2015 Pilot Discussion.

[snapthis]

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-ROS
 
 
REPLY TO US AIRWAYS IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RULE
25(C) JOINDER OF ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION (APA) AND FOR
ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
 
 
 
 
US Airways’ Response, Doc. 326, is a collateral attack on the Ninth Circuit’s
opinion, and a stunning reversal of the positions it took 76 days before its Response here,
when it argued against the appointment and participation of a new East Pilots Merger
Committee in the SLI proceedings. Additionally, US Airways has asked this Court again
to make a business decision for it, a request that this Court properly declined several
years ago. This Court should disregard US Airways’ arguments, and decline again to
make US Airways’ business decision for it.
 
What a Difference 76 Days Make.
 
On June 30, 2015, US Airways (1) opposed the appointment and participation of a
New East Merger Committee in the SLI Proceedings; (2) argued that if one were
appointed it would be bound by the Ninth Circuit Mandate1; and (3) stated that it
disfavored any attempt by the East Pilots to fashion a work-around that would allow it to
ignore the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. (See Ex. A: Excerpt of June 30, 2015 Transcript of
Pre-Hearing Meeting before the SLI Board, at pages 37 – 40.) On June 30, therefore, US
Airways stated that it was willing to live with whatever might result from precluding East
Pilots from any further participation the SLI proceedings. Today, US Airways frets about
the potential delay in implementing the new SLI list when it issues, worrying that if the
new East Merger Committee is enjoined from ignoring the Night Circuit’s mandate it will
throw yet another tantrum and walk out of the SLI.2
 
In arguing that the West Pilots would cause delay by properly seeking enforcement
of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate through an appropriately-worded injunction, US Airways
fails to acknowledge that delay caused by future litigation brought by the East Pilots is
already inevitable. The East Pilots have already evinced their intent to later appeal the
1 US Airways misleads the Court regarding what the SLI Board held about the
effect of a court decision on the Board. [Doc. 323, page 2, lines 12-15.] The Board
actually declined to predict what injunction might issue and, instead, indicated that it
understood the new East Committee would likely be bound by whatever a court of
competent jurisdiction ultimately decides: “The precise question whether, or to what
extent, any injunction ultimately issued by the District Court on remand will limit
advocacy in this proceeding by a newly formed East Merger Committee is a legal
question for the court itself to resolve. The response to that question will depend upon the
precise wording of the injunction, when issued… [We] decline to answer Question No. 2
to the extent that it seeks to have us opine on the applicability of a judicial restriction on
advocacy by any newly appointed East Merger Committee.” (See Ex. C, excerpts of July
5 SLI Board decision, at pages 17-19.)
 
 
2 Ironically, if the West Pilots had withdrawn from the SLI process US Airways
would have happily proceeded without them, without seeking a court’s permission first.
 
(See Ex. A at page 37, lines 2 – 9.)
 
 
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 327 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 8
 
 
Preliminary Arbitration Board (“PAB”) determination that gave the West Pilots a seat at
the table in the SLI proceedings. (See Ex. B, Excerpt of USAPA’s April 3, 2015,
Supplemental Brief filed with the Ninth Circuit, page 5. “[T]he [PAB] order is still open
to challenge and the [McCaskill-Bond] process has yet to run its course.”) Delay will be
once again caused by the East Pilots who – starting in 2008 when they threw a tantrum
and formed USAPA to abrogate the final and binding arbitration that resulted in the
Nicolau Award – ultimately prevented the integration of East and West after America
West and US Airways merged. If the East Pilots walk again, this will be consistent with
their MO of refusing to participate in or accept of the results of final and binding rulings
when those rulings don’t go their way.
 
 
The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.
 
 
In reality, if delay in implementing the SLI list occurs it will be fault of US Airways
if it fails, once again, to implement an integrated seniority list that results from SLI
proceedings based upon agreements (to which it was a party) that facilitated a merger
among the airlines and their pilots (the 2005 Transition Agreement, and the 2013 MOU)
in the first place. The MOU states “[t]he integrated seniority list resulting from the
McCaskill-Bond process shall be final and binding on APA and USAPA (and/or the
certified bargaining representative of the combined pilot group), the company(ies) and
its(their) successors (if any), and all of the plots of American/New American Airlines and
US Airways.” (See MOU at para. 10(c).) It does not say that the integrated seniority list
will not be binding until all legal challenges have run their course.
US Airways, rather than make that business decision on its own because of a
potential threat by the East Pilots, has asked this Court once again to make a decision for
it and force it to comply with its own contract. As Yogi Berra would say, it’s déjà vu all
over again. This Court previously declined to make US Airways’ business decision for it
when this Court declined to issue a declaratory judgment about what course of action US
Airways should make in light of competing threats by the pilot groups in US Airways,
 
