I've said that you may have it this time. I see issues with your argument, as we've discussed, but we'll see.

It doesn't say it implements DOH and if you recall I don't see how USAPA can submit a combined east/west DOH list anymore than it can the Nic, under the terms of the MOU.

I sleep just fine, thanks.

 

SEPARATE OPPS my friend. Its in our TA. You boyz went for broke. Nic or nothing. Rejoiced at the fact that the east was languishing under LOA 93.
I told you once and I'll tell you again. The fact that your MEC allowed a TA with a LARGE pay disparity with the east, sealed your fate and guaranteed the stagnation and furloughs that you've endured. I for one do not rejoice in the wests mis-fortune. You get what you are willing to negotiate. If you now suffer the consequences, don't blame ME for your groups lack of vision.
By the way, I sleep GREAT at night!!

 

Not sure I understand the question...Forgive my ignorance here, I am not a Westie, though I have obviously chosen to back their side in this dispute...based on the simple, overarching principle of honoring agreed-to commitments. (agreed-to commitments can be broken if an opposing party breaks their commitments, or otherwise acts in bad faith...i.e. -if, for example, the Westies had falsified their seniority lists submitted to the arbitrator, etc...not applicable in the present case) The argument that the Nic is unfair is irrelevant and is subsumed by the implicit principle contained in committing to abide by the award beforehand. That "implicit" but very clear principle being that the award could never have been arrived at voluntarily...that one or both parties would always perceive an unfairness in any award. It is, in a sense, an acknowledgement by both parties that there can never be, even in principle, a totally satisfactory or "fair" award...and thus the only practical solution is commitment to accept a neutral opinion...It is an acknowledgement of bias by each party, and an acceptance that the findings of the arbitrator would be more fair than any that could be arrived at by either party to the case. Thus, in this view, the very reason you (USAir east) committed to the results of the Nic beforehand is the fact that you might have been harmed by it...

Back to your question....??-I must misunderstand the import of your question...but I'll take a stab at it...I suppose there is no contract "bad" enough for you to accept...-that would allow the west to gain their "windfall". I.E. You would suffer the worst contract possible in order to prevent the West's windfall? Or...there is no contract good enough that would make the West's windfall OK in your eyes? Please enlighten me, I sometimes miss the glaringly obvious...

I doubt that the "loopholes" in the Transition Agreement were recognized as such before the arbitration. If not, it does give one the impression that the 2 MEC chairmen merely gave each other a "wink-wink" with their fingers crossed behind their backs as they headed into "contingent arbitration"...merely a "practice run" prior to the "real show", -the award being "contingent" upon its "acceptability" to either group. To think anyone would look upon this "revelation" as anything but an attempt to de-legitimize the process known as "binding arbitration" would strain credibility.

Again, nothing personal here, R57. You seem to be somewhat conflicted in all this. You seem to want to acknowledge that your group's ethical shortcomings are real...not illusory or a mere figment in the imagination of the Westies. Your "enemy" is not "the West", per se, -they merely did what was asked of them...and in fact your enemy is Mr. Nicolau himself, who is insulated from your actions and criticisms by aspects of the very process that got you into this seeming conundrum...that almost by agreed definition, that his findings are deemed "fair" by the world outside your narrow focus.

 

We need not go any farther. The US/AW transition agreement preceded the Nicolau award. It did call for binding arbitration, yet it proclaimed that that SLI could not be used prior to the negotiation of a joint collect bargaining agreement. We don't have one and never had one. Thus your holier than thou proclamations fall flat.

Perhaps you should have gathered all the information before taking a side. You think?

Now, if you answer my simple question, I will answer anything you want. What inferior contract should I accept to allow the west pilots to receive their windfall? If you can't answer that, don't bother responding. There is an answer, but if you don't know Doug Parker, you probably don't know the answer, thus you don't don't have enough information to make an informed judgement.

Did you know that there was an officer election for USAPA last year? Did you know that AOL(west pilot's LLC) put a slate of candidates forward, and those candidates said they would end the fight over the Nicolau award(implement it)? Did you know that those candidates were defeated by a 2 to 1 margin despite the field on the east being split? There was a price at which the east pilots would have accepted the Nicolau award. It's just that Parker would not pay it.

