And don't forget that BILL 2MILL + that MARTY handed your ass for NILCH, ZERO , NADA!
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Geez 9, he forgot his line and you had to go and remind him! Jackass was a nice reprieve. 😛
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,647
- Reaction score
- 5,392
And Barney Frank is 4th District, Massachusetts.
It has to do demographics rather than geography. If you prefer liberal coast, I'm OK with that. B)
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
Company Dec action is ripe.
USAPA MTD is denied.
Enjoy LOA93.
USAPA MTD is denied.
Enjoy LOA93.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
Just started going through Judge Silver's ruling. Here's a nugget on the first page (these are the facts gentlemen....even Judge Silver sees DOH for what it is...it's all about favoring East over West)
The East Pilots–who would benefit much more from a strict “date of hire” seniority
rule–were dissatisfied with the Nicolau Award. The East Pilots formed a new labor union
known as USAPA. The USAPA constitution mandates seniority be determined by “date of
hire.” The East Pilots significantly outnumber the West Pilots and when put to a vote by all
the pilots, USAPA was certified as the labor union for both the East and West Pilots.
The East Pilots–who would benefit much more from a strict “date of hire” seniority
rule–were dissatisfied with the Nicolau Award. The East Pilots formed a new labor union
known as USAPA. The USAPA constitution mandates seniority be determined by “date of
hire.” The East Pilots significantly outnumber the West Pilots and when put to a vote by all
the pilots, USAPA was certified as the labor union for both the East and West Pilots.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
pages 5 and 6 from Silver:
The situation between the parties in this case is very similar to that presented in
Medimmune. Just as the patent licensee had the choice of whether to continue to pay royalty
payments or be sued for patent infringement, US Airways also has a choice of two
unappealing options: US Airways can abandon the Nicolau Award during negotiations and
be sued by the West Pilots or US Airways can insist on the Nicolau Award and be subject
to a work stoppage. Either way, US Airways will be harmed. Plaintiff’s proposed rule that
US Airways cannot seek a declaration of its rights before being sued or subject to a work
stoppage finds no support in existing constitutional ripeness doctrine.4 Id. at 134.
Here's FN4 at the bottom of page 6:
4 The Court recognizes a party cannot convert an unripe claim into a ripe claim merely
by fashioning it as a request for declaratory relief. But that is not what has happened here.
US Airways was not a party to the previous action at the time of the Ninth Circuit appeal
because US Airways was dismissed early on in that litigation. Addington v. US Airline Pilots
Ass’n, 588 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1062-63 (D. Ariz. 2008) (dismissing claims against US
Airways). The Ninth Circuit’s decision that a suit between the West Pilots and USAPA was
not ripe does not dictate the result in this suit involving different parties.
The situation between the parties in this case is very similar to that presented in
Medimmune. Just as the patent licensee had the choice of whether to continue to pay royalty
payments or be sued for patent infringement, US Airways also has a choice of two
unappealing options: US Airways can abandon the Nicolau Award during negotiations and
be sued by the West Pilots or US Airways can insist on the Nicolau Award and be subject
to a work stoppage. Either way, US Airways will be harmed. Plaintiff’s proposed rule that
US Airways cannot seek a declaration of its rights before being sued or subject to a work
stoppage finds no support in existing constitutional ripeness doctrine.4 Id. at 134.
Here's FN4 at the bottom of page 6:
4 The Court recognizes a party cannot convert an unripe claim into a ripe claim merely
by fashioning it as a request for declaratory relief. But that is not what has happened here.
US Airways was not a party to the previous action at the time of the Ninth Circuit appeal
because US Airways was dismissed early on in that litigation. Addington v. US Airline Pilots
Ass’n, 588 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1062-63 (D. Ariz. 2008) (dismissing claims against US
Airways). The Ninth Circuit’s decision that a suit between the West Pilots and USAPA was
not ripe does not dictate the result in this suit involving different parties.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
From page 7:
As for the hardship to the parties, US Airways was required to show that it must make
an “immediate and significant change” in their conduct or risk “serious penalties.” Stormans,
586 F.3d at 1126. Those penalties must be more than financial harm. Winter v. Cal. Med.
Review Bd., Inc., 900 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1990). In this case, absent judicial relief US
Airways will either be sued by the West Pilots or subject to a work stoppage by USAPA.
These events will result in a variety of non-financial injuries to US Airways, including the
loss of customer goodwill and damage to its reputation. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v.
