August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[cleardirect]

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to have any relevance.....that's just where I was when I heard about the west contract. It had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

Did they also explain the west has an loa for the 330's.

 

[Phoenix]

Did they also explain the west has an loa for the 330's.

Impossible. A West LOA would require that the West has someone that can negotiate on their behalf, but you have always maintained that there is no West reps to negotiate about anything.

 

[cleardirect]

Impossible. A West LOA would require that the West has someone that can negotiate on their behalf, but you have always maintained that there is no West reps to negotiate about anything.

2008 prior to usapa. When the west could negotiate we did negotiate.

 

[nevergiveup]

How did that fence work out for the TWA guys?

You might try the AA forum to ask your question.

 

[Pi brat]

I never said we would not honor it. After the POR the west gets 1/3 of the 190. If someone want s to bid it fine.

What you and the rest of the fools think is that group II will be replaced by group I and west pilots will be forced into that aircraft. Different deal.

The only way a
west pilot will fly that plane is in PHL.

Bite me.

I have no idea what the fleet plan is, but neither do you.

 

[cleardirect]

Bite me.

I have no idea what the fleet plan is, but neither do you.

Guess you lost that argument.

Your logic and facts failed so you fall to insults. Typical.

 

[traderjake]

I can see the courts, the company, and/or APA saying the Nicolau Award is the seniority list soon after the POR date.

US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways&rdquo😉, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby

files this motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This motion is supported by the following memorandum of points and authorities.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

In prior briefing to this Court on its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract

claim (Count Two), US Airways explained that: “US Airways has a significant interest in

the prompt and final resolution of the merits of plaintiffs’ DFR claim against USAPA. It

therefore intends to file a motion for limited intervention under Rule 24 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure if and when its motion to dismiss is granted.” (US Airways’

Reply In Support Of Motion To Dismiss (Doc. No. 54), at p. 3 n.2 (p. 4 of ECF filing).)

On July 19, 2013, the Court granted US Airways’ motion to dismiss. (Order (Doc.

No. 122), at pp. 6:18-7:1.) In accordance with Rules 24(a) and 24 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, US Airways thus moves for intervention in this lawsuit for the limited

purposes of protecting its interest in:

(i) a prompt resolution of the merits of the West Pilots’ claim against defendant

US Airline Pilots Association (“USAPA&rdquo😉 for breach of the duty of fair

representation (“DFR&rdquo😉 – including ensuring that US Airways has the right

to participate in potential additional district court and appellate proceedings

with regard to the ripeness of the West Pilots’ claim; and

(ii) a prompt determination that the West Pilots have the right under the federal

McCaskill-Bond statute to full and separate representation in the upcoming

seniority-integration proceedings between the pilots employed by

US Airways and American Airlines, Inc. (“American&rdquo😉 – contrary to the

position that USAPA has recently taken in this litigation.

The requested intervention is necessary to protect US Airways’ significant interest

in achieving a seniority integration of the US Airways and American pilots in accordance

with the schedule prescribed in the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU&rdquo😉 that was

executed in connection with the US Airways/American merger by US Airways,

Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 128 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 13
MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-ROS

2

American, USAPA representing the US Airways pilots, and the Allied Pilots Association

representing the American pilots. Under the MOU, the US Airways/American seniorityintegration

process is scheduled to begin “as soon as possible” after the close of the

merger transaction, which is currently anticipated to occur during the third quarter of this

year.

Because the plaintiffs’ DFR claim against USAPA implicates how USAPA may

proceed under the terms of the MOU (i.e., whether it must use the Nicolau Award as the

sole basis for determining the relative seniority ordering of East and West Pilots), and

because the plaintiffs’ McCaskill-Bond declaratory-relief claim (set forth in their

proposed First Amended Complaint) implicates how all of the parties may proceed vis-àvis

the West Pilots, a failure to promptly resolve the merits of these claims would threaten

to disrupt and delay the process of integrating US Airways and American pilots following

the merger. That process is central to the airline’s realization of the operational and

financial benefits from the combined pilot workforce that is contemplated by the MOU

and the merger. Accordingly, while US Airways has been and still is neutral regarding

the merits of the underlying DFR claim between USAPA and the West Pilots, it has a

significant protectable interest in seeing that the plaintiffs’ claims against USAPA are

resolved promptly and on the merits and, with respect to the McCaskill-Bond issue, a

significant interest in confirming its legal position that its obligation under McCaskill-

Bond to provide for a “fair and equitable” seniority integration entails affording an

opportunity for full and separate participation by the West Pilots under the circumstances

of this case.