I can assure you that both parties understood that TA before the process started. The west pilots thought they would take it in the shorts in a SLI with a larger, longer ALPA group. They wanted an "out". It was only after it was used against them that it bothered them. Everyone at ALPA told them the risks of going down the road they did. The warriors didn't listen.

So Wiggy, go study the offer that was on the table to stand alone US pilots-The Kirby proposal. Tell me if you would accept it in exchange for a permanent and continuing decrease in relative seniority.

 

I will look at the Kirby proposal. I'm not familiar with it.

 

The "kirby proposal" was the companies public offer, r57 believes that was all that could be had even though under oath his own mec chairman said kirby plus 10% was what was being discussed. So that would have been $162 vs $124 for east pilots flying 320 captain plus 10 more days vacation. Now r57 believes that the kirby was it, alpa couldn't get one more penny so negotiations were fruitless (as if it isn't the unions job to negotiate better terms).

The west always votes in lockstep, the reason the west rep candidates lose because the east are a bunch of scum and rigged the union so no west pilot can ever win, when west pilots win they change the rules and invalidate the elections. Important to know that the west candidate to be president of usapa got the majority of votes. Scum bags.

 

Wiggy- there really is no amount of "eye opening" that will lead a reasonable person to any great epiphany about this .
To quote Ted Reed "As with many long-lasting legal battles, this one continues because both sides are right. West pilots say binding arbitration is binding arbitration. Few of us would want to live in a world where that is not true. East pilots argue that binding arbitration occurred under the jurisdiction of the Air Line Pilots Association, which is basically a private club, and US Airways pilots voted to leave the club.The underlying issue is that the Nicolau ruling is unfair to nearly 1,000 east pilots. " (now...wait for it... a dozed pilots will be bashing Ted Reed and or his opinion)
This will either be played out in the courts or solved through McCaskill-Bond legislation- which sadly was not in place at the time of the NIC.
The take away is not who was right, who was wrong. The take away is winners - management and losers- pilots. The one thing that we can all agree on is that this should never happen again. We should prepare for a globalized future- one in which the airline industry becomes more liberalized. So much rancor between fellow U.S. pilots- now imagine this on a global scale.

 

On a faithful day in 2007 the east pilots walked out of contract negotiations that were in close out talks. In April 2008 the east pilots tossed out alpa, and reopened every single closed section of the contract. Yes management wins, they win because the east pilots handed them their win on a silver platter. I will ask you the same question I asked r57, why has the nmb indefinitely parked usapa?

 

May 1, 2009 - Jury Trial - Day 4 - Testimony of E. Allen Hemenway


Q. Now, are there wages that you discussed before, the wage
component of the Kirby proposal, is that still on the table in
current negotiations?
A. Yes. We have had -- the company has not responded with any
updated pay proposals to the best of my recollection so far.
Q. But have they withdrawn that proposal?
A. No.

Q. I have handed you a document which on its face appears to
be an article from the Tribune East Valley-Scottsdale dated
January 31st 2007. What I'm going to refer you to is the sixth
paragraph. And if you would just take a moment to read it and
let me know when you have.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you about the first sentence which
is attributed to Mr. Parker which reads, quote, "We have
offered pilots the best terms of either contract, which happens
to be the America West contract. But they are asking for
substantially more than that," end quote.
Do you understand that to be an accurate statement,
that the JNC negotiators were asking for substantially more
than the company was offering at that time?
A. Yes. The representative at the time was asking for more
than the cost of the higher cost agreement, which was the
America West agreement.
Q. And would you consider the reference, quote, "substantially
more," end quote, to be an accurate assessment in terms of the
context of substantially more being in terms of what the JNC
negotiators were asking relative to what the company was
offering?
A. It's certainly an entirely subjective definition of what
constitutes substantially, but I think as a general answer,
yes. We had a ways to go.

Q. Has the company breached the Transition Agreement by not
implementing the Seniority List embodied in the Nicolau Award?
A. No. As a matter of fact we're not permitted to implement
the Nicolau Award until we reach a single agreement.
Q. Has the company breached the Transition Agreement by not
reaching an agreement on the single Collective Bargaining
Agreement?
A. Could you ask me that again?
Q. Has --
A. I'm not sure I heard it right.
Q. It's essentially, have you breached the agreement by not
reaching an agreement? Has the company breached the Transition
Agreement by not reaching an agreement on a single Collective
Bargaining Agreement?

