2014 Pilot Discussion

[nic4us]

Refused to negotiate??? MANAGEMENT refused to negotiate, NOT USAPA. We got parked....remember???

Go rewrite history elsewhere SCAB!

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

What's to gloat over? We are still where we were since 2007.

Nic is still the only accepted system seniority list for all LCC pilots, and usapa is still a SCAB union.

Now there is the fact that yet another federal judge has pointed out that USCABA is indeed a farce of a union...that is old news though! Oh, and she totally admonished SCABMANSKI on record. That will probably come back to haunt.

You do understand that Silver ruled since usapa has not changed the Nic, that there is no DFR right? So, it is still the Nic at LCC.


Actually, do not bother with an answere, I already know your head is so far up your rear you do not see that! Just go pat your scab union buddies on their back and say job well done.

What's to gloat over? We are still where we were since 2007.

Nic is still the only accepted system seniority list for all LCC pilots, and usapa is still a SCAB union.

Now there is the fact that yet another federal judge has pointed out that USCABA is indeed a farce of a union...that is old news though! Oh, and she totally admonished SCABMANSKI on record. That will probably come back to haunt.

You do understand that Silver ruled since usapa has not changed the Nic, that there is no DFR right? So, it is still the Nic at LCC.


Actually, do not bother with an answere, I already know your head is so far up your rear you do not see that! Just go pat your scab union buddies on their back and say job well done.

Nicalou???? Something to do with an old union right? Some former union's process mentioned in an almost decade old TA that has been nullified and replaced with something new that has been upheld as a legitimate agreement by the court. One voted on approved and by a plurality of those that sought to object through litigation and fail. That Nic????

 

[luvthe9]

We are still where we were since 2007.

That's right in the lumber yard Danny! Reality has not set in yet I see. Take a long look at the bid that just came out, thing of beauty, right?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Nicalou???? Something to do with an old union right? Some former union's process mentioned in an almost decade old TA that has been nullified and replaced with something new that has been upheld as a legitimate agreement by the court. One voted on approved and by a plurality of those that sought to object through litigation and fail. That Nic????

You forgot part of  a T/A,  voted  null and void per a recently accepted MOU by the company! And affirmed by JUDGE SILVER as to "NO DFR"! That the "WEST" overwhelmingly approved!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Where is the countdown clock at!

 

[end_of_alpa]

What's to gloat over? We are still where we were since 2007.

Nic is still the only accepted system seniority list for all LCC pilots, and usapa is still a SCAB union.

Now there is the fact that yet another federal judge has pointed out that USCABA is indeed a farce of a union...that is old news though! Oh, and she totally admonished SCABMANSKI on record. That will probably come back to haunt.

You do understand that Silver ruled since usapa has not changed the Nic, that there is no DFR right? So, it is still the Nic at LCC.


Actually, do not bother with an answere, I already know your head is so far up your rear you do not see that! Just go pat your scab union buddies on their back and say job well done.

There he is!  Don't let facts get in the way.
 
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc 134:
 
 
I. Claim One: Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation

96. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein.
97. Pursuant to the duty of fair representation, USAPA must have a
legitimate union purpose to use anything other than the Nicolau Award
list to integrate East Pilots and West Pilots.

 
 
98. USAPA does not have a legitimate union purpose to use
anything other than the Nicolau Award list to integrate East Pilots and
West Pilots.
99. USAPA, therefore, breached the duty of fair representation by
entering into the MOU because the MOU abandons a duty to treat the
Nicolau Award as final and binding.
100. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment to that effect
and to other remedy sought below.
 
Judge said:  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in

favor of Defendant US Airline Pilots Association on Count I"
 

II. Claim Two: Breach of Transition Agreement by US Airways
101. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein and reallege this Claim, which was dismissed by
the Court [Doc. 122], solely to preserve their rights to appeal that ruling.
102. The Transition Agreement had an implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.
103. The Transition Agreement envisioned a “Single Agreement” that
would be made by US Airways and USAPA that would replace material
terms in the separate contracts governing the employment of the West
Pilots (the West CBA) and the East Pilots (the east CBA).
104. That implied covenant constrained the terms of the Single
Agreement such that it could not provide materially improved wages for
US Airways pilots (East and West) without also providing terms needed to
integrate pilot operations consistent with the Transition Agreement.
105. The MOU is a single agreement that provides materially
improved wages for US Airways pilots (East and West).
106. The MOU fails to provide terms needed to integrate pilot
operations.

