2015 Pilot Discussion.

[Claxon]

well, that 1.4 million will be paid back by the 12 idiots that misappropriated UNION DUES to pay for East Only SLI issues in lieu of using the APA money first. You don't get to spend that money twice. Hope Hummer has his nitro pills nearby.

Please provide a legal finding on your assertion sir.

 

[CactusPilot1]

I do not recall reading that in my gloss over, can you provide Judge Conrad quote on your assertion sir?  I can save you time, you will not be able to sir.

 
I just checked the USAPA update to save time. I certainly can't find it there.
 

 

[EastUS1]

 
Here's the sad thing, Bean.  If any one of us chose to take up Capt. Crunch's little challenge, and managed to beat him fair and square.....

 
Dont be so shy. Give it "you'se" best shot son. The pitiful truth is that if you even at all imagined yourself capable of pulling off some grand triumph (instead of just pulling your own "joystick) for mighty "sparta" you would be all over the wager in an instant, but you can instead only offer up yet more childish flatulence...and yes, we all know already: "This is Sparta!"...Right? Sigh...Thanks for the always dependable laughs.
 
P.S. It's amusing that your imaginings inevitably begin with "If".

 

[Claxon]

 
I just checked the USAPA update to save time. I certainly can't find it there.
 

I agree, it would have been an inaccurate assertion. 

 

[Claxon]

The East Merger Committee (E(=)MC) will need 1.4 million from the company or there will be a delay in the SLI arbitration.

 

[Claxon]

I live rent free in your head.
 
I win 😉

Such a profound Mitch Vaselino quote, Mitch.
Sully lives forever in Mitch Vaselinos' head. Rent free. Soon the movie will play in young Mitchs' mind as well. Clint Eastwood will soon drive it home in cinemas across the USA.




Posts: 61
Civ/Mil: Civilian
A/C Flown: Jetz and props
Ratings: ATP, MEI, FE B-727, B-737 type
Curr Position: Flying for the aquiring airline
Total Time: 11,000

Sully, welcome to Phoenix
Open letter to Doug Parker.

September 28, 2009
Mr. Douglas Parker
CEO & Chairman of the Board
US Airways, Inc.
111 W. Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe, Arizona 85281

VIA EMAIL

Dear Doug:

I'm writing to express my complete and utter disappointment with
today's announcement that Captain Sullenberger will be appointed to a
management position within the company. In fact, as a result of Capt.
Sullenberger's decision to use his new found fame as a weapon against
1800 former America West pilots in a recent federal court case over
pilot seniority, I find the company's announcement particularly
insulting. Not only does this decision now forever discredit the
company's purported "neutrality" in the pilot seniority issue, but it
also calls in to question the credibility of the entire safety
management team. As I hope you'll agree, it is in everybody's best
interests to keep flight safety an issue that is far removed from
politics.

I can respect that Capt. Sullenberger has his own personal opinions
regarding the seniority situation, however, I believe that his
decision to testify in court raises reasonable question as to his
ability to adequately perform his new duties without bias. Capt.
Sullenberger did not provide any relevant testimony in the case, and
was only called to testify by USAPA in the hopes that his celebrity
status would unfairly influence a jury. Instead of limiting the use
his celebrity status in support of productive goals such as promoting
aviation safety and the image of US Airways, he blatantly abused that
status by unnecessarily inserting himself on the losing side of an
issue that he played no prior role in. I cannot be reasonably assured
that he would not similarly misuse his position in management.

While I'm certain that this letter will fall on deaf ears, I can
assure you that this letter by no means an end to this issue, and that
you will be in need of much more than a well polished statement at a
crew news session to address it.

Sincerely,
/s/
Mitch Vasin
PHX 320 FO

 

[EastUS1]

 
His challenge is a bunch of BS as I found out. The guy is a liar.

 
"as I found out"? Really? Explain to us all in what way/when and where that even supposedly happened? You are rather fond of the word liar, and one can certainly understand why, given that it must be a commonly employed, household term of endearment for such as "you'se"...No matter. Back to your playpen kid.

 

[Phoenix]

FO JJ is whupping LAA pilot a$$ all over the C&R floor. It's bloody in there. Dale Carnegie is rolling in his grave.

 

[Metroyet]

The East Merger Committee (E(=)MC) will need 1.4 million from the company or there will be a delay in the SLI arbitration.

the East committee will get it, just know thanks to the LMRDA violations that Conrad says appear to have been committed, (hence the extrordinarily rare preliminary injunction.)The 12 officers of a fake Union will be payi g it back because they thought it would be cute to use union dues instead of the APA money that was intended. We'll see after the very long, detracted, hideously expensive trial....also at the idiots expense. Sucks to be them. They were well warned.

 

[cactusboy53]

Here's the sad thing, Bean.  If any one of us chose to take up Capt. Crunch's little challenge, and managed to beat him fair and square (after he gave his word that he would abide by the results).....he would then likely stomp off with his silk scarf & leather cap and demand a do-over because the results were unfair.
 
This is the kind of response that we have witnessed for the last 8 years.  We would not sooner enter into another agreement with a USAPAian again for that very reason.  We don't play with cheats & liars.[/quote

Shoe fits. Wear it.

