EastCheats
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 6,141
Does Luv get first choice in CLT? 😉Pi brat said:
Extra crispy or original?
2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
Extra crispy or original?
Pi brat said:
When they fly with me they do. I also do short of half, but a good share of the walk arounds.
Never know when today's F/O might be tomorrow's chief pilot, managing director or vp.
Another things F/Os do in PHX. They fly really well! But, that is self evident when you compare the east and West safety records.
Minor disputes get resolved at the system board.Phoenix said:
Oh, and that whole status quo thingy you keep harping on.
Status quo at LCC is the seperate ops LOA93 and no Nic, OR one contract and the Nic. I hear you got a raise out east on the MOU.
Claxon said:
Again you are a day late and $ 1/2 million short, my ole LOA93 for over a decade, lowest career expectation, junior east pilot friend!
West pilots have been bidding in PHL. CLT and DCA for something like 4-5 years now.
PS. "as I were" is in a position far superior to yours and will remain in such when we come out the other end of the McCaskill/Bond process...kinda just like in the Nic!
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Not to offend you, Claxon. More good reading. Only a day old and not the same old crap you drag up....
PAYER FOR RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00577-RJC-DCK Document 64 Filed 07/17/15 Page 28 of 31
WHEREFORE Velez prays for a judgment against Counterclaim and Third Party
Defendants as follows:
(a) For a declaration from this Court that Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants’
decision to defer dissolution in order to participate in seniority integration
proceedings was inconsistent with the Constitution and Bylaws, and was a
violation of their duties to members;
( b For a declaration from this Court that Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants’
implementation of AI 14-164 is not consistent with the USAPA Constitution and
Bylaws, and is in violation of their duties to members and non-members;
(c) For a judgment that Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to Velez and other members, and for an award of damages to be
proven at trial;
(d) For an order requiring Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants to:
(1) Provide access to the books and records of USAPA for purposes of and
provide a full and fair accounting performed by a neutral, qualified accounting
firm at USAPA’s expense;
(2) Cease discriminatory implementation of Resolution AI 14-164 and, instead,
abide by USAPA’s Constitution and Bylaws as written;
(3) Perform dues reconciliation in a fair and consistent manner and in accordance
with USAPA’s Constitution and Bylaws; and
(4) Take steps to dissolve USAPA in accordance with its Constitution and
Bylaws; and
(e) For any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Kelly J. Flood_____________
PAYER FOR RELIEF
Case 3:14-cv-00577-RJC-DCK Document 64 Filed 07/17/15 Page 28 of 31
WHEREFORE Velez prays for a judgment against Counterclaim and Third Party
Defendants as follows:
(a) For a declaration from this Court that Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants’
decision to defer dissolution in order to participate in seniority integration
proceedings was inconsistent with the Constitution and Bylaws, and was a
violation of their duties to members;
( b For a declaration from this Court that Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants’
implementation of AI 14-164 is not consistent with the USAPA Constitution and
Bylaws, and is in violation of their duties to members and non-members;
(c) For a judgment that Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to Velez and other members, and for an award of damages to be
proven at trial;
(d) For an order requiring Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants to:
(1) Provide access to the books and records of USAPA for purposes of and
provide a full and fair accounting performed by a neutral, qualified accounting
firm at USAPA’s expense;
(2) Cease discriminatory implementation of Resolution AI 14-164 and, instead,
abide by USAPA’s Constitution and Bylaws as written;
(3) Perform dues reconciliation in a fair and consistent manner and in accordance
with USAPA’s Constitution and Bylaws; and
(4) Take steps to dissolve USAPA in accordance with its Constitution and
Bylaws; and
(e) For any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of July, 2015.
/s/ Kelly J. Flood_____________
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Case 3:14-cv-00577-RJC-DCK Document 64 Filed 07/17/15 Page 21 of 31
On June 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in
Addington v. USAPA, Nos. 14-15757, 15874, 15892. [Doc. 54.] The Ninth Circuit
concluded that USAPA had violated its duty of fair representation to West Pilots when it
was a certified union by organizing and operating for the sole benefit of East Pilots to the
detriment of West Pilots: “USAPA has served as the stalking horse for the East Pilots’
exclusive interests and left the West Pilots bereft of representation. USAPA’s manifest
disregard for the interests of the West Pilots and its discriminatory conduct towards them
constitutes a clear breach of duty.” [Id. at pages 55-56.] The Ninth Circuit remanded to
the Arizona District Court for an injunction against USAPA to prevent it from participating
the SLI process unless it agreed to propose the Nicolau Award.
