2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
Next time you see Ferguson, Koontz, Vasin or Simmons- ask them how they never understood one iota of labor law. You west pilots were taken for a 10 year ride to nowhere. Marty Harper honestly took your money and got you nothing.
Below is west pilot to west pilot communication.
------------
The Addington Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on December 29, 2009. Look up this document on the USAPA web site. Defendants asked for and received an extension due to the plaintiffs motion. The final trial schedule was made on March 6th. USPA announced the election on January 21, before the trial date was announced.
So, why didnt Bradford testify? Its because Marty Harper simply screwed up! He caused the delay. When the Addington plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint they caused a delay. Bradford was then out of Office and therefore not subject to subpoena.
Next letter - Why didnt Bradford Testify anyway?
OK, So what; the subpoena was no good. Why didnt Bradford testify anyway?
This question has been raised by UnbiasedFacts.org, AWAPPA, Leonidas and PHX BPR Chairman Brice LeCarre, in addition to Judge Neil Wake himself.
In this open letter I will explain why I did not testify in the Addington Litigation. First, a definition is in order:
Definition - Motion in Liminie = A request submitted to the court before trial in an attempt to exclude evidence from the proceedings. A motion in liminie is usually made by a party when simply the mention of the evidence would prejudice the jury against that party, even if the judge later instructed the jury to disregard the evidence. In the Addington Litigation the plaintiffs filed nine, (9) motions in Liminie, not all were granted.
Motion in Liminie #2 stated the following: Plaintiffs ask the court to order, in liminie, that USAPA may not present evidence and may not make arguments in the Attached Exhibit A or any other exhibits that only reflect other seniority integrations or any defense that such evidence to USAPAs liability.
In docket #362 Judge Neil Wake granted the motion in liminie #2 in part stating; Generally, however it would be burdensome, confusing and a waste of time to introduce evidence of other seniority integrations resulting in a date-of-hire system, and such evidence will be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
(Since writing this open reply, this item has become one of the main points of the USAPA appeal filed with the ninth Circuit court of Appeals.)
Furthermore, in instructions to the Jury Judge Neil Wake stated the following: Addington V. USAPA, Court Transcript May 12, 2009, page 1939, lines 16 thru 20
Even if the union's conduct could be rationally related to a legitimate union objective, the union could still be liable for violating its duty of fair representation if its actions are shown to be solely motivated by objectives that are not legitimate union objectives.
Page 1940, lines 18 to 21 In this case, a general preference for any particular seniority system other than the Nicolau Award is not, standing alone, a legitimate union objective.
Page 1941 line 11, 12. Revisiting the seniority issue in itself is not a legitimate union objective for USAPA.
If you take motion in liminie #2, and the jury instructions USAPA was pretty well depleted of its arguments to the validity of Date of Hire as an honorable standard that is supported by other courts. The other court rulings by definition discuss other cases where Date of Hire was upheld as the standard. These other seniority integrations are discussed in.
Rakestraw v. ALPA 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
ALPA v. ONeill US Supreme Court
Humphrey v. Moore US Supreme Court
Ford v. Huffman US Supreme Court
Hardcastle v. Western Greyhound 9th Circuit
Below is west pilot to west pilot communication.
------------
The Addington Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on December 29, 2009. Look up this document on the USAPA web site. Defendants asked for and received an extension due to the plaintiffs motion. The final trial schedule was made on March 6th. USPA announced the election on January 21, before the trial date was announced.
So, why didnt Bradford testify? Its because Marty Harper simply screwed up! He caused the delay. When the Addington plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint they caused a delay. Bradford was then out of Office and therefore not subject to subpoena.
Next letter - Why didnt Bradford Testify anyway?
OK, So what; the subpoena was no good. Why didnt Bradford testify anyway?
This question has been raised by UnbiasedFacts.org, AWAPPA, Leonidas and PHX BPR Chairman Brice LeCarre, in addition to Judge Neil Wake himself.
In this open letter I will explain why I did not testify in the Addington Litigation. First, a definition is in order:
Definition - Motion in Liminie = A request submitted to the court before trial in an attempt to exclude evidence from the proceedings. A motion in liminie is usually made by a party when simply the mention of the evidence would prejudice the jury against that party, even if the judge later instructed the jury to disregard the evidence. In the Addington Litigation the plaintiffs filed nine, (9) motions in Liminie, not all were granted.
Motion in Liminie #2 stated the following: Plaintiffs ask the court to order, in liminie, that USAPA may not present evidence and may not make arguments in the Attached Exhibit A or any other exhibits that only reflect other seniority integrations or any defense that such evidence to USAPAs liability.
In docket #362 Judge Neil Wake granted the motion in liminie #2 in part stating; Generally, however it would be burdensome, confusing and a waste of time to introduce evidence of other seniority integrations resulting in a date-of-hire system, and such evidence will be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 403.
(Since writing this open reply, this item has become one of the main points of the USAPA appeal filed with the ninth Circuit court of Appeals.)
