US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 12/16-22

[boeingplt]

He said that USAirways, with it's new $140/barrel business plan, was profitable at $115/barrel

Now, between BOB..checked bags, 10% capacity cuts...et al...how much more profitable is the company at $45/barrel?

Start with 2.59bil and change (37mil for every $1 the price of oil changes/ 115-45= 70 x 37mil). Make even a robust adjustment if the economy continues to tank (historically recessions result in 3 to 4% reduction in revenues - for US that is 480mil. So 2.59bil - 480mil = 2.11bil profit.

Just a gouge but it gives an idea of the magnitude of the adjustments the company made for the price of oil and the importance of the relationship between the worsening economy and the decreasing price of oil.

 

[cleardirect]

USAPA is defending their right to a fair and equitable trial. Based on the "ever-changing" west agenda...I agree completely with their thinking.
That you have a problem with it concerns me none.

I admit, I'm sick of having these exchanges with you guys. Its always the same.

But, I am far from alone in saying that you will not "outlast" the East resolve.

I'm sure that (under different circumstances) we might be friends....

But until that day arrives?

Happy Holidays...see you in court...(over and over...)

What is the "ever changing" west agenda? Please explain.

The east can be as resolved as you like. If this judge determines that USAPA did not represent the west fairly and he orders the implementation of the Nicolau. You guys can remain resolute. But I believe that a federal order will "outlast" any east pilots now or to come to this property.

 

[Metroyet]

Absolutely correct.

The West, in their zeal to "destroy USAPA" will bring an unchecked beatdown of unmeasureable proportions upon the pilots left standing.
Be careful what you wish for: we may just leave you a smoking pile of nothing to take over.

OOOOOOHHHHHHHH. What a Scary picture you paint!!!!!!!!!

MY GOD!!!!!!! The Proportions of the BEAT DOWN WILL BE UNMEASUREABLE???!!!!!!!
Why didn't anybody tell us this BEFORE WE CHOSE TO DEFEND OURSELVES?????!!!!!!!

Damned US Constitution and Bill of Rights!!!!

See you in Court there Gorilla Monsoon, If you don't like the outcome...hit the road. Best of luck finding that elusive "greener pasture"

 

[V1cut]

Oh my...

such a compelling case you make...

Lots of exclamation points (that make it so much more compelling)


I'm too far gone for you to either intimidate or convert.

Happy litigating

And this is why a normal and casual discourse between us is impossible
Personally, I couldn't care less...but for those who do?


Forget it.

 

[nostradamus]

Leonidas Update for December 14, 2008

Good evening fellow West pilots. There just does not seem to be a holiday respite for our attorneys as our case is moving quickly along towards a trial in February. Three events occurred last week in our legal campaign.

USAPA Motion to Continue Denied

First, Judge Wake issued an order denying the motion submitted by Lee Seham, attorney for USAPA's self-appointed leadership. Seham had requested a continuance for the trial scheduled to start in February, and he cited a number of reasons which he felt justified the delay. (A "continuance" is legal parlance for "delay.") A Motion to Continue is typically an uncomplicated request, and often a judge will issue a decision with a simple "granted," or "denied," followed by a brief explanation lasting, at most, a few sentences. This Order, however, is a full two pages long and Judge Wake took special care to admonish the counsel for the defense. A portion if the Order reads as follows:

The arguments presented in this motion for the most part were not raised in USAPA’s prior motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) & 12(B)(6) (docs. # 35, 36), and USAPA has failed to show that these arguments “could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LR Civ. 7.2(g)(1). It is especially inappropriate to use a motion for reconsideration to make successive Rule 12(B) motions, which Rule 12(B) itself does not authorize. [Emphasis added.]

It is worth noting this simple, yet stern admonition directed at USAPA's counsel because it is not often that a federal judge has to speak so directly to an attorney. What is not lost on the West pilots is Judge Wake's choice of words - "especially inappropriate" - because those words coincidentally describe the underlying foundation of USAPA itself. What is becoming ever so obvious is the particular inappropriateness of everything the self-appointed USAPA leadership stands for ethically, morally, and as the litigation progresses – legally. Although this rebuke of Seham adds yet another loss to his embarrassing score card, we are cautious to not read too much into this since we are still in the pretrial phase. Nevertheless, it is somewhat encouraging to see one's adversary flounder as there is usually a direct connection between the potency of one's legal arguments and the consistent outcomes in these pretrial skirmishes.