30. Because USAPA breached its duty of fair representation to the West Pilots by failing
and refusing to represent them in seniority proceedings, none of the seniority proceedings
in which USAPA has participated and for which it has expended treasury funds have
qualified as “collective legal action on behalf of the pilot group.”
31. On July 2, 2015, USAPA President and Third Party Defendant Steve Bradford
confirmed that the USAPA Merger Committee had withdrawn from the Seniority
Arbitration proceedings. [Doc. 62, Ex. A.] The letter ratified the USAPA Merger
Committee’s previous avowal via counsel on June 29, 2015, that they were withdrawing
from the SLI proceedings and would not re-enter the proceedings at any time in the future.
[Doc. 56, at Exhibit 12.]
32. As a result of USAPA’s withdrawal from the SLI proceedings, the Arbitration
Panel, after requesting briefing, determined that it would implement a process whereby it
would appoint a new East Merger Committee. [Doc. 62, Ex. B.]
33. On July 10, 2015, counsel for USAPA revealed that USAPA its officers and had
failed and refused to seek from APA for the $1.3 asset to which USAPA was entitled for
SLI-related expenses. On that same date, counsel undersigned demanded and again via
writing on July 13, 205 that Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants immediately seek
reimbursement from APA, in order to ensure that the USAPA treasury is funded to the
greatest extent for the benefit of all members. [Doc. 62, Ex. H.]
34. On July 14, 2015, USAPA submitted a brief in the consolidated LMRDA action
confirming that it had not done so and had no immediate intention to seek the $1.3 million
to which USAPA was entitled for the benefit of its members. [Doc. 61]
35. Upon information and belief, Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants have been
and are in the process of performing dues reconciliation in a manner that is arbitrary and
capricious, not performed accurately or in good faith, and is designed to designate as many
pilots as possible as not in good standing to deny them their pro rata share of USAPA funds
at dissolution
On June 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in
Addington v. USAPA, Nos. 14-15757, 15874, 15892. [Doc. 54.] The Ninth Circuit
concluded that USAPA had violated its duty of fair representation to West Pilots when it
was a certified union by organizing and operating for the sole benefit of East Pilots to the
detriment of West Pilots: “USAPA has served as the stalking horse for the East Pilots’
exclusive interests and left the West Pilots bereft of representation. USAPA’s manifest
disregard for the interests of the West Pilots and its discriminatory conduct towards them
constitutes a clear breach of duty.” [Id. at pages 55-56.] The Ninth Circuit remanded to
the Arizona District Court for an injunction against USAPA to prevent it from participating
the SLI process unless it agreed to propose the Nicolau Award.
30. Because USAPA breached its duty of fair representation to the West Pilots by failing
and refusing to represent them in seniority proceedings, none of the seniority proceedings
in which USAPA has participated and for which it has expended treasury funds have
qualified as “collective legal action on behalf of the pilot group.”
31. On July 2, 2015, USAPA President and Third Party Defendant Steve Bradford
confirmed that the USAPA Merger Committee had withdrawn from the Seniority
Arbitration proceedings. [Doc. 62, Ex. A.] The letter ratified the USAPA Merger
Committee’s previous avowal via counsel on June 29, 2015, that they were withdrawing
from the SLI proceedings and would not re-enter the proceedings at any time in the future.
[Doc. 56, at Exhibit 12.]
32. As a result of USAPA’s withdrawal from the SLI proceedings, the Arbitration
Panel, after requesting briefing, determined that it would implement a process whereby it
would appoint a new East Merger Committee. [Doc. 62, Ex. B.]
33. On July 10, 2015, counsel for USAPA revealed that USAPA its officers and had
failed and refused to seek from APA for the $1.3 asset to which USAPA was entitled for
SLI-related expenses. On that same date, counsel undersigned demanded and again via
writing on July 13, 205 that Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants immediately seek
reimbursement from APA, in order to ensure that the USAPA treasury is funded to the
greatest extent for the benefit of all members. [Doc. 62, Ex. H.]