 

[snapthis]

"USAPA UPDATE
 
Today, United States District Judge Conrad issued a preliminary injunction in the consolidated Bollmeier / DJ Action matter pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. Judge Conrad’s order grants, in part, the Bollmeier plaintiffs’ request that USAPA be enjoined from certain activities. At the hearing on June 30th the Judge instructed the parties to meet and confer to determine proposed temporary restraints upon which they could agree. In light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling USAPA agreed that it would not spend any more money on merger or seniority related matters and that it would not dissolve without prior written notice to the Plaintiffs and approval by the court. The Bollmeier Plaintiffs sought a much broader set of temporary and preliminary restraints, however, including requests for the Court to enjoin USAPA from expending any funds for any reason, enjoining it from sharing any merger committee “work product”, and an “independent” accounting for all funds expended. Judge Conrad declined the Bollmeier Plaintiffs’ request for very broad restraints, specifically noting that the injunction he issued “would not make it impossible for USAPA to continue to operate” (Doc. 75, at 11).
 
While we are, of course, disappointed that the Court did not dismiss the case at this juncture, we are gratified that it did not grant Plaintiffs the sweeping injunctive relief that they sought. Rather, the Court granted the injunction along the lines of the restraint USAPA had indicated it viewed as consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and USAPA’s withdrawal from the McCaskill-Bond seniority list integration process."
 
USAPA Communications

 
USAPA Communications vs Reality
 
 
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.
Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiffs furnished sufficient evidence of the written demands
sent to USAPA and its governing officers. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint and
other exhibits, the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. found that good cause existed to permit
Plaintiffs’ action to proceed. See (Case No. 3:15-mc-35, Doc. No. 2). The Court finds that
Plaintiffs made a demand that USAPA or its governing officers initiate an action, that they
secured permission from this Court to bring the instant action, and that they are seeking
“appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor organization.” See 29 U.S.C. § 501( ; Reed v.
United Transp. Union, 633 F. Supp. 1516, 1527 (W.D.N.C. 1986) rev'd on other grounds, 828
F.2d 1066 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction
over the claims in this case and that Plaintiffs have satisfied the procedural requirements under
the LMRDA. The Court further finds that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to bar this
action.
 
B. Irreparable Harm
Plaintiffs have likewise made a clear showing of irreparable harm. USAPA’s funds were
derived from dues collected from all US Airways pilots, including Plaintiffs, as a condition of
employment. Under USAPA’s constitution, if such funds are not used to advance legitimate
collective legal action, they must be returned to the members from whom the funds were
collected in the first place. Now that USAPA is no longer the certified exclusive representative
for any pilot group, it no longer collects membership dues, and its revenue stream has been cut
off. USAPA’s continued expenditure of its finite funds, which are the object of this litigation,
can only deplete a treasury that is unable to be replenished going forward. Therefore, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs have shown they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief.
 
C. Balance of Equities
The balance of equities often presents considerable questions for the Court, especially as
an injunction risks foreclosing legitimate business activities of a defendant. The Court finds in
this case, however, that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to tip the balance in their
favor. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin USAPA and its agents from wrongfully spending funds which
were derived in significant part from dues paid by Plaintiffs. Absent an injunction, these funds
may be significantly, if not altogether, depleted before this case is concluded, which would result
in an inequity against Plaintiffs. On the other hand, an injunction prohibiting USAPA’s use of its
funds to participate in the SLI process risks little to no harm to Defendants as Defendants, like
the Plaintiffs, could seek funding from other sources and raise funds through private channels in
order to further finance their continued involvement in the SLI process. Contrary to Defendants
contentions, the Court finds that this injunction would not make it impossible for USAPA to
continue to operate. Therefore, the Court finds that the balance of equities tips in favor of
Plaintiffs.
 
D. Public Interest
Finally, the Court finds that the public interest is furthered by the granting of a
preliminary injunction. The public has an interest in seeing that agreements are enforced. See
UBS Painwebber, Inc. v. Aiken, 197 F. Supp. 2d 436, 448 (W.D.N.C. 2002). As both parties
have agreed, this interest includes enforcing union constitutions. Loretangeli v. Critelli, 853 F.2d
186, 196 (3d Cir. 1988). In finding that Plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the
merits on their LMRDA claim, the Court finds that Defendants have likely violated the USAPA
constitution. Therefore, the Court finds that an injunction is in the public interest.
Having considered the four requisite elements for preliminary injunctive relief and
having found that Plaintiffs have established all four elements, the Court finds that entry of a
preliminary injunction is necessary to protect Plaintiffs from ongoing and irreparable harm
during the pendency of this action. Such harm to Plaintiffs significantly outweighs any harm
Defendants might incur as a result of the entry of the injunction.
 
E. Parties to be Enjoined
It is well-settled that a business entity acts only through its agents, such as its employees,
officers, and directors. See Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158, 166 (2001).
As such, an enjoined entity’s agents may also be individually enjoined. As Defendants point out,
the USAPA constitution requires that all notes, checks, and other negotiable instruments must be
signed by one of its National Officers. (Doc. No. 61 at 9 n.6). Thus, an officer acting
individually pursuant to his or her perceived duties as an officer, may authorize the expenditure
of USAPA funds in contravention to this preliminary injunction. The Court finds, therefore, that
it is necessary to enjoin USAPA as well as any officer, employee, or agent of USAPA.
 
