April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[traderjake]

Better yet why don't we give good old George Nic a call and see if they want him to arbitrate this!

You mean like the way we selected Nicolau for the America West merger after he arbitrated the Shuttle merger for us?

 

[nycbusdriver]

One lawyer even said that "after 13 years" it should be ripe.

This quote from that lawyer is really a strong indication that no one in that court room is at all familiar with the case (nor need they be.)

13 years? That would put the US/AW merger's start in the year 2000....even before the the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

That lawyer, and likely every other lawyer in the room (including the judge) not representing a pilot group, has no idea of the progress, or lack of it, of this case. It's not their business to know, though, and that is the way it should be.

 

[Bill Brasky]

This quote from that lawyer is really a strong indication that no one in that court room is at all familiar with the case (nor need they be.)

13 years? That would put the US/AW merger's start in the year 2000....even before the the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

That lawyer, and likely every other lawyer in the room (including the judge) not representing a pilot group, has no idea of the progress, or lack of it, of this case. It's not their business to know, though, and that is the way it should be.

My point, exactly!

 

[cactusboy53]

Just a few knuckleheads left on the board with no sense of reality, the rest of your airline is more then ready to move on, you have held back your top guys from widebody slots and alot of growth YOU could have participated in even your furloughed kids understand that, they are coming east, more hiring on the east, your little AFO group are becoming outcasts, even your own management is tired of your games let alone the APA, come on now move on son, it's over.

.....and Kasher will pay, and the address-gate guys are fired & going to jail, the West will be sold off to Republic, (How many lies have you told in all these years?), and......

You are right Cupcake. It is quite nearly over. The question: Who's highly paid legal team hits the three point shot at the buzzer? As we all arm-chair litigate here is cyberspace...."Is my position logical? Is my position legal? Is there precedent for my position?". Soon, my friend. Very soon.

 

[cleardirect]

This quote from that lawyer is really a strong indication that no one in that court room is at all familiar with the case (nor need they be.)

13 years? That would put the US/AW merger's start in the year 2000....even before the the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

That lawyer, and likely every other lawyer in the room (including the judge) not representing a pilot group, has no idea of the progress, or lack of it, of this case. It's not their business to know, though, and that is the way it should be.

You have a room full of lawyers that are not familiar with the details of the case. Yet all of them understood ( except usapa) that this case is ripe and needs to be decided by a court quickly. The facts of the case are so simple to understand just a quick read of the case and a phone call ended the fake law suit usapa wanted.

Courts give the plaintiff the edge when filing a law suit. Assuming what is filed is the truth. Usapa even said that it is difficult to get cases dismissed because of that. Yet usapa has now had two law suits dismissed because the facts don't support the case. Usapa filed a false case with the RICO case now this NY case.

Usapa lawyer sounded pathetic begging to go forward and the judge shut him down.

 

[nic4us]

But unlike you and AOL, USAPA does not blather its ongoing legal strategy on web board forums.[/size][/color]

Greeter
T

Too funny....

Well uscaba may not post on web boards...umm, what was that LUP again? (breaking the 8 year log jam...it's only been 6 years BTW..is not a LUP...more like a particle of feces in the lump uscaba will throw against the DFR wall thinking something will stick).

And, it does not matter what goes on on anonymous web boards, uscaba is stupid enough to publish messages from the president outlining their blatant DFR towards the West.

Oh, one more thing...you do understand what a litigation hold is right? Make sure you bring all your confidential "legal strategies" to the DFR asswhoooping party we are planing for your fake union!

 

[3dtv]

Wrong again. It does NOT need to be decided quickly. There is no legal requirement for east -west list solution prior to an AMR merger. The MOU spells that out. Black and white vs your opinion.

 

[snapthis]

You have a room full of lawyers that are not familiar with the details of the case. Yet all of them understood ( except usapa) that this case is ripe and needs to be decided by a court quickly. The facts of the case are so simple to understand just a quick read of the case and a phone call ended the fake law suit usapa wanted.