Arbitration of Counts One and Two

Second, there has been considerable confusion about the status of the first two claims in our original DFR complaint against USAPA. One count was against the company for the out of seniority furloughs, and the other count was against USAPA for their failure to negotiate in good faith.

It is technically correct to say that both of these claims were dismissed by Judge Wake. However, what USAPA conveniently failed to mention was that this dismissal was conditioned on USAPA and the company agreeing to submit both of these counts to a neutral arbitrator. The issue of these two counts came up early on in the October 29th hearing and Judge Wake had to take considerable effort to elicit a coherent response from Lee Seham. At first, Seham claimed that he did not have the authorization from his client to agree to send this dispute to an independent arbitrator, but then seemed to backtrack later that day and agreed to the arbitration. A subsequent filing by Seham later appeared to backtrack yet again. The company, by contrast, was clear with their position and unequivocally agreed to the arbitration. In any event, the arbitration will proceed despite USAPA's incoherent position on what is essentially a yes or no answer. It appears that Arbitrator Richard Bloch (recently the chairman of the Delta/NWA seniority arbitration) will be the arbitrator.

Motion to Compel USAPA to Produce Discovery


As for the third event this week, the counsel for the self-appointed USAPA leadership met with our attorneys last Monday, December 8th, in what is known in legal parlance as a "meet and confer." These meetings are required by the rules of procedure whereby the attorneys discuss the claims and develop a plan for the exchange of materials and information requested by other parties. Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that,

"The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging and being present or represented at the meeting, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 10 days after the meeting a written report outlining the plan."

In other words, this rule mandates that the counsels for opposing parties meet and confer to develop a plan going forward to trial. One component of this rule is that each party must participate in good faith so as to move the pretrial process along.

Our attorneys requested that USAPA produce all documents and materials created before September 4, 2008 related to its legal representation. This request was made for two reasons: (1) the materials are directly applicable to the cause of action being tried as Seham's legal advice dealt directly with USAPA's plans to subvert the binding arbitration, thereby harming every West pilot for the benefit of the East; and (2) the material is not protected under the attorney-client privilege, nor can it be considered work-product as the material relates to the representation of all US Airways pilots.

USAPA contends that the material is privileged information and therefore not discoverable. USAPA has indicated that it intends to submit a motion for a protective order. Our attorneys therefore filed a "Motion to Compel" which is a common litigation tool used to have the judge decide whether the material is discoverable and if so, to order the other party to produce the requested documentation. Typically a judge reviews the materials in private and then issues a ruling. The following is an excerpt from the Points and Authorities submitted in support of our Motion to Compel which summarizes our argument:

"At an in-person meet-and-confer conducted between counsel on December 8, 2008, the attorneys for USAPA indicated their position that the Garner exception did not apply and that they did not intend to produce what they regarded as privileged materials. Additionally, counsel for USAPA has stated in writing that it will seek a protective order with respect to these materials.

USAPA’s actions, particularly because they were motivated by bad faith and/or hostility to Plaintiffs’ interests (and those of the other West Pilots), constituted violations of its duty of fair representation. See, generally, Order, 8:20-14:4 (Nov. 20, 2008) (doc. 84). Regardless, USAPA has freely disclosed Mr. Seham’s legal advice that such actions could not be proven to be violations of the duty. This advice was set out in a letter that Mr. Seham wrote to Stephen Bradford on January 23, 2008. Id. In this letter, Mr. Seham opined on “the legal right of US Airways pilots to negotiate and implement a seniority-based pilot integration agreement.” Id. The letter states that it would not be a violation of the duty of fair representation if USAPA adhered to a date of hire seniority integration, stating that Mr. Seham was “confident that USAPA’s goal is not susceptible to challenge under the DFR standard, which requires proof that the union’s activity was wholly irrational or arbitrary.” Id.1

Plaintiffs seek discovery of all evidence that will fully demonstrate the nature of “USAPA’s goal” and the full scope of the advice that USAPA was given in regard to that goal. This information directly speaks to USAPA’s raison d’étre and to the motivation behind USAPA’s actions—both of which speak to the magnitude of its violations of the duty of fair representation.

