August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Claxon]

Did you go back to AA?

Metroyet is probably spinning in circles trying to figure out what to do.

 

[luvthe9]

I suppose as an east pilot, I could tell Dave Ciabattoni that I will file an identical grievance with Yarko just to get a copy of the denial unless USAPA releases it.

Are you listening Dave? Are you listening Gary? Are you listening (Lack-of-)Comm Committee?

Or....maybe one of the east Nic supporters could do this for us? Traitor? Chip? How about it?

Those boys will do anything to keep their 200,000 plus salary and that includes not telling the truth to the membership, that is gonig to change very shortly, hope they are listening. Ask the fine folks at the Compass Correction (keeping our union honest, joke of the year) they put him in.

 

[exB717Flyer]

Did you go back to AA?

Nope. Can't hold ORD yet.

 

[exB717Flyer]

While that admittedly demonstrates an amazingly evolved degree of "intelligence" within the hive "mind": Wouldn't that be the very same MOU leonidas' brilliant lawyers immediately afterwards asserted to be "illegal"?

Once again, when an Eastie disparages our lawyers that's when I know we're getting to you.
You're absolutely right, the AOL lawyers are incompetant and are only milking us for money. Too bad we don't have Seeham, er, Szymanski on our side.

 

[Pi brat]

Nope. Can't hold ORD yet.

Good luck. It's nice that you have to option of both. You weren't expecting that as I remember.

 

[snapthis]

Once again, when an Eastie disparages our lawyers that's when I know we're getting to you.
You're absolutely right, the AOL lawyers are incompetant and are only milking us for money. Too bad we don't have Seeham, er, Szymanski on our side.

Or Robert Seigel

Appeal No. 13-15000
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date: August 21, 2013

IV. CONTRARY TO USAPA’S ASSERTIONS, THE DISTRICT COURT
DID NOT REACH THE UNDERLYING QUESTION OF WHETHER
USAPA IS BOUND BY THE NICOLAU AWARD.
USAPA makes the specious argument that because US Airways did not Appeal “the district court’s ruling that USAPA is not bound by the Nicolau Award and is free to negotiate something other than the Nicolau Award,” that “ruling” should be summarily affirmed.
This argument distorts the district court’s opinion, which did not hold that USAPA is not bound by the Nicolau Award. To the contrary, the district court specifically concluded that “[w]hen the collective bargaining agreement is finalized, individuals will be able to determine whether USAPA’s abandonment of the Nicolau Award was permissible, i.e. supported by a legitimate union purpose. The court, moreover, cautioned that “the West Pilot Defendants may have
viable legal claims in the future should the collective bargaining agreement contain
a seniority provision harmful to a subsection of the union. US Airways’ opening brief challenged only the district court’s ruling on ripeness, because the district court held that the threshold issue of ripeness prevented it from addressing whether the Nicolau Award is in fact binding on USAPA under the circumstances of this case. This appeal does not and cannot present the underlying question of whether USAPA breaches its DFR if it pursues a non-Nicolau seniority regime because the district cour specifically declined to rule on that question.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and in US Airways’ opening brief, this Court
should reverse the judgment below.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert A. Siegel

 

[EastUS1]

You're absolutely right, the AOL lawyers are incompetant and are only milking us for money.

Agreed.

"...when an Eastie disparages our lawyers that's when I know we're getting to you." Seriously? 😉 Umm...sure thing, if that's what the hive "mind" wants to imagine, or simply needs to believe. 🙂

 

[EastUS1]

For the reasons set forth above and in US Airways’ opening brief, this Court
should reverse the judgment below.

So..Refresh our memories here: Exactly what was "the judgment below" that supposedly "should" be reversed? You seem to have ommitted that entirely....? 😉

 

[snapthis]

So..Refresh our memories here: Exactly what was "the judgment below" that supposedly "should" be reversed? You seem to have ommitted that entirely....? 😉

Good morning East.

They must have left that part out. Nothing other than the conclusion and I conclude the company does not support USAPA's position.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 4
I. US AIRWAYS HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS APPEAL. ........ 4
A. The District Court Dismissed This Case As Unripe. ................. 5
B. The Declaratory Judgment Relief Requested By
US Airways Has Not Changed. ................................................. 6
II. US AIRWAYS HAS A RIPE CLAIM FOR A
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.......................................................... 7
A. The Constitutional Ripeness Test Is Satisfied. .......................... 7
B. The Prudential Ripeness Test Is Not Applicable Here,
But In Any Event It Is Also Satisfied. ..................................... 11
III. ADDINGTON DOES NOT CONTROL BECAUSE THE
FACTS AND CLAIMS IN THIS CASE ARE
MEANINGFULLY DIFFERENT. .................................................... 13
IV. CONTRARY TO USAPA’S ASSERTIONS, THE DISTRICT
COURT DID NOT REACH THE UNDERLYING QUESTION
OF WHETHER USAPA IS BOUND BY THE NICOLAU
AWARD. ............................................................................................ 15
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................

 

[EastUS1]

They must have left that part out. Nothing other than the conclusion and I conclude the company does not support USAPA's position.

"They must have left that part out." That's convenient, especially since an actual Judgment's referenced, versus merely whatever BS the company's completely self interested notions of what "should" be are.

ANY employee fretting over what "the company"/team-tempe supports or doesn't in litigation, need only note that they, any/all employees, certainly aren't anywhere within that warm, nurturing "support", and would be complete fools to concern themselves therein. How any of the west pilots can yet imagine 'the company" as being on your side's long baffled me...but then; how ANY of you EVER bought into some perverse fantasy of "Doug" being some first-name-basis-"buddy" always astonished me.

Never forget those illuminating emails: "industry standard contracts" = "silly stuff". 😉

 

[Reed Richards]

Deleted

 

[Graceson]

Agreed.

"...when an Eastie disparages our lawyers that's when I know we're getting to you." Seriously? 😉 Umm...sure thing, if that's what the hive "mind" wants to imagine, or simply needs to believe. 🙂

The definition of the "hive mind or groupthink" is, a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for conformity results in incorrect decision-making outcome. Members try to reach consensus decision without evaluation or alternative viewpoints."

I still feel Mgt is posturing pro-nic intervention, compelling the courts to rule that Mgt must stop intervening and allow an internal process to reach conclusion.

They aren't driven by one result or the other. Their motive is to keep rephrasing the liability question and gathering court transcripts so that, in good faith, the company may show it has made its best effort to effect the NIC and therefore should not suffer liability where the courts have allowed it no legal voice in the exclusive affairs of a CBA's internal determinations.

 

[snapthis]

"They must have left that part out." That's convenient, especially since an actual Judgment's referenced, versus merely whatever BS the company's completely self interested notions of what "should" be are.

Let's get Inspector Claxon Clouseau on the case to find the "missing"
document.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXn2QVipK2o

 

[EastUS1]

The definition of the "hive mind or groupthink" is, a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for conformity results in incorrect decision-making outcome. Members try to reach consensus decision without evaluation or alternative viewpoints."

I still feel Mgt is posturing pro-nic intervention, compelling the courts to rule that Mgt must stop intervening and allow an internal process to reach conclusion.

They aren't driven by one result or the other. Their motive is to keep rephrasing the liability question and gathering court transcripts so that, in good faith, the company may show it has made its best effort to effect the NIC and therefore should not suffer liability where the courts have allowed it no legal voice in the exclusive affairs of a CBA's internal determinations.

That's an apt summary I fully agree with, well...save for some possible quibbling and expansion on the "hive mind" definition.

 

[Claxon]

america west pilots see things that most people do not see, like the nic list from the company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXsrH2qT2O4