Courts give the plaintiff the edge when filing a law suit. Assuming what is filed is the truth. Usapa even said that it is difficult to get cases dismissed because of that. Yet usapa has now had two law suits dismissed because the facts don't support the case. Usapa filed a false case with the RICO case now this NY case.

Usapa lawyer sounded pathetic begging to go forward and the judge shut him down.

Like second bites at the apple? That sounds familiar.

MR. HARPER: Your Honor, this is Marty Harper,

2Polsinelli firm and I'm in my Phoenix office, we represent

3Leonidas, the defendant, and we also represent the

4individual defendants in the first amended complaint.

5 As a fundamental matter, Your Honor, I need to

6point out that the litigation pending in Federal District

7Court in Arizona does not seek to enjoin the American merger

8at all. It is a piece of litigation that has to do with

9seniority litigation under the memorandum of understanding

10 which does not become effective until after the plan of

11 reorganization becomes final, hopefully later this year.

12 So there is no impact on the American merger going

13 forward as a result of the pending litigation in District

14 Court in Phoenix.

15 This is a third cause of action that has been in

16 the Federal District Court between the pilots and US Airway,

17 since 2008.

18 In the litigation pending out here American is not

19 a party, APA is not a party.

20 What is happening is a hybrid litigation mostly

21 against USAPA on a DFR coming out of mostly the 2008 nicolau

22 award -- arbitration award.

23 Your Honor, we are prepared to file a motion to

24 dismiss the action that is in front of you. With your

25 permission we would like to go forward and do that. We had




VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY

212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400

Page 12

1it prepared when we called in to get a date for the argument

2and we were told to hold off doing that until we had this

3status conference today.

4 MR. MACLAY: Your Honor, could I respond on behalf

5of USAPA?

6 THE COURT: All right. Well let -- before you do

7that and before I get into sort of the second bites at the

8apple let me hear from somebody who's in the courtroom on

9behalf of the debtors so I can get all interested parties

10 take first and then we'll circle back around and I'll hear

11 whatever else anybody else wants to say.

 

[snapthis]

Wrong again. It does NOT need to be decided quickly. There is no legal requirement for east -west list solution prior to an AMR merger. The MOU spells that out. Black and white vs your opinion.

Everybody knows your delay game. Laughter noted.

MR. HARPER: Your Honor, from the defendant's​

19 point of view we fully embrace the comment you have made.​

20 We have an observation that USAPA is not interested in​

21 moving the integration issue --​

22 THE COURT: Well, I don't want to get -- I don't​

23 want to start calling names, everyone has been so civil up​

24 to this point and I don't think it'll help.​

25 So -- but let me just from your point of view you

don't have a quarrel with any of that -- those propositions?​

2 MR. HARPER: None whatever.​

3 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from USAPA.​

4 Is that -- assuming that this matter is dismissed without​

5 prejudice and the matter is in front of the District Court​

6 in Arizona do you have any quibble with moving forward with​

7 that case with all deliberate speed?​

8 MR. MACLAY: Well, Your Honor, I'm a bankruptcy​

9 attorney, so I'm not directly involved in the Arizona​

10 action. I don't have any quibble with the general concept​

11 that if things are ripe and if the legal issues are​

12 appropriate it should move forward, but I'm not in a​

13 position to make any representations one way or the other at​

14 this time.​

15 THE COURT: All right. But there were a lot of​

16 caveats in that.​

17 (Laugher)

 

[cleardirect]

Wrong again. It does NOT need to be decided quickly. There is no legal requirement for east -west list solution prior to an AMR merger. The MOU spells that out. Black and white vs your opinion.

Better read the transcript from NY.

