August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[cactusboy53]

Scott Kirby, "NO"

LCC: "Callsign, CACTUS"

 

[cactusboy53]

Most stupid and inane post of the Holiday weekend. Did you really just post that, thinking anyone would not read the entire content? Really? RR

[font="Times New Roman""]“Of course, in negotiating for a particular seniority regime, USAPA must not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground.”[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]Judge Roslyn O. Silver, Chief United States District Judge[/font]

[font="Times New Roman""]No. CV-10-01570-PHX-ROS ORDER; October 11, 2012[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED [/font][font="Times New Roman""]the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing Counts I and III of the complaint and in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint stating US Airline Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose.[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]Judge Roslyn O. Silver, Chief United States District Judge[/font]

[font="Times New Roman""]No. CV-10-01570-PHX-ROS ORDER; October 11, 2012[/font]

 

[cactusboy53]

Yeah, I don't understand why he keeps repeating what the majority opinion said... "[font=Times New Roman']The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA."[/font]

It appears CB hasn't figured out that is the majority opinion identifying the fatal assumption that the dissent made.. i.e. implicitly assumed (assumed without explaining a rationale, no legal support)... No legal rationale to assume the Nic is binding on USAPA.

For some reason the West is happy to keep repeating the same implicit assumption as if it were enough.. "Final and Binding" means final and binding... whatever, "Final and Binding" was merely a feel good buzz phrase penned by the former CBA that wasn't able to create the utopia they promised.

The only way the Nic has any life is within the narrow, explicit terms of the TA, and even then the TA is very explicit that it can be modified, as Judge Silver stated so plainly.

Why do they hang $Millions on the same assumption?

[font="Times New Roman""]“Actually, it is USAPA that is needlessly delaying the resolution of the seniority dispute and jeopardizing the enforceability of the agreement the parties are able to reach. …….The arbitrator’s decision was to be final and binding on both pilot groups and was to be accepted by the Company so long as certain conditions were met. The Nicolau Award has resulted in four years of litigation including a trial in federal court and jury verdict fining USAPA’s proposal for a non-Nicolau list to constitute an unlawful breach of the union’s duty of fair representation….”[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]Paul D. Jones; Vice President – Legal Affairs and Chief Compliance Officer[/font]

[font="Times New Roman""]Exhibit 1 of Declaration of Counsel; Case 13-15000, 02/20/2013[/font]

 

[cactusboy53]

Maybe he is in favor of the strategy to implicitly assume the Nic is binding on USAPA.... there is no other way to arrive at it being so.

[font="Times New Roman""]THE COURT: The record will show the presence of the jury, counsel. Will the foreperson please tell us whether the jury has unanimously reached a verdict.[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]JURY FOREPERSON: We have, Your Honor.[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]THE COURT: And will you please hand it to the clerk. All right. And will the clerk please read and record the verdict?[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Omitting the caption, we the jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above-entitled matter, find as follows: On the plaintiff class's claim for breach of duty of fair representation against defendant USAPA, in favor of plaintiffs.[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]Don Addington, et al.,Plaintiffs, vs. US Airline Pilots Association, et al., Defendants.[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]Jury Trial, Day 11 – VERDICT[/font]

 

[cactusboy53]

Maybe he is in favor of the strategy to implicitly assume the Nic is binding on USAPA.... there is no other way to arrive at it being so.

[font="Times New Roman""]“In this instance, despite a year of negotiating efforts, there was no agreement on a list. Subsequently, the Representatives choose the Undersigned as Board Chairman and opted for the Med-Arb process. Those mediation efforts, held over the course of five days in October 2006, were similarly unsuccessful. Thereafter, the Parties agreed on the arbitration ground rules, and, pursuant to the Policy, each chose a Pilot Neutral from ALPA's Pilot Neutral Master List as a nonvoting member of the Arbitration Board.”[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]George Nicolau, Mediator[/font]

[font="Times New Roman""]AWA/AAA Opinion & Award; May 07, 2007[/font]

 

[cactusboy53]

Could not agree more. Well said and done

How about the following from Mike Cleary? Can you agree with that.....:

