April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

It already has.

East west will be settled before US Airways/american.

...

Clear.... Here kitty, kitty, kitty.. paragraph please....

 

[Pi brat]

So USAPA, in concert with the Company flatly lied to the pilots regarding the MOU effect on East West seniority integration? Everybody present in NY last week understood the situation perfectly. When your Lawyer tried to claim that everybody agreed via the MOU to have a 3 way integration he was immediately, and aggressively shut down by Judge Lane. The West or East are not parties to the MOU. I guess you guys are getting comfortable identifying /suing the wrong parties. You're under a joint MOU now and will be under a joint CBA at the POR AND you are being forced to crawl through a vast judicial minefield long before then. That ripeness shield is shrinking before your eyes.

Here's where you need to cough up that LUP that every single legal entity has made it clear you're required to have....(insert laugh track here) best of luck to you.

I don't know if they lied to you, they didn't lie to me. I guess that is one more point to be argued in court.

But, you seem to contradict yourself, your lawyers do too. They say the MOU didn't talk about seniority, but that it is illegal because it didn't specifically spell out using the Nic. Which is it?

Another point. You guys seem to say that ripeness is the only issues and the merits of the case have been proven. If that is the case then why didn't Judge Silver rule differently? If the question of LUP is settled, why then say that USAPA could use any list it want IF it had a LUP? How does that question get answered and how long does it take. Cleardirect can't/won't answer when I ask that.

Thanks for the well wishes! You must finally be seeing that Nicolau reached too far. Progress!

 

[Phoenix]

Yes we will move into the M/B process. AFTER the first seniority is settled.

You did read that in the NY transcripts correct?
...

Remind me again what role the NY transcript plays in the fulfillment of the MOU? The guy bagging my groceries today expressed an opinion too. I'll pass his number along if you like. He wants to start a club.

 

[Res Judicata]

I don't know if they lied to you, they didn't lie to me. I guess that is one more point to be argued in court.

But, you seem to contradict yourself, your lawyers do too. They say the MOU didn't talk about seniority, but that it is illegal because it didn't specifically spell out using the Nic. Which is it?

Another point. You guys seem to say that ripeness is the only issues and the merits of the case have been proven. If that is the case then why didn't Judge Silver rule differently? If the question of LUP is settled, why then say that USAPA could use any list it want IF it had a LUP? How does that question get answered and how long does it take. Cleardirect can't/won't answer when I ask that.

Thanks for the well wishes! You must finally be seeing that Nicolau reached too far. Progress!

A judge or Jury answers the question. I wonder what they'll decide.

 

[CaptChill]

It. Absolutely. Will. Not. Please show me where in the MOU East/west seniority integration is referred to. Just because the company says they're "neutral" (b.s. btw) doesn't mean ANYBODY else is. Like the UCC, the APA and the BK court. You guys really stepped in it voting for this MOU. Should have got better lawyers. Being the vast percentage of the MOU benefits are going into your unworthy pockets , you should be thankful to be eating the Nic.

Did you not read the MOU or did you just do what AOL told you do? The MOU clearly states that upon the execution of a JCBA all prior agreements are null and void. Your case will not become ripe until a JCBA is in place...

Afterward, I recommend you sue everyone until all you can afford is living out of a cardboard box beneath an interstate overpass... Best of luck with that!

 

[CallawayGolf]

I don't know if they lied to you, they didn't lie to me. I guess that is one more point to be argued in court.

But, you seem to contradict yourself, your lawyers do too. They say the MOU didn't talk about seniority, but that it is illegal because it didn't specifically spell out using the Nic. Which is it?

Another point. You guys seem to say that ripeness is the only issues and the merits of the case have been proven. If that is the case then why didn't Judge Silver rule differently? If the question of LUP is settled, why then say that USAPA could use any list it want IF it had a LUP? How does that question get answered and how long does it take. Cleardirect can't/won't answer when I ask that.

Thanks for the well wishes! You must finally be seeing that Nicolau reached too far. Progress!

I wouldn't say that the LUP is settled, but the only time a federal court has reviewed or issued a ruling on the merits of USAPA's attempted LUP using a non-NIC list, they were found to have violated their DFR and got an injunction placed on them preventing any deviation from the NIC. That court's interpreation was that there was no valid or legal means of abandoning the results of a mutually-agreed upon binding arbitration process. There's no predicting how another court will view the facts presented to them at that time, but USAPA is 0 for 1 on the merits of their intended LUP.

Why indeed did Silver include the LUP in her order? If she was really attempting to settle the matter before her and provide relief to the parties, why not just say the use of a non-NIC list does not constitute a DFR and leave it at that? Why the qualification or restriction if USAPA is truely free to pursue, negotiate and implement any seniority scheme that could be ratified by a majority of the members?

