N924PS
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 2,036
- 1,529
US pilot labor thread 7/5-7/12
- Thread starter Kieran
- Start date
- Status
ALPO NO MO
Member
- Nov 12, 2007
- 99
- 4
So your brothers who settled after they were sued were stupid? Why don't you ask them and get back to us...their names should be easy to find.
FYI, the case against those who didn't settle will have it's day in court
electricjet98
Senior
"This is why I consider america west pilots to be nothing more than what they sent to USAPA in the envelope, human waste.
(Deleted by Moderator) In honor of the TWA original pilot, I will dedicate my life to make sure the story is told."
Notwithstanding your own condescending tone, it's fine examples like Nos that have created my jumpseat policy. Unfortunately, the true depth of their frustration and unbalanced behavior may not become apparent until it is to late. That is why they will not be given the opportunity to "act up" in such a way that may affect safety.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
I would not want to ride in your jump seats anyways. Watching america west pilots defecating in envelopes and licking the envelopes to seal them, is what I consider very unsanitary.
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,737
- 897
The only stories of someone "acting up" that I have heard has been in those very rare cases when east pilots were permitted to ride west jumpseat - and then spent most of the flight being excoriated by raging, abusive west pilots.
So in that sense I agree. You westyz have a propensity to "act up" and display "unbalanced behavior" when it comes to the jumpseat. It all falls under the category of arrested development.
electricjet98
Senior
And a letter to ALPA from one of our "Cactus 18":
Fellow ALPA Pilots,
Did you know your Union can sue you?
As a pilot for the former America West Airlines, I submit the question above.
As most are aware, our property (US Airways) had a change of union representation. On April 18th, 2008 the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) was certified by the National Mediation Board as the bargaining agent for all USAirways’ pilots. The election ballot was close and USAPA defeated ALPA by a mere 4xx votes despite nearly 100% opposition from the 1750 former America West Airlines’ pilots. The simple fact is that the original US Airways’ pilots outnumbered the America West pilots by a wide margin and the USAPA supporters were able to tap into the ire of many of the original US Airways’ pilots over the seniority arbitration conducted under ALPA Merger Policy. The award is known as the Nicolau Award based on the name of the arbitrator who issued the award, George Nicolau.
With the tyranny of the majority in hand, USAPA’s organizers rallied around the notion that, if they replace ALPA as their bargaining agent, they will be able to ignore the final & binding results of ALPA Merger Policy. In fact, this strategy to ignore the Nicolau Award is the sole reason USAPA exists today. While they have succeeded in displacing ALPA, a long legal battle over the disposition of the Nicolau Award is set to begin. USAPA has passed across the bargaining table to USAirways’ management an alternative seniority list based exclusively on a Date of Hire (DOH) numeration. Such a list would completely disenfranchise the original America West pilots by placing over 85% of them on the bottom of the seniority list (an effective staple). The concept of DOH was repeatedly rejected by the arbitrator and USAirways’ management yet, remains the sole focus of the new bargaining agent.
As one might imagine, the former America West Airlines’ pilots feel completely disenfranchised from the goals of their new bargaining agent. Only a handful of America West pilots have joined USAPA. The near complete majority of us refuse to join a union whose bargaining goals destroy our careers. Since being certified as the bargaining agent, USAPA has distributed to date a very limited number of communications (3) to the former America West pilots. The primary subject matter of all of these communiqués is USAPA’s demand for agency fees and dues. They have already laid out the timeline from which they (USAPA) will seek the TERMINATION of every pilot who refuses to submit payments. That’s right, USAPA will be seeking the TERMINATION of hundreds (if not 1700) pilots. The reaction from these tactics is predicable. The former America West pilots are in a state of disbelief in the situation they find themselves.
