April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[prechilill]

Addington II is starting to smell just like the obviously unripe first case, and Marty knew that one was a stinker also.

Addington II was also filed too early in a desparate attempt by Harper to get paid. Note the recent "countdown" to donations and the soon to be posting of all those holy.

NOT RIPE.

Greeter

How 'bout this post Joe? How're ya feelin' now??? LOL

Contrary to USAPA’s suggestion (see USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 44)​

​

​

. 24 at p. 10 (p. 15 of the ECF filing)), the Ninth Circuit in Addington I did not rule that the​

​

​

. 25 West Pilots would never have a justiciable DFR claim prior to the finalization of an . integrated US Airways/America West seniority list. Rather, the court reasoned that​

​

​

. 2 plaintiffs’ DFR claim against USAPA in that lawsuit was not yet ripe because it remained​

​

​

. 3 uncertain “what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and [US​

​

​

. 4 Airways] as part of a final CBA” and “whether that proposal will be ratified by the​

​

​

. 5 USAPA membership as part of a new, single CBA.” Addington v. US Airline Pilots​

​

​

. 6 Ass’n, 606 F.3d 1174, 1179-1180 (9th Cir. 2010). But the court made clear that its​

​

​

. 7 conclusion did not mean “that a DFR claim based on a unions’ promotion of a policy is​

​

​

. 8 never ripe until that policy is effectuated.” Id. at 1181.​

​

​

. 9 In light of the US Airways/American merger, the facts are entirely different and​

​

​

. 10 none of the contingencies at issue in Addington I are present here.​

​

​

***************************************************************************

. 23 While USAPA notes that a JCBA must still be negotiated following the merger,​

​

​

. 24 and asserts that the MOU is therefore not a “final product” and “does not affect [the​

​

​

. 1 ripeness] analysis at all” (USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 44) at pp. 9-10 (pp. 14-​

​

​

. 2 15 of the ECF filing)), it fails to mention that the MOU itself has already determined and​

​

​

. 3 sharply circumscribed the parameters of the JCBA.​

​

​

 

[prechilill]

Blah, blah, blah. You really need to get with the program, you know.....the MOU and what happens going FORWARD at the POR! All this past history is OBE, really try to get a grip! Spend all the time and money you want to in another 2-3 years after the dust settles on the "real" merger and then what, maybe another 2-3 years more for a DRF-II to reach the end of that process. At which time you can whine about how bad you have it compared to where you would be if you still worked for AWA! Good luck with that! Really!, because at that time it won't matter jack to me because I will be retired.

seajay

Here's another stupid post from the past...
Jeez, you guys sure need new crystal balls, or maybe just a brain would do...

9 In light of the US Airways/American merger, the facts are entirely different and​

​

​

. 10 none of the contingencies at issue in Addington I are present here.​

​

​

 

[Walmartgreeter]

[font="Arial""]Thanks Chill for reposting my dreams and thoughts. Much appreciated. Always a treat to see my fine work again![/font]

[font="Arial""]That was obviously worth pulling an all-nighter![/font]

[font="Arial""]Greeter[/font]

 

[prechilill]

Thanks Chill for reposting my dreams and thoughts. Much appreciated. Always a treat to see my fine work again!

That was obviously worth pulling an all-nighter!

Greeter

You're posts are always a laugh... And it will keep getting better as this process unfolds. The players are lining up against you and you're too stupid to see the handwriting on the wall.
Please, give us more dream posts!!!

 

[Pi brat]

You're joking right? What do you suspect the odds are the company will, by written agreement, collude with USCABA now after all these years? They conveniently forget to mention that the other half of the hobsons choice is standing on their chests. There is 0% chance you're going to change the TA at this point. Are you high?

The company's hands are clean on this, just as they have managed to keep them for the last 5 years while reaping the gains. The TA HAS been changed and only 24 of your brothers voted against the changes.

I'm not saying you won't win because I don't know, but the situation and circumstances have changed.

Seriously though, have you considered getting some help for your anger?

 

[Pi brat]

You might as well forget trying to even parry with them. They're just "f--king" with us. For some peculiar reason facts elude them. First, it was "final & binding" and now it's "ripe, Ripe, RIPE"! That's funny, I was just saying that when I got out of the head this morning!