Inc. v. Addington, et al., 2:10-CV-01570-ROS (“Addington II”). As this Court noted
years ago, that is a business decision for the carrier to make, rather an issue to bring to
this Court. US Airways goes to great lengths to remind the Court that neither it, nor APA,
were party to USAPA’s breach and that they should therefore be unaffected by its
wrongdoing. In so doing, US Airways ignores that USAPA did not insert the improper
paragraph 10(h) into the MOU without the agreement of US Airways, APA and
American’s agreement to the offending provision, on which USAPA capitalized in its
breach of the duty of fair representation to the West Pilots. Having agreed to the improper
language that codified USAPA’s breach, US Airways (and APA) would nevertheless like
to remain unaffected by the harm that resulted therefrom, leaving the West Pilots to
continue to fight for their rightful seniority positions on multiple fronts. Surely, this is
not equitable.
 
If and when the SLI Board issues its seniority list, it will be up to US Airways to
decide whether to implement the SLI list while litigation is threatened by the East Pilots,
or to fall back and wait it out. The West Pilots will have nothing to do with the decision
US Airways ultimately makes in that regard.
 
 
The Ninth Circuit’s Mandate Must Be Implemented.
 
 
The Ninth Circuit held that USAPA’s abandonment of the Nicolau Award violated
its duty of fair representation. It directed this Court to enter an injunction that would
require USAPA to advocate for the Nicolau Award if it were to participate in the
McCaskill-Bond proceedings. Yet, in its Response here, US Airways argues that “[e]ach
pilot merger committee should be free to present any position it wishes in the SLI
Arbitration.” Doc. 326 at 4:3 to 326:4. That is directly contrary to the mandate which
plainly constrains what can be advocated.
 
US Airways might not like it, but the law of the case here is that USAPA cannot
“present any position it wishes in the SLI Arbitration.” If USAPA is to participate in
those proceedings, it must advocate for the Nicolau Award. There should be no question
then that the East Pilots cannot participate in the SLI Arbitration (the McCaskill-bond
proceedings) unless they advocate for the Nicolau Award.
 
Contrary to US Airways’ argument, Plaintiffs have not proposed an injunction that
limits the “authority” of the Arbitration Board. Doc. 326 at 3:24 to 326:26. Plaintiffs’
proposed injunction only constrains the merger committee representing the East Pilots,
which is precisely what was envisioned by the Ninth Circuit. The Court, therefore, should
join APA pursuant to Rule 25(c) for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs’ Reply to APA, which
is being filed concurrently. It should enter an injunction as proposed, using the language
from Rule 65(d)(2).
 
The only open question is whether the East pilots, by reforming their merger
committee as an Allied Pilots Association (“APA”) committee, can evade the intent of
the Ninth Circuit’s opinion. Rule 65(d)(2), the common law upon which it is based, and
common sense tell us that they cannot.3 Whether APA is joined under Rule 25(c) or not,
when it created an East Merger Committee and engaged the experts and attorneys used by
the USAPA merger committee, it acted in active concert with USAPA and, thus, is bound
by the injunction. Plaintiffs merely ask that the injunction be stated in language that
makes this point crystal clear.
 
In the end, it is up to this Court to decide the scope of the injunction. Regular
practice is to include the Rule 65(d)(2) language. The West Pilots respectfully suggest
that there is no good reason to deviate from the norm. Indeed, there are particularly good
 
 
3 All references to “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
reasons to use the precise language of the rule given the East Pilots’ long history of
feeling free, and finding ways, to ignore court and arbitration rulings. It is time to shut
the door on any opportunity for the East Pilots to disrespect and disregard yet another
court order.
 
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of September, 2015.
 
 
/s/ Kelly J. Flood _____________
 
 
 
Marty Harper

 

[snapthis]

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-ROS
 
 
REPLY TO ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION (APA) IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR RULE 25(C)
JOINDER OF ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION (APA) AND FOR
ISSUANCE OF PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
 
