Nic ...
09-23-2014 | 04:44 PM
#591
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,299
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
That's a lot questions. I think that the career expectations of US Airways and America West were fixed in relation to each other with the Nicolau award. You mention a lot of scenarios, none of which came true since 2005 so they are not germane to the discussion. The separation of the two groups operationally had nothing to do with the fact that the company had a single revenue base. If a passenger flies from CLT to PHX is that an America West passenger or a US Airways passenger? How would you tell?
I read Rich Bloch's award. As I said before, too much emphasis is placed on the financial pictures at each carrier. However, you cannot and I cannot say with any certainty what would have happened at US Airways or America West without the merger. If you think things worked out better for you, it was hopelessly tainted by the economic aspects of the merger and are not a reflection of a stand alone carrier. Sorry, but any economist will tell you the same answer. It doesn't matter whether one single management transferred flying from one base to another. That's what they do. It has nothing to do with a standalone America West.
I know you disagree with Nicolau's decision. The reason you go to arbitration is because you can't agree. It's too bad you can't come to grips with the consequences of that arbitration, but that is your problem to deal with.
The West has to assert their rights alone. It is clear that not only does USAPA have no interest in representing the West, they are intent on attacking them at every step along the way. USAPA was the antithesis of a union and it's a boon to the profession that they are gone now. Their behavior was reprehensible.
I am not involved in this arbitration in any way, other than interested spectator.
I am not looking for any payback only justice. ALPA policy changed to prevent the type of bullying of the minority by the majority that occurred in your integration. I know you guys think you are on a righteous path, but very few people agree with that. You threw away money for almost a decade and stomped all over the West with no attempt of fairness.
Windfalls were defined by you to suit your own needs. Therefore, you claim there were windfalls when most others don't see it. You all had the rules of the game and then you didn't like the end results. Then you claim that rules were rigged and you needed a do-over. That's not how it works.
History has shown that arbitrators fix your career expectations at the time the merger closes. For East/West that was 2005. Maybe this case will break the mold. My guess is not. I can tell you with high confidence that if your merger committee pretends that everything that has happened in the last 9 years has been solely due to the standalone US Airways, they will be looked at as unreliable sources. Most experts saw an airline that was in its second Chapter 11, out of cash, with no reorganization plan and no investors. All that changed when the merger was anticipated. To say the merger didn't change the vector of US Airways is not credible. You have already seen the consequences of throwing away your credibility in an arbitration. Your mileage may vary. It is not important what anyone thinks would have happened standalone for each airline; they didn't standalone and there is no way to tell what would have happened.
As for me, I am pretty much done with this argument, so blast away, just don't expect a response.
I read Rich Bloch's award. As I said before, too much emphasis is placed on the financial pictures at each carrier. However, you cannot and I cannot say with any certainty what would have happened at US Airways or America West without the merger. If you think things worked out better for you, it was hopelessly tainted by the economic aspects of the merger and are not a reflection of a stand alone carrier. Sorry, but any economist will tell you the same answer. It doesn't matter whether one single management transferred flying from one base to another. That's what they do. It has nothing to do with a standalone America West.
I know you disagree with Nicolau's decision. The reason you go to arbitration is because you can't agree. It's too bad you can't come to grips with the consequences of that arbitration, but that is your problem to deal with.
The West has to assert their rights alone. It is clear that not only does USAPA have no interest in representing the West, they are intent on attacking them at every step along the way. USAPA was the antithesis of a union and it's a boon to the profession that they are gone now. Their behavior was reprehensible.
I am not involved in this arbitration in any way, other than interested spectator.
I am not looking for any payback only justice. ALPA policy changed to prevent the type of bullying of the minority by the majority that occurred in your integration. I know you guys think you are on a righteous path, but very few people agree with that. You threw away money for almost a decade and stomped all over the West with no attempt of fairness.
Windfalls were defined by you to suit your own needs. Therefore, you claim there were windfalls when most others don't see it. You all had the rules of the game and then you didn't like the end results. Then you claim that rules were rigged and you needed a do-over. That's not how it works.