F. Scope of Prohibited Expenditures
The funds USAPA has been using to participate in merger- and seniority-related matters
and to further litigation were derived, in large part, from dues paid by Plaintiffs and other West
Pilots. USAPA should not be permitted to use funds derived from West Pilots to the detriment
of the West Pilots. Defendants previously argued that USAPA had incurred less than $15,000 in
expenses prior to June 29, 2015. (Doc. No. 58). Defendants now contend, however, that they
should be permitted to pay expenses incurred through June 30, 2015, in an amount of $500,000.
(Doc. No. 61-2 at 2). The Court finds this amount unreasonable and will not permit USAPA to
make these expenditures out of its treasury. Therefore, the Court finds that, aside from a
reasonable amount expended related to USAPA’s Petition for Re-hearing En Banc in Addington
v. USAPA, _ F.3d _, 2015 WL 3916665 (9th Cir. June 26, 2015),2 not to exceed $50,000
USAPA and any officer, employee, or agent of USAPA shall be enjoined from spending any
more money on merger- or seniority-related matters.
 
H. The Unapproved Dissolution of USAPA
In light of the Court’s findings that injunctive relief is warranted in this case, the Court
GRANTS this part of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. USAPA shall not be
dissolved without prior written notice to Plaintiffs and approval of the Court.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[Bean]

I never knew it was a dogfight. I have been lurking on this and many forums for nearly a decade and didn't realize this was the challenge. I've read about this challenge and the you'se thing for far too long. That you'se thing really kills me East. I'm know, by intention. But seriously, can we agree it's ridiculous and sure sounds like a great way to negatively characterize an entire pilot group, but also understand that it clearly displayed that pilot's true frustration and disbelief that he had to stand up and confront a group so inclined to destroy him and his peers careers. I get it, as we all do, that it makes us look like what you want to believe true, but come on.

Thinking about it though, it would be fun to go aerial against another, and I can't believe I didn't realize that was the challenge from the get go. Just wish it was a hobby of mine that I could excel at and then challenge others to. Never too late I guess.

 

[EastCheats]

Such a profound Mitch Vaselino quote, Mitch.
Sully lives forever in Mitch Vaselinos' head. Rent free. Soon the movie will play in young Mitchs' mind as well. Clint Eastwood will soon drive it home in cinemas across the USA.




Posts: 61
Civ/Mil: Civilian
A/C Flown: Jetz and props
Ratings: ATP, MEI, FE B-727, B-737 type
Curr Position: Flying for the aquiring airline
Total Time: 11,000

Sully, welcome to Phoenix
Open letter to Doug Parker.

September 28, 2009
Mr. Douglas Parker
CEO & Chairman of the Board
US Airways, Inc.
111 W. Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe, Arizona 85281

VIA EMAIL

Dear Doug:

I'm writing to express my complete and utter disappointment with
today's announcement that Captain Sullenberger will be appointed to a
management position within the company. In fact, as a result of Capt.
Sullenberger's decision to use his new found fame as a weapon against
1800 former America West pilots in a recent federal court case over
pilot seniority, I find the company's announcement particularly
insulting. Not only does this decision now forever discredit the
company's purported "neutrality" in the pilot seniority issue, but it
also calls in to question the credibility of the entire safety
management team. As I hope you'll agree, it is in everybody's best
interests to keep flight safety an issue that is far removed from
politics.

I can respect that Capt. Sullenberger has his own personal opinions
regarding the seniority situation, however, I believe that his
decision to testify in court raises reasonable question as to his
ability to adequately perform his new duties without bias. Capt.
Sullenberger did not provide any relevant testimony in the case, and
was only called to testify by USAPA in the hopes that his celebrity
status would unfairly influence a jury. Instead of limiting the use
his celebrity status in support of productive goals such as promoting
aviation safety and the image of US Airways, he blatantly abused that
status by unnecessarily inserting himself on the losing side of an
issue that he played no prior role in. I cannot be reasonably assured
that he would not similarly misuse his position in management.

While I'm certain that this letter will fall on deaf ears, I can
assure you that this letter by no means an end to this issue, and that
you will be in need of much more than a well polished statement at a
crew news session to address it.

Sincerely,
/s/
Mitch Vasin
PHX 320 FO

 
Yawnnnnnnnn.
 
You have way too much time on your hands. Some people actually work for a living. Try it sometime. Your Usapian free ride is about to go belly up.  😉
 

 

[EastCheats]

FO JJ is whupping LAA pilot a$$ all over the C&R floor. It's bloody in there. Dale Carnegie is rolling in his grave.

 
Yea, he's giving a Capt Bozo some Greif or is it Grief? It's fun to watch
 

 

[Ames]

Oh really?  (sarcasm)  I glossed over it. (sarcasm)

There you have it in a nutshell. When provided with ironclad facts eastholes react thusly.