August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

A path to resolution? How has that path deviated a single inch from the path you all demanded during negotiations, med or arbitration? You easties did not get what you wanted then and you are not going to get it now. Resolution is not imposing your will on the minority. Take a lesson from history.


BTW doesn't M/B also "outsource" seniority exactly like ALPA? Have you complained to your congressman about that?

 

[Claxon]

"If they were smart" That leave out you easties.

Your right, they can always count on the west in time of need.

eric auxier not wanting fuel

 

[Reed Richards]

How can usapa tell the court they are willing to negotiate seniority with some unknown west party, yet now you say there is no west party that can sit at THIS negotiating table. Why the confusion? Why not the same people usapa was willing to negotiate with before? The only difference would be the Nicolau is ordered in place.

You have absolutely nailed your own dilemma; but truthfully, in the eyes of the law there is really no confusion to the rest of us , only posturing by the honorable "all politics are local" Judge Silver. The "unknown" west party is unknown for a reason, it does not exist. We are now all part of one union, just like we were under ALPA. USAPA will represent your needs going forward in M/B, just like they will address the needs all pilots based in DCA, CLT, and PHL. My animated friend Mr. Peabody would be happy to give you a trip in his "way back" machine if you want, but the space-time continuum is already set. It will only make you feel better for a while. The DFR as to the intent and creation of USAPA is DOA. And after the POR, you will never, ever have any standing bringing it up in court again. So drag out all your old depositions and discovery, it is all now meaningless. Only one question left for the soon to be dead LOA 96. Did USAPA commit a DFR by agreeing to the MOU with no NIC, and with a membership vote? I think the answer is clear (no pun intended.) RR

 

[Claxon]

eric not wanting fuel
Eric Auxier said

July 20, 2008 @ 12:59 am
Petes2cents: On the surface, it sounds terrible. But here’s the real story, which I am attempting to get published in the USA Today:
As a multi-year Captain for USAirlines, I profusely apologize to the public for the misleading full page advertisement by our new “union,” USAPA, in the USA Today this week.
This ad was nothing more than attempt at muscle-flexing by an upstart union trying to turn safety into a negotiating tactic. This “union,” of which nearly all of our fellow West-based and many East-based pilots refuse to become members, has, in the scant few months of its existence, committed such foolhardy acts as:
1) Blatantly disregard and attempt to circumvent legally binding, preexisting arbitration;
2) Falsely accuse and sue members of its own pilot body, the entire case of which was thrown out of Federal Court last week as completely false and malicious;
3) attempt to force nonunion pilots to pay absurdly high union “dues” under threat of termination; and, in its USA Today advertisement;
3) defend a group of disgruntled pilots who are attempting to hurt our airline financially by unnecessarily ordering and burning extra fuel. This has been done by running unneeded engines on the ground during delays, and flying at absurdly inefficient speeds and altitudes.
I can speak with authority that our professional dispatchers do an outstanding job planning our flights with plenty of margin of fuel safety. Only rarely do I need to order and burn extra fuel, as these pilots who claim to be “professionals” have routinely done.
The public can rest assured that ALL of our USAirways pilots do indeed operate their aircraft in a safe manner, and the vast majority do so in an efficient manner as well. I do, however, fear for the Company’s future at the hands of a few loose cannons, both in the cockpit and in our sad excuse for a union, who dare to call their acts “professional.”
Signed,
A Concerned USAirways Captain" (eric auxier)

http://picna.wordpre...t-back-on-fuel/

eric again wanting fuel


Eric Auxier
"It's surprisingly true. Of course the computers calculate just how much is cost-effective. But as a pilot, I love to tanker...never can have enough fuel!"

Eric Auxier
"Lol, fortunately our company is good at respecting our requests 😉"

http://flightaware.c...lot_Video#48238

Eric Auxier
"Thanks for posting my vlog, Michael! Y'all come visit me at capnaux.blogspot.com !"

