Bye Bye usapa and good riddance!!
01-22-2014, 05:25 PM
#261
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
Plaintiffs (AOL) abandoned claims that USAPA was intentionally delaying a CBA in district court. Affirmed by the 9th circuit court of appeals.
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiffs’ alleged hardship cannot instead be premised on any delay caused by USAPA in reaching a single CBA. As the district court noted, Plaintiffs abandoned their claim that USAPA is intentionally delaying negotiation of a CBA.
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiffs’ alleged hardship cannot instead be premised on any delay caused by USAPA in reaching a single CBA. As the district court noted, Plaintiffs abandoned their claim that USAPA is intentionally delaying negotiation of a CBA.
You think he and flyboy are brothers?
01-23-2014, 08:56 AM
#262
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: A330 capt
Posts: 236
Your true colors are coming through with these types of post. You claimed to be an innocent bystander, not a westie and just looking for truth, justice and the American way. Most people that are really unbiased don't post this way.
You want to frame this issue as a moral one. It's not, it's business. You bring up reasons why the separate ratification provision of the TA was a good idea, but condem one side for using it! It was purely an economic decision. If Nic had sided with the east, and the west refused to sign a JCBA would you say they were immoral? If it was valid to have the provision in the contract, how can it be immoral to use it? Again, what when would YOU give up on your financial position in order to give another group a windfall?
I've said that I thought it was wrong for ALPA to leave JCBA. I've said that I disagreed with the foundation of USAPA and it's DOH proposal, but in the end THEY did try to negotiate a contract but were stymied by the west lawsuits. Not a day was spent negotiating the SLI and in the end it was all moot. So the bottom line is that we are here because of the TA. Because of our TA, and Nic's screw up, the other airlines learned and have done it differently.
You want to frame this issue as a moral one. It's not, it's business. You bring up reasons why the separate ratification provision of the TA was a good idea, but condem one side for using it! It was purely an economic decision. If Nic had sided with the east, and the west refused to sign a JCBA would you say they were immoral? If it was valid to have the provision in the contract, how can it be immoral to use it? Again, what when would YOU give up on your financial position in order to give another group a windfall?
I've said that I thought it was wrong for ALPA to leave JCBA. I've said that I disagreed with the foundation of USAPA and it's DOH proposal, but in the end THEY did try to negotiate a contract but were stymied by the west lawsuits. Not a day was spent negotiating the SLI and in the end it was all moot. So the bottom line is that we are here because of the TA. Because of our TA, and Nic's screw up, the other airlines learned and have done it differently.
I'm glad you've abandoned the moral issue...The moral issue, though of no legal consequence, does color the character of the proceedings...and even in a general sense the term "character"....USAPAs complete lack of ethical probity seems so far to be of little legal consequence...
You keep wanting to frame the TA as a "catch all" legal document that gives veto power to either group. I would agree with that assessment if it were applied to specific CBA-like provisions...ie. working conditions, pay, vacation, training etc. things that are normally thought to be negotiable...things that apply and benefit equally to both groups.....-Everything, in fact, except for the methodology and results of an ISL...which were found not to be negotiable...and thus went to an agreed-to binding arbitration...Clearly, the east has used the TA for purposes other than it's intended use....Clearly binding was meant to be binding over all contemplated seniority outcomes and extraneous contractual maneuverings...
Your framing it as an "economic issue" is problematic...Am I to understand that with enough money offered, the perceived inequities of the Nic would have vanished? Would that supposed "windfall you would be giving the other group" disappear with more money...money that would theoretically go in equal measure to the west...wouldn't that, with their supposed advantageous seniority further increase their windfall?
I am curious, though, about what is going to happen here...Does anyone have an inkling of how this might be playing out?...Why, exactly, is USAPA resisting single carrier status? Are they constrained by the MOU from presenting any seniority regime? Someone said the APA might resist the Nic because it might place some junior west pilots (by DOH) senior to earlier DOH APA pilots...But APA (theoretically) wants to minimize DOH or LOS as a factor...owing to the very senior DOH USAPA pilots... How would that stance be reconciled? Above all, I expect the west should stand up for what is rightfully theirs...either the Nic or if that is prevented, then by having complete autonomy in representing themselves in a 3-way...It strains credulity that they could be treated fairly by the east...They are a completely separate pilot group...they are USAPA in name only, and should still have legal status as the "west class"....and should have those rights.
