Nic ...
09-21-2014 | 06:19 PM
#511
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
No, I characterized the reality that the career trajectories of both sides WERE NOT changed by the merger. I'm not just "minimizing" them, but due to the conflict saying they never ACTUALLY changed, i.e., for all intents and purposes, the operations remained separate and thus the pilots operated essentially status quo to continue to prosper or not based on the strength of their own individual pre-merger situations for the most part.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what did the reality of a single-management team controlling two separate operations produce for the West over the intervening years to support the worth the West brought to THAT merger ?
How much expansion did PHX receive during the intervening years vs. PHL and CLT ? How many pilots were hired ? How many Group III or IV aircraft did AWA PHX operate from US Airways merger to AA merger ?
...
Just out of curiosity, exactly what did the reality of a single-management team controlling two separate operations produce for the West over the intervening years to support the worth the West brought to THAT merger ?
How much expansion did PHX receive during the intervening years vs. PHL and CLT ? How many pilots were hired ? How many Group III or IV aircraft did AWA PHX operate from US Airways merger to AA merger ?
...
Truth be told, the SLI arbitrators will not trouble themselves to think about those questions. All the arbitrators need to think about is the status quo that they are handed. The arbitrators don't care about any previous disputes or disgruntled employees.... the place to settle those complaints is not at the arbitrators panel.
The preliminary arbitration panel that considers a West seat at arbitration may look at some of those things, but they may just go with what the courts have already ruled. Who knows?
09-21-2014 | 06:34 PM
#512
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
You gotta brush up on your ual/cal history
The ual/cal merger closed october 1 2010. Cal hired and Ual furloughed after this with Cal hiring furloughed Ual pilots. Sound familiar?
And that is exactly what the arbitrators did. CAL merger committee whole proposal was based on post merger cal hiring and ual furloughs. The Arbitrators summarily rejected that and adopted the view that reaching "single management control" nullifies post merger career trajectory expectations.
The ual/cal merger closed october 1 2010. Cal hired and Ual furloughed after this with Cal hiring furloughed Ual pilots. Sound familiar?
And that is exactly what the arbitrators did. CAL merger committee whole proposal was based on post merger cal hiring and ual furloughs. The Arbitrators summarily rejected that and adopted the view that reaching "single management control" nullifies post merger career trajectory expectations.
Post merger?
Yes the status quo at the time of the merger is what matters. Three lists existed at the time of the merger and will be integrated..., and that is why the West may be able to get a seat at the table in the preliminary arbitration, even though by law they are not entitled to one.
The status quo is what it is, and the arbitrators won't concern themselves with wether or not the status quo is just. The equity of the status quo is outside of their scope. It is by definition assumed to be equitable. Thats just the way it is. The West had plenty of opportunities before the courts attempting to change the present status quo going into the merger, but no court found cause to alter anything. You will be disappointed if you think an arbitration panel will wade into something that isn't their concern.
09-21-2014 | 07:05 PM
#513
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Likes: 0
No, I characterized the reality that the career trajectories of both sides WERE NOT changed by the merger. I'm not just "minimizing" them, but due to the conflict saying they never ACTUALLY changed, i.e., for all intents and purposes, the operations remained separate and thus the pilots operated essentially status quo to continue to prosper or not based on the strength of their own individual pre-merger situations for the most part.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what did the reality of a single-management team controlling two separate operations produce for the West over the intervening years to support the worth the West brought to THAT merger ?
How much expansion did PHX receive during the intervening years vs. PHL and CLT ? How many pilots were hired ? How many Group III or IV aircraft did AWA PHX operate from US Airways merger to AA merger ?
Parker certainly had the opportunity to expand PHX or even West flying to new hubs/routes and hire significantly if that operation supported it. Did he do that ?
...and again, based on my opinions above, this where we simply disagree. As for the Parker accepting that outcome, sure, he had little choice at that time, but that was only in the context of the merger then between AWA/U.
