August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[dca319]

I just completed reading the filing and I can safely say that this is the end of USAPA's game. The delay is over and the day of reckoning, scheduled for the 24th of Sept. is just around the corner. USAPA's entire legal strategy was pulled out from underneath them with all of the denials and the declaration of ripeness.

It truly is over and the west held out.

Congrats gentlemen. May the APA have mercy on our careers.

 

[cleardirect]

Your right to take another man's job. I'm so impressed!

Says the guy that was on furlough and now wants to be senior to west captains.

 

[cleardirect]

It would appear that judge silver was none to impressed with usapa's lawyering during the last trial. Now the judge is not telling you bouys what to do just a strong suggestion from the person making the decision to think carefully about what you do. Kind of like Nicolau telling you that you are not going to get DOH. Better listen this time.

III. Motion to Certify Class
The West Pilots have moved to certify a class and US Airways has filed notice that
it agrees certification is appropriate. (Doc. 11, 40). The Court stayed briefing on this issue
pending resolution of the other motions. (Doc. 43). The class certification motion must now
be briefed, but USAPA should consider whether it is wise to oppose the motion. In the
previous litigation, USAPA vigorously opposed a class certification motion but that
opposition was not well-reasoned. (CV-10-1570, Doc. 111). Thus, the order granting
certification was straightforward. (CV-10-1570, Doc. 125). Absent substantially better
arguments than what it presented last time, USAPA should consider consenting to
certification.

 

[cleardirect]

Judge Silver seems less than impressed with the logic of your failed union.

The West Pilots, US Airways, and AMR maintain that the MOU qualifies as a
collective bargaining agreement. USAPA, however, argues the MOU “is not a final and
binding collective bargaining agreement.” (Doc. 44 at 14). USAPA admits the MOU will
“govern the terms and conditions of employment of the US Airways and American Airlines
pilots after” the Bankruptcy Court handling the AMR case approves AMR’s Plan of
Reorganization. (Doc. 44 at 8). USAPA maintains there is something about the MOU–but
USAPA does not identify precisely what–that means it should not be considered a “collective
bargaining agreement.”

The text of the MOU supports the position adopted by the West Pilots, US Airways,
and AMR: that it is a collective bargaining agreement. The MOU states that once the merger
is complete, the pilots currently at US Airways will, without any further ratification vote,
become subject to the terms of the AMR collective bargaining agreement. The MOU also
recognizes that a single integrated pilot seniority list is crucial to the merged airline’s
operations.

For all you eaties that thought you were going to get another vote on a JCBA, a federal judge reads the MOU differently than you legal beagles and your second rate lawyer.

 

[snapthis]

Judge Silver seems less than impressed with the logic of your failed union.






For all you eaties that thought you were going to get another vote on a JCBA, a federal judge reads the MOU differently than you legal beagles and your second rate lawyer.

They might see a Leonidas update. Just a guess.

 

[cleardirect]

“McCaskill-Bond” refers to a federal statute governing the seniority integration
process when two airlines merge. 49 U.S.C. § 42112. In brief, the statute will require direct
negotiations between the pilots from US Airways and AMR. In the event the pilots are not
able to reach an agreement, they will proceed to binding arbitration to arrive at a “fair and
equitable” integration. See 49 U.S.C. § 42112 (incorporating Allegheny-Mohawk standard).
As a practical matter, the McCaskill-Bond process assumes USAPA will enter the process
advocating for a specific seniority list.

When two airlines merge. Not when two airlines and three groups merge. M/B does not merger two groups represented by the same union.

Pilots of US Airways and American. Not American and east/west.

 

[PullUp]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!! Did you get this Pull Up... stupid clown!!!!


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED trial on the merits is accelerated and will be held at the same time as the preliminary injunction hearing. That hearing is set for September 24, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

What merits? This will be a short trial. Probably be over by 9:01 a.m.
Dismissed. Next case.
Cheers.

 

[prechilill]

What merits? This will be a short trial. Probably be over by 9:01 a.m.
Dismissed. Next case.
Cheers.

Keep digging... You're on a roll!

 

[Monkee]

It would appear that judge silver was none to impressed with usapa's lawyering during the last trial. Now the judge is not telling you bouys what to do just a strong suggestion from the person making the decision to think carefully about what you do. Kind of like Nicolau telling you that you are not going to get DOH. Better listen this time.

LOL, the east folk will be up all night trying to spin their way out of this. They never learn, they never win, they never move forward. Here is hoping for a royal B-Slapping by the Judge, and the ensuing damages lawsuit. And, of course, they will enter American Airlines as the laughing stock of the industry that they are.

 

[cleardirect]

What merits? This will be a short trial. Probably be over by 9:01 a.m.
Dismissed. Next case.
Cheers.

Dude you have no clue do you?
If she was going to dismiss she would not have scheduled a trial. Are you really that thick?

What got dismissed were all of usapa's lame excuses.

 

[dca319]

What merits? This will be a short trial. Probably be over by 9:01 a.m.
Dismissed. Next case.
Cheers.

Sad to see some hanging on so desperately.

 

[mrbreeze]

Can one of you guys post a link to the new document? thx

 

[snapthis]

Can one of you guys post a link to the new document? thx

ORDER the [28] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Claim II against US Airways, Inc. is DISMISSED. ORDERED that the [44] Motion to Dismiss is DENIED; USAPA shall file its answer to the complaint withinfive days of this Order. ORDERED the [56] Motion to Intervene is DENIED; [58] Motion for Joinder is DENIED; the [60] Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED; the [113] Motion to Strike is DENIED. ORDERED no later than August 2, 2013 USAPA shall file its response to the [11] Motion to Certify Class. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Trial on the merits is accelerated and will be held at the same time as the Preliminary Injunction Hearing on September 24, 2013 at 9:00 AM before Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver in Courtroom 604, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003. Joint Proposed Pretrail Order due 9/6/2013. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 7/19/2013. (See Order for details.)(LFIG)

 

[snapthis]

What merits? This will be a short trial. Probably be over by 9:01 a.m.
Dismissed. Next case.
Cheers.

Are you an airline employee?

Or a spec-tater?

 

[dca319]

Probably the most damning part of the filing:





1 USAPA challenges only prudential ripeness. Thus, the Court need not address constitutional ripeness. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1140-

• 
  1 to determine if a case satisfies prudential requirements for ripeness: the fitness of the issue
• 
  2 for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.” W.
• 
  3 Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 486 (9th Cir. 2011). Under the first part
• 
  4 of the test, “[a] question is fit for decision when it can be decided without considering
• 
  5 contingent future events that may or may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur
• 
  6 at all.” Cardena v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). And to meet the second part
• 
  7 of the test, “a litigant must show that withholding review would result in direct and
• 
  8 immediate hardship and would entail more than possible financial loss.” Stormans, Inc. v.
• 
  9 Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1126 (9th Cir. 2009). Both parts are satisfied here.