[font="Times New Roman""]“…The Arbitration Board conducts an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses, evidence and a stenographic transcript. The Board’s Opinion and Award are to be issued simultaneously, within 150 days following the PID, unless both pilot groups and ALPA’s President agree to an extension. The Merger Policy provides, “The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA.” No ALPA seniority integration arbitration result has ever been set aside by the courts although some dissatisfied pilots have challenged the award before administrative agencies and the courts.”[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]US Airwaves June/July 2000[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]US Air Merger Committee Members: Todd Cardoza (PIT), Mike Cleary (BOS),Randy Mowery (PIT)[/font]

 

[Phoenix]

[font=Times New Roman"]“Actually, it is USAPA that is needlessly delaying the resolution of the seniority dispute and jeopardizing the enforceability of the agreement the parties are able to reach. …….The arbitrator’s decision was to be final and binding on both pilot groups and was to be accepted by the Company so long as certain conditions were met. The Nicolau Award has resulted in four years of litigation including a trial in federal court and jury verdict fining USAPA’s proposal for a non-Nicolau list to constitute an unlawful breach of the union’s duty of fair representation….”[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]Paul D. Jones; Vice President – Legal Affairs and Chief Compliance Officer[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]Exhibit 1 of Declaration of Counsel; Case 13-15000, 02/20/2013[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]THE COURT: The record will show the presence of the jury, counsel. Will the foreperson please tell us whether the jury has unanimously reached a verdict.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]JURY FOREPERSON: We have, Your Honor.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]THE COURT: And will you please hand it to the clerk. All right. And will the clerk please read and record the verdict?[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Omitting the caption, we the jury, duly empaneled and sworn in the above-entitled matter, find as follows: On the plaintiff class's claim for breach of duty of fair representation against defendant USAPA, in favor of plaintiffs.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]Don Addington, et al.,Plaintiffs, vs. US Airline Pilots Association, et al., Defendants.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]Jury Trial, Day 11 – VERDICT[/font]

Uh, yeah, both of those quotes rest on the implicit assumption that the Nic is binding on USAPA. Stick with that strategy!

 

[Phoenix]

How about the following from Mike Cleary? Can you agree with that.....:

[font=Times New Roman"]“…The Arbitration Board conducts an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses, evidence and a stenographic transcript. The Board’s Opinion and Award are to be issued simultaneously, within 150 days following the PID, unless both pilot groups and ALPA’s President agree to an extension. The Merger Policy provides, “The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA.” No ALPA seniority integration arbitration result has ever been set aside by the courts although some dissatisfied pilots have challenged the award before administrative agencies and the courts.”[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]US Airwaves June/July 2000[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]US Air Merger Committee Members: Todd Cardoza (PIT), Mike Cleary (BOS),Randy Mowery (PIT)[/font]

No one has asked the court to set aside the Nic. Remember, your lawsuit is saying USAPA set it aside and you are asking the court to find USAPA is guilty of a DFR for negotiating.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove that USAPA's results fall far outside a wide range of reasonableness in order to prove they are guilty. Marty implicitly assumes USAPA is guilty (and implicitly assumes the courts will agree with his premise). He assumes the burden of proof will be on USAPA to prove their innocence. Do you have a link so I can donate to Marty?

 

[Reed Richards]

[font=Times New Roman"]“Of course, in negotiating for a particular seniority regime, USAPA must not breach its duty of fair representation. Accordingly, if USAPA wishes to abandon the Nicolau Award and accept the consequences of this course of action, it is free to do so. By discarding the result of a valid arbitration and negotiating for a different seniority regime, USAPA is running the risk that it will be sued by the disadvantaged pilots when the new collective bargaining agreement is finalized. An impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result. Discarding the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground.”[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]Judge Roslyn O. Silver, Chief United States District Judge[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]No. CV-10-01570-PHX-ROS ORDER; October 11, 2012[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED [/font][font=Times New Roman"]the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment dismissing Counts I and III of the complaint and in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint stating US Airline Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose.[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]Judge Roslyn O. Silver, Chief United States District Judge[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]No. CV-10-01570-PHX-ROS ORDER; October 11, 2012[/font]

Ok, you are dumb AND stubborn. Judge Silver told you in open session that the LUP was already in place, and she made it a point to NOT include any new requirement in her latest edict. WT heck, you are rep, can you not READ transcripts? Go fish. RR

 

[cactusboy53]

Hang on Scooter, I think it's gonna be a bumpy ride for the USAPA faithful.