Will the arbitrators discount all other issues and award the Nic to the West based on the premise it would be "rewarding" the East ?
Who knows, but I don't think so. Additionally, I think we all know the unusual and repugnant actions by the majority then are unlikely to be repeated, especially with M-B in play. Any future SLI's will include specific safeguards to ensure that won't happen and this merger and its MOU and SLI PA are proof of that.
"as good or BETTER then the Nicolau award" ?
That sounds like someone slouching toward an unrealistic expectation of a windfall to me. At any rate, as for liability, well, it appears to me that APA is more interested in absolving itself from liability while still recognizing the West has a major issue in need of resolution and bending over backward to present themselves in a neutral fashion. Remember, M-B only requires a fair PROCESS and not necessarily a fair outcome as that definition has a tendency to remain a subjective one based on ones position. If APA was singularly on the West's side, you'd think they'd do more then punt the issue to arbitrators in a multi-arbitrational process whereby arbitration will first decide if the West even exists and if so, another arbitration will decide what, if any, consideration if given to the Nic. I wouldn't be so rash as to jump to the conclusion the APA is pro-West (and thus anti-East), but more likely an entity carefully plotting out a process to prevent a future minefield from blowing them apart. You may think they are "pushing hard" for the West, but I think that's more about THEIR self-preservation then realizing YOUR goals.
As for your "amateur legal analysis" comment, based on your position it seems there you feel those that bring up opposing perceptions about the validity of the Nic in the present situation consider themselves some type of pseudo lawyers ? I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm just 1 pilot out of 15,000+ with an opinion and nothing more. In consideration of that, your position and your comments, I'm not sure which category to place your post in, so I'll let you choose........will it be amateur legal analyst or one pilot with an opinion ?
There's a flip side to that coin and that is "fair and equitable" is a subjective determination, so "pleasing someone" would apply in both directions (or maybe even 3 in this case). Again remember, the concept of "fair and equitable" in the M-B process is about the process and not the result. If the West should get a seat at the table and still doesn't get the Nic, I think that fair and equitable standard is met because the PROCESS gave the Nic every chance at consideration. If the West doesn't get a seat, then that standard STILL will have been met IMO, because their exclusion was decided by neutral arbitrators and not APA or USAPA. The question at hand is ultimately WHICH party gets pleased. Clearly SOMEONE is going to be displeased regarding the Nic issue as it either will be included in the final ISL or it won't, so in this case the arbitrators can't win and if your read the UAL-CAL award, you'll see they wearily know this as virtually all SLI's result in sour grapes for someone. What they DO have to do is reasonably justify their actions to those neutral to the issue and successfully justify a rational basis for crafting an ISL in the manner they did.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what did the reality of a single-management team controlling two separate operations produce for the West over the intervening years to support the worth the West brought to THAT merger ?
How much expansion did PHX receive during the intervening years vs. PHL and CLT ? How many pilots were hired ? How many Group III or IV aircraft did AWA PHX operate from US Airways merger to AA merger ?
Parker certainly had the opportunity to expand PHX or even West flying to new hubs/routes and hire significantly if that operation supported it. Did he do that ?
...and again, based on my opinions above, this where we simply disagree. As for the Parker accepting that outcome, sure, he had little choice at that time, but that was only in the context of the merger then between AWA/U.
Will the arbitrators discount all other issues and award the Nic to the West based on the premise it would be "rewarding" the East ?
Who knows, but I don't think so. Additionally, I think we all know the unusual and repugnant actions by the majority then are unlikely to be repeated, especially with M-B in play. Any future SLI's will include specific safeguards to ensure that won't happen and this merger and its MOU and SLI PA are proof of that.
"as good or BETTER then the Nicolau award" ?