Because “[t]he appropriate remedy for a breach of a union's duty of fair representation must vary with the circumstances of the particular breach,” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 195 (1967), Plaintiffs must have a full and fair opportunity for discovery.

You can find the full “Points and Authorities,” contained in our “Motion to Compel Production,” on our “Current Litigation Documents” web page.

Once again we cannot emphasis enough the importance that every pilot read through all of the legal materials contained in either that web page, or in USAPA's “Litigation Library.” The issues are straightforward and most of the documents are easy to understand. We would encourage every pilot to study these documents and judge for themselves the merits of USAPA's legal position. If anything, every US Airways pilot should read Judge Wake's Order dated November 20, 2008 because that Order speaks directly to the entire foundation of USAPA. Bradford and company sold the East pilots on USAPA using a strained and twisted interpretation of past case law which at this point is highly unlikely to survive the scrutiny of a federal judge. USAPA's self-appointed leadership will be entrenched at least until next April which is past the trial date and likely past the time when a determination of USAPA's liability will be published. At this point there does not appear to be many options for the average East pilot who is still grinding life out under LOA 93 and under the empty promises from the gang of USAPA charlatans. But as the cliché goes, “knowledge is power,” and we recommend that every pilot (East and West) read, digest, and discuss with their fellow pilots what is happening. Now is the time for all to consider the reality of what is likely to come out of Courtroom 504 of the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse next February.

Case Management Conference


Finally, we encourage all West pilots to attend the Case Management Conference scheduled for Monday, December 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM. This will take place in Judge Wake's courtroom, Room 504, at the Sandra Day O'Connor United States Courthouse. The conference will determine important procedural matters applicable to the two trials which lie ahead, one for the liability of USAPA's actions, and the other for damages if necessary.

Click here for more information:
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/callive.ns...94?OpenDocument

As always, have a safe week.

Leonidas, LLC

 

[V1cut]

Thanks, Nos


For the record, however, I'll point out that I will be breaking the floorpans outta my new car while you west guys sort out your tantrums...

The timeline works against you..not us. Judge Wake has an opinion that we may not share.

His rendering will determine our next phone call. And we will be in court again.

I'll be ordering new seatpans for the vette, but you can spout loudly here like Metroyet does...it has a stange affect on me...makes me go to sleep.

He seems to get a willy out of it....

 

[Metroyet]

Thanks, Nos


For the record, however, I'll point out that I will be breaking the floorpans outta my new car

Rivits or wire feed?

 

[V1cut]

Rivits or wire feed?

ZZZZZZZ.........

uh?

I thought I was clear...

You bore me.

Someone else have a real question for me?

 

[nostradamus]

The shelf, firewalls. They were there. The pilots decided to have the opportunity to vote .

To insure the viability of voting on the shelf life of the nic award, caused the birth of USAPA.

The firewalls were in place with alpa. USAPA was not used as an instrument of bypassing the nic, USAPA was voted on by the pilots to insure the firewalls mentioned by our alpa reps had a chance to contain the inequities of an ill fated attempt to combine a pilot group.

alpa was not trusted to continue to pursue the rights provided in the transition agreement.

 

[Elevation]

ZZZZZZZ.........

uh?

I thought I was clear...

You bore me.

Someone else have a real question for me?

I have a question, didn't you say today "Gotta go buy a nice Monza Red '69 427 'vette now" but still had time to post 11 times. Seems like you are worried and can't leave the keyboard, so my question is are you more worried about the NIC getting implemented or USAPA going bankrupt? Go drive your nice vette and we'll call you when St Nic come to town.

 

[hp_fa]

The decision to replace Seham is interesting for a few reasons;

1. USAPA is apparently very concerned about the possibility that it's attorney's advice prior to it becoming the bargaining agent will is or will become discoverable and that there is a real possibility that Seham will be called as a witness at trial by the plaintiffs. This is never good news in any litigated matter.