34. On July 14, 2015, USAPA submitted a brief in the consolidated LMRDA action
confirming that it had not done so and had no immediate intention to seek the $1.3 million
to which USAPA was entitled for the benefit of its members. [Doc. 61]
35. Upon information and belief, Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants have been
and are in the process of performing dues reconciliation in a manner that is arbitrary and
capricious, not performed accurately or in good faith, and is designed to designate as many
pilots as possible as not in good standing to deny them their pro rata share of USAPA funds
at dissolution
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
51. Velez re-alleges and incorporates here all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
52. Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants have acted in violation of and inconsistent
with the USAPA Constitution and Bylaws and their fiduciary duties, to the detriment of
USAPA membership and dues payers. Unless Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants
are enjoined, these breaches and violations will continue.
53. Velez therefore requests that this Court enter an order requiring Counterclaim and
Third Party Defendants to:
(a) Provide access to the books and records of USAPA for purposes of and provide a
full and fair accounting performed by a neutral, qualified accounting firm at
USAPA’s expense;
(b Cease implementation of Resolution AI 14-164 in a manner detrimental to
members and non-members and, instead, abide by USAPA’s Constitution and
Bylaws as written;
(c) Perform dues reconciliation in a fair and consistent manner and in accordance with
USAPA’s Constitution and Bylaws; and
(d) Take steps to dissolve USAPA in accordance with its Constitution and Bylaws
PAYER FOR RELIEF ON PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
WHEREFORE Defendants Velez and Leonidas having answered the amended
complaint they respectfully request that this Court;
A. Dismiss the Amended Complaint and that Plaintiff take nothing and receive no
relief thereon;
B. Award Defendants their attorneys’ fees and costs in having to appear and defend
against this action; and
C. Grant whatever further relief is equitable and just under the premises.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
51. Velez re-alleges and incorporates here all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
52. Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants have acted in violation of and inconsistent
with the USAPA Constitution and Bylaws and their fiduciary duties, to the detriment of
USAPA membership and dues payers. Unless Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants
are enjoined, these breaches and violations will continue.
53. Velez therefore requests that this Court enter an order requiring Counterclaim and
Third Party Defendants to:
(a) Provide access to the books and records of USAPA for purposes of and provide a
full and fair accounting performed by a neutral, qualified accounting firm at
USAPA’s expense;
(b Cease implementation of Resolution AI 14-164 in a manner detrimental to
members and non-members and, instead, abide by USAPA’s Constitution and
Bylaws as written;
(c) Perform dues reconciliation in a fair and consistent manner and in accordance with
USAPA’s Constitution and Bylaws; and
(d) Take steps to dissolve USAPA in accordance with its Constitution and Bylaws
PAYER FOR RELIEF ON PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
WHEREFORE Defendants Velez and Leonidas having answered the amended
complaint they respectfully request that this Court;
A. Dismiss the Amended Complaint and that Plaintiff take nothing and receive no
relief thereon;
B. Award Defendants their attorneys’ fees and costs in having to appear and defend
against this action; and
C. Grant whatever further relief is equitable and just under the premises.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
On January 9, 2015, the PAB issued a decision holding that APA had the right to
appoint a West Pilots Merger Committee to represent the West Pilots’ interests in the
Substantive SLI Process. [See Doc. 1 filed in Bollmeier v. Hummel, 3:15-cv-00111-RJCDCK
(The LMRDA action) at Exhibit 4.]
In so ruling, the PAB said:
“The Board dismisses USAPA’s argument that it—as the pre-merger representative
of all US Airways pilots—has the full authority to represent all former US Airways
pilots and has the sole discretion to allow or not a West Pilots Merger Committee to
participate in the SLI process. This argument is unconvincing and runs contrary to
the NMB’s determination that APA is the representative of all Company pilots (both
US Airways and American Airlines).” Id. at 31.
“USAPA, the Board finds, has neither obligations nor responsibilities to any
bargaining unit members, including even the East Pilot seniority list grouping.
What is clear, though, is that USAPA does not represent the West Pilot seniority list
grouping and does not have a duty of fair representation to that group of employees.”
Id. at 32.
“Given the history of intransigence and hostility between USAPA and the West
Pilots, it is far from clear that USAPA could or would adequately represent the
interests of the West pilots. The fact that USAPA's very constitution contains a
provision stating that only date of hire principles is acceptable in any SLI process is
simply one of several considerations supporting this conclusion.” Id. at 33.