In a proactive move, the former ALPA leadership of America West pilots formed an organization called America West Airlines Pilot Protective Alliance (AWAPPA). The organization was incorporated in the state of Arizona as an LLC. The primary focus of AWAPPA is the legal defense of the Nicolau Award and by default the careers of former America West pilots. Auxiliary to this focus, AWAPPA created a web site and private forum (chat room) to facilitate continued communication amongst the former America West pilots. The debate on the forum was often lively and expressive of the utter frustration the America West pilots find themselves in as a subrogated minority.
After gaining unauthorized access to the private AWAPPA forum, USAPA’s governing body, the Pilot Board of Representatives (PBR), authorized their legal counsel to file a lawsuit in Federal court on May 30, 2008 against AWAPPA, its Board of Directors and 18 individualAmerica West pilots. That’s right, USAPA has filed suit against individualpilots alleging they have conspired against the new union (USAPA). USAPA has used the federal statutes of Racketeering Influence of Corrupt Organizations (RICO) to make their legal claim. When, in fact, the alleged activity claimed in the law suit is merely a labor dispute amongst the internal politic between US Airways’ pilots and the visceral reactions to the complete disenfranchising of former America West pilots by USAPA.
Being one of the 18 defendants (known as the Cactus 18), I can tell you it is a shock to realize your union (led by fellow pilots), in less than 60 days of existence, is willing to file such serious charges against individual pilots and seek the termination of hundreds of pilots on the most expeditious timeline afforded under the Agency Shop and Union Security provisions of the existing contracts. When faced with such an assault on your family, one has no choice but to retain competent legal counsel to defend themselves against such serious charges. There are no words that describe how you feel having to retain legal counsel with personal financing against the financial wherewithal of USAPA whose funding source is dues monies! I cannot understand how the rank-n-file USAPA members condone their dues money being used in this fashion. Isn’t a union’s fight with airline management?
In an ill-fated attempt to bolster their legal claims, USAPA’s attorneys have unsuccessfully solicited the named defendants for settlements if they would attest to the RICO charges against AWAPPA and their fellow defendants. This action was basically extorting a false confession in exchange for having oneself removed from expensive litigation. They gave not only an ultimatum but, a deadline of June 25, 2008 to settle. Truly unbelievable! Remember, to settle would require them to lie and that simply is not in the personal constitution of any of the Cactus 18.
The legal battle has now begun. A hearing was held on June 27, 2008 on pretrial motions. The legal fees meter is running at a fast pace.
(the lawsuit was dismissed on July 11th - Ed.)
This litigation is an abomination to any trade unionist. USAPA is using their status as collective bargaining agent as a façade. Their actions are proof that they cannot conduct themselves as a true trade union. These actions are not what trade unionism is about regardless of the anticipated litigious and emotional nature of seniority integrations. As professional airline pilots, we must not attack one another. To do so is the antithesis of calling oneself a union member.
Fraternally,
XXXXXX
Fellow ALPA Pilots,
Did you know your Union can sue you?
As a pilot for the former America West Airlines, I submit the question above.
As most are aware, our property (US Airways) had a change of union representation. On April 18th, 2008 the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) was certified by the National Mediation Board as the bargaining agent for all USAirways’ pilots. The election ballot was close and USAPA defeated ALPA by a mere 4xx votes despite nearly 100% opposition from the 1750 former America West Airlines’ pilots. The simple fact is that the original US Airways’ pilots outnumbered the America West pilots by a wide margin and the USAPA supporters were able to tap into the ire of many of the original US Airways’ pilots over the seniority arbitration conducted under ALPA Merger Policy. The award is known as the Nicolau Award based on the name of the arbitrator who issued the award, George Nicolau.