01-23-2014, 10:45 AM
#263
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
Sorry, just though it was an entertaining metaphor...you know, the old SciFi scenario of intelligent life evolving on other planets...maybe even a recapitulation of how language and social cooperation evolved to further enhance the survival prospects of sentient beings...all in good fun.
I'm glad you've abandoned the moral issue...The moral issue, though of no legal consequence, does color the character of the proceedings...and even in a general sense the term "character"....USAPAs complete lack of ethical probity seems so far to be of little legal consequence...
You keep wanting to frame the TA as a "catch all" legal document that gives veto power to either group. I would agree with that assessment if it were applied to specific CBA-like provisions...ie. working conditions, pay, vacation, training etc. things that are normally thought to be negotiable...things that apply and benefit equally to both groups.....-Everything, in fact, except for the methodology and results of an ISL...which were found not to be negotiable...and thus went to an agreed-to binding arbitration...Clearly, the east has used the TA for purposes other than it's intended use....Clearly binding was meant to be binding over all contemplated seniority outcomes and extraneous contractual maneuverings...
Your framing it as an "economic issue" is problematic...Am I to understand that with enough money offered, the perceived inequities of the Nic would have vanished? Would that supposed "windfall you would be giving the other group" disappear with more money...money that would theoretically go in equal measure to the west...wouldn't that, with their supposed advantageous seniority further increase their windfall?
I am curious, though, about what is going to happen here...Does anyone have an inkling of how this might be playing out?...Why, exactly, is USAPA resisting single carrier status? Are they constrained by the MOU from presenting any seniority regime? Someone said the APA might resist the Nic because it might place some junior west pilots (by DOH) senior to earlier DOH APA pilots...But APA (theoretically) wants to minimize DOH or LOS as a factor...owing to the very senior DOH USAPA pilots... How would that stance be reconciled? Above all, I expect the west should stand up for what is rightfully theirs...either the Nic or if that is prevented, then by having complete autonomy in representing themselves in a 3-way...It strains credulity that they could be treated fairly by the east...They are a completely separate pilot group...they are USAPA in name only, and should still have legal status as the "west class"....and should have those rights.
I'm glad you've abandoned the moral issue...The moral issue, though of no legal consequence, does color the character of the proceedings...and even in a general sense the term "character"....USAPAs complete lack of ethical probity seems so far to be of little legal consequence...
You keep wanting to frame the TA as a "catch all" legal document that gives veto power to either group. I would agree with that assessment if it were applied to specific CBA-like provisions...ie. working conditions, pay, vacation, training etc. things that are normally thought to be negotiable...things that apply and benefit equally to both groups.....-Everything, in fact, except for the methodology and results of an ISL...which were found not to be negotiable...and thus went to an agreed-to binding arbitration...Clearly, the east has used the TA for purposes other than it's intended use....Clearly binding was meant to be binding over all contemplated seniority outcomes and extraneous contractual maneuverings...
Your framing it as an "economic issue" is problematic...Am I to understand that with enough money offered, the perceived inequities of the Nic would have vanished? Would that supposed "windfall you would be giving the other group" disappear with more money...money that would theoretically go in equal measure to the west...wouldn't that, with their supposed advantageous seniority further increase their windfall?
I am curious, though, about what is going to happen here...Does anyone have an inkling of how this might be playing out?...Why, exactly, is USAPA resisting single carrier status? Are they constrained by the MOU from presenting any seniority regime? Someone said the APA might resist the Nic because it might place some junior west pilots (by DOH) senior to earlier DOH APA pilots...But APA (theoretically) wants to minimize DOH or LOS as a factor...owing to the very senior DOH USAPA pilots... How would that stance be reconciled? Above all, I expect the west should stand up for what is rightfully theirs...either the Nic or if that is prevented, then by having complete autonomy in representing themselves in a 3-way...It strains credulity that they could be treated fairly by the east...They are a completely separate pilot group...they are USAPA in name only, and should still have legal status as the "west class"....and should have those rights.
It was business. The provision for dual ratification was there. It would have allowed either side to veto a JCBA, and it didn't have restrictions on that vote. If it was used contrary to the authors intentions, well that's the law of unintended consequences. In the end, whether the east or west voted down a jcba or didn't think one was good enough to put out for a vote, it was an economic decision. Period.
The Nicolau award itself was an economic problem. Most of us that were on the property have been here long enough that we, despite west claims otherwise, don't just want the shiney fourth stripe. We want the most pay and the most time off. If a JCBA delivered that with the Nic, then it would have taken the perceived slight-and thus it's sting, out of it. Guys would have thought it was unfair, but would have moved on. The Kirby proposal was nowhere near that, not even in the same country much less ballpark.
