2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
I'm so happy that you are amused with the Crew News, Jamie. You're gonna need that sense of humor going forward.end_of_alpa said:
Speaking of going forward, the other gentleman speaking for the company told the crowd that this would proceed. It seemed implied that would be the case, irrespective of party (ies) crying that the process is unfair to them.
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
Saaaaaawwiiiing, and a MISS! I'm "Davey Boy", you moron. You sure seem agitated there, Johnny Boy. You doin' OK?luvthe9 said:
EastCheats
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 6,141
cactusboy53 said:
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
cactusboy53 said:
No miss, we know who you are, you were the only one one at the time moron, it's a beautiful night out here at the shore, no fishbowl, as a matter a fact looking out at the big ocean and a cold beer........oh Wye oh Wye
By the way big smiles from the Jersey shore flounder.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
- Reaction score
- 5,392
luvthe9 said:
Jersey Shore? Yuk. That's like bragging about a vacation on Lake Erie.
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
OK, let me help you out Johnny Boy. I, Dave Simmons, am "Cactusboy53" pretty much EVERYWHERE. I don't have multiple monikers, SO when you refer to "EastCheats" (GREAT moniker, BTW) as "Davey Boy" it's a SAAAAAAWWIIIING & A MISS!luvthe9 said:
Clear enough for you, Johnny Boy, or do we need DRAW YOU A PICTURE?? Moron.
Oh, & we know who you are. Everything is being cataloged for historical & prosperity purposes. Big smiles Johnny Boy.
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
Parsing. I love the way you guys do that. I heard what he said. They STRONGLY believe that THIS process will be fair from 2012 on. Listen to it again.....the process AS IT IS SET UP NOW IS A FAIR PROCESS. At least in there eyes. Not so according to Harper and AOL who wish to STRIP the East pilots of the very thing that the Company and the APA fought so hard to give you and yours. Like I said....I REALLY HOPE SILVER GRANTS YOU YOUR WISH.cactusboy53 said:
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
FWIW, I don't really think ANY of this matters (after all these years). It is now entertainment value only. It's all about the money now. I don't believe there is any rational argument against this. We are as divided as ever. There is truly only one solution: DEFUND THE LAWYERS. To do that, the elimination of the union is the only way and it is coming.
Names and threats simply will not work anymore and the only thing left is whatever the Company feels our worth is. Period. No matter how hard you believe your cause is right, the only thing we all agree on is "the money". The old saying "money walks and BS talks" can't be any truer than here.....and you know what's funny? The SAME THING IS HAPPENING IN OUR POLITICS TODAY.
So I just laugh.....this is humor and entertainment only. All the while our Company continues to make BILLIONS and we fight for scraps. Where is the ball? Hell, I don't know? But I DO know that YOU GUYS DONT KNOW EITHER! I just know the Company has the money.
And that's where I'm heading.
Names and threats simply will not work anymore and the only thing left is whatever the Company feels our worth is. Period. No matter how hard you believe your cause is right, the only thing we all agree on is "the money". The old saying "money walks and BS talks" can't be any truer than here.....and you know what's funny? The SAME THING IS HAPPENING IN OUR POLITICS TODAY.
So I just laugh.....this is humor and entertainment only. All the while our Company continues to make BILLIONS and we fight for scraps. Where is the ball? Hell, I don't know? But I DO know that YOU GUYS DONT KNOW EITHER! I just know the Company has the money.
And that's where I'm heading.
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
Yea..not so much. I did see Rare Bear, Voodoo & Strega fly fast though.luvthe9 said:
Chin up Johnny Boy. This is moving right along. I'm sure the BOA knows how to fix your problems.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 1,207
It will proceed n it was the West dude crying it was unfair. You must've missed that one.cactusboy53 said:
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-ROS
REPLY TO US AIRLINE PILOTS
ASSOCIATION (USAPA) IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RULE
25(C) JOINDER OF ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION (APA) AND FOR
ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
The Response of the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), Doc. 324, reads like a
petition to amend Rule 65(d)(2).1 The Court should reject USAPA’s arguments because
they are plainly intended to get an injunction that would provide the East Pilots the means
to evade the intent of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.
Rule 65(d)(2) “describe[es] the ‘persons bound’ by every injunction.” EEOC v.