THE COURT: All right. And it sounds like no one in the Arizona litigation disputes the proposition that it is important to get a timely answer as quickly as possible, that is to the merits of that litigation, both for the parties -- those parties to be able to put the matter behind them and also that everyone understands that that issue needs to be resolved before integration in this merger would be addressed.

The judge making the statement everyone (except usapa and east pilots) understand this issue (east west seniority) needs to be done before the US Airways american merger would be addressed.

MR. BUTLER: Right. And the second piece, Your Honor, is -- and we're not parties in nor will we become parties in the Arizona litigation, but in reading some of those papers and understanding the posture of those cases there appears to us to be some debate in Arizona about whether some of those matters are ripe for decision or not ripe for decision in Arizona and the procedural posture of that case, vis-à-vis some prior decisions and appeals and so forth, and our view from the committee is that these matters need to get resolved on -- I guess I'll use that word again -- on an expedited basis -- however dangerous that word is -- but we think that's important. And we would -- you know, sometimes all these procedural things mask communication, and to the extent that there could be -- you know, if we're able to structure a proposed stipulation order for Your Honor to consider some finding in the order that would point out and help at least inform the District Court out there that there is a view that actually this is important and ripe. I think the -- I think the court could actually -- my sense is that court could actually find useful of you that it's time to get this decided, because people can make the argument that -- and just looking at that litigation, that you know, until MOUs become effective and the plan becomes effective that maybe it's not ripe for decision, and in fact it is. And so we rise on that point as well.

THE COURT: Well, it's a precondition to the integration that's contemplated by this merger.

MR. BUTLER: Right.

THE COURT: You have to figure out what the rights are within that airline first.

MR. BUTLER: Right. And therefore we think actually to have some clarity, you know, in whatever is issued by this Court that it would be, you know, helpful or would further the work of this Court and the work in this case for that case to be decided might in fact help people get beyond the ripeness issue and that court get beyond the ripeness issue. Obviously, you know, (indiscernible - 00:16:14) doesn't bind that court but it would -- it might be helpful.

Mr. Butler you know the guy that represents the people that own the airline wants our case done quickly. He thinks this case is ripe and he and the judge understand that the east west seniority has to be done PRIOR to the integration between US Airways and american.

It does not get any clearer than the judges statement.

"THE COURT: Well, it's a precondition to the integration that's contemplated by this merger."

Getting the east west seniority completed is a "PRECONDITION" to the next merger.

There is no spin not way to interpret that statement in any other way. Everyone in that courtroom that usapa forced us into understands and want this case decided. Except for the one party that has gummed up the works from the beginning. usapa!

One last quote that should give all you east pilots pause.

MR. JAMES: Your Honor, Edgar James on behalf of
24 the Allied Pilots Association, the gift that keeps on
25 giving.
1 THE COURT: It always happened to you.
2 MR. JAMES: If the former case is not resolved we
3 will be the inheritor of that dispute.

The lawyer for the APA understands and states that if out case is not settled prior to integration with APA that APA inherits the liability of this dispute. Just reminding the judge of that. The APA does not want that liability and they will not do anything to have that come to them. Using the Nicolau avoids liability for APA. Using anything else causes them problems. They would also need an LUP which they do not have.

This case needs to be completed prior the next integration. That does not mean a three way. Deadlines are coming fast. usapa will be gone soon, the only party holding up progress. Id the court determines the case is not ripe yet a few short months and APA will become the bargaining agent and end the problem quickly avoiding liability. The APA can use the same excuse usapa has been saying. It is in the best interest of ALL APA pilots to end the dispute and move forward. Except the east pilots are not going to be happy with the answer on how that happens.

 

[CaptChill]

Better read the transcript from NY.



The judge making the statement everyone (except usapa and east pilots) understand this issue (east west seniority) needs to be done before the US Airways american merger would be addressed.



Mr. Butler you know the guy that represents the people that own the airline wants our case done quickly. He thinks this case is ripe and he and the judge understand that the east west seniority has to be done PRIOR to the integration between US Airways and american.