 

[Claxon]

eric not wanting fuel
Eric Auxier said

July 20, 2008 @ 12:59 am
Petes2cents: On the surface, it sounds terrible. But here’s the real story, which I am attempting to get published in the USA Today:
As a multi-year Captain for USAirlines, I profusely apologize to the public for the misleading full page advertisement by our new “union,” USAPA, in the USA Today this week.
This ad was nothing more than attempt at muscle-flexing by an upstart union trying to turn safety into a negotiating tactic. This “union,” of which nearly all of our fellow West-based and many East-based pilots refuse to become members, has, in the scant few months of its existence, committed such foolhardy acts as:
1) Blatantly disregard and attempt to circumvent legally binding, preexisting arbitration;


Eric Auxier
"Thanks for posting my vlog, Michael! Y'all come visit me at capnaux.blogspot.com !"

Us Airways, America West Seniority Dispute rough draft timeline

2005-2006 US Airways, United in merger talks

2005 Us Airways, America West merge

May 2007 Arbitrator George Nicolau’ pilot seniority award was issued. The award was written with the assistance of two ALPA pilot neutrals, Steve Gillen United Airlines Pilot and Jim Brucia former Continental pilot now United Airlines Pilot.

2007 Us Airways pilots ask ALPA to review the award. ALPA president John Prater, former Continental pilot now United Airlines pilot, assigns ALPA vice president Paul Rice, United pilot, to review the award.

December 2007, Paul Rice, United pilot, delivers seniority list to Us Airways.

2007 A group of Us Airways pilots start a drive to start their own in house pilot union.

March 2008 ALPA puts the Us Airways ALPA Mec in trusteeship.

April 2008 In a National Mediation Board sanctioned election, Us Airways pilots oust ALPA and vote in USAPA as their official pilot representative.

May 2008 United calls off merger talk with Us Airways.

June 24, 2008 United Airlines starts furloughing pilots that will eventually lead to 1450 pilots at United on the street. Had a merger occurred using the Nicolau award derived with the assistance of United pilot neutrals, Us Airways pilots would have suffered the brunt of the furloughs and few United pilots would have been effected.

2008 America West pilots sue for DFR against USAPA.

2009 2010 US Airways and United restart merger talks.

April 2010 United Us Airways end merger talks.

June 2010 The 9th circuit court rules in USAPA’s favor.

 

[snapthis]

Excerpt from Doc 136

C. The MOU vote did not reflect support for, or opposition to, this litigation.
USAPA’s argument that the MOU ratification vote shows that most West Pilots take a different position than the named Plaintiffs on the Nicolau Award is fundamentally flawed. That is because USAPA conducted that vote with an express instruction that pilots should vote without regard to their position on the Nicolau Award. For one example, in a January 23, 2013, message to its members, USAPA stated that “no East pilot should vote against the MOU because they fear that ratifying the MOU will implement the Nicolau Award, and no West pilot should vote for the MOU because they believe the MOU will implement the Nicolau Award.” (Doc. 14 at ¶ 88; Doc. 14-3 at App. 389-90.) For another example, on February 7, 2013, USAPA stated that “West pilots should not vote in favor of the MOU because they believe it will revive the Nicolau Award, and the East pilots should not vote against it because they are concerned it will cause the Nicolau Award to be implemented.” (Doc. 14 at ¶ 90; Doc. 14-3 at App. 391.) It truly defies belief that USAPA now argues that the results of that vote reflect the West Pilots’ position on pursuing this litigation.
D. USAPA accepted the adequacy of the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the West Pilots when it sought to negotiate a settlement.
At the May 14, 2013 hearing, USAPA voiced no objection to negotiating a class- wide settlement with the named Plaintiffs. (Jacob Decl. at ¶ 7 [RT at 78:20 to 78:23 (Mr. Szymanski: “What would be helpful to get this process going on [sic] is for them to understand that they are supposed to sit down and talk with us about this rather than just simply insist on this one Nicolau Award. . . .”)].) Representatives chosen by the named settlement discussions, USAPA essentially waived objecting to their adequacy for purposes of this litigation.
III. Conclusion
This Court has ample discretion to certify the class on the current record before it. It, therefore, should reject USAPA efforts to delay class certification for the evident purpose of delaying the pending trial on the merits. Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to certify the class and, in so doing, to order that USAPA cannot conduct discovery into the adequacy of class representatives prior to the September 24, 2013, trial date.
Dated this 5th day of August, 2013.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Excerpt from Doc 136

