high*flyer
Advanced
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 62
Haa!!!! Gee, so full of yourself you don't see sarcasm! Good luck in the 9th. Grade that is! Get it?
Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
I'm embarrassed for you that you completely missed the point of his intentionally absurd suggestion.Res Judicata said:
You have dulled your reason by rabidly sniffing out scabs and dreaming about your 1,200 to 1,400 numbers senior to yourself.
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 897
Damn!Res Judicata said:
Hey I have some property in Florida......
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
Response to 84's statement on another board:
"You make enough stupid/ignorant statements and eventually people will think you're serious."
"You make enough stupid/ignorant statements and eventually people will think you're serious."
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 897
Response to response on another board. "you should know me by now. Do I need to attach a smiley after every post?"traderjake said:
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
It's been a while since I took anything you say seriously.
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 897
I'm hurt. And you need to get more sun 🙂traderjake said:It's been a while since I took anything you say seriously.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 1,207
Wahoo your former nemisis makes widebody Captain with , what, 18 under him ?traderjake said:
Widebody !
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
Freighterguynow said:
You're going to have to narrow that down some
snapthis earlier quoted his own west plaintiffs briefs defending his position. The defendent, USAPA, disagreed with the plaintiffs.
How existential!
"USAPA did not mislead the West Pilots about the MOU or ¶10.h
The notion that plaintiffs were misled by USAPA or were in the dark as to the
meaning or consequences of the MOU or ¶10.h is utterly without merit. Initially, as
stated in USAPA’s Summary of the Evidence, the record is replete with statements and
materials published by USAPA, principally the NAC, that made crystal clear the MOU
did not include the Nicolau Award, was neutral with respect to seniority and had the
effect of terminating the 2005 TA. See, e.g., Exs. 234- 236; Colello Tr.; Holmes Tr.
Not only were the communications clear, they were made with the agreement of Mr. Holmes
and Mr. Calveri, the two West pilots on the four person committee.
Moreover, the evidence shows that plaintiffs and members of Leonidas were fully
aware of these facts and were in constant contact with their lawyers about these issues,
their legal strategy, and what actions to take. This evidence shows that plaintiffs and
Leonidas members, advised by their counsel, made a deliberate decision to urge West
Pilots to approve the MOU even though they were fully aware that it did not include the
Nicolau Award and that it terminated the TA. This evidence is principally contained in
Exhibits 308 and 310, which are email chains dated January 22-23, 2013, among
2 Contrary to plaintiffs’ misrepresentation, Mr. Colello, never testified that the TA
seniority integration procedures continue in effect until sometime after the effective date
of the American Airlines merger. He said just the opposite, namely that the TA continues
in effect until the date of the POR. Tr., 295. He provided one example (the scheduling
system), that would take time to change but never stated or even suggested that the
process set forth in ¶10 would not be implemented immediately or that the displaced
process of the TA would somehow continue. Tr., 287-88.
plaintiffs and members of Leonidas. Exhibit 308 reflects discussion of whether Messrs.
Holmes and Calveri would have permitted the MOU to contain language to “evade the
Nic” and whether ¶10.g and ¶10.h allow the company to “amend (abandon)” the TA.
Exhibit 310 demonstrates that these issues have been discussed with counsel. One
participant notes the only question is whether to file a lawsuit before or after the voting
on the MOU ratification ends. These emails are consistent with the Leonidas updates
(Exs. 258 and 259) which note, among other things, that the MOU is seniority neutral,
contains no poison pill, and that no one should be afraid that voting for the MOU is
harmful to their ultimate goal of suing to enforce the Nicolau Award. From these
documents alone, it cannot be doubted that plaintiffs knew, inter alia, that USAPA took
the position seniority integration with American would start with the current two
seniority list status quo, and that USAPA believed the MOU modified the TA.
