EastCheats
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 6,141
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^EastUS1 said:
YAWWWWWNNN
2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
YAWWWWWNNN
EastCheats said:
"A touch!...Yes, I do confess it!" 😉 If you're indeed that bored; dazzle us all with a flying wager acceptance and demonstrate to the whole world on video the true "worth" of your ignorant youth and AWAsome "skills"....?
Folks; I give you AWA's "Army of Leonidas" both incredibly intelligent and certainly most feared and ferocious little "spartans" at a glance.
EastCheats
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 1,944
- Reaction score
- 6,141
He's probably miserable for being based in Philly and the only choice for a beach and shuffleboard is at the Jesrey Shore.snapthis said:
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
Educate to Vacate:
Myth buster. Undisputable financial facts: Source LCC, Form10Q
Shared operating expenses:
Shared costs have been allocated based on AWA’s and US Airways’ statistics, including revenue passenger miles (“RPMs”) and passenger sales revenues.
First six months 2007, merger related transition expenses:
America West…………. 23 million
US Airways…………… 44 million
Now that we have the merger related expenses, here is the breakdown of operating income, 2Q 2007:
US Airways…………… $320 million dollar Operating Income
America West…………. ($25) million Operating Loss
Myth buster. Undisputable financial facts: Source LCC, Form10Q
Shared operating expenses:
Shared costs have been allocated based on AWA’s and US Airways’ statistics, including revenue passenger miles (“RPMs”) and passenger sales revenues.
First six months 2007, merger related transition expenses:
America West…………. 23 million
US Airways…………… 44 million
Now that we have the merger related expenses, here is the breakdown of operating income, 2Q 2007:
US Airways…………… $320 million dollar Operating Income
America West…………. ($25) million Operating Loss
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
WEST MERGER ATTORNEY JEFFREY FREUND
Thus, the “arbitration award” Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacate” is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Application, Ex.1 at 2,9 (ALPA will present to the company the merged seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy arbitration procedures, and “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list”). Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacating” and “arbitration,” the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate” an “arbitration award” that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.
Thus, the “arbitration award” Plaintiffs purportedly seek to “vacate” is in actuality the proposed pilot seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy that ALPA will adopt as its bargaining position to be presented to the Company, but which (like a union bargaining position in any matter) the Company is not required to accept. Application, Ex.1 at 2,9 (ALPA will present to the company the merged seniority list developed through ALPA’s Merger policy arbitration procedures, and “ALPA will use all reasonable means at its disposal to compel the company to accept and implement the merged seniority list”). Plaintiffs seek review of this ALPA bargaining position developed through ALPA Merger Policy, and, while couching it in the terms of “vacating” and “arbitration,” the relief they actually seek is a review of the product of ALPA’s Merger Policy, and, ultimately, alteration of ALPA’s bargaining proposal to the company…Plaintiff’s Application to “vacate” an “arbitration award” that does not establish any enforceable seniority rights in a collective bargaining agreement with the Company, but which merely sets out ALPA’s bargaining position to be presented to the company, is not a state law claim at all but rather an artfully pled Federal claim for breech of Duty of Fair Representation.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
May 9 Scott Kirby, revealed Project Zanzibar It is now beyond dispute that the junior AW pilot, Dave Odell, and 300-400 other AW F/Os hired in 2002-05 would have been furloughed absent the US merger, as AW went into Chapter 11, perhaps never to emerge.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
Now for the worst of the statements made by the AWA pilot leadership. They say that they would be outraged if the AAA pilots are brought up to parity with them on rates of pay. Bottom line here is that the AWA pilots don’t believe that we should be paid as much as them. Let me say that again: Two years after this merger, even after the AAA pilots supported the changes that enhanced the AWA pilots’ retirement, and even after they have been brought into our profit sharing plan, they don’t think that we should receive equal pay for equal work. If we aren’t willing to accept the outrageous Nicolau award, then we aren’t deserving of equal pay for equal work. Did the AWA pilots express their outrage when any other group or individual was brought to pay parity with their counterpart on the other side? If the situation was reversed, would the AWA pilots want equal pay for equal work? Did the AWA pilots believe that they should receive parity when it came to retirement plans? Just to be clear here, the leadership of one labor group will be outraged and will actively oppose the members of another labor group getting a raise.
Say this out loud and see how it sounds: "Unless the AAA pilots drop their opposition to the Nicolau award, the AWA pilots don’t believe the AAA pilots deserve equal pay for equal work!"
