US Airways Appeal
06-07-2010, 06:12 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by cactusmike
By the way, this is what you get when you are an International Widebody Legacy Captain for Us Airways East:
Pilot in Charlotte bumping incident was anxious to take off | NewsChannel 36 | Charlotte News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | WCNC.com | News for Charlotte, NC
Ironic thing is - he hit a West A321.
Pilot in Charlotte bumping incident was anxious to take off | NewsChannel 36 | Charlotte News, Weather, Traffic, and Sports | WCNC.com | News for Charlotte, NC
Ironic thing is - he hit a West A321.
THE PHOENIX-BANGKOK HEROIN CONNECTION
06-07-2010, 06:18 PM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by cactusmike
Both those pilots were on the bottom of their respective seniority lists, so yes, it is indeed reasonable. Like I said, a SLIC is not a mechanism to compensate for your sorry career moves. If you were on the bottom at AAA you had plenty of chances to leave and you chose to stay. Do not make up for poor career moves at someone else's expense. I am a 1887 hire at AWA, I have been a captain for 20 years. That is the difference between the two airlines. We actually had expectations. That 2005 hire would have been a captain by 2010. Thanks to the cancer known as US Airways he is not.
Quit whining about the list and get on with running a union and getting a contract. You guys have had a fence for over 5 years now. You have more than made up for anything that you found lacking in the Nic award. Start looking ahead instead of behind and get on with life.
Quit whining about the list and get on with running a union and getting a contract. You guys have had a fence for over 5 years now. You have more than made up for anything that you found lacking in the Nic award. Start looking ahead instead of behind and get on with life.
Down UnderWare
06-07-2010, 06:27 PM
#133
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
This concept was established after the Rakestraw decision. ALPA Merger Policy will still end in final and binding arbitration and the seniority battle will be over. USAPA has always been free to negotiate a new list, but the burden of proof is on them on why it won't harm the other pilots. I will be able to turn dog poop into gold before they can prove that.
The only way a union can re-negotiate a seniority list, whether it exists as a standalone list or it is the result of a merger, is to demonstrate a legitimate union objective in changing the list. If one group of pilots wants to steal seniority away from another group for their own personal gain, that is not a legitimate union objective, no matter how much those pilots convince themselves that their greed is justified. The initial court decision on the "unripe" case proved that. The "threat" of binding arbitration still has all the weight it had before. "I am upset because I lost the arbitration" is not a legitimate union objective.
When USAPA negotiates a date of hire list and it survives a DFR case, then I will agree with your conclusion. Until then, the "arbitration doesn't matter" crowd is just urinating in the wind. If I were to believe your argument, then we could arrange to reorder the list based on height or zip code and that would automatically become a legitimate union objective. Hasn't happened in more than 60+ years of ALPA seniority mergers and I doubt that it will happen. Keep dreaming though if it makes you happy.
The only shame is that while USAPA chases this pipe dream, they are dragging down their entire seniority list and the entire industry. You and Carl keep complaining about I don't want to "fight" for a better contract, yet you defend the very people who are a giant anchor to the entire industry while they pursue their own futile cause. Quite ironic.
The only way a union can re-negotiate a seniority list, whether it exists as a standalone list or it is the result of a merger, is to demonstrate a legitimate union objective in changing the list. If one group of pilots wants to steal seniority away from another group for their own personal gain, that is not a legitimate union objective, no matter how much those pilots convince themselves that their greed is justified. The initial court decision on the "unripe" case proved that. The "threat" of binding arbitration still has all the weight it had before. "I am upset because I lost the arbitration" is not a legitimate union objective.
When USAPA negotiates a date of hire list and it survives a DFR case, then I will agree with your conclusion. Until then, the "arbitration doesn't matter" crowd is just urinating in the wind. If I were to believe your argument, then we could arrange to reorder the list based on height or zip code and that would automatically become a legitimate union objective. Hasn't happened in more than 60+ years of ALPA seniority mergers and I doubt that it will happen. Keep dreaming though if it makes you happy.
The only shame is that while USAPA chases this pipe dream, they are dragging down their entire seniority list and the entire industry. You and Carl keep complaining about I don't want to "fight" for a better contract, yet you defend the very people who are a giant anchor to the entire industry while they pursue their own futile cause. Quite ironic.
The argument is not that re-ordering the list any way one wants automatically becomes a legitimate union objective. For you to say that is setting up a straw man which is easily knocked down.