C. The MOU vote did not reflect support for, or opposition to, this litigation.
USAPA’s argument that the MOU ratification vote shows that most West Pilots take a different position than the named Plaintiffs on the Nicolau Award is fundamentally flawed. That is because USAPA conducted that vote with an express instruction that pilots should vote without regard to their position on the Nicolau Award. For one example, in a January 23, 2013, message to its members, USAPA stated that “no East pilot should vote against the MOU because they fear that ratifying the MOU will implement the Nicolau Award, and no West pilot should vote for the MOU because they believe the MOU will implement the Nicolau Award.” (Doc. 14 at ¶ 88; Doc. 14-3 at App. 389-90.) For another example, on February 7, 2013, USAPA stated that “West pilots should not vote in favor of the MOU because they believe it will revive the Nicolau Award, and the East pilots should not vote against it because they are concerned it will cause the Nicolau Award to be implemented.” (Doc. 14 at ¶ 90; Doc. 14-3 at App. 391.) It truly defies belief that USAPA now argues that the results of that vote reflect the West Pilots’ position on pursuing this litigation.
D. USAPA accepted the adequacy of the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the West Pilots when it sought to negotiate a settlement.
At the May 14, 2013 hearing, USAPA voiced no objection to negotiating a class- wide settlement with the named Plaintiffs. (Jacob Decl. at ¶ 7 [RT at 78:20 to 78:23 (Mr. Szymanski: “What would be helpful to get this process going on [sic] is for them to understand that they are supposed to sit down and talk with us about this rather than just simply insist on this one Nicolau Award. . . .”)].) Representatives chosen by the named settlement discussions, USAPA essentially waived objecting to their adequacy for purposes of this litigation.
III. Conclusion
This Court has ample discretion to certify the class on the current record before it. It, therefore, should reject USAPA efforts to delay class certification for the evident purpose of delaying the pending trial on the merits. Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to certify the class and, in so doing, to order that USAPA cannot conduct discovery into the adequacy of class representatives prior to the September 24, 2013, trial date.
Dated this 5th day of August, 2013.

Don't forget THIS little GEM....

"Without explanation or notice, USAPA broke from its usual standard practice and tracked the MOU ratification vote by domicile—a procedure that distinguishes West Pilot votes. Had USAPA disclosed that it would do so prior to the vote, and had it disclosed that it would use the results of the vote in an effort to deny class certification, those results would surely have been quite different."

Did AOL "advise" it's pilots to vote for the MOU? Did they tell them that it would make it ripe? Do West pilots have the ability to make intelligent choices, especially when it comes to voting?

Here is what the Seventh said in Rakestraw, a case VERY MUCH like our own:

" A voluntary choice may not be withdrawn because the choice was an effort to make the best of a bad situation. Adult pilots, of sound mind and well aware of the consequences of their acts, must expect to keep their contracts, even when they wish they could have made better deals."

 

[Pi brat]

Did AOL "advise" it's pilots to vote for the MOU? Did they tell them that it would make it ripe? Do West pilots have the ability to make intelligent choices, especially when it comes to voting?

Of course they did, but they had to! They didn't have any other choice! It's USAPA's fault!

 

[end_of_alpa]