Furthermore, if the Company is seniority neutral and all they wanted from Silver was a ruling that provided a means by which S22 of the JCBA could be negotiated or completed, then they would have no legal grounds to appeal to the Ninth. If Silver had actually answered the question before her court there could have been no grounds for an appeal, at least by the Company. Even by her own words she admits that she was unable to provide the relief the Plaintiff sought, which was a straightforward question regarding a DFR and the NIC. All she had to do was leave that last part out about the LUP and USAPA and the Company would be off and running to get a JCBA, perhaps even before the POR with AMR/APA just as they did with the FAs. But in the final order she included the LUP statement and thus prevented any form of relief sought by the parties.

Perhaps her thinking was that the Ninth created this mess of unanswered questions and the only way for her to ensure that the Ninth did the job they were supposed to do in 2010 was to rule in the most ambigous terms possible so that the Company was sure to appeal her ruling as one that failed to provide the relief they petitioned the court to have answer for them. I don't know if that really was her thinking,but it certainly has turned out just like that.

 

[Phoenix]

I wouldn't say that the LUP is settled, but the only time a federal court has reviewed or issued a ruling on the merits of USAPA's attempted LUP using a non-NIC list, they were found to have violated their DFR and got an injunction placed on them preventing any deviation from the NIC. That court's interpreation was that there was no valid or legal means of abandoning the results of a mutually-agreed upon binding arbitration process. There's no predicting how another court will view the facts presented to them at that time, but USAPA is 0 for 1 on the merits of their intended LUP.

Why indeed did Silver include the LUP in her order? If she was really attempting to settle the matter before her and provide relief to the parties, why not just say the use of a non-NIC list does not constitute a DFR and leave it at that? Why the qualification or restriction if USAPA is truely free to pursue, negotiate and implement any seniority scheme that could be ratified by a majority of the members?

Furthermore, if the Company is seniority neutral and all they wanted from Silver was a ruling that provided a means by which S22 of the JCBA could be negotiated or completed, then they would have no legal grounds to appeal to the Ninth. If Silver had actually answered the question before her court there could have been no grounds for an appeal, at least by the Company. Even by her own words she admits that she was unable to provide the relief the Plaintiff sought, which was a straightforward question regarding a DFR and the NIC. All she had to do was leave that last part out about the LUP and USAPA and the Company would be off and running to get a JCBA, perhaps even before the POR with AMR/APA just as they did with the FAs. But in the final order she included the LUP statement and thus prevented any form of relief sought by the parties.

Perhaps her thinking was that the Ninth created this mess of unanswered questions and the only way for her to ensure that the Ninth did the job they were supposed to do in 2010 was to rule in the most ambigous terms possible so that the Company was sure to appeal her ruling as one that failed to provide the relief they petitioned the court to have answer for them. I don't know if that really was her thinking,but it certainly has turned out just like that.

If, maybe, possibly, perhaps. was she really, no predicting, could be, thinking, prevented any form of relief. Mass hysteria is certain.

P.S. Paragraph please...

 

[nevergiveup]

So USAPA, in concert with the Company flatly lied to the pilots regarding the MOU effect on East West seniority integration? Everybody present in NY last week understood the situation perfectly. When your Lawyer tried to claim that everybody agreed via the MOU to have a 3 way integration he was immediately, and aggressively shut down by Judge Lane. The West or East are not parties to the MOU. I guess you guys are getting comfortable identifying /suing the wrong parties. You're under a joint MOU now and will be under a joint CBA at the POR AND you are being forced to crawl through a vast judicial minefield long before then. That ripeness shield is shrinking before your eyes.

Here's where you need to cough up that LUP that every single legal entity has made it clear you're required to have....(insert laugh track here) best of luck to you.

You need to work on your transcript reading skills.

 

[nycbusdriver]

"if your case is so damn strong, why not just withdraw the lawsuit"

That is about the most messed up logic I have ever heard.

"You morons keep on and on about how strong your position is, then put up, or shut up.

What are you afraid of? "


Umm what? We are putting up. We filed the law suit. We are not afraid of anything. It is the west that wants a court to decide NOW! Not a years from now like you want. What are you afraid of that you want to wait? Let's get this case done.

The company wants it done.
The UCC wants it done.
The APA wants it done.
AMR wants it done
Judge Silver wants it done.
The west wants it done.

Who is missing from that list? The guys that want to wait another year.

How about you keep your lawyer out of court. Oh that's right they were in the wrong court filed against the wrong party and were kicked out of court. Come on out to AZ court and settle this once and for all as AMR said expedited.

It is usapa that is throwing obstacles not the west. Read the Jones letter. The company points that out. It is usapa that asked for a delay in the AZ case.

If you morons would wait until the process is complete (as the Ninth said is required), it would be over in a year.

The delay, as is almost every other delay here, is caused by your idiot lawyer jumping the gun with unripe lawsuits. File for anything in federal court and you can expect a decision in two years at best. You AWA bozos just delayed things for two years. Happy?

 

[nycbusdriver]

That sums up the daily activity of your fake union perfectly.

That was ALPA, moron.