The Allied Pilots Association (APA) misses the point of Plaintiffs’ motion.
Plaintiffs’ motion merely seeks a ruling recognizing that APA is the successor to USAPA
in the context of “taking any action on behalf of legacy US Airways East pilots in the
McCaskill-Bond proceedings.” Doc. 317 at 9:25 to 9:26. Plaintiffs do not seek—and Rule
25 is not intended to be used—to establish that APA is the successor to USAPA for all
purposes.1 Hence, it is immaterial whether USAPA’s assets were transferred to APA or
that it is still sitting on millions of dollars that rightfully belong to the West Pilots.
As the Ninth Circuit stated, “injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate in this
case to prevent the East Pilots from continuing to enjoy the benefits of USAPA’s
breach at the expense of the West Pilots.” Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, No.
14-15757, slip op. at *54 (9th Cir. Jun. 26, 2015) (Emphasis added). In effect, the Ninth
Circuit held that USAPA would violate its duty of fair representation as the union
representing the East and West pilots if it failed to advocate for the Nicolau Award.
Without a doubt, the APA East Merger Committee, is “a successor entity that has
been created in order to evade the original injunction.” Additive Controls & Measurement
Sys. v. Flowdata, 96 F. 3d 1390, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As such, it “may be found to be
acting ‘in active concert or participation’ with the enjoined party and thus subject to
contempt under Rule 65(d).” Id. By operation of Rule 65(d)(2), then, the APA East
Merger Committee will be bound by the injunction even if it is directed only at USAPA.
Were it otherwise, the East Pilots would be able to act through APA to nullify the
injunction. See S.E.C. v. Homa, 514 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2008) (holding 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”). This is precisely
what the Ninth Circuit intended to prevent by its injunction as reflected in the quotation
noted above.
 
But it is evident here that the East Pilots think otherwise. They think that they can
evade the Court’s injunction, and thereby participate in seniority integration without
advocating the Nicolau Award, by changing the label attached to their merger committee
from “USAPA” to “APA.” They are wrong. But, to avoid needless litigation and
disruption of the seniority integration process, this Court should make that clear. To do
so, it should use Rule 25(c) to join APA “for the purpose of subsequent proceedings to
enforce judgment.” JATSB, LLC v. Timeshare Beat, Inc., 2008 WL 4809484, at *2 (D.
Haw. Nov. 4, 2008). 2
 
To be clear, Plaintiffs neither object to APA appointing a merger committee for the
East Pilots nor to that committee participating in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings.
Rather, Plaintiffs object to the APA East Merger Committee participating in those
proceedings without advocating for the Nicolau Award. Given the rapidity after the Ninth
Circuit’s ruling by which the East Pilots dissolved the USAPA Merger Committee and
formed an APA merger committee, it is evident that the East Pilots intend that this
committee will not advocate the Nicolau Award. Plaintiffs seek an order that takes away
all question of whether they can do this.
 
Several points raised in APA’s brief should be addressed. First, Plaintiffs do not
object to the APA East Merger Committee using Baptiste & Wilder as counsel. See Doc
322 at 7, n.3 (APA stating otherwise).3 Plaintiffs noted that the APA East Merger
Committee is using Baptiste & Wilder to show that it is just a continuation of the USAPA
merger committee, albeit under a different label, and it is nevertheless bound by Rule
65(d)(2). When Baptiste & Wilder attorneys advise the APA East Merger Committee,
Plaintiffs are hopeful that they will advise them to comply with the injunction.
 
 
2 Plaintiffs take no position here as to whether the APA merger committee
representing legacy American Airlines pilots must also advocate the Nicolau Award,
since they seek only an injunction against any entity that is currently representing “legacy
U.S. Airways East Pilots.”
 
 
 APA weakly attempts to justify Wilder’s selection by pointing out that SLI pond is
quite small with few fishes. The point may have some validity, but there are other
advocates the East Pilots could have selected other than USAPA’s merger counsel. Dan
Katz represented the East Pilots in the Nicolau Arbitration (See Ex. A) and Lee Seham
made a brief cameo appearance in this case in early July (See Ex. . Both are
experienced SLI attorneys who have previously represented the East Pilots, so the East
Pilots did not need to pluck the “tainted” USAPA fish from the pond
 
But in case USAPA’s former counsel finds this too distasteful, the Court needs to eliminate any
doubt by clearly articulating that the new East Committee is bound by the injunction.
 
Second, it does not matter that all of USAPA’s interests (such as funds) have not
been transferred to APA. Rule 25(c) applies where there has been “any transfer of interest
with respect to the subject matter of the suit.” Jerry E. Smith, Moore’s Fed. Pract.
§ 25.30 (2015). There is no question that the core interest at issue here—representation of
the East Pilots in seniority integration—has been transferred from USAPA to APA.
 
Third, the fact that imposing an injunction against the APA East Merger Committee
might cause “rancor” at American and within APA is not a legitimate reason for this
Court not to apply the law reflected by Rule 65(d)(2).
 
