Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 1,207
50 per month? Please repost anyone claiming this. Never-the-less, no need for you to worry about the East operation.
August 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
50 per month? Please repost anyone claiming this. Never-the-less, no need for you to worry about the East operation.
Thanks, but I don't read the Enquirer.
cleardirect
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 6,234
- Reaction score
- 9,749
You eastie were all excited about all the new hires coming east. Not so much anymore.
Added bonus, soon there will be no more east operation. there will be a US airways operation for a very short time and then; just an American operation.
The only thing there will be to worry about is the crying and complaining from the former east pilots as the reality of stagnation hits you.
high*flyer
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 62
"You eastie were all excited about all the new hires coming east. Not so much anymore.
Added bonus, soon there will be no more east operation. there will be a US airways operation for a very short time and then; just an American operation.
The only thing there will be to worry about is the crying and complaining from the former east pilots as the reality of stagnation hits you".
......I'm totally lost...no more "East" "operation"? So the American merger is just to acquire the jewels from the "west"?...
Added bonus, soon there will be no more east operation. there will be a US airways operation for a very short time and then; just an American operation.
The only thing there will be to worry about is the crying and complaining from the former east pilots as the reality of stagnation hits you".
......I'm totally lost...no more "East" "operation"? So the American merger is just to acquire the jewels from the "west"?...
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Another premature interpetation spin of a court order by the west, causing another premature west celebration.
Judge Silver wants it ripe so she can dismiss your dfr ll quickly, before the merger is complete. This will allow APA and USAPA to agree on a seniority list and not go to real federal arbitration. Because of the new MB law it will be binding.
Of course there will be an update from the army of llyingitas asking for more money, the new bagde will be iridium.
Judge Silver wants it ripe so she can dismiss your dfr ll quickly, before the merger is complete. This will allow APA and USAPA to agree on a seniority list and not go to real federal arbitration. Because of the new MB law it will be binding.
Of course there will be an update from the army of llyingitas asking for more money, the new bagde will be iridium.
Silver released US Airways, AMR and APA from the scene, no more comical threats against them by you and nonic4him anymore.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
So USAPA now has five days to respond to the claim that the plaintiffs are "actually" making (as interpolated by the esteemed judge, who never fails to see new things we all never thought about).
"That is, USAPA entered into the MOU and the MOU does not require USAPA go into the McCaskill-Bond process with the Nicolau Award."
Nothing in the "actual claim" above is untrue or even disputed. Duh, we ratified it exactly that way. Did anyone else notice that nothing in the "actual claim" above alleges any wrong doing?
It would have been helpful to actually include within the claim an "actual" claim of wrongdoing. No, really, it would be helpful, actually helpful, to actually include a claim if the judge is going to interpolate a so-called claim. Claims, by definition, include claims, normally at least.
How the F is a defendant supposed to respond to an actual claim if there is not even a claim of wrong doing? What color is the sky in AZ? Events are indeed unpredictable.
There is only one possible way Judge Silver's interpolation of the plaintiff's "actual" claim might make some sense. That is if she assumes the plaintiff's premise is that USAPA was obligated to negotiate with the Nic, only the Nic, and had to "actually" include the Nic.
Ok. Option 1: Judge Silver finds that USAPA was indeed obligated to negotiate and include the Nic in the MOU, just like Judge Wake's injunction said. Okay. That works out real well. Just insert the Nic into the MOU. Ignore the fact that not one signatory to the MOU, nor a single ratifying member of any of the parties agreed to do so. Even so, with the stroke of a pen Judge Wake's injunction is not only resurrected but now has retroactive force changing the negotiated, signed, and ratified MOU. Inserting the Nic into the MOU makes a virtual nullity of the negotiations that actually did occur, in direct opposition to the MOU that stipulates all previous agreements are a nullity upon POR. Everyone should have known, especially USAPA, that Wake's injunction was indeed still applicable, and it is everyone's own fault if they failed to factor in the Wake injunction during their negations, and during their consideration of voting for or against the MOU. Everyone should have known what the MOU really meant to "actually" say, because Judge Wake already told everyone what it would have to say. Tough cookies now! You should have been smart enough to see this coming. And no one is allowed to appeal!! Shut up and merge already.
