labbats

Why was this thread bumped over a bar reopening?

1515greenlight

Actually, her ruling was judicially correct...even if you don't like it. The ruling was pretty much boilerplate and what she said was consistent. If a group has set a precedent, intentionally or otherwise; like say volunteering for O/T or doing other things you are allowed to do in a contract, the company can argue and win the fact that in doing so, the union has implicitly agreed to allow these things to happen and the company can expect them to continue. And any attempt to stop them can be seen as a labor action. This is why anyone under a contract should always do just what the contract requires. Anything more sets the precedent for a legal challenge or gives the company leverage at the next set of negotiations.

Your anger is based on the valid emotion of what's happening. But that don't mean crap in a court of law. Justice is blind to only the facts contained within the document.

When you set out to do something, you gotta figure all the angles. In this case the UAL guys who started this one really screwed the pooch. Not just for themselves, but anyone in the future...just like APA did a few years back.

slowplay

Damn, spot on!

UAL T38 Phlyer

It only works if ALPA is in place at EVERY airline...unlikely. This isn't plug-n-play. You're also assuming equal economic viability of all carriers.

Hypothetically, let's say Southwest joined ALPA. You get hired by SWA, and, although junior, think life looks pretty good. Growth isn't great, but there is growth...everyone else is shrinking. You figure in 10-12 years you'll be a Captain and life is grand.

Just after moving to Houston (your domicile) and buying a new house, UAL goes bankrupt and liquidates. Out of 6400 UAL pilots, 6200 are senior to you.

We can play this scenario three ways:

1. Displaced National-seniority-list pilots pick a carrier they want to go to, and that carrier must train them in the first available slot.

2. ALPA picks for them, getting a seat and pay that is comparable to what they lost.

3. They retain their national-seniority, and when Southwest hires again, a "new hire" who hasn't flown a 737 in 20 years is now the 5th-most-senior pilot at SWA.

And of course, most of those 6400 pilots would pick the airline whose future looks the rosiest...SWA. So, every new-hire who comes in steps on your cranium, and some mid-level Captains are bumped down to F/O.

And you get furloughed back to an RJ.

SWA would have to retrain every pilot hired, yet pay them for "experience" at that carrier they don't have. Sure, they may know flying...but do they know "The Company way," or the 737? Or all the Differences?

The NSL is a "nice" idea for those of us in the bottom half of airline seniority. But so is the concept of "free health care" or "making more jobs." Nice, but where's the specifics?

Unsupportable, impractical, expensive, and contrary to human nature. You'd like it if it got you a job and seniority. You'd hate it if you lost it.

BIrwin

I agree 100% that her ruling was judicially correct. Her application of the RLA and and past legal cases was correct, at least in my relative ignorance of legal issues/reasoning. Where I feel the ruling was incorrectly decided was in the application/understanding of statistics and the determination of "truth".

First, regarding statistics, there is correlation (A and B moved together) and causality (A caused B to happen). Correlation is easy to show if A moved at the same time as B, then there is most likely some correlation. Causality is more difficult, it is necessary to show that B resulted from A. In order to accomplish this other factors that could cause B must be eliminated, if A is all that is left then if must have caused B. In my opinion UAL showed that there was some correlation over a broad timeframe. As the MEC worked towards contractual improvements, certain statistical values may have changed. Sick time, faigue and junior manning, among others, may have changed over the same broad time frame.

What I feel is that UAL failed to prove any amount of causality. Very simply increases in sick leave among pilot's being furloughed may have resulted from a use it or lose it mentality, more fatiguing schedules, a general lack of goodwill towards the company due to furloughs, or a perception that UAL was not bargaining in good faith regarding a Furlough Mitigation Letter. If this was a "job action" why were the statistical changes limited to the B737 and A320 FO fleets and over a relatively short time period(a few days)? Apparently ALPA only has influence over the most junior pilots.

A scary precedent has been set by this case, namely that a "Pilot Association" is now responsible for any changes in operating statistics regardless of whether they actually contributed to it. The burden of proof is on the "Association" to prove they did not cause something, not on the company to prove the "Association" caused it.

A final aspect of this case that bothers me is that it seems that the finding of "truth" in this case was determine based on a relatively insignificant issue. The determination of "truth" I saw in this case sounds something like this... "due to inconsistencies in ALPA testimony regarding who was on what committee when, ALPA is being dishonest and therefore any other evidence they offer will be viewed with skepticism".

Not trying to flame the Judge or her ruling, just expressing my opinion of the finding in this case.

WJI

JetDaily

Have you bothered to read the summary judgement or the court order. I have. It is a scathing indictment of ALPA. While you're at it, read the judge's affirmation of the injunction handed down by the appellate court last month. All this can be found at Information: United Airlines - ALPA Lawsuit The pilots of UAL need to wake up and see how ALPA is DESTROYING our careers. Simply reading the injunction, all the findings, and the court order will open your eyes IF you are an objective individual and a critical thinker. If not....well, you can go back to being ALPA's parrot. "Unity, Unity!"

Blockoutblockin

This is an understandable reaction to a ruling. Remember, truth can boil down to credibility and reliability. If a committee chairman is perceived as lacking credibility, for whatever reason, then the testimony will be scrutinized. This has always been the case. You can go back to English common law from 500 years ago and find examples of this.

The "reel" question should be what is ALPA doing! My guess is they are busy representing themselves.

loungelzrd

"the judge is a complete freaking moron"

A Clinton appointed pro labor dem. Ouch!

JetDaily

??????????????

JetDaily

Kudos to the pilots who tried something? You must be insane!! Do you know what this did for our bargaining power? This was law breaking! Does that mean anything to you? I'll bet you haven't even read the injunction! Am I right?

Wake up! Get in the game!