Excerpt from Doc 136

C. The MOU vote did not reflect support for, or opposition to, this litigation.
USAPA’s argument that the MOU ratification vote shows that most West Pilots take a different position than the named Plaintiffs on the Nicolau Award is fundamentally flawed. That is because USAPA conducted that vote with an express instruction that pilots should vote without regard to their position on the Nicolau Award. For one example, in a January 23, 2013, message to its members, USAPA stated that “no East pilot should vote against the MOU because they fear that ratifying the MOU will implement the Nicolau Award, and no West pilot should vote for the MOU because they believe the MOU will implement the Nicolau Award.” (Doc. 14 at ¶ 88; Doc. 14-3 at App. 389-90.) For another example, on February 7, 2013, USAPA stated that “West pilots should not vote in favor of the MOU because they believe it will revive the Nicolau Award, and the East pilots should not vote against it because they are concerned it will cause the Nicolau Award to be implemented.” (Doc. 14 at ¶ 90; Doc. 14-3 at App. 391.) It truly defies belief that USAPA now argues that the results of that vote reflect the West Pilots’ position on pursuing this litigation.
D. USAPA accepted the adequacy of the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the West Pilots when it sought to negotiate a settlement.
At the May 14, 2013 hearing, USAPA voiced no objection to negotiating a class- wide settlement with the named Plaintiffs. (Jacob Decl. at ¶ 7 [RT at 78:20 to 78:23 (Mr. Szymanski: “What would be helpful to get this process going on [sic] is for them to understand that they are supposed to sit down and talk with us about this rather than just simply insist on this one Nicolau Award. . . .&rdquo😉].) Representatives chosen by the named settlement discussions, USAPA essentially waived objecting to their adequacy for purposes of this litigation.
III. Conclusion
This Court has ample discretion to certify the class on the current record before it. It, therefore, should reject USAPA efforts to delay class certification for the evident purpose of delaying the pending trial on the merits. Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to certify the class and, in so doing, to order that USAPA cannot conduct discovery into the adequacy of class representatives prior to the September 24, 2013, trial date.
Dated this 5th day of August, 2013.

How about this LEGAL RESPONSE:

"A rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger, treating service at either firm as of equal weight, without quotas or other preferences for either group of employees, serves the interests of labor as a whole. Seniority lists sometimes are endtailed. That is, the employees of the smaller firm are given seniority only from the date of the acquisition, effectively added at the end of the larger firm's seniority roster. Contentions that endtailing violates the union's duty have been unsuccessful. Frandsen v. Railway Clerks, 782 F.2d 674 (7th Cir.1986); Schick v. NLRB, 409 F.2d 395 (7th Cir.1969). The propriety of dovetailing, treating the two groups identically, follows directly. If the union's leaders took account of the fact that the workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears more harshly on the minority. Cf. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). These principles dispose of the Ozark-TWA case."

 

[snapthis]

Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 136 Filed 08/05/13 Page 4 of 10​

Memorandum of Points and Authorities​

I. Introduction​

In its July 19, 2013, Order, this Court tried to discourage USAPA from opposing the West Pilots’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 11) unless it had “substantially better arguments” than the “not well-reasoned” arguments that USAPA made in the two prior litigations. (Doc. 122 at 7:2 to 7:11.) In light of that advice, it is truly amazing to see what USAPA advances as a “substantially better argument.” During the weeks leading up to the ratification vote on the Memorandum of Understandin (“MOU&rdquo😉, USAPA went to lengths to explain that this vote would not be a referendum on the Nicolau Award. But, after the vote was completed, USAPA quickly pivoted and began to use the West Pilot vote tally in ways that are directly inconsistent with those pre-ratification assurances. Contrary to those assurances, and contrary to its duty to treat the West Pilots fairly, East Pilot dominated USAPA is trying to use the MOU ratification vote to deprive the West Pilots of means to defend the Nicolau Award. Without explanation or notice, USAPA broke from its usual standard practice and tracked the MOU ratification vote by domicile—a procedure that distinguishes West Pilot votes. Had USAPA disclosed that it would do so prior to the vote, and had it disclosed that it would use the results of the vote in an effort to deny class certification, those results would surely have been quite different. But USAPA does not stop there. In both its Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 44) and its Answer (Doc. 123), USAPA asserts ratification as an affirmative defense. Apparently, USAPA intends to argue that all West Pilots (including hundreds of non-member West Pilots who had no opportunity to vote) lost both their individual and collective rights to pursue a DFR claim against USAPA simply because a majority of USAPA’s West Pilot members voted to ratify the MOU. That’s right. USAPA’s “substantially better argument” against class certification is that a vote that was not intended to reflect a pilot’s position on the Nicolau Award defeats a motion to certify a class to pursue a claim to enforce the Nicolau Award. If that argument fails, USAPA then intends to argue that this vote provides an affirmative defense to that claim. Is this really how a bargaining agent with a duty to represent all pilots fairly should treat a minority group of its members? ​

