Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion

[snapthis]

As discussed in Plaintiffs’ Summary of Evidence, USAPA BPR representatives
unequivocally stated that USAPA’s constitution precludes the Nicolau Award. Doc. 259
at § III(B). Captain Hummel, Captain Bradford and numerous others campaigned on the
basis of “unconditional” support for date of hire. Id. at III(D). USAPA’s protestations of
fairness aside, the overwhelming weight of the evidence demonstrates that USAPA will
use date of hire to integrate with American pilots absent intervention of the Court.
38. See ¶ 37, supra.
39. See ¶ 37, supra. Other than saying that two lists offer “flexibility” to
USAPA, no one from USAPA can articulate how this is the case or offered to share with
the Court (or West Pilots) any of the “various scenarios” the Merger Committee is
currently contemplating.
40. USAPA cannot fairly represent the West Pilots on the issue of seniority.
See Plaintiffs’ Summary of Evidence at § VIII. USAPA has stymied efforts by West
Pilots on the BPR to communicate with those in its domicile. [Scherff ]. USAPA has also
refused to amend its constitution to be neutral. Id. While stymying West efforts to
educate US Airways Pilots as whole, USAPA has engaged on a campaign of
misinformation regarding the Nicolau Award from its inception. Doc. 259 at § III(E).
41. Id. Every West Pilot involved in USAPA governance testified that based
on their experience, USAPA cannot represent the West Pilots fairly and impartially on
the issue of seniority. [Koontz, Holmes, Scherff]

 

[snapthis]

There you go. The deception exposed.

 

[Piedmont1984]

I say USAPA should cancel the MOU. No more 10h to argue over; as well as no more retro pay, signing bonus, or parity with AA. Oh - and no more Addington II. Lets see if the company has any desire to negotiate a new MOU at this late date and we can all return to the status quo ante mitis. Plus, the PHX pilots should be happy that the MOU they voted for in overwhelming numbers has been rescinded (insert confused emoticon).

 

[luvthe9]

There you go. The deception exposed.

You got schooled by Claxon with facts when you floated your East pilot drinking in uniform story. You kids never learn.

 

[luvthe9]

There you go. The deception exposed.

Buyers remorse. No Nic. And you voted it away. Nice.

 

[luvthe9]

It is apparent there was a “secret agenda” with respect to § 10(h). Only Mr.
Szymanski knows the purpose or intent of Section 10(h). [Hummel, Pauley, Colello,
Owens [dep.], Homes]. He refused to testify. [¶ 3, supra]. Before ratification USAPA
took the position that the MOU was “neutral” on seniority, after ratification it states that §
10(h) gave USAPA a “clean slate.” [Colello, Holmes, Scherff]. The only plausible reason
for doing so was to trick the West Pilots to voting in favor of the MOU

Tricked? Hardly. Marty is the one hat tricked you out of your wallets.

 

[EastUS1]

 
  I can smell your fear from here.

 I see. That explains the total lack of any PM acceptances then. Sigh! What a boring bunch, especially for "knights"/etc, ad nauseum. Carry on, pwecious widdle "spartan." 😉

 

[Fully Cross Utilized]

 

 I see. That explains the total lack of any PM acceptances then. Sigh! What a boring bunch, especially for "knights"/etc, ad nauseum. Carry on, pwecious widdle "spartan." 😉

Grow up already. Nobody wants to play your drunken reindeer games.

 

[Monkee]

I see. That explains the total lack of any PM acceptances then. Sigh! What a boring bunch, especially for "knights"/etc, ad nauseum. Carry on, pwecious widdle "spartan." 😉

How is that hangover treating you this morning? When you start having a lack of regret the next day, that is a danger sign.

Talk about boring, you haven't updated your lame schtick in years, same bunch of silly names, boastful challenges, threatening PM's, etc. Now you have to question the sexuality of other posters? You really have a pile of issues. If you can't afford a psychiatrist at least get a copy of DSM IV, your projection is so obvious...