The PAB further directed APA to designate the West Pilots Merger Committee as a
full participant in the Substantive SLI Process.
23. On January 9, 2015, Mr. Velez’s counsel wrote to USAPA’s counsel and noted that,
given the fact that USAP no longer represented the West Pilots, it should provide an
immediate accounting of the specially assessed Merger Fund, including the percentage
attributable to West Pilots, and cease spending any USAPA funds on seniority proceedings,
including any legal proceedings. [Doc. 46-5, at Exhibit E.]
24. On January 12, 2015, counsel for USAPA responded, stating USAPA would refuse
all of Mr. Velez and other West Pilots’ requests, and that it would continue to act at the
discretion of the Third Party Defendant Officers and the BPR. (See January 12, 2015 letter
from Brian O’Dwyer, attached hereto as Exhibit C.)
25. On January 12, 2015, APA appointed a separate Merger Committee to represent the
interests of the West Pilots in the Substantive SLI Process.
26. Upon information and belief, throughout the times discussed herein, and especially
after the PAB decision in January of 2015, numerous US Airways pilots, both East and
West, wrote to Counterclaim Defendant USAPA and its Third Party Defendant Officers,
requesting that USAPA immediately dissolve and distribute excess treasury funds to its
members in accordance with its Constitution and Bylaws
27. In furtherance of the Protocol Agreement, in January of 2015 APA created a
procedure whereby all three merger committees could submit to APA for reimbursement
for their share of a $4 million fund to pay for SLI expenses. Through this process USAPA
was entitled to seek reimbursement up to $1.3 million for SLI-related expenses, making
this $1.3 million an important asset belonging to USAPA for the benefit of its membership.
To this date, Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants have failed and refused to seek to
bring this asset into the USAPA treasury
28. Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants continued to defer dissolution and
continued to expend USAPA resources to participate in the SLI process, including retaining
and paying for experts, paying flight pay loss for USAPA Merger Committee members,
paying for attorneys and consultants, and submitting briefs to the SLI Arbitration Board.
29. On June 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in
Addington v. USAPA, Nos. 14-15757, 15874, 15892. [Doc. 54.] The Ninth Circuit
concluded that USAPA had violated its duty of fair representation to West Pilots when it
was a certified union by organizing and operating for the sole benefit of East Pilots to the
detriment of West Pilots: “USAPA has served as the stalking horse for the East Pilots’
exclusive interests and left the West Pilots bereft of representation. USAPA’s manifest
disregard for the interests of the West Pilots and its discriminatory conduct towards them
constitutes a clear breach of duty.” [Id. at pages 55-56.] The Ninth Circuit remanded to
the Arizona District Court for an injunction against USAPA to prevent it from participating
the SLI process unless it agreed to propose the Nicolau Award.
30. Because USAPA breached its duty of fair representation to the West Pilots by failing
and refusing to represent them in seniority proceedings, none of the seniority proceedings
in which USAPA has participated and for which it has expended treasury funds have
qualified as “collective legal action on behalf of the pilot group.”
appoint a West Pilots Merger Committee to represent the West Pilots’ interests in the
Substantive SLI Process. [See Doc. 1 filed in Bollmeier v. Hummel, 3:15-cv-00111-RJCDCK
(The LMRDA action) at Exhibit 4.]
In so ruling, the PAB said:
“The Board dismisses USAPA’s argument that it—as the pre-merger representative
of all US Airways pilots—has the full authority to represent all former US Airways
pilots and has the sole discretion to allow or not a West Pilots Merger Committee to
participate in the SLI process. This argument is unconvincing and runs contrary to
the NMB’s determination that APA is the representative of all Company pilots (both
US Airways and American Airlines).” Id. at 31.
“USAPA, the Board finds, has neither obligations nor responsibilities to any
bargaining unit members, including even the East Pilot seniority list grouping.
What is clear, though, is that USAPA does not represent the West Pilot seniority list
grouping and does not have a duty of fair representation to that group of employees.”
Id. at 32.
“Given the history of intransigence and hostility between USAPA and the West
Pilots, it is far from clear that USAPA could or would adequately represent the
interests of the West pilots. The fact that USAPA's very constitution contains a
provision stating that only date of hire principles is acceptable in any SLI process is
simply one of several considerations supporting this conclusion.” Id. at 33.