TO BAD YOU DID NOT TAKE THE NIC WHEN WE OFFERED IT TO YOU! WONDER WHY NO SYMPATHY,
Say this out loud and see how it sounds: "Unless the AAA pilots drop their opposition to the Nicolau award, the AWA pilots don’t believe the AAA pilots deserve equal pay for equal work!"
TO BAD YOU DID NOT TAKE THE NIC WHEN WE OFFERED IT TO YOU! WONDER WHY NO SYMPATHY,
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
"Now let's look at what the individual Addington plaintiffs (Leonidas members) said with respect to the Kirby proposal: Steve Wargocki testified* that he would "probably not" vote for a contract that incorporated the Kirby p..........
" Now for the worst of the statements made by the AWA pilot leadership. They say that they would be outraged if the AAA pilots are brought up to parity with them on rates of pay. Bottom line here is that the AWA pilots don’t believe that we should be paid as much as them. Let me say that again: Two years after this merger, even after the AAA pilots supported the changes that enhanced the AWA pilots’ retirement, and even after they have been brought into our profit sharing plan, they don’t think that we should receive equal pay for equal work. If we aren’t willing to accept the outrageous Nicolau award, then we aren’t deserving of equal pay for equal work. Did the AWA pilots express their outrage when any other group or individual was brought to pay parity with their counterpart on the other side? If the situation was reversed, would the AWA pilots want equal pay for equal work? Did the AWA pilots believe that they should receive parity when it came to retirement plans? Just to be clear here, the leadership of one labor group will be outraged and will actively oppose the members of another labor group getting a raise.
Say this out loud and see how it sounds: "Unless the AAA pilots drop their opposition to the Nicolau award, the AWA pilots don’t believe the AAA pilots deserve equal pay for equal work!"
" Now for the worst of the statements made by the AWA pilot leadership. They say that they would be outraged if the AAA pilots are brought up to parity with them on rates of pay. Bottom line here is that the AWA pilots don’t believe that we should be paid as much as them. Let me say that again: Two years after this merger, even after the AAA pilots supported the changes that enhanced the AWA pilots’ retirement, and even after they have been brought into our profit sharing plan, they don’t think that we should receive equal pay for equal work. If we aren’t willing to accept the outrageous Nicolau award, then we aren’t deserving of equal pay for equal work. Did the AWA pilots express their outrage when any other group or individual was brought to pay parity with their counterpart on the other side? If the situation was reversed, would the AWA pilots want equal pay for equal work? Did the AWA pilots believe that they should receive parity when it came to retirement plans? Just to be clear here, the leadership of one labor group will be outraged and will actively oppose the members of another labor group getting a raise.
Say this out loud and see how it sounds: "Unless the AAA pilots drop their opposition to the Nicolau award, the AWA pilots don’t believe the AAA pilots deserve equal pay for equal work!"
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
We can not believe the west pilots let this dumb group of AFO scabs destroy their careers, Land locked in PHX.
"You do not have to read much of the Leonidas/AOL pamphlet to find the first fabrication. We can start with the first page, first paragraph, first sentence -- t
"You do not have to read much of the Leonidas/AOL pamphlet to find the first fabrication. We can start with the first page, first paragraph, first sentence -- t
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
"USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor" / There not only is no 'federally mandated' arbitration, there is no arbitration at all, merely a predecessor union's bargaining proposal."
First and foremost, plaintiffs cannot explain, nor do they try, how irreparable injury follows from this Court’s finding that there is no injury at all. As this Court already determined, because no seniority term exists, because it has yet to be negotiated, there is no harm, hence the case is not ripe. Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, 606 F.3d 1174, at *10 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We conclude that this case presents contingencies that could prevent effectuation of USAPA's proposal and the accompanying injury”). And, in making the lack of injury determination, this Court necessarily rejected plaintiffs’ theory of their case that a failure to implement a predecessor union’s proposal – one even the former union was free to drop – is somehow a violation of the duty of fair representation. Id. at *14, n.3 (“USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor”). Hence, under the law of this case, that bare possibility cannot constitute injury now, or ever. Second, plaintiffs admit that it is merely speculative (“it might”) that the imagined harm, a date of hire seniority term, is ever negotiated, ratified, and executed. Stays may be denied even with a showing of irreparable harm, but without such showing denial is required. Chrysler LLC, 129 S. Ct. 2275 (2009)
4
They claim that the Supreme Court would reverse because, “this case will encourage other unions to refuse, in bad faith, to implement an arbitrated seniority integration” (DktEntry 52 at 1-2), when this Court has already found the Nicolau arbitration was merely “the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA.” Addington, 606 F.3d 1174, at *15, n.3. But there is no arbitration that USAPA was ever a party to anywhere in this record. And the district court properly dismissed (and plaintiffs did not appeal) the removed state claim, which asserted the pilots themselves were a party. There not only is no ‘federally mandated’ arbitration, there is no arbitration at all, merely a predecessor union’s bargaining proposal.