Or, Option 2: Judge Silver finds USAPA acted within a wide range of reasonableness, everyone agreed to nullify the previous agreements, and there is nothing more to see here. You are all bound by your MOU as negotiated, and actually written. Move along everyone and proceed post haste with your merger.
"That is, USAPA entered into the MOU and the MOU does not require USAPA go into the McCaskill-Bond process with the Nicolau Award."
Nothing in the "actual claim" above is untrue or even disputed. Duh, we ratified it exactly that way. Did anyone else notice that nothing in the "actual claim" above alleges any wrong doing?
It would have been helpful to actually include within the claim an "actual" claim of wrongdoing. No, really, it would be helpful, actually helpful, to actually include a claim if the judge is going to interpolate a so-called claim. Claims, by definition, include claims, normally at least.
How the F is a defendant supposed to respond to an actual claim if there is not even a claim of wrong doing? What color is the sky in AZ? Events are indeed unpredictable.There is only one possible way Judge Silver's interpolation of the plaintiff's "actual" claim might make some sense. That is if she assumes the plaintiff's premise is that USAPA was obligated to negotiate with the Nic, only the Nic, and had to "actually" include the Nic.
Ok. Option 1: Judge Silver finds that USAPA was indeed obligated to negotiate and include the Nic in the MOU, just like Judge Wake's injunction said. Okay. That works out real well. Just insert the Nic into the MOU. Ignore the fact that not one signatory to the MOU, nor a single ratifying member of any of the parties agreed to do so. Even so, with the stroke of a pen Judge Wake's injunction is not only resurrected but now has retroactive force changing the negotiated, signed, and ratified MOU. Inserting the Nic into the MOU makes a virtual nullity of the negotiations that actually did occur, in direct opposition to the MOU that stipulates all previous agreements are a nullity upon POR. Everyone should have known, especially USAPA, that Wake's injunction was indeed still applicable, and it is everyone's own fault if they failed to factor in the Wake injunction during their negations, and during their consideration of voting for or against the MOU. Everyone should have known what the MOU really meant to "actually" say, because Judge Wake already told everyone what it would have to say. Tough cookies now! You should have been smart enough to see this coming. And no one is allowed to appeal!! Shut up and merge already.
Or, Option 2: Judge Silver finds USAPA acted within a wide range of reasonableness, everyone agreed to nullify the previous agreements, and there is nothing more to see here. You are all bound by your MOU as negotiated, and actually written. Move along everyone and proceed post haste with your merger.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 5,045
Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.
A MOU is NOT a CBA. You guys are going right back to the 9th who wrote this. The entire group of you still don't understand one iota of the RLA.
[8] Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3
So you have the 9th saying it doesn't have to be Nicolau, and you think some judge in PHX is now going to issue an injunction saying it has to be the Nicolau?
Good, let her. In fact I hope she does and this thing gets served right back at her from the 9th who already ruled. I cannot wait for her to do this, and you all to come on here and prance around. Meanwhile, everyone else will patiently wait for the appeal, and the 9th to serve you one final and binding Shiite sandwich on this subject once and for all. This will be even better than Wake, because now the 9th will really do some clerking for her majesty. Silver will get herself spanked just like Wake. USAPA has put the NMB parachuting attorneys on notice to suit up, just in case some Arizona judge tries it again. Meanwhile, separate ops will go on that much longer, and you guys all know how many of you are cranking into those AB cpt slots and 330 slots. Nice! Great to see some kid with 14 months check out. More to come.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
In fairness to Judge Silver, she did try to clarify the exact claim of the Plaintiff (she had to because the Plaintiff kept changing it):
"The exact claim brought by the West Pilots is: USAPA breached its [duty of fair representation] because it made a
contract that abandons a duty to treat the Nicolau award as final and binding.
