“Specifically, our court papers request that the Court clarify the Company’s legal rights and obligations with respect to the seniority dispute and the new single contract: Must the Company insist the Nicolau Award be included in the new single agreement? May the Company enter into a single agreement that does not include the Nic? If the Company enters into a single agreement that does not include the Nic would it have legal liability to the West pilots?” 

-Stephen L. Johnson, EVP US Airways, Inc. 

The bottom line is management wants to know whether or not they will be liable should they negotiate away from the Nicolau Award. The 9th Circuit was very clear that they were merely ruling on the ripeness of the suit, not the merits. USAPA falsely and deceptively asserted that the 9th green-lighted and endorsed their pursuit of a quasi date of hire methodology. Should this have been the case, there would have been no reason for the Company to file a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking a declaratory judgment.

As evidenced by USAPA’s emotional and sophomoric reaction to the lawsuit, they are in  an untenable situation. Unless the court completely absolves US Airways of all liability, both present and future, the Company will most certainly insist that the unmodified Nicolau Award comprise Section 22 of the new agreement. 

The Court can respond to the Company’s request in a multitude of ways. But as TheEye has been reporting for almost two years, all roads for USAPA lead to Nicolau. Even if the Court refuses to directly order the Company to use the Nicolau Award, it is unlikely they will be released from future litigation and liability. The Company is bound by contractual obligations as specified in the Transition Agreement. The 9th wrote that ripeness for future claims resides at the conclusion of the bargaining process. They specifically avoided commenting on what exactly would constitute a DFR or contractual breach. In this context, should Arizona District Court not grant the Company an unconditional release, USAPA’s only option would be to petition the 9th arguing that it is ripe to grant the Company immunity as the bargaining of a quasi date of hire list is fair to all pilots, both east and west. The problem for USAPA is that the 9th has already refused to comment whether a seniority solution other than Nicolau is fair or not.  

USAPA is truly in a no win situation. Their proclamations of victory following the 9th’s ripeness ruling have boxed them into a corner. They mislead the membership into believing that the Company would be a willing partner in the destruction of the west pilots careers. That seniority could be bargained in a similar fashion to the contents of a crew meal. They assured us that the Company wasn’t obligated under the Transition Agreement to stick with the accepted Nicolau Award and that the terms of that specific section of the agreement were strictly between the Company and the former bargaining agent. That every other section of the agreement was inherited by the Association to the exclusion of seniority integration. 

We believed USAPA because they were telling us what we wanted to hear. We never questioned the practicality, technicality, or morality of the crusade. Now years later we’re wondering why we let ourselves be bamboozled into such a dubious scheme. 

The end game has arrived...