That sounds like someone slouching toward an unrealistic expectation of a windfall to me. At any rate, as for liability, well, it appears to me that APA is more interested in absolving itself from liability while still recognizing the West has a major issue in need of resolution and bending over backward to present themselves in a neutral fashion. Remember, M-B only requires a fair PROCESS and not necessarily a fair outcome as that definition has a tendency to remain a subjective one based on ones position. If APA was singularly on the West's side, you'd think they'd do more then punt the issue to arbitrators in a multi-arbitrational process whereby arbitration will first decide if the West even exists and if so, another arbitration will decide what, if any, consideration if given to the Nic. I wouldn't be so rash as to jump to the conclusion the APA is pro-West (and thus anti-East), but more likely an entity carefully plotting out a process to prevent a future minefield from blowing them apart. You may think they are "pushing hard" for the West, but I think that's more about THEIR self-preservation then realizing YOUR goals.
As for your "amateur legal analysis" comment, based on your position it seems there you feel those that bring up opposing perceptions about the validity of the Nic in the present situation consider themselves some type of pseudo lawyers ? I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm just 1 pilot out of 15,000+ with an opinion and nothing more. In consideration of that, your position and your comments, I'm not sure which category to place your post in, so I'll let you choose........will it be amateur legal analyst or one pilot with an opinion ?
There's a flip side to that coin and that is "fair and equitable" is a subjective determination, so "pleasing someone" would apply in both directions (or maybe even 3 in this case). Again remember, the concept of "fair and equitable" in the M-B process is about the process and not the result. If the West should get a seat at the table and still doesn't get the Nic, I think that fair and equitable standard is met because the PROCESS gave the Nic every chance at consideration. If the West doesn't get a seat, then that standard STILL will have been met IMO, because their exclusion was decided by neutral arbitrators and not APA or USAPA. The question at hand is ultimately WHICH party gets pleased. Clearly SOMEONE is going to be displeased regarding the Nic issue as it either will be included in the final ISL or it won't, so in this case the arbitrators can't win and if your read the UAL-CAL award, you'll see they wearily know this as virtually all SLI's result in sour grapes for someone. What they DO have to do is reasonably justify their actions to those neutral to the issue and successfully justify a rational basis for crafting an ISL in the manner they did.
You think it is important that the West and East had separate operations over the last 9 years. Here are some questions for you. How many network management teams did US Air have during that time? How many central reservation phone numbers did they have? How many frequent flier programs did they have? Was there any way a passenger who bought a ticket on US Airways could tell if they were on a West plane or an East plane?
I don't know the base history at AMR over the last decade, but I am sure that some bases have grown and some have shrunk or even been eliminated. When a base shrunk, did the pilots at that base have to go to the bottom of the AMR list when they were displaced? Why not?
Just because the pilots were operating separately, it did not change the central fact that there was one management team serving one customer base. Whether or not flying got shifted from one US Airways base to another meant nothing to that management team, the exact same as what happened at AMR. In 2005 the East and West merged. After that time, there is no way to sort out their individual career expectations or the individual fates of their pre merger airlines; they were irretrievably altered for all times into the future.
So your statement that the East and West expectations were not changed by the merger is ludicrous on its face. The East pilots were in Chapter 11 with no cash, no reorganization plan, no hopes for the future, and it is clear they were headed to liquidation. The fact that they exist now is solely due to the merger. Maybe America West would have gone out of business too, who knows. But to say both of their career expectations have not been changed by the merger is just ignorant.
SLI integrations are about trying to meld together PRE-MERGER expectations. Go back to arbitrations 20, 30, or 50 years ago and you will see the validity of that observation. You might want to do some actual research of actual arbitration results before you go spouting off with your ideas. You like to refer to the UAL/CAL SLI integration, why don't you tell me what those arbitrators had to say about CAL's attempt to cash in on their supposed gains in the three years after their merger. I will give you a hint; they said that the merger closed in October 2010 and anything that happened after that was the result of a single merged airline. It simply didn't matter what occurred after that time. Oh, and who was the head arbitrator in that case? Well I think it was Dana Eischen, a name that should become much more familiar to you in the near future. But hey, I am sure it will work out differently in your case.