This is the real issue: Seniority is a negotiated benefit. A union has the right to distribute negotiated benefits among its members, within certain limits. A union may not redistribute benefits among members without a legitimate union objective. However, if there is a legitimate union objective, the mere fact that reordering benefits helps one group at the expense of another does not automatically mean the action violates DFR.
Restated: If motivated by a legitimate union objective, a reordering of a (proposed, arbitrated) seniority list is not a violation of DFR.
The simple fact of benefit to one group at the expense of another is not per se DFR. It is inescapable that reordering benefits will help one group and harm another. The issue is motive.
Judge Wake said that USAPA's sole motive in seeking date of hire seniority was to harm the west pilots, and because the motive was bad, that Nicolau must always be followed.
Judge Wake refused to consider the simple possibility that USAPA's motive was to use the negotiated benefits of a contract to reward pilots who had served long years at their company, who had only a few years left before retirement, who had limited options for other employment, and who had invested significant portions of their working life at one company.
This motivation, to reward the old-timers, and let the new guys wait their turn, is common in working America. It is also reflected in age discrimination laws, and can fairly be stated to be in line with national public policy.
To say that east pilots' sole motive was to harm west pilots is like saying we couldn't decide whether to kneecap all those guys, or just make them wait for upgrades, and we decided to hurt them by making them wait their turn. It just isn't the case.
Rewarding those who are the oldest, and have served the longest, and having the newer guy wait his turn, is a legitimate union objective.
06-07-2010, 07:54 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by Hiwaymiles
CactusMike,
I didn't say I wanted to be captain now, or that I wanted to take a captain job from a west guy who was downgraded. What I said was I don't want to spend the last few years of my career at my airline jerking gear for pilots who were hired many years after me. I'll wait my turn for the upgrade. The west F/Os can have all the PHX upgrades. I just don't want the west guys to get in front of me for an east upgrade. I waited a long time for that, and it's not right for you guys to step in and take them.
I think that this ruling did say a little something about the Nicolau award.
A threshold question here is whether USAPA must use the Nicolau award to avoid DFR. If that's true, the case is over. If it's not true, the next question is will the seniority system that USAPA uses expose them to DFR liability with regard to the west pilots?
With regard to the threshold question, recall that Judge Bybee, the dissenting judge, took the position that since USAPA had stated it would not negotiate for the Nicolau award, that the damage to the west pilots had already been done, and therefore the case was ripe.
As Judge Tashima, writing for the majority, pointed out, it is implicit in Judge Bybee's dissent that he thinks USAPA is obligated to negotiate for the Nicolau award. If that is true, obviously the case is ripe, because USAPA is refusing to do just that.
Does the majority think that USAPA is required to negotiate only for the Nicolau award? While they do not say explicitly, there are a few hints. The first and most obvious hint is that if the majority of the court thought that USAPA was required to negotiate for Nicolau, they would have agreed with Judge Bybee's dissent, which they did not. In other words, if negotiating for Nicolau is USAPA's only legal option, then refusing to do so would clearly be illegal. But, if some other option is available to USAPA, then it is too early to tell if such an option breaches their DFR, and the case is not ripe.
Later the majority says this:
"At this point, neither the West Pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA."
This also suggests the possibility that there is a fair (not DFR liable) seniority system which is not Nicolau.
Another hint: "We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA."
A thorny question is one that is difficult for judges to decide because there are good arguments on both sides, which is different than saying, as the dissent implied, that the question is already settled.
So there is a little bit of sunlight here for USAPA's contention that it is not obligated to use the Nicolau award in CBA negotiations.
I didn't say I wanted to be captain now, or that I wanted to take a captain job from a west guy who was downgraded. What I said was I don't want to spend the last few years of my career at my airline jerking gear for pilots who were hired many years after me. I'll wait my turn for the upgrade. The west F/Os can have all the PHX upgrades. I just don't want the west guys to get in front of me for an east upgrade. I waited a long time for that, and it's not right for you guys to step in and take them.
I think that this ruling did say a little something about the Nicolau award.
A threshold question here is whether USAPA must use the Nicolau award to avoid DFR. If that's true, the case is over. If it's not true, the next question is will the seniority system that USAPA uses expose them to DFR liability with regard to the west pilots?