You're going in circles to keep from admitting you were wrong. You haven't answered my question and the patience you spoke of is gone.
Good day.
01-23-2014, 11:34 AM
#264
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Sorry, just though it was an entertaining metaphor...you know, the old SciFi scenario of intelligent life evolving on other planets...maybe even a recapitulation of how language and social cooperation evolved to further enhance the survival prospects of sentient beings...all in good fun.
I'm glad you've abandoned the moral issue...The moral issue, though of no legal consequence, does color the character of the proceedings...and even in a general sense the term "character"....USAPAs complete lack of ethical probity seems so far to be of little legal consequence...
You keep wanting to frame the TA as a "catch all" legal document that gives veto power to either group. I would agree with that assessment if it were applied to specific CBA-like provisions...ie. working conditions, pay, vacation, training etc. things that are normally thought to be negotiable...things that apply and benefit equally to both groups.....-Everything, in fact, except for the methodology and results of an ISL...which were found not to be negotiable...and thus went to an agreed-to binding arbitration...Clearly, the east has used the TA for purposes other than it's intended use....Clearly binding was meant to be binding over all contemplated seniority outcomes and extraneous contractual maneuverings...
Your framing it as an "economic issue" is problematic...Am I to understand that with enough money offered, the perceived inequities of the Nic would have vanished? Would that supposed "windfall you would be giving the other group" disappear with more money...money that would theoretically go in equal measure to the west...wouldn't that, with their supposed advantageous seniority further increase their windfall?
I am curious, though, about what is going to happen here...Does anyone have an inkling of how this might be playing out?...Why, exactly, is USAPA resisting single carrier status? Are they constrained by the MOU from presenting any seniority regime? Someone said the APA might resist the Nic because it might place some junior west pilots (by DOH) senior to earlier DOH APA pilots...But APA (theoretically) wants to minimize DOH or LOS as a factor...owing to the very senior DOH USAPA pilots... How would that stance be reconciled? Above all, I expect the west should stand up for what is rightfully theirs...either the Nic or if that is prevented, then by having complete autonomy in representing themselves in a 3-way...It strains credulity that they could be treated fairly by the east...They are a completely separate pilot group...they are USAPA in name only, and should still have legal status as the "west class"....and should have those rights.
I'm glad you've abandoned the moral issue...The moral issue, though of no legal consequence, does color the character of the proceedings...and even in a general sense the term "character"....USAPAs complete lack of ethical probity seems so far to be of little legal consequence...
You keep wanting to frame the TA as a "catch all" legal document that gives veto power to either group. I would agree with that assessment if it were applied to specific CBA-like provisions...ie. working conditions, pay, vacation, training etc. things that are normally thought to be negotiable...things that apply and benefit equally to both groups.....-Everything, in fact, except for the methodology and results of an ISL...which were found not to be negotiable...and thus went to an agreed-to binding arbitration...Clearly, the east has used the TA for purposes other than it's intended use....Clearly binding was meant to be binding over all contemplated seniority outcomes and extraneous contractual maneuverings...
Your framing it as an "economic issue" is problematic...Am I to understand that with enough money offered, the perceived inequities of the Nic would have vanished? Would that supposed "windfall you would be giving the other group" disappear with more money...money that would theoretically go in equal measure to the west...wouldn't that, with their supposed advantageous seniority further increase their windfall?
I am curious, though, about what is going to happen here...Does anyone have an inkling of how this might be playing out?...Why, exactly, is USAPA resisting single carrier status? Are they constrained by the MOU from presenting any seniority regime? Someone said the APA might resist the Nic because it might place some junior west pilots (by DOH) senior to earlier DOH APA pilots...But APA (theoretically) wants to minimize DOH or LOS as a factor...owing to the very senior DOH USAPA pilots... How would that stance be reconciled? Above all, I expect the west should stand up for what is rightfully theirs...either the Nic or if that is prevented, then by having complete autonomy in representing themselves in a 3-way...It strains credulity that they could be treated fairly by the east...They are a completely separate pilot group...they are USAPA in name only, and should still have legal status as the "west class"....and should have those rights.
Did you help WD and CactusBoss find the document yet?
01-23-2014, 10:41 PM
#266
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
No thats not it he knows as do you what document says it. Look all this is for not now. APA has made the decision to run the show WITHOUT USAPA. Lets see if they take up your cause and are willing to head back to court for usapa. I thinks not but we will see just as soon as single carrier status is awarded which is moving at record speed as I understand.