So you can place my opinion in whatever category you want. I can at least say I have directly observed multiple seniority arbitrations and have studied every seniority arbitration dating back to the 1960's. I am not a lawyer and I don't give legal opinions, I can just read what has happened numerous times in the past and guess what will happen into the future. Your opinions lack any basis in historical fact and seem mostly to be generated on what would be best for you.
This is not about pleasing parties. The West pilots had rights; rights that were established with the Nicolau award. Those rights were NEGOTIATED away. If the end result of that negotiation, however decided, do not match the rights they had before, they have a ripe DFR case and the parties that will pay damages are APA and AMR. This is not about making people happy, it is about contractual rights that were negotiated away. Tell me what the courts said in Rakestraw vs. ALPA and the associated seniority cases that followed. Give me that report and then study the following seniority cases and let me know your opinion after that.
If you are going to give amateur legal advice, at least do some study before offering it. Clearly you have not read anything of significance that relates to this case and are just making it up on the fly.
Last edited by alfaromeo; 09-21-2014 at 07:26 PM.
09-21-2014 | 07:09 PM
#514
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
Post merger?
Yes the status quo at the time of the merger is what matters. Three lists existed at the time of the merger and will be integrated..., and that is why the West may be able to get a seat at the table in the preliminary arbitration, even though by law they are not entitled to one.
The status quo is what it is, and the arbitrators won't concern themselves with wether or not the status quo is just. The equity of the status quo is outside of their scope. It is by definition assumed to be equitable. Thats just the way it is. The West had plenty of opportunities before the courts attempting to change the present status quo going into the merger, but no court found cause to alter anything. You will be disappointed if you think an arbitration panel will wade into something that isn't their concern.
Yes the status quo at the time of the merger is what matters. Three lists existed at the time of the merger and will be integrated..., and that is why the West may be able to get a seat at the table in the preliminary arbitration, even though by law they are not entitled to one.
The status quo is what it is, and the arbitrators won't concern themselves with wether or not the status quo is just. The equity of the status quo is outside of their scope. It is by definition assumed to be equitable. Thats just the way it is. The West had plenty of opportunities before the courts attempting to change the present status quo going into the merger, but no court found cause to alter anything. You will be disappointed if you think an arbitration panel will wade into something that isn't their concern.
09-21-2014 | 08:00 PM
#515
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Just so you don't go off on the personal attack tangent, I am in the top 15% of the Delta seniority list and I have nothing to gain from this or actually any further seniority integration in the future. So just leave that out of your equation.
You think it is important that the West and East had separate operations over the last 9 years. Here are some questions for you. How many network management teams did US Air have during that time? How many central reservation phone numbers did they have? How many frequent flier programs did they have? Was there any way a passenger who bought a ticket on US Airways could tell if they were on a West plane or an East plane?
I don't know the base history at AMR over the last decade, but I am sure that some bases have grown and some have shrunk or even been eliminated. When a base shrunk, did the pilots at that base have to go to the bottom of the AMR list when they were displaced? Why not?
Just because the pilots were operating separately, it did not change the central fact that there was one management team serving one customer base. Whether or not flying got shifted from one US Airways base to another meant nothing to that management team, the exact same as what happened at AMR. In 2005 the East and West merged. After that time, there is no way to sort out their individual career expectations or the individual fates of their pre merger airlines; they were irretrievably altered for all times into the future.
So your statement that the East and West expectations were not changed by the merger is ludicrous on its face. The East pilots were in Chapter 11 with no cash, no reorganization plan, no hopes for the future, and it is clear they were headed to liquidation. The fact that they exist now is solely due to the merger. Maybe America West would have gone out of business too, who knows. But to say both of their career expectations have not been changed by the merger is just ignorant.