With the tyranny of the majority in hand, USAPA’s organizers rallied around the notion that, if they replace ALPA as their bargaining agent, they will be able to ignore the final & binding results of ALPA Merger Policy. In fact, this strategy to ignore the Nicolau Award is the sole reason USAPA exists today. While they have succeeded in displacing ALPA, a long legal battle over the disposition of the Nicolau Award is set to begin. USAPA has passed across the bargaining table to USAirways’ management an alternative seniority list based exclusively on a Date of Hire (DOH) numeration. Such a list would completely disenfranchise the original America West pilots by placing over 85% of them on the bottom of the seniority list (an effective staple). The concept of DOH was repeatedly rejected by the arbitrator and USAirways’ management yet, remains the sole focus of the new bargaining agent.
As one might imagine, the former America West Airlines’ pilots feel completely disenfranchised from the goals of their new bargaining agent. Only a handful of America West pilots have joined USAPA. The near complete majority of us refuse to join a union whose bargaining goals destroy our careers. Since being certified as the bargaining agent, USAPA has distributed to date a very limited number of communications (3) to the former America West pilots. The primary subject matter of all of these communiqués is USAPA’s demand for agency fees and dues. They have already laid out the timeline from which they (USAPA) will seek the TERMINATION of every pilot who refuses to submit payments. That’s right, USAPA will be seeking the TERMINATION of hundreds (if not 1700) pilots. The reaction from these tactics is predicable. The former America West pilots are in a state of disbelief in the situation they find themselves.
In a proactive move, the former ALPA leadership of America West pilots formed an organization called America West Airlines Pilot Protective Alliance (AWAPPA). The organization was incorporated in the state of Arizona as an LLC. The primary focus of AWAPPA is the legal defense of the Nicolau Award and by default the careers of former America West pilots. Auxiliary to this focus, AWAPPA created a web site and private forum (chat room) to facilitate continued communication amongst the former America West pilots. The debate on the forum was often lively and expressive of the utter frustration the America West pilots find themselves in as a subrogated minority.
After gaining unauthorized access to the private AWAPPA forum, USAPA’s governing body, the Pilot Board of Representatives (PBR), authorized their legal counsel to file a lawsuit in Federal court on May 30, 2008 against AWAPPA, its Board of Directors and 18 individualAmerica West pilots. That’s right, USAPA has filed suit against individualpilots alleging they have conspired against the new union (USAPA). USAPA has used the federal statutes of Racketeering Influence of Corrupt Organizations (RICO) to make their legal claim. When, in fact, the alleged activity claimed in the law suit is merely a labor dispute amongst the internal politic between US Airways’ pilots and the visceral reactions to the complete disenfranchising of former America West pilots by USAPA.
Being one of the 18 defendants (known as the Cactus 18), I can tell you it is a shock to realize your union (led by fellow pilots), in less than 60 days of existence, is willing to file such serious charges against individual pilots and seek the termination of hundreds of pilots on the most expeditious timeline afforded under the Agency Shop and Union Security provisions of the existing contracts. When faced with such an assault on your family, one has no choice but to retain competent legal counsel to defend themselves against such serious charges. There are no words that describe how you feel having to retain legal counsel with personal financing against the financial wherewithal of USAPA whose funding source is dues monies! I cannot understand how the rank-n-file USAPA members condone their dues money being used in this fashion. Isn’t a union’s fight with airline management?
In an ill-fated attempt to bolster their legal claims, USAPA’s attorneys have unsuccessfully solicited the named defendants for settlements if they would attest to the RICO charges against AWAPPA and their fellow defendants. This action was basically extorting a false confession in exchange for having oneself removed from expensive litigation. They gave not only an ultimatum but, a deadline of June 25, 2008 to settle. Truly unbelievable! Remember, to settle would require them to lie and that simply is not in the personal constitution of any of the Cactus 18.
The legal battle has now begun. A hearing was held on June 27, 2008 on pretrial motions. The legal fees meter is running at a fast pace.
(the lawsuit was dismissed on July 11th - Ed.)
This litigation is an abomination to any trade unionist. USAPA is using their status as collective bargaining agent as a façade. Their actions are proof that they cannot conduct themselves as a true trade union. These actions are not what trade unionism is about regardless of the anticipated litigious and emotional nature of seniority integrations. As professional airline pilots, we must not attack one another. To do so is the antithesis of calling oneself a union member.