History has shown that arbitrators fix your career expectations at the time the merger closes. For East/West that was 2005. Maybe this case will break the mold. My guess is not. I can tell you with high confidence that if your merger committee pretends that everything that has happened in the last 9 years has been solely due to the standalone US Airways, they will be looked at as unreliable sources. Most experts saw an airline that was in its second Chapter 11, out of cash, with no reorganization plan and no investors. All that changed when the merger was anticipated. To say the merger didn't change the vector of US Airways is not credible. You have already seen the consequences of throwing away your credibility in an arbitration. Your mileage may vary. It is not important what anyone thinks would have happened standalone for each airline; they didn't standalone and there is no way to tell what would have happened.
As for me, I am pretty much done with this argument, so blast away, just don't expect a response.
09-23-2014 | 06:20 PM
#592
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
While I certainly don't speak for the West pilots, from my limited perspective the issue was the fact USAPA sold it as 100% seniority neutral and said that in no uncertain terms to the West pilot group face to face. Immediately after it was signed, USAPA then claimed it terminated the Nic completely. That seems a little disingenuous to me but that seems to be SOP for East union representation even before USAPA took over.
09-23-2014 | 06:45 PM
#593
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
That's a lot questions. I think that the career expectations of US Airways and America West were fixed in relation to each other with the Nicolau award. You mention a lot of scenarios, none of which came true since 2005 so they are not germane to the discussion. The separation of the two groups operationally had nothing to do with the fact that the company had a single revenue base. If a passenger flies from CLT to PHX is that an America West passenger or a US Airways passenger? How would you tell?
I read Rich Bloch's award. As I said before, too much emphasis is placed on the financial pictures at each carrier. However, you cannot and I cannot say with any certainty what would have happened at US Airways or America West without the merger. If you think things worked out better for you, it was hopelessly tainted by the economic aspects of the merger and are not a reflection of a stand alone carrier. Sorry, but any economist will tell you the same answer. It doesn't matter whether one single management transferred flying from one base to another. That's what they do. It has nothing to do with a standalone America West.
I know you disagree with Nicolau's decision. The reason you go to arbitration is because you can't agree. It's too bad you can't come to grips with the consequences of that arbitration, but that is your problem to deal with.
The West has to assert their rights alone. It is clear that not only does USAPA have no interest in representing the West, they are intent on attacking them at every step along the way. USAPA was the antithesis of a union and it's a boon to the profession that they are gone now. Their behavior was reprehensible.
I am not involved in this arbitration in any way, other than interested spectator.
I am not looking for any payback only justice. ALPA policy changed to prevent the type of bullying of the minority by the majority that occurred in your integration. I know you guys think you are on a righteous path, but very few people agree with that. You threw away money for almost a decade and stomped all over the West with no attempt of fairness.
Windfalls were defined by you to suit your own needs. Therefore, you claim there were windfalls when most others don't see it. You all had the rules of the game and then you didn't like the end results. Then you claim that rules were rigged and you needed a do-over. That's not how it works.
History has shown that arbitrators fix your career expectations at the time the merger closes. For East/West that was 2005. Maybe this case will break the mold. My guess is not. I can tell you with high confidence that if your merger committee pretends that everything that has happened in the last 9 years has been solely due to the standalone US Airways, they will be looked at as unreliable sources. Most experts saw an airline that was in its second Chapter 11, out of cash, with no reorganization plan and no investors. All that changed when the merger was anticipated. To say the merger didn't change the vector of US Airways is not credible. You have already seen the consequences of throwing away your credibility in an arbitration. Your mileage may vary. It is not important what anyone thinks would have happened standalone for each airline; they didn't standalone and there is no way to tell what would have happened.
As for me, I am pretty much done with this argument, so blast away, just don't expect a response.
I read Rich Bloch's award. As I said before, too much emphasis is placed on the financial pictures at each carrier. However, you cannot and I cannot say with any certainty what would have happened at US Airways or America West without the merger. If you think things worked out better for you, it was hopelessly tainted by the economic aspects of the merger and are not a reflection of a stand alone carrier. Sorry, but any economist will tell you the same answer. It doesn't matter whether one single management transferred flying from one base to another. That's what they do. It has nothing to do with a standalone America West.
I know you disagree with Nicolau's decision. The reason you go to arbitration is because you can't agree. It's too bad you can't come to grips with the consequences of that arbitration, but that is your problem to deal with.