US Airways therefore respectfully seeks intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)

or, alternatively, permissive intervention under Rule 24.

1

1

Rule 24© provides that a motion for intervention shall be accompanied by a “pleading

that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Attached hereto is

US Airways’ Intervention Pleading, which sets forth the grounds for US Airways’ requested

intervention, including the “claim . . . for which intervention is sought” within the meaning of the

case law applying Rule 24.
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 128 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 13

 

[EastUS1]

Guess you lost that argument.

Your logic and facts failed so you fall to insults. Typical.

'cleardirect' Posted Today, 09:48 AM
"Hey moron."

Again folks...You just couldn't make these people up as viable characters for use in children's comic books. 🙂

 

[EastUS1]

(ii) a prompt determination that the West Pilots have the right under the federal

McCaskill-Bond statute to full and separate representation in the upcoming

seniority-integration proceedings between the pilots employed by

US Airways and American Airlines, Inc. (“American&rdquo😉 ....

So, if "the nic is it", and 3 lists (west/east/AMR) are out of the question....umm....why would the mighty "spartans" require any "separate" (note = seperate) "representation in the upcoming seniority-integration proceedings between the pilots employed by US Airways and American Airlines, Inc. (“American&rdquo😉" ...especially "under the federal McCaskill-Bond statute." (which west posters have repeatedly held doesn't apply at all here), and wasn't "everyone" supposed to take just a quick glance and immediately shout Heil Nic, Nic uber Alles!...?

 

[Pi brat]

Guess you lost that argument.

Your logic and facts failed so you fall to insults. Typical.

Look up logic. You called me a fool. That is an insult. I responded wirh what you could do, not an insult.

You are an idiot-insult, yet obvious.

 

[nevergiveup]

US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways&rdquo😉, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby

files this motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This motion is supported by the following memorandum of points and authorities.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

In prior briefing to this Court on its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract

claim (Count Two), US Airways explained that: “US Airways has a significant interest in

the prompt and final resolution of the merits of plaintiffs’ DFR claim against USAPA. It

therefore intends to file a motion for limited intervention under Rule 24 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure if and when its motion to dismiss is granted.” (US Airways’

Reply In Support Of Motion To Dismiss (Doc. No. 54), at p. 3 n.2 (p. 4 of ECF filing).)

On July 19, 2013, the Court granted US Airways’ motion to dismiss. (Order (Doc.

No. 122), at pp. 6:18-7:1.) In accordance with Rules 24(a) and 24 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, US Airways thus moves for intervention in this lawsuit for the limited

purposes of protecting its interest in:

(i) a prompt resolution of the merits of the West Pilots’ claim against defendant

US Airline Pilots Association (“USAPA&rdquo😉 for breach of the duty of fair

representation (“DFR&rdquo😉 – including ensuring that US Airways has the right

to participate in potential additional district court and appellate proceedings

with regard to the ripeness of the West Pilots’ claim; and

(ii) a prompt determination that the West Pilots have the right under the federal

McCaskill-Bond statute to full and separate representation in the upcoming

seniority-integration proceedings between the pilots employed by

US Airways and American Airlines, Inc. (“American&rdquo😉 – contrary to the

position that USAPA has recently taken in this litigation.

The requested intervention is necessary to protect US Airways’ significant interest

in achieving a seniority integration of the US Airways and American pilots in accordance

with the schedule prescribed in the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU&rdquo😉 that was

executed in connection with the US Airways/American merger by US Airways,

Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 128 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 13
MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-00471-ROS

2

American, USAPA representing the US Airways pilots, and the Allied Pilots Association

representing the American pilots. Under the MOU, the US Airways/American seniorityintegration

process is scheduled to begin “as soon as possible” after the close of the

merger transaction, which is currently anticipated to occur during the third quarter of this

year.

