please the court i'm alan press and i represent the appellant in these cases although there are many issues i believe there's one fundamental issue that would should control both cases and that is the bankruptcy judge bankruptcy judge was wrong about that for two very fundamental reasons st the bankruptcy judge abrogated the collective bargaining agreement and doing so yeah brigaded the seniority list and so the union was working from a blank slate the union being a p a working then from a blank slate there was no seniority this court has held in the international union seniority is not a vested right it is wholly a creation of the collective bargaining agreement and does not exist apart from that the incidence of seniority can be freely altered or amended by modification of the club the green so here once the c p a was abrogated in bankruptcy there was no agreement there was no seniority so it had to be recreated a p a didn't do that it simply used the old seniority lists that had been abrogated and applied and imposed on the pilot group including my clients but without the protections that came with supplements c c which was the protected flying in st louis for former t didn't get pilots only so they created recreated a signori list that was  recognized by a p a and industry wide to be a completely horribly unfair sonority list they recreated that without the job protections that were in took said to be integral to the list plaintiffs worked it was the indianapolis union line so as part of the consolidation the employees of the indianapolis line were basically stable like t their seniority but their jobs on the indianapolis line were protected just like the t v pilots jobs in st louis were protected but subsequent to the integration the employer conrail closed the indianapolis line and at that point the th circuit said that the union violated its duty a fair you can continue to press thank you judge so that's what we have here the basis of the underlying basis in foundation for the seniority integration back in two thousand and one was gone it's gone and so at that point the union had an obligation a duty to make the seniority fair and like i said they were working from a blank slate they could have done anything  because the union represented the american airlines legacy and it represented the t w a pilots and anything that the union advocated or that would improve the lot of one  come out of the pockets of the others so the union i mean if you to the extent that the union made argument favoring the t w a pilots d it would be betraying its obligation of a committee representing the t w a pilot d and other representing the american airlines pilots and let them participate to argue to the arbitrators on opposite sides so that the union would not be in a position my answer was several parted st of all the spring court and humphrey versus more recognize that there's conflict unions are constantly presented with these conflicts it's nothing new and duty to members of the two union it decided the issue but they had to do it honestly in a good faith and that's what they did and they the union was not found to be liable so  yes the union is in that position but again that's not something unique to this case but here what they did with their conflict they tied the hands of the arbitrators before the process even started by telling by agreeing that the arbitrators would not be able to modify seniority in any seniority arbitration the most of the litigation that we see talk about these issues judges they come out of the seniority integration arbitration and the seniority integration process now these seniority integration arbitrations there's no limitation like that given to the arbitrators in fact they're given free will to  do what they think is fair and equitable that's the standard under the new law the mccaskill ban law that is the standard which was the old standard under the civil aeronautics board but we didn't have that here these judges had their hands tied they couldn't do going to replicate those somehow fairly throughout the american system well that had been the stated goal of the arbitration from the moment that the idea was conceived at least as represented to mr gable and the bankruptcy  court and amongst themselves when they were discussing how we're going to drop this this letter agreement well as soon as the process started the hearing started they reneged on that and americans lawyer said replication is not the standard so a p s were was in the room you heard that instead of the blue spawning and correcting that record he sat silent and so the arbitrators were left with really no conclusion but to believe that replication is not the standard so going into the arbitration we know that the arbitrators are now there could be called upon to do something that decreases supplement cc's benefits to  i don't i don't know what provisions favored the to the pilot the union had agreed that the company could close a base in st louis instead of replicate so we're go find some way to give you something to substitute what you hadn't s twelve o five set up or treasure that could provide preferential flying rights similar to those that had been that t w a pilots enjoyed at st louis yesterday i can't disagree with that that's what it says and but that's not what happened we know that and the rules the way this was set up by an american i was compelled  ok thank you james thank you good morning mate please the court this is daniel rosenthal representing the allied pilots association the issue of plaintiffs job protections in light of the abrogation of the collector bargaining agreement was a difficult issue which presented inflicting interest within the bargaining unit a p a submitted it to three highly highly qualified arbitrators who decided what they thought would be an equitable outcome for the former two pilots and their decision is in the record and can be reviewed by