I can't wait to hear what APA thinks of the CLT/PHL joint update. GENIUS!!

 

[cactusboy53]

Ok, you are dumb AND stubborn. Judge Silver told you in open session that the LUP was already in place, and she made it a point to NOT include any new requirement in her latest edict. WT heck, you are rep, can you not READ transcripts? Go fish. RR

DANGEROUS GROUND

 

[nic4us]

No one has asked the court to set aside the Nic. Remember, your lawsuit is saying USAPA set it aside and you are asking the court to find USAPA is guilty of a DFR for negotiating.

Of course no court has set aside or vacated the Nic....and no court will.

That is why to this date the Nic is the only accepted system seniority list at LCC, and as company att. Siegel said in court is the "status quo" at LCC.


Also, you have no grasp on what our lawsuit says or even asks. We all know uscaba is free to negotiate.

Two problems....first and most obvious is they have no party to negotiate with, because nobody takes a scab union seriously. Particularly a crybaby scab union who has "sacrificed sooooooo much.......whaaaaaahhh. That is the cliff notes on the recent CLT/PHL domicile update put out by those 6 top tier scabs.

Second problem, and what the lawsuit is about, is uscaba fails it's DFR if it negotiates to harm it's membership. You do know who the memberships is right?

 

[nic4us]

Hang on Scooter, I think it's gonna be a bumpy ride for the USAPA faithful.

I can't wait to hear what APA thinks of the CLT/PHL joint update. GENIUS!!

This is just too funny.

RR or any other uscabian accusing others of not being able to read a transcript.

Dangerous Ground.....PAIN of unquestionably ripe DFR.....Powerful Evidence....find for the plaintif....etc. Etc. Etc.

Oh, and my absolute favorite..."We leave usapa free to bargain for ALL LCC pilot, both east and West"

Anybody remember who are the actual parties to the Nic?

 

[Reed Richards]

[font=Times New Roman"]“Actually, it is USAPA that is needlessly delaying the resolution of the seniority dispute and jeopardizing the enforceability of the agreement the parties are able to reach. …….The arbitrator’s decision was to be final and binding on both pilot groups and was to be accepted by the Company so long as certain conditions were met. The Nicolau Award has resulted in four years of litigation including a trial in federal court and jury verdict fining USAPA’s proposal for a non-Nicolau list to constitute an unlawful breach of the union’s duty of fair representation….”[/font]
[font=Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font=Times New Roman"]Paul D. Jones; Vice President – Legal Affairs and Chief Compliance Officer[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]Exhibit 1 of Declaration of Counsel; Case 13-15000, 02/20/2013[/font]

I stand corrected. Paul Jones and Siegel are much dumber than you. Both misled Parker on the RLA, and both are fighting for their jobs going forward. Not ripe, and no seat at the table for you in M/B, were another merger to occur. I think Jones is tap dancing, can you or someone PLEASE post the letters to your pilots regarding their grievances on the NIC? Not going to happen, but I so look forward so Silver reading them. RR

 

[Phoenix]

Of course no court has set aside or vacated the Nic....and no court will.

....

NO ONE IS ASKING THE COURT TO VACATE THE NIC. Remember, you are accusing USAPA and USAir of abandoning the Nic already. Poof bye bye.

Do you not realize you are the plaintiff? You have the burden of proof. You asked the court to find USAPA and USAir guilty of a DFR for negotiating the Nic requirement away, i.e. vacating the Nic. You must prove they have exceeded a wide range of reasonableness to prove they have breached their DFR. The plaintiff must prove guilt. The plaintiff cannot pick the measure. The 9th gave you the measure, "wide range of reasonableness". Now you must show how USAPA's negotiation results fall outside of that.

Marty keeps hoping to get the courts to require USAPA to prove their innocence. Bad plan. Back fire. Blow up in face bad.