So the heart of the issue for Silver is whether or not USAPA was obligated to only and forever always use exclusively the Nic. Ie. Does she have to rewrite the MOU according to the injunction of Judge Wake because USAPA was never allowed to negotiate as they did and should have known better, or is the contingent MOU binding according to its terms as negotiated.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 1,207
West herpies - entirely your problem not mine.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
The exact claim brought by the West Pilots is:
USAPA breached its [duty of fair representation] because it made a
contract that abandons a duty to treat the Nicolau award as final and binding.
Uh, yeah, Judge Wake ordered USAPA to “Immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to negotiate and implement a single [CBA] with USAirways that will implement the Nicolau Award seniority proposal.”...
So Judge Silver says Marty's exact claim is USAPA failed to perform its duty to re-enjoin itself with Wake's injunction after the 9th removed it? Okay.
Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR..... (the 9th)
We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA. (the 9th)
..just as ALPA would have been bound by the Transition Agreement had it remained the pilots’ representative, USAPA is bound by the Transition Agreement. But being “bound” by the Transition Agreement has very little meaning in the context of the present case. It is undisputed that the Transition Agreement can be modified at any time “by written agreement of [USAPA] and the [US Airways].” (Judge Silver)
Moreover, USAPA and US Airways are now engaged in negotiations for an entirely new
collective bargaining agreement and there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US
Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish. As explained by the
Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so
may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” (Judge Silver)
MR. HARPER: But indeed our position is neutral is
not good enough under these set of circumstances for where we
were. On September 7, 2013, the West Pilots had a
Transition Agreement that required the Nicolau to be dropped in
to any negotiated -- and that changed on the eighth.
THE COURT: So you are -- you wish to re-merge and
say that now the Nicolau Award, is it for your clients and
nothing else? That despite what I said, which is that USAPA
does not have to accept the Nicolau Award as the only basis
upon which to negotiate a fair seniority agreement -- now,
that's what I said; correct?
MR. HARPER: Their duty -- the breach of the duty was
not to include the Nicolau in the MOU.
THE COURT: And is that as simple as it is?
MR. HARPER: Yes. I think that that is the breach of
the duty of fair representation. They had the duty to insist
on the Nicolau and they didn't. <<----------------------------------------- That was Wake's injunction and it is now
the "exact claim" that Silver has interpolated.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. They
don't have a duty to insist on it?
MR. HARPER: As part of the negotiations, yes.
THE COURT: Well, you're saying they had to come to
the table. So what we're talking about is what I thought I
resolved which is it can be considered. It should be
considered. There has been a determination that it's fair but
that doesn't have to be the final decision on seniority.
Now, that's my ruling.
USAPA breached its [duty of fair representation] because it made a
contract that abandons a duty to treat the Nicolau award as final and binding.
Uh, yeah, Judge Wake ordered USAPA to “Immediately, and in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to negotiate and implement a single [CBA] with USAirways that will implement the Nicolau Award seniority proposal.”...
So Judge Silver says Marty's exact claim is USAPA failed to perform its duty to re-enjoin itself with Wake's injunction after the 9th removed it? Okay.
Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR..... (the 9th)
We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA. (the 9th)
..just as ALPA would have been bound by the Transition Agreement had it remained the pilots’ representative, USAPA is bound by the Transition Agreement. But being “bound” by the Transition Agreement has very little meaning in the context of the present case. It is undisputed that the Transition Agreement can be modified at any time “by written agreement of [USAPA] and the [US Airways].” (Judge Silver)
Moreover, USAPA and US Airways are now engaged in negotiations for an entirely new
collective bargaining agreement and there is no obvious impediment to USAPA and US
Airways negotiating and agreeing upon any seniority regime they wish. As explained by the
Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so
may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.” (Judge Silver)
MR. HARPER: But indeed our position is neutral is
not good enough under these set of circumstances for where we
were. On September 7, 2013, the West Pilots had a
Transition Agreement that required the Nicolau to be dropped in
to any negotiated -- and that changed on the eighth.
THE COURT: So you are -- you wish to re-merge and
say that now the Nicolau Award, is it for your clients and
nothing else? That despite what I said, which is that USAPA
does not have to accept the Nicolau Award as the only basis
upon which to negotiate a fair seniority agreement -- now,
that's what I said; correct?