 

[Claxon]

26. USAPA did not disclose to the West Pilots that the “effect” of § 10(h)
would be to nullify the obligation in the TA to utilize the Nicolau Award. See ¶¶ 19-21,
supra. USAPA has also failed to articulate what the legitimate union purpose of
including §10(h) in the MOU was other than generalities about the economic benefits of
the MOU, ........................
Despite
Mr. Pauley’s attempts to mislead the Court, it is obvious to all that USAPA will go into
McCaskill-Bond process with its pilots organized by date of hire list(s). See ¶ 10, supra.
28. Exhibit 310 was an internal discussion amongst Plaintiffs regarding the
“intent behind the language in the MOU.” USAPA has still failed to provide that intent.
Plaintiffs’ suppositions on USAPA’s intent with respect to the MOU, or its effect are
simply evidence of USAPA’s failure to provide that information to the West Pilots prior
to the vote on the MOU. There is no evidence that the West Pilots, Leonidas or
Captain Holmes knew, prior to the ratification vote, that USAPA intended for the MOU
to nullify its obligation to utilize the Nicolau Award.
Leonidas and its members like Captain Holmes have been fighting for six
years,
with their own funds, for the Nicolau. That they recommended that the West Pilots vote
in favor of the MOU is evidence of the lack of disclosure by USAPA and the confusion
created by USAPA, Mr. Szymanski and § 10(h).
 

 
Touting your own west legal briefs again, as your own evidence of credibility, to your own side of the arguement.  
  
"A=Holmes
 
Q. As of this point in December of 2012, you and others had
concerns about the language of 10H; would that be fair to say?
A. Yes.
Q. And other people had views about 10H and its effects that
you disagreed with; is that correct?
A. Yes, we disagreed with that.
Q. But that as of that time, you knew there was a question
mark in the air, what is the effect of the MOU on the
Transition Agreement. That was a question mark; is that
correct?
A. That's a question mark.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. I agreed with you.
Q. You agree with me.
You had your view; other people had their views; is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at some point you decided to put that question mark,
that concern aside because there were other things in the MOU
which you thought were worth going forward with. Is that your
testimony, sir?
A. I was forced to put that aside. It wasn't an agreement
that -- you know, if it's truly neutral, why did it need to be
in there? I said that repeatedly.
MR. SILVERMAN: Move to strike as nonresponsive,
Judge.
THE COURT: Sustained."

 

[Phoenix]

While you guys were rambling about Spartans, Leonidas was busy with....
Document 263 Filed 11/06/13
 
USAPA fails to offer evidence of its legitimate union purpose for using §10(h) of
 
the MOU to amend the 2005 Transition Agreement (TA). USAPA has presented no blah, blah , blah.....

The Plaintiff's clearly desire to persuade the judge to absolve the plaintiffs of any burden of proof. The plaintiffs desire instead that the judge will implicitly assume the defendants are guilty of a DFR breach because they fail to prove their innocence.

This is not a surprise as the plaintiffs began with an implicit assumption from the beginning and even the 9th was unable to persuade them of their lawyers idiocy (or brilliant, profitable billing sham ).

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

The Plaintiff's clearly desire to persuade the judge to absolve the plaintiffs of any burden of proof. The plaintiffs desire instead that the judge will implicitly assume the defendants are guilty of a DFR breach because they fail to prove their innocence.

This is not a surprise as the plaintiffs began with an implicit assumption from the beginning and even the 9th was unable to persuade them of their lawyers idiocy (or brilliant, profitable sham ).

Wait till 308.310, Fun , Fun, Fun!

 

[Claxon]

"Q. It was a big topic of conversation amongst this group. Is
that right?
A. That among other things, yes.
Q. Among other things. Thank you.
Sir, you testified earlier -- withdrawn.
Sir, did you or Mr. Calveri ever bring forward during
the negotiations for the MOU, MOU II, for it to include a
provision that, in words or substance, that the Nicolau Award
must be included in the McCaskill-Bond process? Did you ever
bring forward a proposal in that regard?
A. No. The first questions, like I said, we had with that
were when we had that Merger Committee and conference call and
Pat kind of beat us to the punch on that so I didn't see the
need that they were going to do 180 degrees on what they
proposed.
MR. SILVERMAN: I move to strike as nonresponsive,
Judge.
THE COURT: Sustained."

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

There you go. The deception exposed.

Not so fast our Finnish First Officer!

 

[Res Judicata]

I say USAPA should cancel the MOU. No more 10h to argue over; as well as no more retro pay, signing bonus, or parity with AA. Oh - and no more Addington II. Lets see if the company has any desire to negotiate a new MOU at this late date and we can all return to the status quo ante mitis. Plus, the PHX pilots should be happy that the MOU they voted for in overwhelming numbers has been rescinded (insert confused emoticon).

I know in your dream scab world USTUPID is a powerful force to be reckoned with but the reality is you aged, impotent scabs have zero influence over anything and have long ago been relegated to the file of least importance. You think USCABA can just "cancel" the MOU.!

HAAA!!!! Gee, what a surprise...you want to renege and start over. Your fake POS union and reckless attorney whom apparently holds his license in poor regard, have nothing, get nothing, deserve nothing. Best of luck at the 9th.

Get it?