the court since then the fairness and appropriateness of that process has been before a bankruptcy  judge and two district court judges and each of these six decision makers the three arbitrators and the three judges have rejected plaintiff's arguments and this court should reach the same result as to koski one which is the case that mainly challenges the procedures of the arbitration as opposed to the snorted limitation i'd like to particularly highlight the causation issue because i think it's  positive to avoid summary judgment the plaintiffs needed to to create a material dispute a fact as to whether these various aspects of the process that they complained about actually caused the harm which is in their view the unfair arbitration result this rule prevents a plan to from a pending relief in a case like this in last the union's conduct actually  difference to the outcome but plaintiffs offered really no evidence to the bankruptcy court that this arbitration would have turned out more favorably if they had done any of these things that they say a should have done such as have its general counsel make a statement about the standard or something to that effect so i think that the bankruptcy court was correct that had previously been arranged and that that employees were relying on and we think that especially when you view this through the lens of the highly deferential standard that applies and if our case which means that the court is not deciding what it would have done or what would have been the most fair but simply whether there was some reasonable justification it is entirely reasonable to say that once there's been  list that employers have been relying on for ten years we're not going to open that and instead in this case a p a determined that that the loss of protections which was really what responded to the situation so that this was in the context of a bankruptcy in which american claimed over against a p s opposition i should mention that it needed to close a st louis reasonable in our view for a p a to say americans threatening to take away these protections we're going to replace the protections american was not threatening to change the seniority list and in fact that probably would have been a bad thing for the reorganization and would have added you know additional issues to americans effort to reorganize that would have been helpful and then in light of the precedents that i mentioned from the that's right so it gets confusing because these cases overlap this way as issues were raised in both of them but as i understand it kind of as it's presented now on the appeal  the plaintiffs are i'm not sure they're they're disputing that it was duplicative but they're arguing that basically they should have been allowed to pursue directly challenge or even directly address the basis for the bankruptcy courts alternative voting system and indeed in their not a one page opening brief account to go to total two paragraphs two american one addressing  detail absent a hybrid claim which does not exist here a plaintiff seeking to hold an employer liable preclusion must elect actual conduct by the employer evidence in bad faith discrimination or hostility towards plaintiffs in connection with the union's alleged breach of its duty in other words a plaintiff must allege and if the case proceeds then come forward with facts to show collusion which is of course logical holding the employer vicariously liable for unions breach of the bar and has numerous cases upheld this just simply makes no sense from a policy perspective because it would mean employers d are required to police and oversee the affairs of the union which would put the employer an impossible position and every court to express addresses issues as recess m r conclusion except the nice circuit which going to significant step further in a recent case where it addressed this issue in some in reunion case in the harem case both of those cases are easily distinguished for one very important reason there was no status quo in our case once the once the bankruptcy court abrogated the there was no status quo so the a p a was needing to enter into a new agreement a new seniority list and so that fact the fact that there was no status quo closes pilots their representation was to the american pilots only forty seven years and they clearly have the duty if it representation they represent the whole bargaining unit but they didn't do anything to correct what they had done eleven years later when they were free to do it they they just take the position we could do it again well that's not what the law says that they had to bury represent the entire group and in recreating the seniority list it should have been done was was said rather remarkably by a p s general counsel at the time and james in his e mail discussion when they were negotiating the arbitration agreement and there was this internal debate about whether or not we have pilot committees or do we have the uni itself present the position and this is what mr jain general counsel said a p a versus a and we get an institutional position rather than invite the a pilots to beat up on the t pilots without the latter being able to threaten to reopen the seniority list so mr james is recognizing that if we set up this committee structure it won't be fair and let the to the pilots have  this weapon this this weapon in this negotiation well they didn't they didn't get the to pay pal's that weapon and they did have imposed this committee structure where the much larger and stronger political group  negated causation they never showed that there was no causal causation and so there was no response to it in the plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment and so that's the way they're that there's was no properly presented causation argument in the bankruptcy court as to a's argument american airlines argument we tried our case within the standards of the