Fourth, it is inappropriate to use Rule 19(a) here. Rule 19(a) is intended to allow
joinder of a party that has an interest that must be addressed in order to provide relief
among existing parties or that will be impaired in that person’s absence. APA need not be
joined here to provide relief against USAPA. Any interest that APA has here exists only
because APA has assumed USAPA’s role as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the East and West pilots. To the extent that APA has assumed that role, it has succeeded
USAPA in the context of this litigation. Plaintiffs merely seek recognition that the
injunctive relief against USAPA applies with equal force to APA. That is accomplished
by use of Rule 25(c).
 
Fifth, there is sound authority supporting the proposition that a labor union can be
joined under Rule 25(c) in the context of the subject matter of the suit to the extent that
the labor union succeeded to the named party labor union in that context. Thus a labor
union was joined pursuant to Rule 25(c) for purpose of enforcing financial responsibility
where the union succeeded in that context by merging finances with the named party
labor union. Lynn v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, 804 F. 2d 1472 Cir. 1986); Screen
Actors Guild, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 957 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2013). And a
labor union was joined pursuant to Rule 25(c) for purpose of enforcing a collective
bargaining agreement where the labor union succeeded to the named party labor union as
the bargaining representative. Air Line Pilots Ass’n. Int’l v. Texas Int’l Airlines, Inc., 567
F. Supp. 78 (S.D. Tex. 1983). That is what happened here. APA succeeded USAPA as
the bargaining representative responsible for the seniority integration of the East and
West Pilots. Thus, APA is properly joined pursuant to Rule 25(c) here for purposes of
being subject to a remedy in that context directed against USAPA.
 
Finally, the rule of mandate “allows a lower court to decide anything not foreclosed
by the mandate.” Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F. 3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 2012). The
“mandate[] require respect for what the higher court decided, not for what it did not
decide.” United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, the
Ninth Circuit did not directly decide whether the activities of an entirely new APA East
Merger Committee should be covered by the injunction if the East Pilots disbanded
USAPA’s merger committee and formed a committee under APA governance. That is
only because this happened after the Ninth Circuit ruled. That issue, therefore, was left
open for this Court to decide by applying Rule 65(d)(2)(1) to the circumstances that have
evolved since June 26, 2015, with the objective of preventing “the East Pilots from
continuing to enjoy the benefits of USAPA’s breach at the expense of the West Pilots.”
 
 
(See June 26, 2105 opinion in Addington v. USAPA, at page 54).
 
In sum, the Ninth Circuit in effect directed this Court to enjoin the representative of
the East Pilots in whatever form they currently enjoy from participating in the McCaskill-
Bond proceedings unless they advocate the Nicolau Award. At the time of the Ninth
Circuit’s opinion, USAPA was representing the East Pilots in those matters. Now, it is
APA. Nothing of legal significance should change merely because the East Pilots
changed the title of their committee from a “USAPA” committee to an “APA”
committee. This Court, therefore, should join APA under Rule 25(c) and issue an
injunction precluding USAPA, APA, and their agents, etc., from taking any action on
behalf of legacy US Airways East pilots in the McCaskill-Bond proceedings, including
any seniority-related discussions leading up to those proceedings, except to the extent
that they advocate the Nicolau Award.
 
 
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of September, 2015.
 
/s/ Kelly J. Flood
 
Marty Harper

 

[Claxon]

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.

You win, yet still lose. Another huge delay. More time in the Fishbowl.
You lose, you lose.
The Phoenix Summit Law School grad has driven you into another mess.

 

[snapthis]

You win, yet still lose. Another huge delay. More time in the Fishbowl.
You lose, you lose.
The Phoenix Summit Law School grad has driven you into another mess.

 
Class will be in session...Motion for Permanent Injunction for 9/23/2015 at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 604, 401 W. Washington St, Phoenix, Arizona, before Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver
 
Don't bother wearing a disguise after shedding your USAPA garb in your retreat. Marty knows your game.
 
Subject: (A review)
 
USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory.
 
As contemplated by the MOU,in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by
all of the post-merger pilots. 13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that  
happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration    
proceedings. 14 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.
 
The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified   
representative.
 
 
 
 

  

 

[end_of_alpa]

Yep. Let the games begin. It's the proverbial "tail wagging the dog."

Like I have been saying for some time.....it's breaking apart and it will be years to come before an SLI comes into being. Uncharted waters, "mate".

 

[end_of_alpa]

I really hope everyone is happy with this contract because when 2020 comes it's going to be all you get unless the COMPANY graciously thinks they should give more. But that ball isn't with "us". If....and that's a BIG if.....there is a seniority list in 2017+ there will only be two years left on this contract and any progress on a new CBA will be only if the company wants its.