Peabody Western Coal Co., 610 F. 3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). The Rule merely
codifies the common law by providing that an injunction binds
the following parties who receive actual notice of it by personal service or
otherwise: (A) the parties; (the parties’ officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys; and (C) other persons who are in active concert or
participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (
Rule 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). As the Supreme Court explained, the Rule:
is derived from the common-law doctrine that a decree of injunction not only
binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them in interest, in
“privity” with them, represented by them or subject to their control. In essence
it is that defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts
through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original
proceeding.
Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 US 9, 14 (1945).
Speaking through USAPA, the East Pilots are asking this Court to omit from the
Rule 65(d)(2)2 “agents” and “persons in active concert or participation” language from its
order. Their self-serving reasons are evident. They want an order that will leave them and
their East members a colorable basis to assert that the APA East Merger Committee is
free to do what the Ninth Circuit said USAPA cannot do: participate in the McCaskill-
Bond proceedings on behalf of the East Pilots without advocating the Nicolau Award.
They also assert that an injunction that includes Rule 65 language will restrain “the
individual rights” of the East Pilots. In the case tried to this Court in October, 2013,
USAPA argued relentlessly (and successfully) that individuals like the West Pilots were
They also assert that an injunction that includes Rule 65 language will restrain “the
individual rights” of the East Pilots. In the case tried to this Court in October, 2013,
USAPA argued relentlessly (and successfully) that individuals like the West Pilots were
precluded from making individual arguments before the McCaskill-Bond panel. USAPA
has once again changed its tune and now claims that if the injunction is too broad “it
would restrain individuals from advocating in their own interests. . . .” (Doc. 324 at 6:8 to
6:10.) As the Court correctly predicted in its opinion from January 10, 2014, when it suits
its needs, USAPA will change its previous position:
The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will
change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on
seniority. That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified
representatives should participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no
longer a certified representative, it will change its position and argue entities other
than certified representatives should be allowed to participate.
(Addington v. USAPA, No. CV-13-00471-PHX-ROS, Doc. 298, at pages 20-21.)
In 2007, the East Pilots incorrectly thought they could evade the Transition
Agreement by changing their bargaining representative from ALPA to USAPA. Now
they think they can evade the opinion of the Ninth Circuit by styling themselves as an
APA committee rather than a USAPA committee. They must be told in no uncertain
terms that they cannot do this. This Court must therefore include the Rule 65(d)(2)
language into its order. Doing so will make it clear to all East Pilots and their
representatives (hopefully), that the APA East Merger Committee and its members and
advisors will be in contempt if they participate in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings
without advocating the Nicolau Award.
Contrary to USAPA’s argument, the language in Rule 65(d)(2) does not create
ambiguity. It is very straightforward. It clearly means that anyone who knows about the
injunction cannot do as a new East Pilot merger committee what USAPA itself cannot do
See Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc., 774 F. 3d 935,
955 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding persons in contempt for engaging in a similar scheme to
evade an injunction). Anyone representing the East Pilot interests in the McCaskill-Bond
proceedings will be in contempt if they fail to advocate the Nicolau Award as ordered by
the Ninth Circuit.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction language is not overbroad. The proposed
language is directed only at those who participate in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings on
behalf of the East Pilots, as any sensible person would understand. Only those persons
must advocate the Nicolau Award and they need do so only in that context. It would not
apply to East Pilots who, for example, use social media or chat on web boards. This
Court, therefore, should enter an injunction using Plaintiffs’ proposed language.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Kelly J. Flood ____Marty Harper
Footnotes:
All references to “Rule” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
2 One common theme runs through all of the opposing briefs to the West Pilots’
proposed injunction. They all want the Court to disregard Rule 65, but for different
reasons. We address USAPA’s reasons here. APA wants the Rule 65(d)(2) language to be
disregarded to avoid “rancor” within its ranks and US Airways claims that it wants the
Rule discarded to avoid delay in the implementation of the SLI list that US Airways itself
will cause if it chooses in early 2016 to delay implementation because it wants a
“riskless” legal environment before implementing. If only life could be so easy.
REPLY TO US AIRLINE PILOTS
ASSOCIATION (USAPA) IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RULE
25(C) JOINDER OF ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION (APA) AND FOR
ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
The Response of the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), Doc. 324, reads like a
petition to amend Rule 65(d)(2).1 The Court should reject USAPA’s arguments because
they are plainly intended to get an injunction that would provide the East Pilots the means
to evade the intent of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.