It does not get any clearer than the judges statement.

"THE COURT: Well, it's a precondition to the integration that's contemplated by this merger."

Getting the east west seniority completed is a "PRECONDITION" to the next merger.

There is no spin not way to interpret that statement in any other way. Everyone in that courtroom that usapa forced us into understands and want this case decided. Except for the one party that has gummed up the works from the beginning. usapa!

One last quote that should give all you east pilots pause.



The lawyer for the APA understands and states that if out case is not settled prior to integration with APA that APA inherits the liability of this dispute. Just reminding the judge of that. The APA does not want that liability and they will not do anything to have that come to them. Using the Nicolau avoids liability for APA. Using anything else causes them problems. They would also need an LUP which they do not have.

This case needs to be completed prior the next integration. That does not mean a three way. Deadlines are coming fast. usapa will be gone soon, the only party holding up progress. Id the court determines the case is not ripe yet a few short months and APA will become the bargaining agent and end the problem quickly avoiding liability. The APA can use the same excuse usapa has been saying. It is in the best interest of ALL APA pilots to end the dispute and move forward. Except the east pilots are not going to be happy with the answer on how that happens.

Delusional

 

[Portly Dorman]

Who sends a BK attorney to argue a seniority issue?? And one that's not familiar with the specifics of the case.

That really impressed the judge (and UCC and AMR attorneys). Typical usapa, load, fire and never aim.

Does usapa want to move this along or not?

Everybody knows your delay game. Laughter noted.

MR. HARPER: Your Honor, from the defendant's​

19 point of view we fully embrace the comment you have made.​

20 We have an observation that USAPA is not interested in​

21 moving the integration issue --​

22 THE COURT: Well, I don't want to get -- I don't​

23 want to start calling names, everyone has been so civil up​

24 to this point and I don't think it'll help.​

25 So -- but let me just from your point of view you

don't have a quarrel with any of that -- those propositions?​

2 MR. HARPER: None whatever.​

3 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from USAPA.​

4 Is that -- assuming that this matter is dismissed without​

5 prejudice and the matter is in front of the District Court​

6 in Arizona do you have any quibble with moving forward with​

7 that case with all deliberate speed?​

8 MR. MACLAY: Well, Your Honor, I'm a bankruptcy​

9 attorney, so I'm not directly involved in the Arizona​

10 action. I don't have any quibble with the general concept​

11 that if things are ripe and if the legal issues are​

12 appropriate it should move forward, but I'm not in a​

13 position to make any representations one way or the other at​

14 this time.​

15 THE COURT: All right. But there were a lot of​

16 caveats in that.​

17 (Laugher)

 

[cleardirect]

Delusional

So the court did not say.

"THE COURT: Well, it's a precondition to the integration that's contemplated by this merger."

Or

THE COURT: All right. And it sounds like no one in the Arizona litigation disputes the proposition that it is important to get a timely answer as quickly as possible, that is to the merits of that litigation, both for the parties -- those parties to be able to put the matter behind them and also that everyone understands that that issue needs to be resolved before integration in this merger would be addressed.

 

[Portly Dorman]

Delusional

Delusional??

Denial, it ain't just a river in Egypt. All the attorneys in the room get this yet the average east pilot denies any knowledge...

But we all know that- the west will be sold to Republic, PHX will be all E190 and then close. And the west is incapable of flying the 321, a tail a day will be scraped away....

 

[Portly Dorman]

I'll repeat this and type real slow. So simple even an east pilot could understand it.

So the court did not say.

"THE COURT: Well, it's a precondition to the integration that's contemplated by this merger."

Or

THE COURT: All right. And it sounds like no one in the Arizona litigation disputes the proposition that it is important to get a timely answer as quickly as possible, that is to the merits of that litigation, both for the parties -- those parties to be able to put the matter behind them and also that everyone understands that that issue needs to be resolved before integration in this merger would be addressed.