Enjoy the ride.

 

[EastCheats]

I really hope everyone is happy with this contract because when 2020 comes it's going to be all you get unless the COMPANY graciously thinks they should give more. But that ball isn't with "us". If....and that's a BIG if.....there is a seniority list in 2017+ there will only be two years left on this contract and any progress on a new CBA will be only if the company wants its.
Enjoy the ride.

 
Haven't we been enjoying the ride already?
 
That ride being contract free and Parker laughing all the way to the bank.

Here's USAPA's legacy with Parker when it came to negotiation.

http://www..com/watch?v=846mT-R10mw&sns=em

 

[Black Swan]

Class will be in session...Motion for Permanent Injunction for 9/23/2015 at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 604, 401 W. Washington St, Phoenix, Arizona, before Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver
 
Don't bother wearing a disguise after shedding your USAPA garb in your retreat. Marty knows your game.
 
Subject: (A review)
 
USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory.
 
As contemplated by the MOU,in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by
all of the post-merger pilots. 13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that  
happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration    
proceedings. 14 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.
 
The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified   
representative.

Class will be in session...Motion for Permanent Injunction for 9/23/2015 at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 604, 401 W. Washington St, Phoenix, Arizona, before Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver
 
Don't bother wearing a disguise after shedding your USAPA garb in your retreat. Marty knows your game.
 
Subject: (A review)
 
USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory.
 
As contemplated by the MOU,in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by
all of the post-merger pilots. 13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that  
happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration    
proceedings. 14 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.
 
The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided
liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that
USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified   
representative.

You and CB53 are stuck in the past. This is not about USAPA. This is about the East Committee and the APA and the attempt by West pilots to hijack the rights under M/B.
It will be interesting to see if Judge Silver wants to go into uncharted waters and legislate what the 9th would not. As others have said, a West "win" will mean problems for the arbitrators and personally, I believe they will state M/B has been corrupted. Ed James will now have a very large problem as well.

Personally, I hope she does go there. It will mean more delay for a long time.

 

[Black Swan]

Haven't we been enjoying the ride already?
That ride being contract free and Parker laughing all the way to the bank.
Here's USAPA's legacy with Parker when it came to negotiation. http://www..com/watch?v=846mT-R10mw&sns=em

Parker has played this masterfully, that we could agree on. The three pilot groups in this deal will have a substandard contract for years as a result.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Haven't we been enjoying the ride already?
 
That ride being contract free and Parker laughing all the way to the bank.
Here's USAPA's legacy with Parker when it came to negotiation. http://www..com/watch?v=846mT-R10mw&sns=em

So now that you and your West "compatriots" have the lead, who exactly do you think APA and East pilots will follow when this is all done (and I don't believe it will ever be)? The smallest group in the least geographically importance in financial contributions to the company? I really think that the Reno airlines integration will pale in comparison to the pilots jumping ship from the "new" union leadership.

 

[Metroyet]

Parker has played this masterfully, that we could agree on. The three pilot groups in this deal will have a substandard contract for years as a result.

The only party responsible for years of a substandard contract is the East Pilots. To suggest otherwise is insulting to basic intelligence.

 

[EastCheats]

Yep. Let the games begin. It's the proverbial "tail wagging the dog."

Like I have been saying for some time.....it's breaking apart and it will be years to come before an SLI comes into being. Uncharted waters, "mate".

 
 

So now that you and your West "compatriots" have the lead, who exactly do you think APA and East pilots will follow when this is all done (and I don't believe it will ever be)? The smallest group in the least geographically importance in financial contributions to the company? I really think that the Reno airlines integration will pale in comparison to the pilots jumping ship from the "new" union leadership.

 
End_of_alpa, how ironic, ALPA still here and the USAPA in the ash heap of history and your tail is between your legs. You had your chance top lead, now you have to deal with the leash being held by Judge Silver.
 
Winning!!!!
 

 

[CactusPilot1]

The only party responsible for years of a substandard contract is the East Pilots. To suggest otherwise is insulting to basic intelligence.

This is what you get when you reward a brat to get him to shut up. No more time-outs, it's time to spank the punks.

 

[Phoenix]

A firm grip on the prize, for ten years now, and counting.

 

[EastCheats]

A firm grip on the prize, for ten years now, and counting.

 
Reaching for a USAPA negotiated contract? How about those LOA 93 bankruptcy wages? AWE, it's just money going into ParKirby's pockets. 😉
 
Winning!!!