I don't think they are f'ing with us, that's the odd part. What's funny is that if you highlight something that may be contrary to their POV how absolutely livid they become.

 

[PullUp]

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). The required elements are: offer, consideration, intention (consensus ad idem), and acceptance. The specifics can differ slightly depending on whether the contract is for goods (falls under the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]) or services (falls under the common law of the state). [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
The MOU is NOT a contract. Not until it becomes effective. We have the offer and acceptance, and intention - but no consideration. Consideration is the $$ and other provisions that are of value. No pilot has seen a bigger paycheck, increased vacation days, or a better DC contribution %-age -- yet.
So, the MOU is just a formalized 'gentleman's agreement' as to what both parties would like to have happen in the future.
MOU - Not a contract. No contract - Not ripe. Nothing has changed, no matter how you slice it.
Cheers.

 

[Claxon]

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). The required elements are: offer, consideration, intention (consensus ad idem), and acceptance. The specifics can differ slightly depending on whether the contract is for goods (falls under the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]) or services (falls under the common law of the state). [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
The MOU is NOT a contract. Not until it becomes effective. We have the offer and acceptance, and intention - but no consideration. Consideration is the $$ and other provisions that are of value. No pilot has seen a bigger paycheck, increased vacation days, or a better DC contribution %-age -- yet.
So, the MOU is just a formalized 'gentleman's agreement' as to what both parties would like to have happen in the future.
MOU - Not a contract. No contract - Not ripe. Nothing has changed, no matter how you slice it.
Cheers.

Marty told them it was a JCBA. Then their resident blowhard propaganda minister Captain Gay lied to them too. Then 98% of the lemmings jumped over the cliff.
Parker and Siegel are playing you off on each other. Four more years of litigation at low pay. No JCBA, no pay. Parker has all of you tied up for years now.

 

[A320 Driver]

I'm not saying you won't win because I don't know, but the situation and circumstances have changed.

Seriously though, have you considered getting some help for your anger?

Res and Chill need to avoid sharp objects...seriously. I hope they don't carry that anger to work.

 

[prechilill]

Res and Chill need to avoid sharp objects...seriously. I hope they don't carry that anger to work.

I'm laughing at you. Seriously, laughing at you and your fellow morons on here.
The company just abandoned you clowns to fight this seniority issue alone. Yes, I am laughing hysterically at you.
More to come on May 10- 14

 

[Claxon]

I'm laughing at you. Seriously, laughing at you and your fellow morons on here.
The company just abandoned you clowns to fight this seniority issue alone. Yes, I am laughing hysterically at you.
More to come on May 10- 14

Beautiful tactical move by Parker. This ensures a bankruptcy pay MOU for years if Silver bites.

 

[prechilill]

Beautiful tactical move by Parker. This ensures a bankruptcy pay MOU for years if Silver bites.

You really are that dumb??? LOL:

From Document 49:




US Airways sets . forth its position that plaintiffs’ DFR claim against USAPA is indisputably ripe for

. 2 prompt and final adjudication by this Court.​

​

​

******************************************************************************

. US Airways does, however, have a significant​

​

​

. 22 interest in the prompt and final resolution of the plaintiffs’ DFR claim on the merits so​

​

​

. 23 that there is no interference with the seniority-integration process as between US Airways​

​

​

. 24 and American, and no delay – caused by Court order or otherwise – in the airlines’ timely​

​

​

. 25 realization of the operational and financial benefits from a combined pilot workforce that​

​

​

. 26 is contemplated by their impending merger and by the Memorandum of Understanding​

​

​

. 27 (“MOU&rdquo😉 that is referenced in plaintiffs’ motion.​

​

​

 

[Walmartgreeter]

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). The required elements are: offer, consideration, intention (consensus ad idem), and acceptance. The specifics can differ slightly depending on whether the contract is for goods (falls under the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]) or services (falls under the common law of the state). [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
The MOU is NOT a contract. Not until it becomes effective. We have the offer and acceptance, and intention - but no consideration. Consideration is the $$ and other provisions that are of value. No pilot has seen a bigger paycheck, increased vacation days, or a better DC contribution %-age -- yet.
So, the MOU is just a formalized 'gentleman's agreement' as to what both parties would like to have happen in the future.
MOU - Not a contract. No contract - Not ripe. Nothing has changed, no matter how you slice it.
Cheers.

