.....disregard....

 

I believe that is an incorrect statement. He didn't consider imposing the Nicolau award because the plaintiffs withdrew the request. See footnote 16.

16 Plaintiffs originally sought relief directing the Airline to begin using the Nicolau Award for promotions and furloughs by a date certain, even if a new CBA has not been finalized. Plaintiffs withdrew this request during bench trial proceedings. [Doc. # 485, at 58.] For this reason, the bench trial testimony of Plaintiffs’ witness Brian Stockdell regarding Airline logistics is not considered and does not affect the analysis.

 

It is in the USAPA constitution that members vote on every important issue. What an amazing new concept, the dues paying line pilots make the decisions regarding their destiny.

The first vote during the birth of USAPA was to fire the ALPA union as their representative.

 

You're right, but it would just be someone else's buddy on the east side instead. The furloughs have nothing to do with the merger.

 

I don't know where you guys are going with the USAPA MEC voting in a contract versus the membership. Does anyone REALLY think that USAPA leaders would vote in a contract that the east membership (the majority, and the one's who voted the USAPA membership into office) didn't support?

I get the feeling that the west pilots would be opposed to massive fences. True?

I don't see why an airtight no-furlough clause (no furloughs until all aircraft not flown by US mainline seniority list pilots are gone), huge fences, and pay based on longevity wouldn't pass. While you can't throw out the Nic award, you can mitigate its effects, certainly.

 

How's that working out for you? A lot of new success I hope?

 

I fully understand that it is in the USAPA constitution. My point is that the judge may, at his sole discretion, choose to disregard the USAPA constitution, and say that the members do not get to vote on this contract.

Joe

 

joepilot,So you are suggesting that a judge would FORCE the MEC to vote on a contract- and apparently they must vote “yes” just to, solely to, only to, enforce the Nic award? I presume that you have seen contract negotiations – know that they involve vacation, retirement, benefits, pay, reserve, - lots of things, other than seniority. So you honestly believe that a judge would force a joint contract vote? Tell me joe, would the judge read over the contract, would he do a cost analysis? I suppose if the judge is going to force the MEC to vote “yes” ,then the company is in a very good position. Perhaps the company should just offer less and less because according to you, the pilots really do not have a say in the contract negotiations. It is all up to the company and the judge. The longer the company drags its feet, the more time goes by, the more impatient the judge will become. Really, is this how you see this going down? Why don’t we just fast forward and let the judge negotiate a deal with the company- anything to get the NIC, "award" in place.

 

Sounds like bad faith bargaining to me. Imposing fences that aren't contained in the Nicolau award is the same as not supporting the Nicolau award. The judge has maintained jurisdiction and I'm sure he won't hesitate to slap down any attempts to deny the west their seniority rights. Creating fences that were not a part of the Nicolau award would in fact deny west pilots their seniority rights.

You might try for a longevity based pay scheme, but I doubt that senior east pilots would accept the pay cut, and I'm fairly certain that the west pilots wont go for it either.

At the end of the day the Nicolau award will be implemented in total, with or without a JCBA.

It's time to accept that final and binding means final and binding and move on.

 

The judge has retained jurisdiction. If need be he can implement the Nicolau award with or without a JCBA in order to ensure that all those reason you assert are not just a pretext to avoid honoring USAPA's and the east pilots obligation to implement the Nicolau Award. The Nic is coming.