Because the plaintiffs’ DFR claim against USAPA implicates how USAPA may

proceed under the terms of the MOU (i.e., whether it must use the Nicolau Award as the

sole basis for determining the relative seniority ordering of East and West Pilots), and

because the plaintiffs’ McCaskill-Bond declaratory-relief claim (set forth in their

proposed First Amended Complaint) implicates how all of the parties may proceed vis-àvis

the West Pilots, a failure to promptly resolve the merits of these claims would threaten

to disrupt and delay the process of integrating US Airways and American pilots following

the merger. That process is central to the airline’s realization of the operational and

financial benefits from the combined pilot workforce that is contemplated by the MOU

and the merger. Accordingly, while US Airways has been and still is neutral regarding

the merits of the underlying DFR claim between USAPA and the West Pilots, it has a

significant protectable interest in seeing that the plaintiffs’ claims against USAPA are

resolved promptly and on the merits and, with respect to the McCaskill-Bond issue, a

significant interest in confirming its legal position that its obligation under McCaskill-

Bond to provide for a “fair and equitable” seniority integration entails affording an

opportunity for full and separate participation by the West Pilots under the circumstances

of this case.

US Airways therefore respectfully seeks intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)

or, alternatively, permissive intervention under Rule 24.

1

1

Rule 24© provides that a motion for intervention shall be accompanied by a “pleading

that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Attached hereto is

US Airways’ Intervention Pleading, which sets forth the grounds for US Airways’ requested

intervention, including the “claim . . . for which intervention is sought” within the meaning of the

case law applying Rule 24.
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 128 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 13

More company CYA!

 

[EastUS1]

More company CYA!

Yep.

 

[Reed Richards]

Poor Company now has a boo boo, and they don't know how to make it better. As I have said, the goal of Parker's meddling in our seniority affairs (after saying he would not for 8 years) is to make up for the bad counsel his legal staff gave him about "third party status" at the table for M/B. What will probably indeed happen is Silver is going to serve up USAPA a big shi'ite sandwich, and the only way to keep from choking on it will be to "give" the West status. Giving one group already represented by a labor union special status at any negotiation table (and yes, there is a negotiaton phase of M/B) will open up an can of worms. Would this new class have to follow the CBL of the union they are part of? Would they fund themselves? Would USAPA be responsible for all their other union needs, or would the West Class set up a union store front in Tempe as a new NMB entity? Really? Just like that, a new union out of thin air? Parker may have just bought his first delay in his once rapid integration plan. I am sure his big stick will be to withhold moneys to the pilots. And the first move of the union will be to declare the MOU dead. No codeshare. No COC. No sharing of metal. No nothing. But the good thing there are good lawyers and union folks that will sort out the proper response to this mess. I am just good at throwing the peanuts! RR

 

[cleardirect]

Poor Company now has a boo boo, and they don't know how to make it better. As I have said, the goal of Parker's meddling in our seniority affairs (after saying he would not for 8 years) is to make up for the bad counsel his legal staff gave him about "third party status" at the table for M/B. What will probably indeed happen is Silver is going to serve up USAPA a big shi'ite sandwich, and the only way to keep from choking on it will be to "give" the West status. Giving one group already represented by a labor union special status at any negotiation table (and yes, there is a negotiaton phase of M/B) will open up an can of worms. Would this new class have to follow the CBL of the union they are part of? Would they fund themselves? Would USAPA be responsible for all their other union needs, or would the West Class set up a union store front in Tempe as a new NMB entity? Really? Just like that, a new union out of thin air? Parker may have just bought his first delay in his once rapid integration plan. I am sure his big stick will be to withhold moneys to the pilots. And the first move of the union will be to declare the MOU dead. No codeshare. No COC. No sharing of metal. No nothing. But the good thing there are good lawyers and union folks that will sort out the proper response to this mess. I am just good at throwing the peanuts! RR

Oh! Now you see the problem when people don't follow the rules and just make s$&/ up?

Final and binding is final and binding. But you tried to make up your own rules.

Now as you ask how do we force all these other untested issues into a box that was never to be?

Are you beginning to understand that the simplest thing for the court, the company and the union to do is use the agreed upon arbitration and go int M/B with one list.

I suggest that you read the TWA arbitration for some enlightenment as to how the APA or usapa would have to deal with the west as a separate party at the table.

 

[snapthis]

CONCLUSION
"For all the foregoing reasons, US Airways respectfully requests that the Court grant
its motion to intervene under Rule 24 a or Rule 24 b, for the limited purposes of
protecting its interest in: (i) a prompt resolution of the merits of the West Pilots’ DFR
claim against USAPA; and (ii) a prompt determination that the West Pilots have the right under the McCaskill-Bond statute to full and separate representation in the upcoming seniority-integration proceedings between the US Airways and American pilots."

Separate representation is the correct call.