Furthermore, in instructions to the Jury Judge Neil Wake stated the following: Addington V. USAPA, Court Transcript May 12, 2009, page 1939, lines 16 thru 20
Even if the union's conduct could be rationally related to a legitimate union objective, the union could still be liable for violating its duty of fair representation if its actions are shown to be solely motivated by objectives that are not legitimate union objectives.
Page 1940, lines 18 to 21 In this case, a general preference for any particular seniority system other than the Nicolau Award is not, standing alone, a legitimate union objective.
Page 1941 line 11, 12. Revisiting the seniority issue in itself is not a legitimate union objective for USAPA.
If you take motion in liminie #2, and the jury instructions USAPA was pretty well depleted of its arguments to the validity of Date of Hire as an honorable standard that is supported by other courts. The other court rulings by definition discuss other cases where Date of Hire was upheld as the standard. These other seniority integrations are discussed in.
Rakestraw v. ALPA 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
ALPA v. ONeill US Supreme Court
Humphrey v. Moore US Supreme Court
Ford v. Huffman US Supreme Court
Hardcastle v. Western Greyhound 9th Circuit
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
"Next time you see Ferguson, Koontz, Vasin or Simmons- ask them how they never understood one iota of labor law. You west pilots were taken for a 10 year ride to nowhere. Marty Harper honestly took your money and got you nothing."
For sure they are one gullible group.
For sure they are one gullible group.
Ive been thinking about the status of the Transition agreement and its implications for seniority integration and I wanted to pass these thoughts on to you before the MEC decides how to proceed. I believe that it is very important that you finalize an agreement and do it soon. I think the pressures and risks are all on your side of the transaction, not the US Airways side. Here are my thoughts.
First, whatever you may think about the transaction, I believe that it will be approved and approved promptly. The judge who has been sheparding US Airways along for the last three years and two bankruptcies will not let it collapse. In any event, it will not be ALPAs objection (assuming you dont reach a transition agreement and ALPA files an objection) that will kill it. So you should assume it will promptly be approved.
Second, I believe that the company can operate without a transition agreement, but you cant. You have scope protections, but keep in mind that the new company will be US Airways and will be flying under its certificate. While the two companies remain separate, there will be little to restrict the company from shifting flying from AWA to AAA or from allowing all the new flying to AAA without a transition agreement keeping flying separate.
Third, the implications of that fact to seniority integration are not good. If flying tips to AAA during the transition period, even if we get a good integration, AAA pilots will be in seats and a no bump/no flush provision will keep them there until a system bid allows seniority to operate unrestricted. That is not a good result for AWA pilots.
Fourth, in an event, as I have explained, to the extent your objections are to the absence of a no furlough clause, I dont think you will ever get one and I dont think you want one. You should want AAA pilots furloughed and those are the ones who will likely to furloughed during the transition period.
Finally, while I know you are trying to capture some additional economics, in these negotiations, this is not the time to draw the line on those issues. You will have other points of leverage during subsequent negotiations to press for those items. Im not suggesting that you abandon your attempts immediately, just dont get yourselves in a negotiating position where the deal craters over those issues. In short, I think you should not come out of the next round with the company without a deal.
Dan Atkins and I are intending to be at the meeting by conference call on Wednesday. Please let us know how and when we should do that.
More from the past......
First, whatever you may think about the transaction, I believe that it will be approved and approved promptly. The judge who has been sheparding US Airways along for the last three years and two bankruptcies will not let it collapse. In any event, it will not be ALPAs objection (assuming you dont reach a transition agreement and ALPA files an objection) that will kill it. So you should assume it will promptly be approved.
Second, I believe that the company can operate without a transition agreement, but you cant. You have scope protections, but keep in mind that the new company will be US Airways and will be flying under its certificate. While the two companies remain separate, there will be little to restrict the company from shifting flying from AWA to AAA or from allowing all the new flying to AAA without a transition agreement keeping flying separate.
Third, the implications of that fact to seniority integration are not good. If flying tips to AAA during the transition period, even if we get a good integration, AAA pilots will be in seats and a no bump/no flush provision will keep them there until a system bid allows seniority to operate unrestricted. That is not a good result for AWA pilots.
Fourth, in an event, as I have explained, to the extent your objections are to the absence of a no furlough clause, I dont think you will ever get one and I dont think you want one. You should want AAA pilots furloughed and those are the ones who will likely to furloughed during the transition period.
Finally, while I know you are trying to capture some additional economics, in these negotiations, this is not the time to draw the line on those issues. You will have other points of leverage during subsequent negotiations to press for those items. Im not suggesting that you abandon your attempts immediately, just dont get yourselves in a negotiating position where the deal craters over those issues. In short, I think you should not come out of the next round with the company without a deal.
Dan Atkins and I are intending to be at the meeting by conference call on Wednesday. Please let us know how and when we should do that.
More from the past......
- Status
Similar threads