SLI integrations are about trying to meld together PRE-MERGER expectations. Go back to arbitrations 20, 30, or 50 years ago and you will see the validity of that observation. You might want to do some actual research of actual arbitration results before you go spouting off with your ideas. You like to refer to the UAL/CAL SLI integration, why don't you tell me what those arbitrators had to say about CAL's attempt to cash in on their supposed gains in the three years after their merger. I will give you a hint; they said that the merger closed in October 2010 and anything that happened after that was the result of a single merged airline. It simply didn't matter what occurred after that time. Oh, and who was the head arbitrator in that case? Well I think it was Dana Eischen, a name that should become much more familiar to you in the near future. But hey, I am sure it will work out differently in your case.
So you can place my opinion in whatever category you want. I can at least say I have directly observed multiple seniority arbitrations and have studied every seniority arbitration dating back to the 1960's. I am not a lawyer and I don't give legal opinions, I can just read what has happened numerous times in the past and guess what will happen into the future. Your opinions lack any basis in historical fact and seem mostly to be generated on what would be best for you.
This is not about pleasing parties. The West pilots had rights; rights that were established with the Nicolau award. Those rights were NEGOTIATED away. If the end result of that negotiation, however decided, do not match the rights they had before, they have a ripe DFR case and the parties that will pay damages are APA and AMR. This is not about making people happy, it is about contractual rights that were negotiated away. Tell me what the courts said in Rakestraw vs. ALPA and the associated seniority cases that followed. Give me that report and then study the following seniority cases and let me know your opinion after that.
If you are going to give amateur legal advice, at least do some study before offering it. Clearly you have not read anything of significance that relates to this case and are just making it up on the fly.
You think it is important that the West and East had separate operations over the last 9 years. Here are some questions for you. How many network management teams did US Air have during that time? How many central reservation phone numbers did they have? How many frequent flier programs did they have? Was there any way a passenger who bought a ticket on US Airways could tell if they were on a West plane or an East plane?
I don't know the base history at AMR over the last decade, but I am sure that some bases have grown and some have shrunk or even been eliminated. When a base shrunk, did the pilots at that base have to go to the bottom of the AMR list when they were displaced? Why not?
Just because the pilots were operating separately, it did not change the central fact that there was one management team serving one customer base. Whether or not flying got shifted from one US Airways base to another meant nothing to that management team, the exact same as what happened at AMR. In 2005 the East and West merged. After that time, there is no way to sort out their individual career expectations or the individual fates of their pre merger airlines; they were irretrievably altered for all times into the future.
So your statement that the East and West expectations were not changed by the merger is ludicrous on its face. The East pilots were in Chapter 11 with no cash, no reorganization plan, no hopes for the future, and it is clear they were headed to liquidation. The fact that they exist now is solely due to the merger. Maybe America West would have gone out of business too, who knows. But to say both of their career expectations have not been changed by the merger is just ignorant.
SLI integrations are about trying to meld together PRE-MERGER expectations. Go back to arbitrations 20, 30, or 50 years ago and you will see the validity of that observation. You might want to do some actual research of actual arbitration results before you go spouting off with your ideas. You like to refer to the UAL/CAL SLI integration, why don't you tell me what those arbitrators had to say about CAL's attempt to cash in on their supposed gains in the three years after their merger. I will give you a hint; they said that the merger closed in October 2010 and anything that happened after that was the result of a single merged airline. It simply didn't matter what occurred after that time. Oh, and who was the head arbitrator in that case? Well I think it was Dana Eischen, a name that should become much more familiar to you in the near future. But hey, I am sure it will work out differently in your case.
So you can place my opinion in whatever category you want. I can at least say I have directly observed multiple seniority arbitrations and have studied every seniority arbitration dating back to the 1960's. I am not a lawyer and I don't give legal opinions, I can just read what has happened numerous times in the past and guess what will happen into the future. Your opinions lack any basis in historical fact and seem mostly to be generated on what would be best for you.
