2015 Pilot Discussion.

[luvthe9]

I look forward to seeing you two on a street corner with your cardboard signs begging for a handout to pay legal bills. That's what you are good at, reaching in other people's pockets and looking for sympathy which you aren't getting from me.

I do feel bad you you kids, you were lied to by Furguson and Koontz, they destroyed all of the AWA pilots careers. One little AFO group brought down an entire airline. Wye River baby!



You had the NIC then got greedy, you should file suit against AOL for deception!!




Like I said from day one you're going to wind up right where you should be, should have saved your money.





One big happy family soon

 

[luvthe9]

Pilots in Seniority Case, It Ain’t Over Til It’s Over




http://www.thestreet.com/story/13298690/1/for-us-airways-pilots-in-seniority-case-it-ain%2019t-over-til-it%2019s-over.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

 

[luvthe9]

Are you guys planning another ten year assault and grid lock via the courts? .

Let's hope so, works out good for AA and the east.

 

[snapthis]

Legal bills? What legal bills exist that won't be paid for by dues that west pilots helped fund?
Are you guys planning another ten year assault and grid lock via the courts? Or are you finally going to accept your ratified agreements?
Must be a slow day at the AOL meet and greet fundraiser planning committee.

I have an answer

These legal bills

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-ROS

MOTION TO SET PROCEDURE
FOR APPLICATION FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS


Plaintiffs Don Addington, et al, move, pursuant to LRCiv. 54.2 for an order setting
procedures to claim fees. This motion is supported by the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities that follows.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The local rules provide that the party seeking an award of attorneys' fees and
related non-taxable expenses shall file and serve a motion for award of attorneys' fees and
related non-taxable expenses within fourteen (14) days of the entry of judgment in the
action with respect to which the services were rendered. LRCiv. 54.2. Plaintiffs file
this motion asking for more time to make this application.
Plaintiffs here seek an award of approximately $4,000,000.00 of fees and expenses
incurred defending their seniority rights in a series of litigations that began in 2008.
Plaintiffs are entitled to such an award under common benefit doctrine because this
litigation was necessary to obtain a ruling that benefits all members of Defendant
USAPA (whether they appreciate it or not), a ruling that USAPA must honor its duty of
fair representation. See Harrison v. United Transp. Union, 530 F.2d 558, 564 (4th Cir.
1975). The Court has equitable powers to award fees incurred in an entire series of
litigation where, as here, such litigation was necessary to protect the vindicated rights.
See Wininger v. SI Management LP, 301 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002) (We are aware
of no case restricting a district courts equitable powers to award attorneys fees to the
Although the local rules currently put a very tight fourteen-day deadline on filing a
complete fee application, the rules allow the Court to establish other procedures. LRCiv.
54.2(a) (explaining that the local rules apply if the court does not establish other
procedures for determining such fees). Other procedures are in order here because
fourteen days is not nearly enough time for Plaintiffs to make a complete fee application
stemming from a complex seven-year long course of litigation such as this. Plaintiffs,
therefore, respectfully ask the Court to enter an order allowing them until Friday,
November 20, 2015, to file their LRCiv. 54.2 fee application.
A proposed order is attached as an exhibit and is provided to chambers in Word
format.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of September, 2015

/s/ Kelly J. Flood


_____________________
Marty Harper
Kelly J. Flood

 

[Phoenix]