107. The Transition Agreement requires that pilot seniority will be
implemented using to the integrated seniority list created according to
ALPA Merger Policy and accepted by US Airways – the Nicolau Award list.
108. The MOU fails to provide that pilot seniority will be
implemented using the Nicolau Award list.
109. Based on the forgoing, adopting the MOU is a breach of the
Transition Agreement implied covenant.
110. Despite vigorous protests by the West Pilots, USAPA refuses to
assert breach of the Transition Agreement implied covenant.
111. This Court, consequently, has hybrid jurisdiction to hear this
implied covenant claim that would otherwise be a minor dispute subject
to system board arbitration.
112. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the MOU is
a breach of the Transition Agreement implied covenant by US Airways.
 
Judge said:  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in


favor of US Airways, Inc. on Count II"
 


III. Claim Three: Attorneys’ Fees
113. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein.
114. USAPA has several million dollars in reserve collected as dues
and agency fees from all US Airways Pilots.
115. Plaintiffs brought this action and the 2008 action and appeared
as defendants in the 2010 action to vindicate the right of all US Airways
pilots to fair representation by USAPA.
116. By obtaining the rulings in the 2008 and 2010 actions and by
prevailing in this action, Plaintiffs conferred a substantial benefit on all
US Airways Pilots.
117. Under common benefit doctrine, the expenses of achieving
those benefits should, in all fairness, be spread among all those who so
benefitted.

118. The expenses of achieving those benefits would be fairly spread
among all US Airways Pilots if paid by USAPA
119.The Court should, therefore, make an award in favor of
Plaintiffs and against USAPA for all reasonable litigation expenses,
including attorneys’ fees incurred bringing this action, incurred by
Plaintiffs in the actions noted above.
 
Judge said:  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice on

Count III"

 
IV. Claim Four: Declaratory Claim
120. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein.
121. McCaskill-Bond provides that employees affected by an airline
merger have the right to a fair and equitable seniority integration.
122. The West Pilots are employees affected by the US Airways-
American Airlines merger.
123. In the process of obtaining a fair and equitable seniority
integration of the US Airways and American Airlines pilots that will
commence soon after AMR’s Petition of Reorganization is approved and
final (hereinafter the “MOU Seniority Integration”), which is expected to
occur within approximately the next two months, USAPA and its
representatives and counsel are bound by USAPA’s constitution to
advance a date-of-hire seniority order for US Airways pilots.
124. The West Pilots have an interest to see proper implementation
of the Nicolau Award seniority list in the course of the MOU Seniority
Integration.
125. USAPA and its representatives and counsel have an unwaivable
conflict of interest with the West Pilots in regard to seniority integration.
126. USAPA and its representatives and counsel, therefore, cannot
fairly represent the West Pilot’s interests in the course of the MOU
Seniority Integration.

127. The West Pilots contend that they have the right to fully
participate in each phase of the MOU Seniority Integration process. (Doc.
97 at 5:23 to 5:25.)
128. US Airways also contends that the West Pilots have the right to
participate fully (with counsel of their own choice) in the MOU Seniority
Integration process and that such participation will promote a more
effective process. (Doc. 98 at 1:6 to 1:10.)
129. USAPA contends that the West Pilots have no legitimate right to
participate in any phase of the Airways-American McCaskill-Bond
process. (Doc. 95 at 10:17 to 11:6.)
130. There is a substantial controversy, therefore, between the West
Pilots and USAPA as to whether the West Pilots have a right to
participate in the MOU Seniority Integration process.
131. Consequently, there is a substantial controversy, between
parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality
to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
132. The West Pilots are entitled, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to
an order declaring that they have party status and the right (but not the
obligation) to participate fully (with counsel of their own choice) in the
MOU Seniority Integration process.
 
Judge said: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in
favor of Defendant US Airline Pilots Association on Count IV"
 
In short, YOU ARE WRONG!  

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

 
There he is!  Don't let facts get in the way.
 
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint Doc 134:
 
 
I. Claim One: Breach of the Duty of Fair Representation

96. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein.
97. Pursuant to the duty of fair representation, USAPA must have a
legitimate union purpose to use anything other than the Nicolau Award
list to integrate East Pilots and West Pilots.

 
 
98. USAPA does not have a legitimate union purpose to use
anything other than the Nicolau Award list to integrate East Pilots and
West Pilots.
99. USAPA, therefore, breached the duty of fair representation by
entering into the MOU because the MOU abandons a duty to treat the
Nicolau Award as final and binding.
100. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment to that effect
and to other remedy sought below.
 