Rule 65(d)(2) “describe[es] the ‘persons bound’ by every injunction.” EEOC v.
Peabody Western Coal Co., 610 F. 3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010). The Rule merely
codifies the common law by providing that an injunction binds
the following parties who receive actual notice of it by personal service or
otherwise: (A) the parties; (the parties’ officers, agents, servants,
employees, and attorneys; and (C) other persons who are in active concert or
participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (
Rule 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). As the Supreme Court explained, the Rule:
is derived from the common-law doctrine that a decree of injunction not only
binds the parties defendant but also those identified with them in interest, in
“privity” with them, represented by them or subject to their control. In essence
it is that defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts
through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original
proceeding.
Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 US 9, 14 (1945).
Speaking through USAPA, the East Pilots are asking this Court to omit from the
Rule 65(d)(2)2 “agents” and “persons in active concert or participation” language from its
order. Their self-serving reasons are evident. They want an order that will leave them and
their East members a colorable basis to assert that the APA East Merger Committee is
free to do what the Ninth Circuit said USAPA cannot do: participate in the McCaskill-
Bond proceedings on behalf of the East Pilots without advocating the Nicolau Award.
They also assert that an injunction that includes Rule 65 language will restrain “the
individual rights” of the East Pilots. In the case tried to this Court in October, 2013,
USAPA argued relentlessly (and successfully) that individuals like the West Pilots were
They also assert that an injunction that includes Rule 65 language will restrain “the
individual rights” of the East Pilots. In the case tried to this Court in October, 2013,
USAPA argued relentlessly (and successfully) that individuals like the West Pilots were
precluded from making individual arguments before the McCaskill-Bond panel. USAPA
has once again changed its tune and now claims that if the injunction is too broad “it
would restrain individuals from advocating in their own interests. . . .” (Doc. 324 at 6:8 to
6:10.) As the Court correctly predicted in its opinion from January 10, 2014, when it suits
its needs, USAPA will change its previous position:
The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will
change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on
seniority. That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified
representatives should participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no
longer a certified representative, it will change its position and argue entities other
than certified representatives should be allowed to participate.
(Addington v. USAPA, No. CV-13-00471-PHX-ROS, Doc. 298, at pages 20-21.)
In 2007, the East Pilots incorrectly thought they could evade the Transition
Agreement by changing their bargaining representative from ALPA to USAPA. Now
they think they can evade the opinion of the Ninth Circuit by styling themselves as an
APA committee rather than a USAPA committee. They must be told in no uncertain
terms that they cannot do this. This Court must therefore include the Rule 65(d)(2)
language into its order. Doing so will make it clear to all East Pilots and their
representatives (hopefully), that the APA East Merger Committee and its members and
advisors will be in contempt if they participate in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings
without advocating the Nicolau Award.
Contrary to USAPA’s argument, the language in Rule 65(d)(2) does not create
ambiguity. It is very straightforward. It clearly means that anyone who knows about the
injunction cannot do as a new East Pilot merger committee what USAPA itself cannot do
See Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc., 774 F. 3d 935,
955 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding persons in contempt for engaging in a similar scheme to
evade an injunction). Anyone representing the East Pilot interests in the McCaskill-Bond
proceedings will be in contempt if they fail to advocate the Nicolau Award as ordered by
the Ninth Circuit.
Finally, Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction language is not overbroad. The proposed
language is directed only at those who participate in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings on
behalf of the East Pilots, as any sensible person would understand. Only those persons
must advocate the Nicolau Award and they need do so only in that context. It would not
apply to East Pilots who, for example, use social media or chat on web boards. This
Court, therefore, should enter an injunction using Plaintiffs’ proposed language.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of September, 2015.
/s/ Kelly J. Flood ____Marty Harper
Footnotes:
All references to “Rule” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
2 One common theme runs through all of the opposing briefs to the West Pilots’
proposed injunction. They all want the Court to disregard Rule 65, but for different
reasons. We address USAPA’s reasons here. APA wants the Rule 65(d)(2) language to be
disregarded to avoid “rancor” within its ranks and US Airways claims that it wants the
Rule discarded to avoid delay in the implementation of the SLI list that US Airways itself
will cause if it chooses in early 2016 to delay implementation because it wants a
“riskless” legal environment before implementing. If only life could be so easy.
- Status
Similar threads