Fraternally,
XXXXXX
elixir
Senior
- Jun 2, 2005
- 385
- 0
Running back to the nipple?
It's wake-up time...union shop...period. Ask Dougie....I especially like the Jul 8 PHX show...
Brave young testosterone-laden lad stands:
(...turns to camera with microphone)..." we HATE you!...."
And Suzies 20 minutes of drivel...unstable...at the least.
yep, quite a show you gave Bular, Hogg, and Parker...quite a show.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot..my favorite part:
When Parker talks about negotiating with the union...
the choir sings: "we don't have a union...we don't have a union.."
Doug disagrees...and so it will go.
It's wake-up time...union shop...period. Ask Dougie....I especially like the Jul 8 PHX show...
Brave young testosterone-laden lad stands:
(...turns to camera with microphone)..." we HATE you!...."
And Suzies 20 minutes of drivel...unstable...at the least.
yep, quite a show you gave Bular, Hogg, and Parker...quite a show.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot..my favorite part:
When Parker talks about negotiating with the union...
the choir sings: "we don't have a union...we don't have a union.."
Doug disagrees...and so it will go.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
Paging dariencc to the white courtesy phone--better stick to what you know.
Refile in state court, and I'm still waiting for the postal inspector to head west.
I'll say this--I'd avoid a state with a stringent SLAPP law.
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,737
- 897
I presume that the west group has adopted the absurd philosophy that the party which loses an election should prevail rather than the other way around - judging from their repeated "tyranny of the majority" slogan.
The majority won. That means the majority sets the agenda. Provided the minority is not deliberately or arbitrarily discriminated against or abused, the process is democratic and legal.
USAPA's position is that DOH is fair and equitable and has a long and well established precedent within labor unions. The Niclolau award was an aberration and ALPA's handling of it was a failure of responsibility. It is not about stapling or retribution. That is a characterization AWAPPA uses to further it's own ends.
AWAPPA is led by ALPA residue.
The majority won. That means the majority sets the agenda. Provided the minority is not deliberately or arbitrarily discriminated against or abused, the process is democratic and legal.
USAPA's position is that DOH is fair and equitable and has a long and well established precedent within labor unions. The Niclolau award was an aberration and ALPA's handling of it was a failure of responsibility. It is not about stapling or retribution. That is a characterization AWAPPA uses to further it's own ends.
AWAPPA is led by ALPA residue.
toganoflex
Veteran
- Apr 27, 2008
- 557
- 381
That didn't seem to cross your mind when it came to Nic, did it?
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,737
- 897
The Nic wasn't an election, or it would have been buried over a year ago.
Actually, it would have never been an award in the first place.
Just heard from the attorneys, this is a bigger deal than we thought. The federal judge, in his opinion has done the west a huge favor, thanks to seeham's written brief recognizing the Nicolau and usapa's plan to change it, the Judge "got it" and seeham's written brief will be part of our injuction and dfr when the time comes.
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,737
- 897
Oh and by the way. I have been conducting some serious research - and booyashaka is not the same as booyakasha. These two words have two seperate distinct meanings - according to the urban dictionary.
Lets make sure we sound professional and invoke these terms properly when posting on these boards.
Lets make sure we sound professional and invoke these terms properly when posting on these boards.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
For what it is worth....
I have seen and read a copy of the Memorandum of Decision and Order.