2. The change of counsel **could** be a tool for attempting to justify a continuance even after the judge apparently has said no to any continuance. This would at least give the new attorney a chance to essentially re-argue a continuance motion. However, the judge may respond by saying that defendant and counsel should not be able to use their own alleged conduct as a justification for a continuance.

3. Depending on what advice Seham has given USAPA, new counsel may decide to speak to the BPR in order to try and settle this case. The problem is that the costs and fees are now rapidly escalating and plaintiffs may well choose to not compromise on Nicolau at this point because of the additional funding that was required to just enforce a ruling they had already won. From where I sit, very much on the sidelines with no inside information from any party, the only way I can see plaintiffs settling is for complete implimentation of Nicolau, full membership of every West pilot in USAPA and full waiver of all claimed past dues and/or agency fees, as well West immunity from any special assessments resulting from any litigation against West.

This is getting very interesting and both the clock and the meter are running quickly.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Points 1 and 3 are spot on. Point 2 is iffy for Usapa given that Brengle has apparently been involved from an early stage and this fact militates against the idea that new counsel needs extra time. Additionally, Usapa sort of alluded to a change of counsel yesterday in Judge Wake's courtroom, but didn't spell it out. I'm wondering if there was some sort of breach by Seham of his duty of candor towards the tribunal. In all likelihood he knew he was getting deep sixed as trial counsel when he was before the judge just a matter of hours before, yet he basically says nothing? Come on, Lee, you're going to have to do better than that.

What must be painfully obvious for the BPR at this point is that Seham is/was in way over his head and was totally outgunned by Marty Harper. Marty was going to eat him alive at trial. Brengle probably can withstand the onslaught, but his case is completely FUBAR'd. He's probably only coming in at this point to protect Seham and the BPR members as individuals, all of whom are potentially liable in a DFR breach.

 

[Freighterguynow]

Question for the East.


Do you think most east pilots would accept the Nic if there were provisions made for all East attrition?

That alone? Probably not.

Especially so since we already have that ( as does the West theirs ) with separate ops.

Maybe with some Empire type protections: DOH for furlough and by equipment/ domicile types brought to the merger.

 

[wopr21]

Question for the East.


Do you think most east pilots would accept the Nic if there were provisions made for all East attrition?

Even without that provision we still have greater attrition with a DOH seniority list. The question is how can you protect everyone. Well you can't. In any merger there are some that are hurt. However ,you can have protections that protect both sides in keeping what they had at the merger. I still can't see any problem with that. Then through natural attrition everyone moves up.

I don't think anyone has told the west that the east pilots are older and will be retiring soon.

I have yet to hear a west pilot admit where on a DOH list he/she will be in 7-10 years. Pretty nice I will admit.
And a bonus of the opportunity to fly the 76 and 330, 350 WHICH YOU NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FLY BEFORE THE MERGER!!!

Lets get real with this drivel and get back to common sense


wopr

 

[nic4us]

Even without that provision we still have greater attrition with a DOH seniority list. The question is how can you protect everyone. Well you can't. In any merger there are some that are hurt. However ,you can have protections that protect both sides in keeping what they had at the merger. I still can't see any problem with that. Then through natural attrition everyone moves up.

I don't think anyone has told the west that the east pilots are older and will be retiring soon.

I have yet to hear a west pilot admit where on a DOH list he/she will be in 7-10 years. Pretty nice I will admit.
And a bonus of the opportunity to fly the 76 and 330, 350 WHICH YOU NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FLY BEFORE THE MERGER!!!

Lets get real with this drivel and get back to common sense


wopr

Wopr,

I have answered this question before. I suppose you dismissed me because you did not like the answere. On a DOH list I will be employed elsewhere, as I do not wish to wait 10+ years to get back to where I was before the merger so that furloughs who would have had no opportunity to fly any equiptment on the property can take their turn with my job.

I do not think anyone has told the east yet, it is not your attrition anymore. Your higher attrition is part of the decision handed down in the NIC. It is offset by the fact that your attrition was not outpacing your downsizing. You are no longer entitled to all of it. You have to share 1/3 of it with the West. Further, In case you missed it 60% of your attrition is junior to lets say ME!