WD at AWA
WD at AWA
01-24-2014, 04:34 AM
#267
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
No thats not it he knows as do you what document says it. Look all this is for not now. APA has made the decision to run the show WITHOUT USAPA. Lets see if they take up your cause and are willing to head back to court for usapa. I thinks not but we will see just as soon as single carrier status is awarded which is moving at record speed as I understand.
WD at AWA
WD at AWA
01-24-2014, 05:10 AM
#269
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
WD,
Here's what the MOU says about the SLI process:
"f. A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") consistent with McCaskill-Bond and this Paragraph 10 will be agreed upon within 30 days of the Effective Date. The Protocol Agreement will set forth the process and protocol for conducting negotiations and arbitration, if applicable, and will include a methodology for allocating the reimbursement provided for in Paragraph 7. The company(ies) will be parties to the arbitration, if any, in accordance with McCaskill-Bond. The company(ies) shall provide information requested by the merger representatives for use in the arbitration, if any, in accordance with requirements of McCaskill-Bond, provided that theinformation is relevant to the issues involved in the arbitration, and the requests are reasonable and do not impose undue burden or expense, and so long as the merger representatives agree toappropriate confidentiality terms."
You notice in there where is says "merger representatives" and not collective bargaining agents? Are you saying that the APA is going to go back on it's agreement? I don't believe it, but if so you will fight them as you want them to live up to the spirit and word of any agreement, right?
Here's what the MOU says about the SLI process:
"f. A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") consistent with McCaskill-Bond and this Paragraph 10 will be agreed upon within 30 days of the Effective Date. The Protocol Agreement will set forth the process and protocol for conducting negotiations and arbitration, if applicable, and will include a methodology for allocating the reimbursement provided for in Paragraph 7. The company(ies) will be parties to the arbitration, if any, in accordance with McCaskill-Bond. The company(ies) shall provide information requested by the merger representatives for use in the arbitration, if any, in accordance with requirements of McCaskill-Bond, provided that theinformation is relevant to the issues involved in the arbitration, and the requests are reasonable and do not impose undue burden or expense, and so long as the merger representatives agree toappropriate confidentiality terms."
You notice in there where is says "merger representatives" and not collective bargaining agents? Are you saying that the APA is going to go back on it's agreement? I don't believe it, but if so you will fight them as you want them to live up to the spirit and word of any agreement, right?
01-24-2014, 06:23 AM
#270
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
WD,
Here's what the MOU says about the SLI process:
"f. A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") consistent with McCaskill-Bond and this Paragraph 10 will be agreed upon within 30 days of the Effective Date. The Protocol Agreement will set forth the process and protocol for conducting negotiations and arbitration, if applicable, and will include a methodology for allocating the reimbursement provided for in Paragraph 7. The company(ies) will be parties to the arbitration, if any, in accordance with McCaskill-Bond. The company(ies) shall provide information requested by the merger representatives for use in the arbitration, if any, in accordance with requirements of McCaskill-Bond, provided that theinformation is relevant to the issues involved in the arbitration, and the requests are reasonable and do not impose undue burden or expense, and so long as the merger representatives agree toappropriate confidentiality terms."
You notice in there where is says "merger representatives" and not collective bargaining agents? Are you saying that the APA is going to go back on it's agreement? I don't believe it, but if so you will fight them as you want them to live up to the spirit and word of any agreement, right?
Here's what the MOU says about the SLI process:
"f. A Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement ("Protocol Agreement") consistent with McCaskill-Bond and this Paragraph 10 will be agreed upon within 30 days of the Effective Date. The Protocol Agreement will set forth the process and protocol for conducting negotiations and arbitration, if applicable, and will include a methodology for allocating the reimbursement provided for in Paragraph 7. The company(ies) will be parties to the arbitration, if any, in accordance with McCaskill-Bond. The company(ies) shall provide information requested by the merger representatives for use in the arbitration, if any, in accordance with requirements of McCaskill-Bond, provided that theinformation is relevant to the issues involved in the arbitration, and the requests are reasonable and do not impose undue burden or expense, and so long as the merger representatives agree toappropriate confidentiality terms."
You notice in there where is says "merger representatives" and not collective bargaining agents? Are you saying that the APA is going to go back on it's agreement? I don't believe it, but if so you will fight them as you want them to live up to the spirit and word of any agreement, right?
WD at AWA
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