Unless you have a background in law it is difficult to fully understand what happened and the rarity of the dismissal of a case under Rule 12( b )(1) or Rule 12( b ) (6) Fed.R.Civ.P. In general, courts go out of their way to foresee circumstances in which a party's claim could be substantiated by evidence gathered either in discovery or at trial. It is fairly uncommon for a case to be resolved by a Motion for Summary Judgment, which is a method of disposing of a matter after discovery has at least commenced. It is absolutely rare for a case to be dismissed for either a lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
It is always absolutely imperative that an attorney be certain that any claim filed in any court be certain that the court will have subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and a claim upon which the sought after relief can be granted. In this case the Court found a lack of both subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted as to Counts 1 and 2 of the First Amended Verified Complaint. Because the Court had already found sufficient reasons to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 and then found a lack of federal jurisdiction for the remaining counts the Court did not need to decide whether or not the Court (located in North Carolina) actually had personal jurisdiction over the defendants of other states and broadly hinted that the Court would have, if necessary, had found that there was also a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants due to a lack of the defendants having sufficient systemic contacts within North Carolina to warrant the Court to have in personam jurisdiction. ("Having determined that this action should be dismissed on the grounds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question, and further having exercised its discretion in declining to exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claims, the Court need not address the Individual Defendants’ arguments with respect to personal jurisdiction and venue. If it were necessary to reach such issues, the Court would have serious concerns as to whether the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants would comport with the requirements of due process.")
OK, what is my point? This stuff is/was Law School 101 as far as the pleading of any alleged basis for relief was concerned. It is rare for this to occur and frankly not the kind of thing that builds one's legal career.
Frankly, if I were USAPA, I would look to resolve this entire matter and do it soon. That means accepting Nicolau and perhaps negotiating some form of fence agreement and present it to the membership as the best that can be done under the circumstances. I recall many folks here having essentially said they know that Nicolau may well stand and that they were happy simply dumping ALPA for the perceived cost savings of not supporting the ALPA infrastructure. If that is the case, then this is the time to own up to that and get this matter behind everyone.
I have seen and read a copy of the Memorandum of Decision and Order.
Unless you have a background in law it is difficult to fully understand what happened and the rarity of the dismissal of a case under Rule 12( b )(1) or Rule 12( b ) (6) Fed.R.Civ.P. In general, courts go out of their way to foresee circumstances in which a party's claim could be substantiated by evidence gathered either in discovery or at trial. It is fairly uncommon for a case to be resolved by a Motion for Summary Judgment, which is a method of disposing of a matter after discovery has at least commenced. It is absolutely rare for a case to be dismissed for either a lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
It is always absolutely imperative that an attorney be certain that any claim filed in any court be certain that the court will have subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and a claim upon which the sought after relief can be granted. In this case the Court found a lack of both subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted as to Counts 1 and 2 of the First Amended Verified Complaint. Because the Court had already found sufficient reasons to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 and then found a lack of federal jurisdiction for the remaining counts the Court did not need to decide whether or not the Court (located in North Carolina) actually had personal jurisdiction over the defendants of other states and broadly hinted that the Court would have, if necessary, had found that there was also a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants due to a lack of the defendants having sufficient systemic contacts within North Carolina to warrant the Court to have in personam jurisdiction. ("Having determined that this action should be dismissed on the grounds that the Plaintiff has failed to state a federal claim and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question, and further having exercised its discretion in declining to exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claims, the Court need not address the Individual Defendants’ arguments with respect to personal jurisdiction and venue. If it were necessary to reach such issues, the Court would have serious concerns as to whether the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants would comport with the requirements of due process.")
OK, what is my point? This stuff is/was Law School 101 as far as the pleading of any alleged basis for relief was concerned. It is rare for this to occur and frankly not the kind of thing that builds one's legal career.
Frankly, if I were USAPA, I would look to resolve this entire matter and do it soon. That means accepting Nicolau and perhaps negotiating some form of fence agreement and present it to the membership as the best that can be done under the circumstances. I recall many folks here having essentially said they know that Nicolau may well stand and that they were happy simply dumping ALPA for the perceived cost savings of not supporting the ALPA infrastructure. If that is the case, then this is the time to own up to that and get this matter behind everyone.
- Status