This is not about pleasing parties. The West pilots had rights; rights that were established with the Nicolau award. Those rights were NEGOTIATED away. If the end result of that negotiation, however decided, do not match the rights they had before, they have a ripe DFR case and the parties that will pay damages are APA and AMR. This is not about making people happy, it is about contractual rights that were negotiated away. Tell me what the courts said in Rakestraw vs. ALPA and the associated seniority cases that followed. Give me that report and then study the following seniority cases and let me know your opinion after that.
If you are going to give amateur legal advice, at least do some study before offering it. Clearly you have not read anything of significance that relates to this case and are just making it up on the fly.
The legitimacy of the status quo is a given. There is no disputing the status quo. I suspect that arbitrators will disregard as irrelevant any grumblings about shoulda-coulda-woulda.
P.s. West pilots were furloughed and had to go to the bottom of the East list if they accepted a job on the East during their furlough. Yes, that is a clue about the status quo. (The MOU and the Protocol Agreement are explicit about the status quo.)
Last edited by PurpleTurtle; 09-21-2014 at 08:22 PM.
09-21-2014 | 08:11 PM
#516
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
Just so you don't go off on the personal attack tangent, I am in the top 15% of the Delta seniority list and I have nothing to gain from this or actually any further seniority integration in the future. So just leave that out of your equation.
You think it is important that the West and East had separate operations over the last 9 years. Here are some questions for you. How many network management teams did US Air have during that time? How many central reservation phone numbers did they have? How many frequent flier programs did they have? Was there any way a passenger who bought a ticket on US Airways could tell if they were on a West plane or an East plane?
I don't know the base history at AMR over the last decade, but I am sure that some bases have grown and some have shrunk or even been eliminated. When a base shrunk, did the pilots at that base have to go to the bottom of the AMR list when they were displaced? Why not?
Just because the pilots were operating separately, it did not change the central fact that there was one management team serving one customer base. Whether or not flying got shifted from one US Airways base to another meant nothing to that management team, the exact same as what happened at AMR. In 2005 the East and West merged. After that time, there is no way to sort out their individual career expectations or the individual fates of their pre merger airlines; they were irretrievably altered for all times into the future.
So your statement that the East and West expectations were not changed by the merger is ludicrous on its face. The East pilots were in Chapter 11 with no cash, no reorganization plan, no hopes for the future, and it is clear they were headed to liquidation. The fact that they exist now is solely due to the merger. Maybe America West would have gone out of business too, who knows. But to say both of their career expectations have not been changed by the merger is just ignorant.
SLI integrations are about trying to meld together PRE-MERGER expectations. Go back to arbitrations 20, 30, or 50 years ago and you will see the validity of that observation. You might want to do some actual research of actual arbitration results before you go spouting off with your ideas. You like to refer to the UAL/CAL SLI integration, why don't you tell me what those arbitrators had to say about CAL's attempt to cash in on their supposed gains in the three years after their merger. I will give you a hint; they said that the merger closed in October 2010 and anything that happened after that was the result of a single merged airline. It simply didn't matter what occurred after that time. Oh, and who was the head arbitrator in that case? Well I think it was Dana Eischen, a name that should become much more familiar to you in the near future. But hey, I am sure it will work out differently in your case.
So you can place my opinion in whatever category you want. I can at least say I have directly observed multiple seniority arbitrations and have studied every seniority arbitration dating back to the 1960's. I am not a lawyer and I don't give legal opinions, I can just read what has happened numerous times in the past and guess what will happen into the future. Your opinions lack any basis in historical fact and seem mostly to be generated on what would be best for you.
This is not about pleasing parties. The West pilots had rights; rights that were established with the Nicolau award. Those rights were NEGOTIATED away. If the end result of that negotiation, however decided, do not match the rights they had before, they have a ripe DFR case and the parties that will pay damages are APA and AMR. This is not about making people happy, it is about contractual rights that were negotiated away. Tell me what the courts said in Rakestraw vs. ALPA and the associated seniority cases that followed. Give me that report and then study the following seniority cases and let me know your opinion after that.
