April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[usabusdriver]

Even IF the argument is somehow won that the MOU was a "contract," it is still conditional on a successful POR. I ask again. Is Judge Silver going to hold a trial based on an event that has not happened yet? I guess she could delay the proceedings for 4 or 5 months. Don't see how that "helps" poor Parker. How would he spin that to Judge Lane? "We believe this will all be settled at trial soon, but we are not sure?" That is WHY we have an MOU, to avoid problems like this during the exit from BK and the associated merger.

Will Judge Lane approve the merger and BK exit knowing that the MOU process will NOT be used, at least until all the litigation is settled? I am asking.

Greeter

Greeter,

It is a declaratory judgement request.

COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON
DUTY OF FAIR
REPRESENTATION AND ORDER
ENJOINING PILOT
INTEGRATION THAT DOES NOT
USE THE NICOLAU AWARD
SENIORITY LIST

 

[Claxon]

I was refering to new hires at the time of the merger. I have friends that were hired around 05'/06' I think. I know it was after I was hired at AWA, because I was one of the first in my class from college/flight school to get hired at a major.

Ansett was looong before my time.

Bean

america west was not a major airline.

 

[Beancounter]

america west was not a major airline.

Oh, that's right I forgot AWA was just a regional commuter. That must have really stung when we AQUIRED you.

Seriously, AWA was a major. I think you're thinking legacy carrier. AWA was a major not a legacy whereas Alaska who is actually smaller than AWA was is both a major and legacy carrier.

Bean

 

[Beancounter]

A pilot hired East, during your scabbing was before your time.

http://scabsr.us/new_page_4.htm

That didn't make the least bit of sense Claxon, try again.

Bean

 

[Claxon]

Evertime I see you post this, I'll post a rebuttal which has be posted on another forum:

"I know the guys who flew in Australia. No one crossed a picket line. There was no strike, there was a work dispute and the Australian pilots resigned their positions. But there was never a strike. They flew AWA airplanes under contract just like every ACMI operator out there. There were Brannif and Wardair guys that took jobs down there. AWA pilots did not.

UAL also flew domestic passengers between SYdney and Melbourne but everyone conveniently forgets that. It's easy to throw names on a list that can't be disputed or verified.

Go tell mike daley and eddie chandler about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5t5aE0iW4o

 

[snapthis]

http://www.vision.ne...89_document.htm

Ray, James A CAL 83 dob 9/16/59, 0030P

 

[snapthis]

Go tell mike daley and eddie chandler about this.

After you talk with JR.

Explain to him why his name will always come up as a rebuttal to your posts.

 

[Claxon]

Evertime I see you post this, I'll post a rebuttal which has be posted on another forum:

"I know the guys who flew in Australia. No one crossed a picket line. There was no strike, there was a work dispute and the Australian pilots resigned their positions. But there was never a strike. They flew AWA airplanes under contract just like every ACMI operator out there. There were Brannif and Wardair guys that took jobs down there. AWA pilots did not.

UAL also flew domestic passengers between SYdney and Melbourne but everyone conveniently forgets that. It's easy to throw names on a list that can't be disputed or verified.

You are quoted as saying awa pilots did not fly in Australia. This is not true.

 

[Claxon]

After you talk with JR.

Explain to him why his name will always come up as a rebuttal to your posts.

Found a few more names myself, we can elaborate tomorrow.

"Patrick Thurston, Vice President of Operations AMERICA WEST, Bob Russell, Chief of Pilots, and Carl Wobser, a captain"

 

[PullUp]

You think that because you're an idiot. MB will not retroactively apply to mergers that are 1, already completed and 2, completed before MB was even law. You're getting the Nic court ordered. It's over.

You're a bigger idiot to think that any judge will risk be overturned by the 9th for ripeness. How have you been harmed?
The MOU YOU voted for contains specific language pertaining to the seniority lists.
The MOU is not a contract either.
You have no case.
Not ripe.
Cheers.

 

[snapthis]

Found a few more names myself, we can elaborate tomorrow.

"Patrick Thurston, Vice President of Operations AMERICA WEST, Bob Russell, Chief of Pilots, and Carl Wobser, a captain"

Go ahead post whatever you find. I think you missed my point. I'm not bringing up JR anymore. If you want to keep posting that video, knock yourself out.

 

[snapthis]

Phoenix Domicile Update
April 29, 2013
Phoenix Domicile Update

Please take the time to read US Airways' Filing of April 26, 2013, in Federal Court in Phoenix. You can download and read it here.

Below are direct QUOTES selected by your PHX Reps from that filing.


“The timely completion of this seniority integration process, including arbitration if necessary, is a key component of the MOU...”

“The MOU thus represents the completion of the collective bargaining process for a combined East and West labor agreement – the very process that was still ongoing at the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Addington I and this Court’s decision in Addington II.”

“Contrary to USAPA’s argument, the material terms and conditions of employment for both the East and West pilots following the merger are now known and fixed by the MOU.”

“Any suggestion that the parties to the MOU (including US Airways) have agreed that the Nicolau Award seniority list will not be used is incorrect.”

“In fact, the MOU does not specify which seniority list(s) will be used for US Airways’ pilots because that issue was a subject of dispute between the West Pilots and USAPA and the dispute could not be resolved in the MOU negotiations.”

"There will not be any negotiations between USAPA and US Airways regarding the relative placement of East and West pilots on the integrated seniority list."

“There will be no additional approval or membership-ratification requirements with respect to the seniority-integration decision. And finally, as explained above, the terms and conditions of employment that will co-exist with the final integrated seniority list are known and fixed at this time.”