Plaintiffs also claim that this Court’s disposition would “thwart important federal labor policy – evidenced by the 2007 passage of the McCaskill-Bond bill”(DktEntry 52 at 2).3 But there is no dispute, let alone any claim, that McCaskill is not applicable, nor could it be for several reasons, procedural as well assubstantive. Even if McCaskill were applicable, arbitration is not mandatory, rather, as plaintiffs concede, only utilized, ‘if necessary.’ Plaintiffs
First and foremost, plaintiffs cannot explain, nor do they try, how irreparable injury follows from this Court’s finding that there is no injury at all. As this Court already determined, because no seniority term exists, because it has yet to be negotiated, there is no harm, hence the case is not ripe. Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n, 606 F.3d 1174, at *10 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We conclude that this case presents contingencies that could prevent effectuation of USAPA's proposal and the accompanying injury”). And, in making the lack of injury determination, this Court necessarily rejected plaintiffs’ theory of their case that a failure to implement a predecessor union’s proposal – one even the former union was free to drop – is somehow a violation of the duty of fair representation. Id. at *14, n.3 (“USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor”). Hence, under the law of this case, that bare possibility cannot constitute injury now, or ever. Second, plaintiffs admit that it is merely speculative (“it might”) that the imagined harm, a date of hire seniority term, is ever negotiated, ratified, and executed. Stays may be denied even with a showing of irreparable harm, but without such showing denial is required. Chrysler LLC, 129 S. Ct. 2275 (2009)
4
They claim that the Supreme Court would reverse because, “this case will encourage other unions to refuse, in bad faith, to implement an arbitrated seniority integration” (DktEntry 52 at 1-2), when this Court has already found the Nicolau arbitration was merely “the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA.” Addington, 606 F.3d 1174, at *15, n.3. But there is no arbitration that USAPA was ever a party to anywhere in this record. And the district court properly dismissed (and plaintiffs did not appeal) the removed state claim, which asserted the pilots themselves were a party. There not only is no ‘federally mandated’ arbitration, there is no arbitration at all, merely a predecessor union’s bargaining proposal.
Plaintiffs also claim that this Court’s disposition would “thwart important federal labor policy – evidenced by the 2007 passage of the McCaskill-Bond bill”(DktEntry 52 at 2).3 But there is no dispute, let alone any claim, that McCaskill is not applicable, nor could it be for several reasons, procedural as well assubstantive. Even if McCaskill were applicable, arbitration is not mandatory, rather, as plaintiffs concede, only utilized, ‘if necessary.’ Plaintiffs
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
- Reaction score
- 5,392
2007luvthe9 said:
That's quite the turnaround after bankrupt airways was acquired in 2005.
2004
US Air files Chapter 11
Talks with labor unions for $800 million in concessions go nowhere.
September 13, 2004: 9:14 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - US Airways Group filed for bankruptcy protection Sunday for the second time in two years.
The Chapter 11 filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria, Va., came after the airline was unable to obtain $800 million in annual cost cuts from its workers' unions. The airline had warned during talks the concessions were needed to avoid the bankruptcy filing
2005
Company Overview
As of September 27, 2005, US Airways Group, Inc. was acquired by America West Holdings Corp. in a reverse merger transaction. US Airways Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates a network air carrier. Its subsidiary, US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) engages in the transportation of passengers, property, and mail. As of December 31, 2004, its subsidiary operated 281 jet aircraft and 22 regional jet aircraft; and provided scheduled service at 89 airports in the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the Caribbean. The company is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.
2345 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22227
United States
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
KEEP READING THIS OVER AND OVER WESTIES.........
"Yes, the East offered the NIC. They just wanted to protect their retirement attrition, which stalled by the change in Age-60. Looking back, that offer must look like a home run to any West pilot right now, but last February the EAST MEC and ALPA couldn’t get to first base with it.
Our former MEC and our union leadership played a very high stakes game of poker by not dealing at Wye River. Freund was right, we were risking everything…..and right now, it looks like we lost. They need to take responsibility for that."
GET IT YET!
"Yes, the East offered the NIC. They just wanted to protect their retirement attrition, which stalled by the change in Age-60. Looking back, that offer must look like a home run to any West pilot right now, but last February the EAST MEC and ALPA couldn’t get to first base with it.