Plaintiffs’ contention (Doc. 259, p. 10) that Mr. Holmes did not have sufficient
information to make an informed decision as to whether to support the MOU misstates
the record. In his deposition, Mr. Holmes admitted that he knew, as of January 2-4, 2013,
when the BPR voted to approve the MOU, that the MOU was neutral with respect to
seniority, that it did not require use of either date of hire or the Nicolau list in the
seniority integration process, and that he participated in the creation of materials about
the MOU to be provided to pilots, which included a provision stating that seniority would
be governed by a process consistent with McCaskill Bond and, equally significantly, that
it did not state that the Nicolau Award would be used in that process. As to ¶10.h of the
MOU, at trial Mr. Holmes admitted that as of December 2012, he had certain concerns as
to whether that provision had an effect on the TA and that he was aware there were some
people who believed ¶10.h would terminate the TA. Mr. Holmes testified that
notwithstanding his awareness of that controversy and that it was a question mark, the
benefits of the MOU overrode those concerns and, as a member of the NAC he
recommended to the BPR that they approve the MOU, participated as a member of the
NAC in creating materials and attending road shows to educate pilots about the MOU,
and as a pilot voted in favor of the MOU. On these facts, and on the record as a whole,
the statement that Mr. Holmes lacked sufficient information to make an informed
decision about the MOU or ¶10.h simply cannot be credited."
How existential!
"USAPA did not mislead the West Pilots about the MOU or ¶10.h
The notion that plaintiffs were misled by USAPA or were in the dark as to the
meaning or consequences of the MOU or ¶10.h is utterly without merit. Initially, as
stated in USAPA’s Summary of the Evidence, the record is replete with statements and
materials published by USAPA, principally the NAC, that made crystal clear the MOU
did not include the Nicolau Award, was neutral with respect to seniority and had the
effect of terminating the 2005 TA. See, e.g., Exs. 234- 236; Colello Tr.; Holmes Tr.
Not only were the communications clear, they were made with the agreement of Mr. Holmes
and Mr. Calveri, the two West pilots on the four person committee.
Moreover, the evidence shows that plaintiffs and members of Leonidas were fully
aware of these facts and were in constant contact with their lawyers about these issues,
their legal strategy, and what actions to take. This evidence shows that plaintiffs and
Leonidas members, advised by their counsel, made a deliberate decision to urge West
Pilots to approve the MOU even though they were fully aware that it did not include the
Nicolau Award and that it terminated the TA. This evidence is principally contained in
Exhibits 308 and 310, which are email chains dated January 22-23, 2013, among
2 Contrary to plaintiffs’ misrepresentation, Mr. Colello, never testified that the TA
seniority integration procedures continue in effect until sometime after the effective date
of the American Airlines merger. He said just the opposite, namely that the TA continues
in effect until the date of the POR. Tr., 295. He provided one example (the scheduling
system), that would take time to change but never stated or even suggested that the
process set forth in ¶10 would not be implemented immediately or that the displaced
process of the TA would somehow continue. Tr., 287-88.
plaintiffs and members of Leonidas. Exhibit 308 reflects discussion of whether Messrs.
Holmes and Calveri would have permitted the MOU to contain language to “evade the
Nic” and whether ¶10.g and ¶10.h allow the company to “amend (abandon)” the TA.
Exhibit 310 demonstrates that these issues have been discussed with counsel. One
participant notes the only question is whether to file a lawsuit before or after the voting
on the MOU ratification ends. These emails are consistent with the Leonidas updates
(Exs. 258 and 259) which note, among other things, that the MOU is seniority neutral,
contains no poison pill, and that no one should be afraid that voting for the MOU is
harmful to their ultimate goal of suing to enforce the Nicolau Award. From these
documents alone, it cannot be doubted that plaintiffs knew, inter alia, that USAPA took
the position seniority integration with American would start with the current two
seniority list status quo, and that USAPA believed the MOU modified the TA.