“In addition to relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Addington I, USAPA argues that plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe in light of the following two uncertainties: (1) whether the merger between US Airways and American will actually close; and (2) the final outcome of the post-merger seniority-integration process under the MOU and the McCaskill-Bond statute. (USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 44), at pp. 8-10 pp. (13-15 of the ECF filing).) Contrary to USAPA’s assertions, neither of these “uncertainties” defeats the ripeness of plaintiffs’ DFR claim.”

“As a result, the fact that the merger is still pending and has not yet closed does not defeat the ripeness of plaintiffs’ claim.”

“The closing of the merger will not change any of the material facts.”

“Moreover, if the Court were to conclude that the contingent nature of the merger is relevant, the fact that the merger is likely to occur strengthens a finding of ripeness.”

“Second, adjudication of the merits of plaintiffs’ DFR claim should not and need not await the completion of the post-merger seniority-integration process because plaintiffs' claim seeks to define USAPA’s position throughout that process. USAPA’s position regarding the relative seniority of the East and West pilots will impact the West Pilots (one way or the other) in the overall US Airways/American seniority integration. That is true even if the West Pilots are allowed to advocate for the Nicolau Award seniority list, because the US Airways’ pilots would still be asserting two conflicting positions.”


John, Dave and Roger

 

[700UW]

Key sentence:

“The MOU thus represents the completion of the collective bargaining process for a combined East and West labor agreement – the very process that was still ongoing at the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Addington I and this Court’s decision in Addington II.”

So its not a combined CBA, its a process to achieve one.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I know I won't get a West answer because they don't want to reveal their hand (as weak as it is) but here goes. How about comparing the Complaint in Addington I and Addington II and tell me why Harper didn't plead the proper elements of a DFR, which is: "A union breaches its duty of fair representation if it's actions are either "arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith." WHY? None of these elements of DFR are plead and, in fact the ONLY validation of "legitimate union purpose" (catch phrase that has NO legally definable claim in law) is NOT an element. Even in Addington I Harper & Jacobs really didn't get it right when they plead: "The duty of fair representation precluded USAPA from acting arbitrarily, for IMPROPER PURPOSE, or in bad faith." Did they even plead it correctly in Addington I? What say you??? (I really don't expect an answer. You guys simply CANNOT read the core pleadings and critique them. You and yours continue to "cherry pick". Also, read the AwFOL answer to USAPA filings. Talk about bitter: "The other two filings were USAPA’s motion to dismiss the West Pilots’ claim along with their memorandum in support. You can read these filings here and here. We can summarize both this way: (1) not ripe; (2) the DFR is a minor dispute and not a major dispute, meaning that we should be in front of another arbitrator instead of in federal court; and (3) that we fail to state a claim for several reasons. All we care to say about USAPA’s filings is that they present no new or novel arguments; what we read in them is exactly what we have heard all along." Question #3: Why SHOULD USAPA change what has always been the prevailing argument?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Phoenix Domicile Update
April 29, 2013
Phoenix Domicile Update

Please take the time to read US Airways' Filing of April 26, 2013, in Federal Court in Phoenix. You can download and read it here.

Below are direct QUOTES selected by your PHX Reps from that filing.


“The timely completion of this seniority integration process, including arbitration if necessary, is a key component of the MOU...”

“The MOU thus represents the completion of the collective bargaining process for a combined East and West labor agreement – the very process that was still ongoing at the time of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Addington I and this Court’s decision in Addington II.”

“Contrary to USAPA’s argument, the material terms and conditions of employment for both the East and West pilots following the merger are now known and fixed by the MOU.”

“Any suggestion that the parties to the MOU (including US Airways) have agreed that the Nicolau Award seniority list will not be used is incorrect.”

“In fact, the MOU does not specify which seniority list(s) will be used for US Airways’ pilots because that issue was a subject of dispute between the West Pilots and USAPA and the dispute could not be resolved in the MOU negotiations.”

"There will not be any negotiations between USAPA and US Airways regarding the relative placement of East and West pilots on the integrated seniority list."

“There will be no additional approval or membership-ratification requirements with respect to the seniority-integration decision. And finally, as explained above, the terms and conditions of employment that will co-exist with the final integrated seniority list are known and fixed at this time.”

“In addition to relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Addington I, USAPA argues that plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe in light of the following two uncertainties: (1) whether the merger between US Airways and American will actually close; and (2) the final outcome of the post-merger seniority-integration process under the MOU and the McCaskill-Bond statute. (USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 44), at pp. 8-10 pp. (13-15 of the ECF filing).) Contrary to USAPA’s assertions, neither of these “uncertainties” defeats the ripeness of plaintiffs’ DFR claim.”

“As a result, the fact that the merger is still pending and has not yet closed does not defeat the ripeness of plaintiffs’ claim.”

“The closing of the merger will not change any of the material facts.”

“Moreover, if the Court were to conclude that the contingent nature of the merger is relevant, the fact that the merger is likely to occur strengthens a finding of ripeness.”

“Second, adjudication of the merits of plaintiffs’ DFR claim should not and need not await the completion of the post-merger seniority-integration process because plaintiffs' claim seeks to define USAPA’s position throughout that process. USAPA’s position regarding the relative seniority of the East and West pilots will impact the West Pilots (one way or the other) in the overall US Airways/American seniority integration. That is true even if the West Pilots are allowed to advocate for the Nicolau Award seniority list, because the US Airways’ pilots would still be asserting two conflicting positions.”


John, Dave and Roger

Now I know why AwFOL is failing in their arguments. The West BPR is writing their legal pleadings. Tell me, if what you think MAY happen on May 14 DOESN'T go in your favor, what do you propose to do then, or is it a AwFOL "state" secret?