The West has to assert their rights alone. It is clear that not only does USAPA have no interest in representing the West, they are intent on attacking them at every step along the way. USAPA was the antithesis of a union and it's a boon to the profession that they are gone now. Their behavior was reprehensible.
I am not involved in this arbitration in any way, other than interested spectator.
I am not looking for any payback only justice. ALPA policy changed to prevent the type of bullying of the minority by the majority that occurred in your integration. I know you guys think you are on a righteous path, but very few people agree with that. You threw away money for almost a decade and stomped all over the West with no attempt of fairness.
Windfalls were defined by you to suit your own needs. Therefore, you claim there were windfalls when most others don't see it. You all had the rules of the game and then you didn't like the end results. Then you claim that rules were rigged and you needed a do-over. That's not how it works.
History has shown that arbitrators fix your career expectations at the time the merger closes. For East/West that was 2005. Maybe this case will break the mold. My guess is not. I can tell you with high confidence that if your merger committee pretends that everything that has happened in the last 9 years has been solely due to the standalone US Airways, they will be looked at as unreliable sources. Most experts saw an airline that was in its second Chapter 11, out of cash, with no reorganization plan and no investors. All that changed when the merger was anticipated. To say the merger didn't change the vector of US Airways is not credible. You have already seen the consequences of throwing away your credibility in an arbitration. Your mileage may vary. It is not important what anyone thinks would have happened standalone for each airline; they didn't standalone and there is no way to tell what would have happened.
As for me, I am pretty much done with this argument, so blast away, just don't expect a response.
Your list of un/biased accusations, even if assumed to be true, are in essence proposed legal complaints that the present status quo of three lists is not fair, equitable, or maybe not even legal. Those accusations properly belong in a court for trial.
The equity of the status quo is a given in the 2014 Protocol Agreement, and I doubt a proposal for a snapshot based on the 2005 TA will be taken seriously, if anyone were to be present to make it.
09-23-2014 | 08:30 PM
#594
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
It wasn't a DFR because usapA did not abandon the Nic in the mou. Silver says she had to follow what the 9th said, the Nic isn't abandoned until a new seniority list is put in place.
Last edited by cactiboss; 09-23-2014 at 09:11 PM.
09-23-2014 | 09:45 PM
#595
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
P.S. Silver found that USAPA had a legitimate union purpose to not use the Nic in the MOU.... Any future DFR lawsuit will have to prove USAPA/APA had no legitimate union purpose to abandon the Nic in the JCBA.... Correct?
09-23-2014 | 10:27 PM
#596
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
So then Silver concluded that up to this point the West has not been entitled to the Nic, but you assume the West will be entitled to the Nic at some point in the future when USAPA doesn't use it, at which time USAPA will be liable for all the "damages" during the period when Judge Silver said the West wasn't entitled to it. Where can I buy a tie!
P.S. Silver found that USAPA had a legitimate union purpose to not use the Nic in the MOU.... Any future DFR lawsuit will have to prove USAPA/APA had no legitimate union purpose to abandon the Nic in the JCBA.... Correct?
P.S. Silver found that USAPA had a legitimate union purpose to not use the Nic in the MOU.... Any future DFR lawsuit will have to prove USAPA/APA had no legitimate union purpose to abandon the Nic in the JCBA.... Correct?
09-24-2014 | 05:40 AM
#598
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,299
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
No, it doesn't. What it comes down to was the FIRST AGREEMENT was in the transition agreement, that NO SLI could be used without a JCBA. Period. We never got a JCBA, so the SLI was never used. Along came the MOU where all parties decided to go forward with the status quo, and not integrate those lists except under a 3 way with AA.
09-24-2014 | 05:52 AM
#599
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,299
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
"In the particular context of seniority disputes, courts have recognized “that a union may not take away the seniority of some employees for no reason other than that the losers have too few votes to affect the outcome of an intra-union election, or that they opposed the
union’s leadership.” In other words, “a union may not juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than to advance one group of employees over another.” Any change in seniority “must rationally promote the aggregate welfare of employees in the bargaining unit.” This low standard
means that so long as a Court can find some legitimate union purpose motivating a seniority change, the union has not breached its duty of fair representation.