Plaintiffs’ contention (Doc. 259, p. 10) that Mr. Holmes did not have sufficient
information to make an informed decision as to whether to support the MOU misstates
the record. In his deposition, Mr. Holmes admitted that he knew, as of January 2-4, 2013,
when the BPR voted to approve the MOU, that the MOU was neutral with respect to
seniority, that it did not require use of either date of hire or the Nicolau list in the
seniority integration process, and that he participated in the creation of materials about
the MOU to be provided to pilots, which included a provision stating that seniority would
be governed by a process consistent with McCaskill Bond and, equally significantly, that
it did not state that the Nicolau Award would be used in that process. As to ¶10.h of the
MOU, at trial Mr. Holmes admitted that as of December 2012, he had certain concerns as
to whether that provision had an effect on the TA and that he was aware there were some
people who believed ¶10.h would terminate the TA. Mr. Holmes testified that
notwithstanding his awareness of that controversy and that it was a question mark, the
benefits of the MOU overrode those concerns and, as a member of the NAC he
recommended to the BPR that they approve the MOU, participated as a member of the
NAC in creating materials and attending road shows to educate pilots about the MOU,
and as a pilot voted in favor of the MOU. On these facts, and on the record as a whole,
the statement that Mr. Holmes lacked sufficient information to make an informed
decision about the MOU or ¶10.h simply cannot be credited."
snap?
"Plaintiffs appear to believe that they would have succeeded on their claim that the MOU was the “single agreement” referred to in the TA “but for” ¶10.h.
Nothing could be further from the truth, for, as shown above, that was never the parties’ agreement or intent nor could the MOU qualify as the “Single Agreement” referred to in the TA. But, having had their argument that the Nicolau Award is somehow a part of the MOU negated, plaintiffs now attack USAPA for including the clarification and foiling their
schemes."
"Plaintiffs appear to believe that they would have succeeded on their claim that the MOU was the “single agreement” referred to in the TA “but for” ¶10.h.
Nothing could be further from the truth, for, as shown above, that was never the parties’ agreement or intent nor could the MOU qualify as the “Single Agreement” referred to in the TA. But, having had their argument that the Nicolau Award is somehow a part of the MOU negated, plaintiffs now attack USAPA for including the clarification and foiling their
schemes."
The next play in the playbook is to represent the "NIC" in the process with APA and take all the advantages of the MOU and stroll in with a non cashable lottery ticket! Since there never was a "single agreement it was put in! End game upended soon!Claxon said:
west pilots and USAirways management;
"Never let a pilot be your attorney, never let an attorney be your pilot."
Claxon
The west pilot advisors can read, you counted on them and they let you down, period. This has happened many times, look in the mirror for the problem.
MOU is a MOU, a JCBA is a JCBA in a few years.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/9d506e_4e08004c61b65d70a34e27dd74495f06.pdf
"Never let a pilot be your attorney, never let an attorney be your pilot."
Claxon
The west pilot advisors can read, you counted on them and they let you down, period. This has happened many times, look in the mirror for the problem.
MOU is a MOU, a JCBA is a JCBA in a few years.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/9d506e_4e08004c61b65d70a34e27dd74495f06.pdf
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
luvthe9 said:
First, I'm tired of a kid, named Courtney calling me a kid.
Second, I could give a damn about Claxon, a washed-up Onion has been trying make scapegoats out of West pilots to mask his failures.
Third, Phoenix......10H.
.....try again..... Fourth, East US..can I refill you red solo cup?
Fifth, high*flyer.....Homer
Sixth, Freighterguynow.....Back to where you belong.
Seventh......M&M....Captain?.....
Davidson just found out Odell is senior to him.
http://www.thehappytooth.com.au/smcms/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/old-man-no-teeth-217x300.jpg
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
Claxon said:
Nice work Claxon Snap quotes their own idiotic legal filings as fact. Their argument is merely a SCHEME. By SCAMMERS.
This entire Leonidas Ponzi scheme Marty runs on the west kids is unravelling. The wives are howling mad as the college funds are bare thanks to Marty.
- Status