With regard to the threshold question, recall that Judge Bybee, the dissenting judge, took the position that since USAPA had stated it would not negotiate for the Nicolau award, that the damage to the west pilots had already been done, and therefore the case was ripe.
As Judge Tashima, writing for the majority, pointed out, it is implicit in Judge Bybee's dissent that he thinks USAPA is obligated to negotiate for the Nicolau award. If that is true, obviously the case is ripe, because USAPA is refusing to do just that.
Does the majority think that USAPA is required to negotiate only for the Nicolau award? While they do not say explicitly, there are a few hints. The first and most obvious hint is that if the majority of the court thought that USAPA was required to negotiate for Nicolau, they would have agreed with Judge Bybee's dissent, which they did not. In other words, if negotiating for Nicolau is USAPA's only legal option, then refusing to do so would clearly be illegal. But, if some other option is available to USAPA, then it is too early to tell if such an option breaches their DFR, and the case is not ripe.
Later the majority says this:
"At this point, neither the West Pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA."
This also suggests the possibility that there is a fair (not DFR liable) seniority system which is not Nicolau.
Another hint: "We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was
its predecessor, ALPA."
A thorny question is one that is difficult for judges to decide because there are good arguments on both sides, which is different than saying, as the dissent implied, that the question is already settled.
So there is a little bit of sunlight here for USAPA's contention that it is not obligated to use the Nicolau award in CBA negotiations.
The problem is management does not have to accept the unions position on whatever seniority list the union proposes. For a number of reasons, it's in their best interest not to. So, the process will drag out for a LONG time. Only once that is complete can the BRAND NEW DFR action begin anew and you know how long that took to get to this stage.
IMO, the point where you guys can have another real seniority list decision, Nicolau yea or neah, East and West flying together, has now been kicked well down the road. No case can be considered to be ripe until a CBA is implemented.
While many say that what the USAPA is doing is despicable, it is obvious they have taken the approach that is most often successful in today's world: win at all cost. (To be honest, I wish you and National ALPA had taken up that attitude when your pensions were terminated.)
The way I read the decision, this outcome is a HUGE win for USAPA. While this strategy seems horrible when used against fellow pilots, I guess we shouldn't forget that you guys never seemed to like each other anyway.
I wish you all luck, because I think you guys will be stuck with each other (apart) for a long time.
06-07-2010, 08:26 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: B777/CA retired
Posts: 1,484
GMAFB, guys, it was a typo. Hired in April 1987.
The link to the three amigos was interesting. All really good guys. There were a lot of Air America connections there. When I interviewed in 1987 Carl Wobser was one of the pilots and we spent most of the interview talking about the DC 6, which I had briefly flown.
We have had some interesting guys working for AWA. All very sharp sticks, That is why we had the best safety record - zero fatalities and just 2 runway excursions in 25 years.
Captain Yoda: "confused, the darkside is"
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CB4Q9QEwAQ
The link to the three amigos was interesting. All really good guys. There were a lot of Air America connections there. When I interviewed in 1987 Carl Wobser was one of the pilots and we spent most of the interview talking about the DC 6, which I had briefly flown.
We have had some interesting guys working for AWA. All very sharp sticks, That is why we had the best safety record - zero fatalities and just 2 runway excursions in 25 years.
Captain Yoda: "confused, the darkside is"
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CB4Q9QEwAQ
Last edited by cactusmike; 06-07-2010 at 08:38 PM.
06-08-2010, 03:38 AM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: Boeing Boss
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Hiwaymiles
This is the real issue: Seniority is a negotiated benefit.
Had they negotiated the list, we wouldn't have this problem. But they didn't. They submitted it to an arbitrator, and agreed to accept his award.
"I had my fingers crossed!" doesn't count.
Originally Posted by Hiwaymiles
Restated: If motivated by a legitimate union objective, a reordering of a (proposed, arbitrated) seniority list is not a violation of DFR.
06-08-2010, 03:46 AM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: Boeing Boss
Posts: 335
Originally Posted by Hiwaymiles
When I agreed to go to work for a carrier whose pilots were represented by ALPA, does that mean that I gave up the protection of U.S. law?
It means you agree to abide by the rules they use to bargain collectively.
One of those rules covers binding arbitration. In the future, USAPA will expect other pilot groups, and their own company, to abide by awards given in binding arbitration.
See the problem?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Frisky Pilot
Regional
20
01-01-2022 05:02 PM