The PAB further directed APA to designate the West Pilots Merger Committee as a
full participant in the Substantive SLI Process.
23. On January 9, 2015, Mr. Velez’s counsel wrote to USAPA’s counsel and noted that,
given the fact that USAP no longer represented the West Pilots, it should provide an
immediate accounting of the specially assessed Merger Fund, including the percentage
attributable to West Pilots, and cease spending any USAPA funds on seniority proceedings,
including any legal proceedings. [Doc. 46-5, at Exhibit E.]
24. On January 12, 2015, counsel for USAPA responded, stating USAPA would refuse
all of Mr. Velez and other West Pilots’ requests, and that it would continue to act at the
discretion of the Third Party Defendant Officers and the BPR. (See January 12, 2015 letter
from Brian O’Dwyer, attached hereto as Exhibit C.)
25. On January 12, 2015, APA appointed a separate Merger Committee to represent the
interests of the West Pilots in the Substantive SLI Process.
26. Upon information and belief, throughout the times discussed herein, and especially
after the PAB decision in January of 2015, numerous US Airways pilots, both East and
West, wrote to Counterclaim Defendant USAPA and its Third Party Defendant Officers,
requesting that USAPA immediately dissolve and distribute excess treasury funds to its
members in accordance with its Constitution and Bylaws
27. In furtherance of the Protocol Agreement, in January of 2015 APA created a
procedure whereby all three merger committees could submit to APA for reimbursement
for their share of a $4 million fund to pay for SLI expenses. Through this process USAPA
was entitled to seek reimbursement up to $1.3 million for SLI-related expenses, making
this $1.3 million an important asset belonging to USAPA for the benefit of its membership.
To this date, Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants have failed and refused to seek to
bring this asset into the USAPA treasury
28. Counterclaim and Third Party Defendants continued to defer dissolution and
continued to expend USAPA resources to participate in the SLI process, including retaining
and paying for experts, paying flight pay loss for USAPA Merger Committee members,
paying for attorneys and consultants, and submitting briefs to the SLI Arbitration Board.
29. On June 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in
Addington v. USAPA, Nos. 14-15757, 15874, 15892. [Doc. 54.] The Ninth Circuit
concluded that USAPA had violated its duty of fair representation to West Pilots when it
was a certified union by organizing and operating for the sole benefit of East Pilots to the
detriment of West Pilots: “USAPA has served as the stalking horse for the East Pilots’
exclusive interests and left the West Pilots bereft of representation. USAPA’s manifest
disregard for the interests of the West Pilots and its discriminatory conduct towards them
constitutes a clear breach of duty.” [Id. at pages 55-56.] The Ninth Circuit remanded to
the Arizona District Court for an injunction against USAPA to prevent it from participating
the SLI process unless it agreed to propose the Nicolau Award.
30. Because USAPA breached its duty of fair representation to the West Pilots by failing
and refusing to represent them in seniority proceedings, none of the seniority proceedings
in which USAPA has participated and for which it has expended treasury funds have
qualified as “collective legal action on behalf of the pilot group.”
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 2,319
You guys really know how to play the victim. You were literally begged to participate, your reps voted opposite to the BPR regardless of the issue and West represented half of the USAPA negotiating committee that signed off on the MOU, 10H and all. If USAPA had a lawyer worth a flip, these facts would have made a difference in the 9th. Instead they sent Bozo the clown to argue points clearly in USAPA's favor against the collective wisdom of the rest of their attorneys.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
A320 Driver said:
Your problems multiplied at 18 minutes into the video...
At 28:30 in the video, Szymanski starts his retreat which lasts about 4 minutes. Weak performance.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000007510
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 2,319
Yep...really got screwed after 22:30. I sat at USAPA headquarters for 3 1/2 days and listened to explanation after explanation regarding the MOU being seniority neutral. I NEVER heard it stated that it buried the NIC award. We were told it specifically avoided the issue so we could all get raises via a new contract and put us on equal footing with the AA pilots while the NIC was settled in another venue. How we got from there to where we are now is nothing short of a complete legal blunder, IMO.
snapthis said:
The vacancies properly filled by people who actually worked years for them clearly upsets you. Too bad. That's called the reality of the situation. "You'se" infantile response to that reality speaks volumes about your "maturity" level and nothing more. Grow Up.
- Status
Similar threads
