Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

What's the company's position?
"US Airways has argued throughout the course of this litigation,
4 including in its Motion For Summary Judgment, that, because the McCaskill-Bond
5 seniority-integration process following the US Airways-American merger will, by
6 necessity, finally integrate the East and West Pilots seniority lists, and because of the
7 long-standing dispute between the West Pilots and USAPA over whether the Nicolau
8 Award should be used to integrate those two seniority lists, McCaskill-Bonds fair and
9 equitable standard mandates that the West Pilots be given an opportunity to separately
10 advance their view on the Nicolau Award in the upcoming McCaskill-Bond process."
Doc 287 filed 11/26/13

The company has an MOU, and come ~Dec 9th everyone must comply with it... "According to the terms of the MOU." (Or suffer a real law suit. Not a pretend bluff from wannabe lawyers.)

It's a bit late for the company to be wanting to piggyback a late request to change the MOU via a DFR lawsuit in which the company has absolutely no claim..... And both the Plaintiff and the company have completely abandoned any effort to prove that a DFR breach DID occur, but are begging Judge Cranberry to grant a new union for the West under the premise that the MOU should have provided for representation because of the speculation USAPA will not abide within a wide range of reasonableness in the FUTURE.

Nothing prevented USAir and all the other parties from negotiating that, and nothing prevented the West from voting against anything less than that. Why should the court now give something such as this when no one asked for if in negotiations?

Integrity mah azzs!

 

[Res Judicata]

The company has an MOU, and come ~Dec 9th everyone must comply with it... "According to the terms of the MOU." (Or suffer a real law suit. Not a pretend bluff from wannabe lawyers.)
It's a bit late for the company to be wanting to piggyback a late request to change the MOU via a DFR lawsuit in which the company has absolutely no claim..... And both the Plaintiff and the company have completely abandoned any effort to prove that a DFR breach DID occur, but are begging Judge Cranberry to grant a new union for the West under the premise that the MOU should have provided for representation because of the speculation USAPA will not abide within a wide range of reasonableness in the FUTURE.
Nothing prevented USAir and all the other parties from negotiating that, and nothing prevented the West from voting against anything less than that. Why should the court now give something such as this when no one asked for if in negotiations?
Integrity mah azzs!

So you've discovered the secret LUP? That's funny, because at trial the only one ever identified to know the true purpose of 10h was my attorney, the one that owes me a fiduciary responsibility. He refused to go under oath and testify as to the intent/LUP of 10h. Silver ripped him for it too. I'm sure that DOH dream is coming in 2014. Just a scant 7 years longer than your fake union predicted.

 

[Phoenix]

So you've discovered the secret LUP? That's funny, because at trial the only one ever identified to know the true purpose of 10h was my attorney, the one that owes me a fiduciary responsibility. He refused to go under oath and testify as to the intent/LUP of 10h. Silver ripped him for it too. I'm sure that DOH dream is coming in 2014. Just a scant 7 years longer than your fake union predicted.

 
 
Typical non-responsive response, and more implicit assumptions.  Come ~Dec 9th everyone will follow the MOU ("according to the terms of the MOU") or DUI's precious little integration plan will risk being tied up in courts for another few years.  

 

[nic4us]

So, has uscaba posted doc 285 in the legal library?

What does everyone think? Did Anderson write it, or did one of the other east nut jobs use Anderson's name?

I am told uscaba posted the order doc 287, telling all pilots not to file personal letters with the court, but uscaba failed to post the actual letter.

So, now we have had two east pilots file letters with the court. Outstanding!

Clue for the SCAB union supporters. Giving false statements and testimony in a federal court can have severe consequences. Writing letters full of fictitious dribble can have the same effect!

Post your bond with the court!


Oh, and have a happy thanksgiving!

 

[nic4us]

Typical non-responsive response, and more implicit assumptions.  Come ~Dec 9th everyone will follow the MOU ("according to the terms of the MOU") or DUI's precious little integration plan will risk being tied up in courts for another few years.  

Yes..come dec 9 the MOU will be followed.

Who is going to tie thing up in court?

I highly doubt a penniless SCAB union, about to be former union will have much say.

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
What did the new CBA accomplish other than delaying resolution of the Nicolau Award?
 