Judge said:  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in

favor of Defendant US Airline Pilots Association on Count I"
 

II. Claim Two: Breach of Transition Agreement by US Airways
101. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein and reallege this Claim, which was dismissed by
the Court [Doc. 122], solely to preserve their rights to appeal that ruling.
102. The Transition Agreement had an implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.
103. The Transition Agreement envisioned a “Single Agreement” that
would be made by US Airways and USAPA that would replace material
terms in the separate contracts governing the employment of the West
Pilots (the West CBA) and the East Pilots (the east CBA).
104. That implied covenant constrained the terms of the Single
Agreement such that it could not provide materially improved wages for
US Airways pilots (East and West) without also providing terms needed to
integrate pilot operations consistent with the Transition Agreement.
105. The MOU is a single agreement that provides materially
improved wages for US Airways pilots (East and West).
106. The MOU fails to provide terms needed to integrate pilot
operations.

107. The Transition Agreement requires that pilot seniority will be
implemented using to the integrated seniority list created according to
ALPA Merger Policy and accepted by US Airways – the Nicolau Award list.
108. The MOU fails to provide that pilot seniority will be
implemented using the Nicolau Award list.
109. Based on the forgoing, adopting the MOU is a breach of the
Transition Agreement implied covenant.
110. Despite vigorous protests by the West Pilots, USAPA refuses to
assert breach of the Transition Agreement implied covenant.
111. This Court, consequently, has hybrid jurisdiction to hear this
implied covenant claim that would otherwise be a minor dispute subject
to system board arbitration.
112. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the MOU is
a breach of the Transition Agreement implied covenant by US Airways.
 
Judge said:  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in


favor of US Airways, Inc. on Count II"
 


III. Claim Three: Attorneys’ Fees
113. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein.
114. USAPA has several million dollars in reserve collected as dues
and agency fees from all US Airways Pilots.
115. Plaintiffs brought this action and the 2008 action and appeared
as defendants in the 2010 action to vindicate the right of all US Airways
pilots to fair representation by USAPA.
116. By obtaining the rulings in the 2008 and 2010 actions and by
prevailing in this action, Plaintiffs conferred a substantial benefit on all
US Airways Pilots.
117. Under common benefit doctrine, the expenses of achieving
those benefits should, in all fairness, be spread among all those who so
benefitted.

118. The expenses of achieving those benefits would be fairly spread
among all US Airways Pilots if paid by USAPA
119.The Court should, therefore, make an award in favor of
Plaintiffs and against USAPA for all reasonable litigation expenses,
including attorneys’ fees incurred bringing this action, incurred by
Plaintiffs in the actions noted above.
 
Judge said:  "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice on

Count III"

 
IV. Claim Four: Declaratory Claim
120. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein.
121. McCaskill-Bond provides that employees affected by an airline
merger have the right to a fair and equitable seniority integration.
122. The West Pilots are employees affected by the US Airways-
American Airlines merger.
123. In the process of obtaining a fair and equitable seniority
integration of the US Airways and American Airlines pilots that will
commence soon after AMR’s Petition of Reorganization is approved and
final (hereinafter the “MOU Seniority Integration”), which is expected to
occur within approximately the next two months, USAPA and its
representatives and counsel are bound by USAPA’s constitution to
advance a date-of-hire seniority order for US Airways pilots.
124. The West Pilots have an interest to see proper implementation
of the Nicolau Award seniority list in the course of the MOU Seniority
Integration.
125. USAPA and its representatives and counsel have an unwaivable
conflict of interest with the West Pilots in regard to seniority integration.
126. USAPA and its representatives and counsel, therefore, cannot
fairly represent the West Pilot’s interests in the course of the MOU
Seniority Integration.

127. The West Pilots contend that they have the right to fully
participate in each phase of the MOU Seniority Integration process. (Doc.
97 at 5:23 to 5:25.)
128. US Airways also contends that the West Pilots have the right to
participate fully (with counsel of their own choice) in the MOU Seniority
Integration process and that such participation will promote a more
effective process. (Doc. 98 at 1:6 to 1:10.)
129. USAPA contends that the West Pilots have no legitimate right to
participate in any phase of the Airways-American McCaskill-Bond
process. (Doc. 95 at 10:17 to 11:6.)
130. There is a substantial controversy, therefore, between the West
Pilots and USAPA as to whether the West Pilots have a right to
participate in the MOU Seniority Integration process.
131. Consequently, there is a substantial controversy, between
parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality
to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
132. The West Pilots are entitled, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to
an order declaring that they have party status and the right (but not the
obligation) to participate fully (with counsel of their own choice) in the
MOU Seniority Integration process.
 