The answer is clearly no and the time has come to put an end to such wrongdoing.​

 

[Reed Richards]

"Without explanation or notice, USAPA broke from its usual standard practice and tracked the MOU ratification vote by domicile—a procedure that distinguishes West Pilot votes."
Another "fail" for Marty. At any time, Ballot Point can and does provide such information to the union. Being as the West pilots are suing the union, it would be odd for USAPA not to ask for the breakdown on PHX voting. For Harper to reach with such a ridiculous premise, the idea that the PHX vote has meaning is even stronger. Me thinks he doth....RR

 

[cleardirect]

Don't forget THIS little GEM....

"Without explanation or notice, USAPA broke from its usual standard practice and tracked the MOU ratification vote by domicile—a procedure that distinguishes West Pilot votes. Had USAPA disclosed that it would do so prior to the vote, and had it disclosed that it would use the results of the vote in an effort to deny class certification, those results would surely have been quite different."

Did AOL "advise" it's pilots to vote for the MOU? Did they tell them that it would make it ripe? Do West pilots have the ability to make intelligent choices, especially when it comes to voting?

Here is what the Seventh said in Rakestraw, a case VERY MUCH like our own:

" A voluntary choice may not be withdrawn because the choice was an effort to make the best of a bad situation. Adult pilots, of sound mind and well aware of the consequences of their acts, must expect to keep their contracts, even when they wish they could have made better deals."

Yes keeping your contract. Like the T/A that states the result of arbitration will be used even if you don't like the deal.

You easties were aware of the consequences of arbitration. Oh wait, no you were not. Because your MEC was telling you glorious tales that you were winning. That DOH was the gold standard and no other result was possible. Live up to your deal.

 

[cleardirect]

Of course they did, but they had to! They didn't have any other choice! It's USAPA's fault!

Silly west pilots. Relying on our union to tell us the truth. That when they said the MOU was seniority neutral then come back and say you should have known it was not really neutral that is your fault for believing what the union told you.

Fraud kind of neutralizes your defense.

 

[cleardirect]

How about this LEGAL RESPONSE:

"A rational person could conclude that dovetailing seniority lists in a merger, treating service at either firm as of equal weight, without quotas or other preferences for either group of employees, serves the interests of labor as a whole. Seniority lists sometimes are endtailed. That is, the employees of the smaller firm are given seniority only from the date of the acquisition, effectively added at the end of the larger firm's seniority roster. Contentions that endtailing violates the union's duty have been unsuccessful. Frandsen v. Railway Clerks, 782 F.2d 674 (7th Cir.1986); Schick v. NLRB, 409 F.2d 395 (7th Cir.1969). The propriety of dovetailing, treating the two groups identically, follows directly. If the union's leaders took account of the fact that the workers at the larger firm preferred this outcome, so what? Majority rule is the norm. Equal treatment does not become forbidden because the majority prefers equality, even if formal equality bears more harshly on the minority. Cf. Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). These principles dispose of the Ozark-TWA case."

So whatever the majority of APA pilots wants is fine with you? They can do whatever type seniority list the majority wants because that is the norm?

We can avoid M/B because the seventh circuit controls? That you don't really need a fair and neutral process but the majority can dictate to the minority what seniority will be? Is that the point you are trying to make?

 

[Pi brat]

Silly west pilots. Relying on our union to tell us the truth. That when they said the MOU was seniority neutral then come back and say you should have known it was not really neutral that is your fault for believing what the union told you.

Fraud kind of neutralizes your defense.

Ok clear, let's talk about fraud. Wasn't it the AOL plan all along to have it's members vote for the MOU, knowing that it didn't include the Nic, then to file suit that it was illegal, get an injunction and then when the APA took over they would drop the appeal? Just tell the truth.