a cliff in the mistaken belief that pilots can fly without airplanes if they hire lawyers who say they can.

USAPA’s non-Nicolau seniority scheme has already been found to be in breach of their DFR by a Federal judge and jury. This is precisely what is controlling the situation between USAPA, the West and the Company. All US Airways pilots have an absolute right to be properly informed by their bargaining agent. We are entitled to a competent analysis of the legal issues, which means we are entitled to a complete analysis of the law as applied to our situation. Quoting only one sentence and then neglecting to explain the legal meaning is not a complete analysis. This has been a problem with USAPA since the day it was birthed. It is not a fully informed decision by the union members which USAPA seeks. Rather, for USAPA it is all about mischaracterization and obfuscation to bend and shape collective thought to the benefit of a few; a truly Machiavellian approach.

USAPA’s founders and follow-on leadership have never sought an honest, neutral risk assessment of their quest for a non-Nicolau seniority list. If they had done a true, neutral evaluation and presented it to all parties involved, maybe we would be far removed from this go-for-broke, win-at-all-cost adventure. Instead, USAPA has relied repeatedly on advice tailored to emotional desire versus an effective, beneficial outcome for all, even when staring down numerous Federal Court opinions telling them they are standing on quicksand.

Tuesday was not a win for USAPA. What we learned, again, was that USAPA is perhaps free to work on a different seniority solution during negotiations, but it is not free to ignore the legal consequences of repudiating the Nicolau Award, and neither is US Airways. What more do they need know?

 

[B-atch]

Boy the Yellow Press is at full swing!!

 

[whymeworry?]

The scab-mentality at USAPA continues.

 

[General Lee]

As we reported last night, attorneys for the West Class filed a motion yesterday afternoon before Judge Silver recommending two additions be made to the Court’s proposed order. The basis for this request is the long and consistent history of USAPA to misconstrue legal principles. Mind you, we are not talking about vigorous advocacy before a court, we are talking about gross mischaracterization of law and facts which are routinely argued by USAPA.

Today, USAPA sent a communication which notified the membership that USAPA is filing a response to the West Class attorneys’ Motion to Add Language. In this communication, USAPA quotes directly from Judge Silver’s proposed order. Aside from the impropriety of directly quoting from the proposal, we will examine the quoted finding of law and then offer the complete legal analysis which the communication fails to provide.

USAPA counsel quotes Judge Silver stating that USAPA is free to negotiate. Not coincidentally, that is exactly what the Ninth Circuit said in the Addington opinion. Again, just as we discussed in last night’s update, Judge Silver made it very clear during Tuesday’s oral arguments that although she disagreed with the Ninth’s ruling in Addington, she is bound by it unless she ultimately decides that the Addington ruling does not apply to the Company’s case. In legal-speak, the issue is whether the ripeness in Addington is distinguishable from the Company’s Declaratory Action. That is the crux of what Mr. Siegel argued for the Company, and also what Mr. Harper argued on behalf of the West pilots.

If Judge Silver ultimately decides that Addington applies to the Company’s Declaratory Action, then the legal effect will be the same for the Company as it is for the West pilots: there can be no ripe claim until there is a ratified contract. It’s there in which the danger lies for the Company because they are required to negotiate with USAPA per the RLA, and it’s precisely those negotiations which build the “aiding and abetting” claim that the West will inevitably make against the Company if they agree to a non-Nicolau. This is the reality of our situation: (i) the Company knows they have to negotiate; (ii) they know USAPA will insist on a non-Nicolau; (iii) they know that a previous federal judge and jury already found USAPA’s non-Nicolau to constitute a DFR; (iv) without a declaration from Judge Silver on any of the claims in their Declaratory Action, they will be walking through a proverbial minefield towards an outcome that will surely saddle them with liability to the West pilots for agreeing to a non-Nicolau seniority integration.

Today’s communication by USAPA appears to intentionally omit the all-important and ever-present restriction to bargaining freedom; namely, the duty to fairly represent. To date, no judge has identified any purpose offered by USAPA as legitimate. In essence, counsel is letting USAPA walk off a cliff in the mistaken belief that pilots can fly without airplanes if they hire lawyers who say they can.

USAPA’s non-Nicolau seniority scheme has already been found to be in breach of their DFR by a Federal judge and jury. This is precisely what is controlling the situation between USAPA, the West and the Company. All US Airways pilots have an absolute right to be properly informed by their bargaining agent. We are entitled to a competent analysis of the legal issues, which means we are entitled to a complete analysis of the law as applied to our situation. Quoting only one sentence and then neglecting to explain the legal meaning is not a complete analysis. This has been a problem with USAPA since the day it was birthed. It is not a fully informed decision by the union members which USAPA seeks. Rather, for USAPA it is all about mischaracterization and obfuscation to bend and shape collective thought to the benefit of a few; a truly Machiavellian approach.

USAPA’s founders and follow-on leadership have never sought an honest, neutral risk assessment of their quest for a non-Nicolau seniority list. If they had done a true, neutral evaluation and presented it to all parties involved, maybe we would be far removed from this go-for-broke, win-at-all-cost adventure. Instead, USAPA has relied repeatedly on advice tailored to emotional desire versus an effective, beneficial outcome for all, even when staring down numerous Federal Court opinions telling them they are standing on quicksand.

Tuesday was not a win for USAPA. What we learned, again, was that USAPA is perhaps free to work on a different seniority solution during negotiations, but it is not free to ignore the legal consequences of repudiating the Nicolau Award, and neither is US Airways. What more do they need know?

Fantastic summary. B-atch has a classic non response, again. What does ALGFLYR think? Who cares, he's already wrong!


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[B-atch]

General, you have medical insurance. I suggest you use it to get.... Well..

 

[HAL]

General, you have medical insurance. I suggest you use it to get.... Well..

Yes, thank you B-atch for that insightful analysis of the situation facing USAPA and USAirways management. We rest assured that your considerable brainpower has dealt with the situation, and explained it to us so clearly.

HAL

 

[B-atch]

Yes, thank you B-atch for that insightful analysis of the situation facing USAPA and USAirways management. We rest assured that your considerable brainpower has dealt with the situation, and explained it to us so clearly.

HAL

Thank you Hall, but I am just a mere mortal amongs the Titans in this forum....I meant to say..... "Spartans"..