As I said, symbolic, your box of gold stars is in the mail.

 
Call Herndon and let them know that the loss of the dues money from USAirways pilots was only symbolic.

 

[nycbusdriver]

 
Would we have liquidated without the merger?

 
We will never know, will we?
 
But that fact that we were out of money on January 15, 2005, and not liquidated on January 16 means we probably would never have liquidated.

 

[Piedmont1984]

 Why not just do as I did about my merger prediction, and confess total "wrong!" Even when I fail I show the way to redemption. And I love 1984's (closet USAPA hater) seething anger at my failed merger prediction.  RR

You and Kleenex have become a couple of tag team hyenas hounding me every time I express an opinion. If I am a USAPA hater, or an ALPA shill then prove it. Otherwise you're as big a liar as he is.

BTW Kleenex (aka Claxon the liar), the correct term is beta dog, not bravo dog. The latter is perhaps some canine you admire on the Bravo channel when you're watching your favorite Real Housewives show. I already mentioned your dog fetish.

To everyone else, I apologize. Sometimes even my thick skin and even demeanor has a limit when dealing with low life behavior.

'84

 

[Phoenix]

Yes..come dec 9 the MOU will be followed.

Who is going to tie thing up in court?
 
 

 
Evidently no one, since everyone will be following it!

 

[Freighterguynow]

So you've discovered the secret LUP? That's funny, because at trial the only one ever identified to know the true purpose of 10h was my attorney, the one that owes me a fiduciary responsibility.

Google ' fiduciary duty ' bone head.

 

[Res Judicata]

Google ' fiduciary duty ' bone head.

This? Duty and responsibility are interchangeable words bone-head.

Afiduciary duty is the highest standard of duty imposed by law. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a fiduciary is “[a] person who is required to act for the benefit of another person on all matters within the scope of their relationship,” and, thus, a fiduciary relationship is one founded on trust and confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another. As Justice Cardozo articulated it early in his career, the standard of behavior for a fiduciary is “not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive.” Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458, 464, 164 N.E. 545, 546 (1928). And, according to the Minnesota courts, the law imposes on a fiduciary “the highest obligation of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and full discharge of material matters” affecting the party to whom the duty is owed. Commercial Assocs., Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 772, 779 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).
Most attorneys and clients recognize that relationships founded on trust and confidence are fiduciary in nature. Thus, for example, attorneys and accountants are fiduciaries for their clients, physicians owe a fiduciary duty to their patients, and agents generally owe a fiduciary duty to their principals.

 

[Res Judicata]

Evidently no one, since everyone will be following it!

So Silvers crystal clear requirement for an LUP is still "optional" in your dream world? The MOU has to be legal to be used. If any part is found not to be, it gets adjusted comply with the law while the rest of the document remains. 10h is history. Being no one can explain it to the court under oath, I guess it isn't very important is it.

 

[Phoenix]

So Silvers crystal clear requirement for an LUP is still "optional" in your dream world? The MOU has to be legal to be used. If any part is found not to be, it gets adjusted comply with the law while the rest of the document remains. 10h is history. Being no one can explain it to the court under oath, I guess it isn't very important is it.

The legality of the MOU was not on trial. But if Silver chooses to change the MOU then her decision will be. She likes to go on safari and puts on a good show in the transcripts but she understands the narrow safe ground, so to speak, when she has to stake her flag and make an ORDER OF THE COURT. IMHO.

 

[Res Judicata]

The legality of the MOU was not on trial. But if Silver chooses to change the MOU then her decision will be. She likes to go on safari and puts on a good show in the transcripts but she understands the narrow safe ground, so to speak, when she has to stake her flag and make an ORDER OF THE COURT. IMHO.

The LUP for not including the nic in the MOU was sure as hell on trial. My lawyer wants to hide behind 10h but refused to testify. Silver will have to piece together what that means...as if there were any mystery.

 

[767one]

Did we liquidate?

Nope, and I don't think we would have particularly if alpa had given us a vote on the pension and we had voted not to give it away. Doug and friends saw value in an operating bankrupt airline and did not want to see it shut down. There may well have been others waiting for the opportunity but they did not want to openly show interest and show their hand.

Hapy turkey day,

Bob