I have an answer

These legal bills

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-ROS

MOTION TO SET PROCEDURE
FOR APPLICATION FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS


Plaintiffs Don Addington, et al, move, pursuant to LRCiv. 54.2 for an order setting
procedures to claim fees. This motion is supported by the Memorandum of Points and
Authorities that follows.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The local rules provide that the party seeking an award of attorneys' fees and
related non-taxable expenses shall file and serve a motion for award of attorneys' fees and
related non-taxable expenses within fourteen (14) days of the entry of judgment in the
action with respect to which the services were rendered. LRCiv. 54.2. Plaintiffs file
this motion asking for more time to make this application.
Plaintiffs here seek an award of approximately $4,000,000.00 of fees and expenses
incurred defending their seniority rights in a series of litigations that began in 2008.
Plaintiffs are entitled to such an award under common benefit doctrine because this
litigation was necessary to obtain a ruling that benefits all members of Defendant
USAPA (whether they appreciate it or not), a ruling that USAPA must honor its duty of
fair representation. See Harrison v. United Transp. Union, 530 F.2d 558, 564 (4th Cir.
1975). The Court has equitable powers to award fees incurred in an entire series of
litigation where, as here, such litigation was necessary to protect the vindicated rights.
See Wininger v. SI Management LP, 301 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002) (We are aware
of no case restricting a district courts equitable powers to award attorneys fees to the
Although the local rules currently put a very tight fourteen-day deadline on filing a
complete fee application, the rules allow the Court to establish other procedures. LRCiv.
54.2(a) (explaining that the local rules apply if the court does not establish other
procedures for determining such fees). Other procedures are in order here because
fourteen days is not nearly enough time for Plaintiffs to make a complete fee application
stemming from a complex seven-year long course of litigation such as this. Plaintiffs,
therefore, respectfully ask the Court to enter an order allowing them until Friday,
November 20, 2015, to file their LRCiv. 54.2 fee application.
A proposed order is attached as an exhibit and is provided to chambers in Word
format.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of September, 2015

/s/ Kelly J. Flood


_____________________
Marty Harper
Kelly J. Flood

 
 
Those legal fees, if awarded for lawyer bills, will be paid for by East and West dues already paid to USAPA, and thus reduce the refunds to west pilots. (<----Isn't that so fun to say?).

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

I believe the process serves for filings etc, it does not go all the way back to cases you lost leading up to this non victory , victory, damages, not! All to be negotiated through the court, look at it this way Marty got paid , new cars I am sure, and our dues money was a tax write off, You don not just get to throw a bill down to USAPA and say pay! Good luck boys!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

In Silvers ruling I believe she even mentioned Baptistery an Wilder, now who knows more about M/B than the guys who wrote it?

 

[luvthe9]

Those legal fees, if awarded for lawyer bills, will be paid for by East and West dues already paid to USAPA, and thus reduce the refunds to west pilots. (<----Isn't that so fun to say?).

Bingo!

 

[dariencc]

I'm hearing from a buddy that the bottom half of the AA list is ready to mutiny if the AAPSIC sticks with their Nic based proposal.  They are burning up the phone lines and apparently are not being too polite about it.
 
Gonna be interesting.  This whole thing is the greatest show on earth. 
 
I would personally like to thank John Jurik for his role in making this all possible.  Without his timely contributions to the old ALPA forum, the Nic would likely have been implemented years ago.

 

[snapthis]

APA update

SLI Arbitration Update

Judge Roslyn Silver of the Arizona District Court issued an injunction yesterday stating "USAPA and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are hereby enjoined 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."

This injunction follows the direction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in its opinion issued June 26, which reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded the Arizona District Court's decision in Addington, et al. v USAPA. Judge Silver did not extend the injunction to the new East Pilots Seniority Integration Committee and specifically found "imposing an injunction against the new committee would result in an overbroad injunction." Judge Silver did, however, find and caution that the injunction covers "other persons who are in concert or participation with" those enjoined. The court's order appears to have agreed with and followed the recommendations made in APA's brief filed last week through its general counsel, James & Hoffman.

By way of background, after the Ninth Circuit's decision in June, the USAPA Merger Committee withdrew from the SLI proceedings June 29. The SLI hearings scheduled to begin June 29 were postponed and are now scheduled to begin Sept. 29. After the USAPA Merger Committee's withdrawal, the SLI arbitration panel ruled that "APA should engage in best efforts to establish a new merger committee to represent the legacy U.S. Airways east pilots." A new committee to represent the LUS East pilots, known as the East Pilots Seniority Integration Committee, was identified and is scheduled to present its case in the SLI hearings next week.

The Ninth Circuit opinion, the parties' motions and briefs related to the injunction, and Judge Silver's order have been posted on APA's SLI Web page.

The three seniority integration committees' pre-hearing position statements and proposed integrated seniority lists are posted on APA's SLI Web page. The three committees are, in alphabetical order, the AA Pilots Seniority Integration Committee, the East Pilots Seniority Integration Committee and the West Merger Committee. Exhibits will be posted to the APA SLI Web page after the hearings begin. Transcripts will also be posted as they become available.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

No injunction?

 

[luvthe9]

I'm hearing from a buddy that the bottom half of the AA list is ready to mutiny if the AAPSIC sticks with their Nic based proposal.  They are burning up the phone lines and apparently are not being too polite about it.
 