 

[CallawayGolf]

If, maybe, possibly, perhaps. was she really, no predicting, could be, thinking, prevented any form of relief. Mass hysteria is certain.

P.S. Paragraph please...

There are those who have something worth saying, and then there are those who have to say something even if it contributes nothing and make no grammatical sense. I guess we can count you among the latter.

 

[snapthis]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don ADDINGTON; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASS’N, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-PGR
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment by the Court Pursuant to
Rule 55((2)
Plaintiffs file this Motion for Entry of Default Judgment by the Court Pursuant to Rule 55((2). Plaintiffs demonstrate that they are entitled to such relief and that the

Court should exercise its discretion to grant such relief in the Memorandum of Points and​

Authorities that follows. Plaintiffs support this motion with a contemporaneously filed​

declaration of counsel.​

Dated this 8th day of April, 2013.​

POLSINELLI SHUGHART, PC​

/s/ Andrew S. Jacob​

By _______________________________​

Marty Harper​

Andrew S. Jacob​

Jennifer Axel​

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES​

I. Overview​

The factual and procedural background of this dispute is set out in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to USAPA’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 9) and is incorporated here by reference. [Doc. 19.]​

II. Legal Argument​

A. Plaintiffs are entitled to the entry of default judgment.​

On March 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) and US Airways, Inc. [Doc. 1.] In their complaint, Plaintiffs seek “[a]n injunction requiring Defendants to conduct seniority integration according to the MOU procedures but using the seniority order in the Nicolau Award list to order the US Airways pilots.” [Id. at ¶ 123.] In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs asked the Court to enjoin USAPA “from integrating pilot seniority without using the Nicolau Award list to define the relative seniority of the US Airways pilots.” [Doc. 13 at 18:23 to 18:25.] This seniority integration will occur after the New York bankruptcy​

court approves the plan of reorganization of American Airlines, which will involve its merger with US Airways. USAPA was properly served with the Complaint on March 14, 2013. [Doc. 18-1.] USAPA, therefore, had until April 4, 2013, to file a responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P.​

12(a)(1)(A)(i). On March 22, 2013, USAPA filed a motion to extend its time to file a responsive pleading. [Doc. 9.] But it did not take any steps to obtain an expedited ruling on that motion. On March 27, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to such an extension.n[Doc. 19.]​

As of the date of this motion, USAPA has not filed an Answer or a motion allowed by Rule 12. USAPA, therefore, has not served a “responsive pleading” or a motion that automatically extends the time to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a).1 The contemporaneously1 US Airways filed a Rule 12 motion on April 4, 2013. [Doc. 28.] Plaintiffs do not seek default judgment against US Airways.​

Case 2:13-cv-00471-PGR Document 34 Filed 04/08/13 Page 2 of 6​

3​

2845289.1​

filed declaration of counsel establishes the procedural elements required by Fed. R. Civ.P. 55((2). Plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to have the Court enter default judgment against USAPA as “demanded in the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54© and 55((2).​

Because there is an outstanding claim for the same relief against US Airways and a claim for attorney’s fees against USAPA, the Court should make Rule 54( findings in its default judgment against USAPA. (See proposed Order.)​

 

[USA320Pilot]

I recently received my USAPA dues statement and my dues increased $95.69 per month. This is a 1/2 percent increase in dues to supposedly be used by the Merger Committee or another one-third increase to an astronomical amount of money on a relative basis. In addition, USAPA indicated the BPR unilaterally transferred the Furlough Assessment to fund Merger Committee FPL/expenses.

Moreover, the PIC indicated that there could be an appeal to their lawsuit against the PBGC where hearing transcripts point to USAPA losing their lawsuit. If there is an appeal I believe there could be another PIC assessment.

What I would like to know is how our forum's members feel about USAPA's members and non members paying the highest pilot union dues in the universe at 2.45%, assessments used for unintended purposes, and more possible assessments used for losing battles?

ALPA dues are 1.95 percent and APA dues are 1.0%. Why are USAPA dues so high?

What's your opinion of US Airways Group II TOS Captains flying a full month paying almost $4,000 per year in union dues/assessments and Group II TOS F/O's paying about $2,700 per year in union dues/assessments to USAPA?

Steve Bradford told pilots during the representation election we would have a dues rate of 1.0 percent if we elected USAPA as our agent. Why has that number nearly tripled?

 

[Phoenix]

There are those who have something worth saying, and then there are those who have to say something even if it contributes nothing and make no grammatical sense. I guess we can count you among the latter.

They were quotes of your relevant/operative words.

P.S. Paragraph please...

 

[cleardirect]

The INTEGRATION occurs AFTER the merger. Pretty simple. Read the MOU.

Yes the integration between US Airways and american happens after a JCBA.

The integration between east and west happens BEFORE the integration between US Airways and american.

Read the MOU. It talks about merging US Airways pilots. Does not say anything about east and west pilots.

Read M/B. M?B is used to integrate members from different unions. US Airways pilots are represented by a single union. M/B can't be used.