If you are going to give amateur legal advice, at least do some study before offering it. Clearly you have not read anything of significance that relates to this case and are just making it up on the fly.
You think it is important that the West and East had separate operations over the last 9 years. Here are some questions for you. How many network management teams did US Air have during that time? How many central reservation phone numbers did they have? How many frequent flier programs did they have? Was there any way a passenger who bought a ticket on US Airways could tell if they were on a West plane or an East plane?
I don't know the base history at AMR over the last decade, but I am sure that some bases have grown and some have shrunk or even been eliminated. When a base shrunk, did the pilots at that base have to go to the bottom of the AMR list when they were displaced? Why not?
Just because the pilots were operating separately, it did not change the central fact that there was one management team serving one customer base. Whether or not flying got shifted from one US Airways base to another meant nothing to that management team, the exact same as what happened at AMR. In 2005 the East and West merged. After that time, there is no way to sort out their individual career expectations or the individual fates of their pre merger airlines; they were irretrievably altered for all times into the future.
So your statement that the East and West expectations were not changed by the merger is ludicrous on its face. The East pilots were in Chapter 11 with no cash, no reorganization plan, no hopes for the future, and it is clear they were headed to liquidation. The fact that they exist now is solely due to the merger. Maybe America West would have gone out of business too, who knows. But to say both of their career expectations have not been changed by the merger is just ignorant.
SLI integrations are about trying to meld together PRE-MERGER expectations. Go back to arbitrations 20, 30, or 50 years ago and you will see the validity of that observation. You might want to do some actual research of actual arbitration results before you go spouting off with your ideas. You like to refer to the UAL/CAL SLI integration, why don't you tell me what those arbitrators had to say about CAL's attempt to cash in on their supposed gains in the three years after their merger. I will give you a hint; they said that the merger closed in October 2010 and anything that happened after that was the result of a single merged airline. It simply didn't matter what occurred after that time. Oh, and who was the head arbitrator in that case? Well I think it was Dana Eischen, a name that should become much more familiar to you in the near future. But hey, I am sure it will work out differently in your case.
So you can place my opinion in whatever category you want. I can at least say I have directly observed multiple seniority arbitrations and have studied every seniority arbitration dating back to the 1960's. I am not a lawyer and I don't give legal opinions, I can just read what has happened numerous times in the past and guess what will happen into the future. Your opinions lack any basis in historical fact and seem mostly to be generated on what would be best for you.
This is not about pleasing parties. The West pilots had rights; rights that were established with the Nicolau award. Those rights were NEGOTIATED away. If the end result of that negotiation, however decided, do not match the rights they had before, they have a ripe DFR case and the parties that will pay damages are APA and AMR. This is not about making people happy, it is about contractual rights that were negotiated away. Tell me what the courts said in Rakestraw vs. ALPA and the associated seniority cases that followed. Give me that report and then study the following seniority cases and let me know your opinion after that.
If you are going to give amateur legal advice, at least do some study before offering it. Clearly you have not read anything of significance that relates to this case and are just making it up on the fly.
09-21-2014 | 08:19 PM
#517
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
The legitimacy of the status quo is a given. The arbitrators will not accept any complaints about how the status quo should be different than what it is.
09-21-2014 | 08:33 PM
#518
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,299
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
I noticed that Eagle had a tag line about being a USAPA punching bag. I have no intention of being one. You are 3000 posts ahead of me and I had some catching up to do. USAPA has 5 pages of press releases, Leonidas has much more on the history, court docs, articles, etc. I have the opinion the Nic will not be used. I have concerns that the pattern of lawsuits will continue. There seems to be a pattern of shifting positions, depending on which way the wind blows with former ALPA members who hold or held positions with USAPA. I'm seeing inconsistencies. In your mind that makes me or anybody else who dares to question anything a West guy.
http://www.usairlinepilots.org/index...=88&Itemid=524
http://www.usairlinepilots.org/index...=88&Itemid=524
Awfully defensive, and no answer.