• No, we have not.

Q. Page 69, and we will read from Line 9 ending at Line 24.
I think this one's an easy question -- excuse me. I
think this one's an easy one. Did the company ever file a
grievance against ALPA demanding that ALPA present the Nicolau
Award?
A. No

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
May 5, 2009 - Jury Trial - Day 6 - Testimony of Jack Stephan


Q. Now, to your knowledge, Captain, did the executive council
ever change its position that the integrated Seniority List
could not be used in the absence of a single agreement?
A. No, they did not.
Q. Did you have any other conversations with representatives
of the airline, sir, in which a different number or a Kirby
Proposal-type package was discussed?
Let me rephrase it. You are frowning, so that means I
failed. Let me ask it again.
Were you present at a meeting with the West MEC
chairman, Mr. McIlvenna, and representatives of the airline in
which there was a discussion about the approximate amount that
the company might be willing to pay?
A. I would say probably. We had many discussions, John and I,
with management, so it's clearly in the realm of possibility.
I don't recall a specific date, but it's certainly something
that we would have communicated together, yes.
Q. The May 8, 2007, proposal was coined the Kirby Proposal,
right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it took the West rate of pay plus 3 percent, is that
right?
A. About that.
Q. And in your other discussions with the company, had you
received some informal indication that they might be able --
might be willing to go up as high as 7 or 10 percent above the
West rate?
A. Nothing in writing.
Q. That wasn't my question. Good answer.
Was there informal discussions, sir, about the area in
which the final contract could wind up?
A. There were informal discussions, yes.
Q. And you have -- I don't remember whether you used
loggerhead or log-jam or what the phrase was, would you agree
with me, sir, that the stall in the forward progress of
negotiations towards a single CBA was because the East Pilots,
the East MEC, would not accept the Nicolau Award?
A. Not totally.
Q. Or list?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. I'm sorry. I will try it over. I interrupted you. I
apologize.
Isn't it fair to say that the forward progress towards
a single CBA was stalled because the West refused -- excuse
me -- the East refused to accept Nicolau List?
A. I believe that was one reason.
Q. Is that the primary reason that the East MEC did not move
forward with joint negotiations?
A. From this pilot, no.
Q. So when you took the appeals and you told Mr. Mowery to
vote his attention to pay parity in July of 2007, did that have
the effect of moving the merger process forward?
A. No, sir.
Q. And the reason it wasn't moving forward is because the East
insisted that it either wanted a new arbitration, or it wanted
its own proposal, isn't that fair?
MR. BRENGLE: Objection, Your Honor. Cumulative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: It's not fair.

Kirby has disavowed this 7-10% and stated that the Kirby is the offer on the table. The Kirby also provided NO increase for the E190. It was deficient in scope among other things.

From a west member of JNC:

Testimony of Russell Payne

Q. And wouldn't it be -- is it your recollection that Captain
McIlvenna for the West MEC and also the chairman of the East
MECs considered the Kirby Proposal for pay to be woefully
inadequate?
A. Yes.

BY MR. HARPER:
Q. Mr. Payne, was it ever intended by the negotiating
committee when it received the proposal from Mr. Kirby on May
8th just to take it the way it was proposed?
A. No.
Q. What would have happened in connection with the $122
million dollar item, for example, through the subsequent
negotiating sessions?
A. Well, in the normal course of negotiations, you know, this
was the company's very first proposal, closeout proposal, they
had put on the table. So generally, as negotiations you would
look at that as a starting point and assume you are going to
work up from that to a higher number, an increase.
Q. Through the subsequent negotiating sessions, right?
A. Sure. Yes.
Q. What would have been the objective of the negotiating
committee if it had continued to -- in subsequent negotiations
with the pay proposal?
A. Well, it would have been to try to improve on the
proposal -- the Kirby Proposal to improve it to a point which
we thought would be sufficient to get the contract ratified.
Q. And prior to May 8, 2007, had the company put any amount of
money on the table for pay and benefits improvements?
A. Do you mean on a closeout or --
Q. No. No. Just in a form of a proposal like the one you
got, I mean, a number for all of the pay and benefit increases?
A. I don't believe so, no.