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

 

[prechilill]

A memorandum of understanding (MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen's agreement.
Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called "four corners"). The required elements are: offer, consideration, intention (consensus ad idem), and acceptance. The specifics can differ slightly depending on whether the contract is for goods (falls under the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]) or services (falls under the common law of the state). [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
The MOU is NOT a contract. Not until it becomes effective. We have the offer and acceptance, and intention - but no consideration. Consideration is the $$ and other provisions that are of value. No pilot has seen a bigger paycheck, increased vacation days, or a better DC contribution %-age -- yet.
So, the MOU is just a formalized 'gentleman's agreement' as to what both parties would like to have happen in the future.
MOU - Not a contract. No contract - Not ripe. Nothing has changed, no matter how you slice it.
Cheers.

Are you that dense???
Here, take a bite of this apple:

23 While USAPA notes that a JCBA must still be negotiated following the merger,​

​

​

. 24 and asserts that the MOU is therefore not a “final product” and “does not affect [the​

​

​

. 1 ripeness] analysis at all” (USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 44) at pp. 9-10 (pp. 14-​

​

​

. 2 15 of the ECF filing)), it fails to mention that the MOU itself has already determined and ​

​

​

. 3 sharply circumscribed the parameters of the JCBA. ​

​

​

It's over bud, you guys have every single entity involved against you- even your co-defendant.

 

[snapthis]

#993042 April 2013 Pilot Discussion


Posted by mrbreeze on 12 April 2013 - 09:13 PM in US Airways

traderjake, on 12 April 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

I guess in your twisted mind forming a new union to renege on a mutually agreed upon arbitration is not a dirty trick.

.Again, as in the last time you called me "unethical", you are name calling.

What is it that you don't understand about ALPA national selling us out during BK? Do you not understand what it means when Delta's ALPA publicly states the the industry would be better off if USAir just went out of business.....supposedly our union brothers? Any idea of what the truth is on our pension termination? What does it mean when ALPA merger policy states "no windfalls"?

These are the kind of dirty political tricks that I associate you with, which caused me to quit paying ALPA dues a year before they were kicked off the property.

You are just as dirty as they are, you fukin traitor! (that's for name calling)

You are the whole problem with unionism, dumbass! You are cut from the same cloth!
breeze

#993042 April 2013 Pilot Discussion


Posted by mrbreeze on 12 April 2013 - 09:13 PM in US Airways

traderjake, on 12 April 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

I guess in your twisted mind forming a new union to renege on a mutually agreed upon arbitration is not a dirty trick.

.Again, as in the last time you called me "unethical", you are name calling.

What is it that you don't understand about ALPA national selling us out during BK? Do you not understand what it means when Delta's ALPA publicly states the the industry would be better off if USAir just went out of business.....supposedly our union brothers? Any idea of what the truth is on our pension termination? What does it mean when ALPA merger policy states "no windfalls"?

• These are the kind of dirty political tricks that I associate you with, which caused me to quit [background=#ffff00]paying[/background] ALPA [background=#ffff00]dues[/background] a year before they were kicked off the property.

You are just as dirty as they are, you fukin traitor! (that's for name calling)

You are the whole problem with unionism, dumbass! You are cut from the same cloth!
breeze

I understand USAPA is mailing out those pay your dues or you are fired letters. I know from reading posts on this forum when ALPA was our union, a lot of bragging was going on about not paying ALPA dues like the post above.

How many people were sent a threatening letter by ALPA for non-payment? Why is it OK to stop paying ALPA? It seems to me once again, selective ethics on the part of some "union" memebers.

I'm staying on DCO until USAPA is off our property. Pilots would be foolish gambling with their jobs when dealing with this so-called bargaining agent. The same people who screamed, STOP PAYING ALPA DUES are the same ones demanding USAPA dues be paid or else.

In the words of Mrbreeze-

• These are the kind of dirty political tricks that I associate you with, which caused me to quit [background=#ffff00]paying[/background] ALPA [background=#ffff00]dues[/background] a year before they were kicked off the property.

Are you still paying USAPA dues? USAPA will be gone in less than a year. Are you considering extending the same courtesy to USAPA?