09-22-2014 | 02:02 AM
#519
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
So you can place my opinion in whatever category you want. I can at least say I have directly observed multiple seniority arbitrations and have studied every seniority arbitration dating back to the 1960's. I am not a lawyer and I don't give legal opinions, I can just read what has happened numerous times in the past and guess what will happen into the future. Your opinions lack any basis in historical fact and seem mostly to be generated on what would be best for you.
This is not about pleasing parties. The West pilots had rights; rights that were established with the Nicolau award. Those rights were NEGOTIATED away. If the end result of that negotiation, however decided, do not match the rights they had before, they have a ripe DFR case and the parties that will pay damages are APA and AMR. This is not about making people happy, it is about contractual rights that were negotiated away. Tell me what the courts said in Rakestraw vs. ALPA and the associated seniority cases that followed. Give me that report and then study the following seniority cases and let me know your opinion after that.
If you are going to give amateur legal advice, at least do some study before offering it. Clearly you have not read anything of significance that relates to this case and are just making it up on the fly.
So with all your research I would assume you agree that the seniority list lives within the CBA. I would imagine too that you are aware that for the NIC to be given life there had to be a JCBA which was voted on separately by both sides and passed by both sides. This never happened. I would assume you knew that there was a Judge that made a ruling that the NIC did NOT have to be used within the MOU. I would assume you know why the DAL and NWA merger was structured how it was along with UAL and CAL? The way our was, either side had the ability to infinitely block the completion of the merger between the pilots. It was thought of the back stop (surprising the West wanted it this way) And their lawyer explained to them they were carrying all the risk not sitting down and negotiating a settlement to our "little" problem.
Please show me where the CBA is that codified the NIC award?
Seniority rights are not vested; they are created through the collective bargaining process and derive their scope and significance from union contracts. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union v. Gold Star, 897 F.2d 1022, 1026 (10th Cir.1990); Schick v. N.L.R.B., 409 F.2d 395, 398 (7th Cir.1969); Ferrara v. Pacific Intermountain Exp. Co., 301 F.Supp. 1240, 1243 (N.D.Ill.1969). Thus, a union is free to renegotiate the method of allocating employee seniority rights, so long as the union's position does not offend the duty of fair representation owed to all employees. Barton Brands, Ltd. v. N.L. R.B., 529 F.2d 793, 798-99 (7th Cir.1976); Papcin v. Dichello Distrib., Inc., 697 F.Supp. 73, 80-81 (D.Conn.) aff'd, 862 F.2d 304 (2d Cir.1988). When a new collective bargaining agreement abridges established seniority rights of a minority of employees, "the [u]nion must show some objective justification for its conduct beyond that of placating the desires of the majority of the unit employees at the expense of the minority." Barton Brands, 529 F.2d at 798-99.
I believe the latest Silver case answered this question....
09-22-2014 | 04:21 AM
#520
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,880
Likes: 194
Those are all very interesting questions...
Truth be told, the SLI arbitrators will not trouble themselves to think about those questions. All the arbitrators need to think about is the status quo that they are handed. The arbitrators don't care about any previous disputes or disgruntled employees.... the place to settle those complaints is not at the arbitrators panel.
The preliminary arbitration panel that considers a West seat at arbitration may look at some of those things, but they may just go with what the courts have already ruled. Who knows?
Truth be told, the SLI arbitrators will not trouble themselves to think about those questions. All the arbitrators need to think about is the status quo that they are handed. The arbitrators don't care about any previous disputes or disgruntled employees.... the place to settle those complaints is not at the arbitrators panel.
The preliminary arbitration panel that considers a West seat at arbitration may look at some of those things, but they may just go with what the courts have already ruled. Who knows?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