MR. HARPER: Their duty -- the breach of the duty was
not to include the Nicolau in the MOU.
THE COURT: And is that as simple as it is?
MR. HARPER: Yes. I think that that is the breach of
the duty of fair representation. They had the duty to insist
on the Nicolau and they didn't. <<----------------------------------------- That was Wake's injunction and it is now
the "exact claim" that Silver has interpolated.
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. They
don't have a duty to insist on it?
MR. HARPER: As part of the negotiations, yes.
THE COURT: Well, you're saying they had to come to
the table. So what we're talking about is what I thought I
resolved which is it can be considered. It should be
considered. There has been a determination that it's fair but
that doesn't have to be the final decision on seniority.
Now, that's my ruling.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
July 20, 2013
Leonidas Update
Late yesterday afternoon, Judge Roslyn Silver issued a comprehensive order that on balance is favorable to the West Pilots. We will comment in greater detail soon, but here is a summary. You can download and read the order here.
To begin, Judge Silver denied USAPA's motion to dismiss and held that the case is now ripe for adjudication. Ripeness has eluded the West Pilots so far, but now our wait is over. We will have our day in court, our trial is scheduled to start September 24th, 2013. On that day USAPA can explain how a labor union is free to abandon the result of an arbitration when the majority does not approve of the result, yet still be in compliance with their Duty to Fairly Represent the West. USAPA has desperately avoided having to answer this question for nearly six years, but now there is no more delay.
Also in yesterday’s order, US Airways’ motion to dismiss our complaint was granted. In addition, Judge Silver denied AMR’s request to join this litigation and she denied bringing the Allied Pilots Association in as well. While we are disappointed in a sense that US Airways was dismissed, the reality is that the East-controlled USAPA is the root cause of the troubles for the West.
The sooner we get to a judicial conclusion, the better for all – West, East, and even American pilots. This will be the world’s largest airline and with it, the combined AMR-AWA-USA pilot group will be in a position to join our UAL-CAL and DAL-NWA brothers and sisters in regaining what has been lost by pilots since 9/11.
Finally, we want to once again thank all those who have contributed to this legal cause. Leonidas was formed nearly six years ago with the stated objective of preserving the West Pilots’ seniority rights. Nobody gave the West a chance to stand up against the East-controlled USAPA. Well, the West did stand up, and three million dollars in legal fees later – we’re still here.
Have a great weekend.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Leonidas Update
Late yesterday afternoon, Judge Roslyn Silver issued a comprehensive order that on balance is favorable to the West Pilots. We will comment in greater detail soon, but here is a summary. You can download and read the order here.
To begin, Judge Silver denied USAPA's motion to dismiss and held that the case is now ripe for adjudication. Ripeness has eluded the West Pilots so far, but now our wait is over. We will have our day in court, our trial is scheduled to start September 24th, 2013. On that day USAPA can explain how a labor union is free to abandon the result of an arbitration when the majority does not approve of the result, yet still be in compliance with their Duty to Fairly Represent the West. USAPA has desperately avoided having to answer this question for nearly six years, but now there is no more delay.
Also in yesterday’s order, US Airways’ motion to dismiss our complaint was granted. In addition, Judge Silver denied AMR’s request to join this litigation and she denied bringing the Allied Pilots Association in as well. While we are disappointed in a sense that US Airways was dismissed, the reality is that the East-controlled USAPA is the root cause of the troubles for the West.
The sooner we get to a judicial conclusion, the better for all – West, East, and even American pilots. This will be the world’s largest airline and with it, the combined AMR-AWA-USA pilot group will be in a position to join our UAL-CAL and DAL-NWA brothers and sisters in regaining what has been lost by pilots since 9/11.
Finally, we want to once again thank all those who have contributed to this legal cause. Leonidas was formed nearly six years ago with the stated objective of preserving the West Pilots’ seniority rights. Nobody gave the West a chance to stand up against the East-controlled USAPA. Well, the West did stand up, and three million dollars in legal fees later – we’re still here.
Have a great weekend.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
- Status