Judge said: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in
favor of Defendant US Airline Pilots Association on Count IV"
 
In short, YOU ARE WRONG!  



 

Did not JEFFREY FREUND, warn the WEST about "RISK"? Cry me a wye river!

 

[luvthe9]

WYE RIVER, and a second chance in St. Louis.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Wait for it.......w-a-i-t f-o-r i-t...............

 

[nic4us]

WYE RIVER, and a second chance in St. Louis.

I am going to let you in on a little secret.

Freund was dead on at Wye....the thing is, you consistently misquote what he said, and take it out of context to try and make your point. Soooo uscabian of you, btw!

Now, here is what Freund said when asked at Wye how a future merger would affect the situation....it will be the NIC!

So, here we are 7 years later, and it is still the Nic, and guess what??? silver just ruled that if single carrier status happens prior to SLI (and since the JCBA is required prior to SLI per MOU looks like single carrier status first) then usapa will have no legal standing per MB to represent anybody!


Actually, Silver's ruling is quite the read. You can find a reason in there for every side to make an appeal...but I suspect the scab union will be first to ask her for a clarification of just what she meant in the whole "usapa's position is unwise" paragraph. You know, the paragraph when she spells out just how defunct the scab union will be post single carrier determination!

 

[Phoenix]

I am going to let you in on a little secret.
...
 

 
 
Once a pilot donates to cactuspilot.com (click on the "Push for Justice" monthly donations) all secrets can be theirs.  Don't divulge the secrets to the uninitiated.  

 

[end_of_alpa]

I am going to let you in on a little secret.

Freund was dead on at Wye....the thing is, you consistently misquote what he said, and take it out of context to try and make your point. Soooo uscabian of you, btw!

Now, here is what Freund said when asked at Wye how a future merger would affect the situation....it will be the NIC!

So, here we are 7 years later, and it is still the Nic, and guess what??? silver just ruled that if single carrier status happens prior to SLI (and since the JCBA is required prior to SLI per MOU looks like single carrier status first) then usapa will have no legal standing per MB to represent anybody!


Actually, Silver's ruling is quite the read. You can find a reason in there for every side to make an appeal...but I suspect the scab union will be first to ask her for a clarification of just what she meant in the whole "usapa's position is unwise" paragraph. You know, the paragraph when she spells out just how defunct the scab union will be post single carrier determination!

:12 minutes!!  TWELVE MINUTES!  7:27pm!  The cockroaches really DO come out at night after their lights are turned out.  Here it comes.....wait for it, W-A-I-T F-O-R I-T!

 

[ROACLT]

I am going to let you in on a little secret.

Freund was dead on at Wye....the thing is, you consistently misquote what he said, and take it out of context to try and make your point. Soooo uscabian of you, btw!

Now, here is what Freund said when asked at Wye how a future merger would affect the situation....it will be the NIC!

So, here we are 7 years later, and it is still the Nic, and guess what??? silver just ruled that if single carrier status happens prior to SLI (and since the JCBA is required prior to SLI per MOU looks like single carrier status first) then usapa will have no legal standing per MB to represent anybody!


Actually, Silver's ruling is quite the read. You can find a reason in there for every side to make an appeal...but I suspect the scab union will be first to ask her for a clarification of just what she meant in the whole "usapa's position is unwise" paragraph. You know, the paragraph when she spells out just how defunct the scab union will be post single carrier determination!

Dicta

Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.

 

[nic4us]

:12 minutes!!  TWELVE MINUTES!  7:27pm!  The cockroaches really DO come out at night after their lights are turned out.  Here it comes.....wait for it, W-A-I-T F-O-R I-T!

Still sunny and warm here in Phoenix at 5:27.

You know where Phoenix is? Right next to Tempe....you know Tempe...where LCC headquarters are housed in the former AWHC tower. You know...AWHC, the corporation that bought the airline you used to work for.

Now HQ is in Fort Worth...and single carrier status is just around the corner!

Bye bye uscaba...time to read paragraph vi. Of Silver's ruling.



Oh, and the Nic is still the only accepted system seniority list covering all LCC pilots.

 

[traderjake]

Dicta

 
I though she was talking about da coach of da Bears.