ii. Legitimate Purpose for MOU Provision
Turning to the present case, the West Pilots claim USAPA breached its duty of fair representation by “abandoning the existing obligation to use the Nicolau Award.” For present purposes, the Court will assume such an obligation existed. Therefore, the question is whether USAPA had a legitimate union purpose for that abandonment. As mentioned earlier, this would be an easier inquiry if USAPA had abandoned the Nicolau
Award in favor of a different seniority regime. The Court could then compare the Nicolau Award to the new seniority regime and evaluate USAPA’s reasons for adopting the new regime. But the complicated state of affairs means that, at present, there is no new seniority regime directly comparable to the Nicolau Award. And, in fact, there never will be. The
merger with American Airlines, combined with the terms of the MOU, means a new seniority regime will exist only after the McCaskill-Bond process is complete. That new seniority regime will include the thousands of pilots from American Airlines and it will be difficult to compare that regime to the Nicolau Award. Thus, the only question the Court can answer at this time is whether USAPA had a legitimate union purpose for entering into the MOU.
It did.
As conceded by a West Pilot who testified at trial, the drafting and negotiation of the MOU consisted of a “give and take.” For example, the MOU required the East Pilots give up a beneficial “change in control” provision that would have granted the East Pilots–and the East Pilots only–a temporary increase in compensation. On the other hand, the MOU contained significant compensation increases for both the West
and East Pilots. In light of the increased compensation provisions, there is no doubt that legitimate union objectives motivated some aspects of the MOU.
Because the MOU is beneficial in many respects, the West Pilots ask the Court to focus exclusively on Paragraph 10(h) and decide whether there was a legitimate union purpose supporting its inclusion. It is unclear whether agreement terms can, as a practical matter, be analyzed in this way. Given the nature of bargaining, analyzing every provision of an agreement in complete isolation will often result in a distorted picture of the overall situation. During bargaining, parties’ positions and agreement
provisions evolve. It may inappropriately enmesh courts in the minutiae of collective bargaining if unions can be required to justify every provision without regard to the overall beneficial nature of an agreement.
But accepting for present purposes that the West Pilots are correct and Paragraph 10(h) should be examined in isolation, the question is whether there was a legitimate union purpose behind it. Or, in other words, does 10(h) “rationally promote the aggregate welfare” of the pilots at US Airways.
Paragraph 10(h) requires the existing seniority regimes remain in place pending a final integration of all pilots.
The West Pilots claim there is no evidence of a link between Paragraph 10(h) and the additional compensation. Even assuming that were true, USAPA could have rationally decided the neutral provision was necessary to prevent the drag-out fight that surely would have accompanied any non-neutral, seniority-related provision."
09-24-2014 | 06:04 AM
#600
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,299
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
While I certainly don't speak for the West pilots, from my limited perspective the issue was the fact USAPA sold it as 100% seniority neutral and said that in no uncertain terms to the West pilot group face to face. Immediately after it was signed, USAPA then claimed it terminated the Nic completely. That seems a little disingenuous to me but that seems to be SOP for East union representation even before USAPA took over.
The word "neutral" became a big point with you guys. Evidence of USAPA's intentions. Well, I'm sure Symanski indeed picked his words carefully in front of you guys, but he's a lawyer. Judge Silver used something like "fast and loose." But what is neutral? It means not taking a side and that's exactly where we are. Status quo. I remember a west friend of mine arguing that the MOU wasn't neutral, that USAPA would forward a DOH east/west list. I told him that I didn't see where he got that from READING THE MOU. Obviously he didn't get it from there, he got his ideas from preconceived notions or the conventional wisdom floating around the west. BTW, as of the other day, he still thinks that's what will happen.
I've seen this over and over with the west. An idea will surface and it will start making it's way around some boards, then I will get a phone call from my friend, parroting the same thing. I've suggested to him that you guys sometimes suffer from the AWAPPA boards lack of contrary opinion, but he disagrees. When I agree with him I'm being rational, when I disagree I've become a USAPA loyalist.
I read the MOU before I listened to the commentary. I came to the conclusion that we were giving up on our fight, and going to let it go to a new process, a do over. No Nic, no DOH. I couldn't figure out why the west guys were going to vote for it. Then I heard the reasons. You guys voted for the MOU to use it for purposes other than what it was intended for.
Last edited by R57 relay; 09-24-2014 at 06:23 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