Gonna be interesting.  This whole thing is the greatest show on earth. 
 
I would personally like to thank John Jurik for his role in making this all possible.  Without his timely contributions to the old ALPA forum, the Nic would likely have been implemented years ago.

Same here, my AA buddies tell me the junior F/Os are really pissed about supporting the NIC.



This is going to fun to watch!

 

[luvthe9]

APA update
SLI Arbitration Update
Judge Roslyn Silver of the Arizona District Court issued an injunction yesterday stating "USAPA and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are hereby enjoined 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."
This injunction follows the direction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in its opinion issued June 26, which reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded the Arizona District Court's decision in Addington, et al. v USAPA. Judge Silver did not extend the injunction to the new East Pilots Seniority Integration Committee and specifically found "imposing an injunction against the new committee would result in an overbroad injunction." Judge Silver did, however, find and caution that the injunction covers "other persons who are in concert or participation with" those enjoined. The court's order appears to have agreed with and followed the recommendations made in APA's brief filed last week through its general counsel, James & Hoffman.
By way of background, after the Ninth Circuit's decision in June, the USAPA Merger Committee withdrew from the SLI proceedings June 29. The SLI hearings scheduled to begin June 29 were postponed and are now scheduled to begin Sept. 29. After the USAPA Merger Committee's withdrawal, the SLI arbitration panel ruled that "APA should engage in best efforts to establish a new merger committee to represent the legacy U.S. Airways east pilots." A new committee to represent the LUS East pilots, known as the East Pilots Seniority Integration Committee, was identified and is scheduled to present its case in the SLI hearings next week.
The Ninth Circuit opinion, the parties' motions and briefs related to the injunction, and Judge Silver's order have been posted on APA's SLI Web page.
The three seniority integration committees' pre-hearing position statements and proposed integrated seniority lists are posted on APA's SLI Web page. The three committees are, in alphabetical order, the AA Pilots Seniority Integration Committee, the East Pilots Seniority Integration Committee and the West Merger Committee. Exhibits will be posted to the APA SLI Web page after the hearings begin. Transcripts will also be posted as they become available.

Blah,Blah......


Even Spinthis can't come up with anything.

 

[CAVOK]

So, after eight years of bitter lawsuits and the district and appeals courts have ruled, what does Leonidas LLC envision that they have won? They seem to be curiously and uncharacteristically silent on the issue. West pilots have the right to argue the Nic award and the East pilots have the right to argue a separate list, which they both would have without the lawsuits. USAPA is not a player any longer and is liquidating assets as the would not have been anyhow with the APA taking over as collective bargaining agent. East pilots just had to come up with a different committee to represent East interests.
 
Please, no flaming. It is just a question. 

 

[cactusboy53]

So, after eight years of bitter lawsuits and the district and appeals courts have ruled, what does Leonidas LLC envision that they have won? They seem to be curiously and uncharacteristically silent on the issue. West pilots have the right to argue the Nic award and the East pilots have the right to argue a separate list, which they both would have without the lawsuits. USAPA is not a player any longer and is liquidating assets as the would not have been anyhow with the APA taking over as collective bargaining agent. East pilots just had to come up with a different committee to represent East interests.
 
Please, no flaming. It is just a question. 

Well, let's see....

• WE KILLED DATE OF HIRE
• WE WON THE RICO CASE - TWICE
• WE WERE ABLE TO CONFOUND LITTLE MIKEY'S PLAN TO GET 3 PILOTS FIRED FOR TRUMPED UP "Identity Theft" CHARGES
• WE SUCESSFULLY MADE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT USAPA IS GUILTY OF DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION

The BOA (working for the SAME organization that the esteemed George Nicolau works for) is now going to listen to three different arguments.  I think your fearless leader Mike Cleary said it best:
 
[SIZE=12pt]“…The Arbitration Board conducts an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses, evidence and a stenographic transcript. The Board’s Opinion and Award are to be issued simultaneously, within 150 days following the PID, unless both pilot groups and ALPA’s President agree to an extension. The Merger Policy provides, “The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA.” No ALPA seniority integration arbitration result has ever been set aside by the courts although some dissatisfied pilots have challenged the award before administrative agencies and the courts.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]US Airwaves June/July 2000[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]US Air Merger Committee Members: Todd Cardoza (PIT), Mike Cleary (BOS),Randy Mowery (PIT)[/SIZE]