Our former MEC and our union leadership played a very high stakes game of poker by not dealing at Wye River. Freund was right, we were risking everything…..and right now, it looks like we lost. They need to take responsibility for that."
GET IT YET!
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
"But the substantive rulings in Addington have been vacated pursuant to mandate, and both cases would now write on clean slates if there were anything to write in Addington, which there is not."
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 193 Filed 10/11/12 Page 7 of 9
But being “bound” by the Transition Agreement has very little meaning in the context of the present case. It is undisputed that the Transition Agreement can be modified at any time “by written agreement of [USAPA] and the [US Airways].” (Doc. 156-3 at 38).
Moreover, USAPA and US Airways are now engaged in negotiations for an entirely new collective bargaining agreement and there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish. As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” Hass v. Darigold Dairy Products Co., 751 F.2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985). And a union “may renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.” Id.
Of course, in negotiating for a particular seniority regime, USAPA must not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground.
In the end, the Court cannot provide as much guidance as it had hoped it could. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation will not be ripe until a collective bargaining agreement is finalized. Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass’n, 606 F.3d 1174, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2010). In this case, that means even though an integrated seniority regime is an incredibly important issue, and USAPA
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 193 Filed 10/11/12 Page 8 of 9
appears totally committed to a particular seniority regime, it is not possible to determine the viability of any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation until a particular seniority regime is ratified. When the collective bargaining agreement is finalized, individuals will be able to determine whether USAPA’s abandonment of the Nicolau Award was permissible, i.e. supported by a legitimate union purpose. Thus, the best “declaratory judgment” the Court can offer is that USAPA’s seniority proposal does not automatically breach its duty of fair representation.3
This conclusion places US Airways in a difficult position. At the present time, it is not possible to predict what will result from the collective bargaining negotiations. Thus, the Court cannot grant US Airways prospective immunity from any legal action by the West Pilots. But based on the representation at oral argument that the seniority list is unlike other matters addressed in collective bargaining, it is unlikely the West Pilots could successfully allege claims against US Airways merely for not insisting that USAPA continue to advocate for the Nicolau Award. See Davenport v. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 166 F.3d 356, 361-62 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (addressing, without deciding, “the proper standard for determining whether an employer can be implicated in a union’s breach of duty”).
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 193 Filed 10/11/12 Page 9 of 9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing Counts I and III of the complaint and in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint stating US Airline Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose.
DATED this 11th day of October, 2012.
Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 193 Filed 10/11/12 Page 7 of 9
But being “bound” by the Transition Agreement has very little meaning in the context of the present case. It is undisputed that the Transition Agreement can be modified at any time “by written agreement of [USAPA] and the [US Airways].” (Doc. 156-3 at 38).
Moreover, USAPA and US Airways are now engaged in negotiations for an entirely new collective bargaining agreement and there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish. As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” Hass v. Darigold Dairy Products Co., 751 F.2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985). And a union “may renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.” Id.
Of course, in negotiating for a particular seniority regime, USAPA must not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground.
In the end, the Court cannot provide as much guidance as it had hoped it could. Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation will not be ripe until a collective bargaining agreement is finalized. Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass’n, 606 F.3d 1174, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2010). In this case, that means even though an integrated seniority regime is an incredibly important issue, and USAPA
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 193 Filed 10/11/12 Page 8 of 9
appears totally committed to a particular seniority regime, it is not possible to determine the viability of any claim for breach of the duty of fair representation until a particular seniority regime is ratified. When the collective bargaining agreement is finalized, individuals will be able to determine whether USAPA’s abandonment of the Nicolau Award was permissible, i.e. supported by a legitimate union purpose. Thus, the best “declaratory judgment” the Court can offer is that USAPA’s seniority proposal does not automatically breach its duty of fair representation.3
This conclusion places US Airways in a difficult position. At the present time, it is not possible to predict what will result from the collective bargaining negotiations. Thus, the Court cannot grant US Airways prospective immunity from any legal action by the West Pilots. But based on the representation at oral argument that the seniority list is unlike other matters addressed in collective bargaining, it is unlikely the West Pilots could successfully allege claims against US Airways merely for not insisting that USAPA continue to advocate for the Nicolau Award. See Davenport v. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 166 F.3d 356, 361-62 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (addressing, without deciding, “the proper standard for determining whether an employer can be implicated in a union’s breach of duty”).
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 193 Filed 10/11/12 Page 9 of 9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing Counts I and III of the complaint and in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint stating US Airline Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose.
DATED this 11th day of October, 2012.
Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge
- Status
Similar threads