John D. Rush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001) (loss of goodwill is nonfinancial
harm); see also Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc.,
944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1991) (reputational harm and loss of goodwill are non-financial
harm). US Airways has presented sufficient risk of serious hardship.
As for the hardship to the parties, US Airways was required to show that it must make
an “immediate and significant change” in their conduct or risk “serious penalties.” Stormans,
586 F.3d at 1126. Those penalties must be more than financial harm. Winter v. Cal. Med.
Review Bd., Inc., 900 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1990). In this case, absent judicial relief US
Airways will either be sued by the West Pilots or subject to a work stoppage by USAPA.
These events will result in a variety of non-financial injuries to US Airways, including the
loss of customer goodwill and damage to its reputation. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co., Inc. v.
John D. Rush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001) (loss of goodwill is nonfinancial
harm); see also Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & Appliance Rental, Inc.,
944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir.1991) (reputational harm and loss of goodwill are non-financial
harm). US Airways has presented sufficient risk of serious hardship.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
Page 8 where Judge Silver denies USAPA's motion to drop the West pilots as a party:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, a party is a necessary party if
“complete relief cannot be granted in its absence.” Disabled Rights Action Committee v. Las
Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 879 (9th Cir. 2004). US Airways complaint requests,
among other things, a declaration that it could not be held liable in a suit by the West Pilots
against US Airways and a prohibition on the West Pilots from filing such a suit. If the West
Pilots were not parties to this suit, any decision would not be binding on them. In other
words, if the West Pilots were dropped, they would not be bound by the outcome here and
would be free to file their suit against US Airways. This would defeat a core goal of US
Airways seeking declaratory relief. The West Pilots are necessary given that the relief US
Airways seeks cannot be granted in their absence. The motion to dismiss the West Pilots will
be denied.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, a party is a necessary party if
“complete relief cannot be granted in its absence.” Disabled Rights Action Committee v. Las
Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 879 (9th Cir. 2004). US Airways complaint requests,
among other things, a declaration that it could not be held liable in a suit by the West Pilots
against US Airways and a prohibition on the West Pilots from filing such a suit. If the West
Pilots were not parties to this suit, any decision would not be binding on them. In other
words, if the West Pilots were dropped, they would not be bound by the outcome here and
would be free to file their suit against US Airways. This would defeat a core goal of US
Airways seeking declaratory relief. The West Pilots are necessary given that the relief US
Airways seeks cannot be granted in their absence. The motion to dismiss the West Pilots will
be denied.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
When Doug said that during crew news, why didn't everyone jump up and declare him a prophet of nuggets?
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
The West was right to bring the cross claim according to Judge Silver, pg 10. She dismisses the cross claim, but this is a beautiful paragraph nonetheless:
Given US Airways’ decision to file a Declaratory Judgment action, it is not surprising
the West Pilots were concerned that they needed to raise their cross-claim in this action.
While the Court believes the cross-claim must be dismissed as unripe, there is no authority
directly addressing whether an unripe cross-claim can become ripe when it is inextricably
connected to a ripe Declaratory Judgment action. Thus, the decision to bring the cross-claim
was not obviously barred by existing law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(B). Moreover, there is no
evidence the cross-claim was presented for an improper purpose such as to harass USAPA.
Id. Thus, USAPA is not entitled to Rule 11 sanctions.
Given US Airways’ decision to file a Declaratory Judgment action, it is not surprising
the West Pilots were concerned that they needed to raise their cross-claim in this action.
While the Court believes the cross-claim must be dismissed as unripe, there is no authority
directly addressing whether an unripe cross-claim can become ripe when it is inextricably
connected to a ripe Declaratory Judgment action. Thus, the decision to bring the cross-claim
was not obviously barred by existing law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(B). Moreover, there is no
evidence the cross-claim was presented for an improper purpose such as to harass USAPA.
Id. Thus, USAPA is not entitled to Rule 11 sanctions.
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,979
- Reaction score
- 1,877
My read from Feb 9th hearing along with the briefs filed was that the company was going to have no problem defeating USAPA's motion to dismiss. Nobody knows how a court is going to rule, so neither Doug nor I knew for sure how this was going to go down. The only thing Doug does know, along with Cleary and Grievance Granny, is that LOA93 is a total loss for USAPA.
Enjoy LOA93. The dec action is on and that will take at least another 18-24 months to work through the 9th Circuit. Negotiations will have to be stopped in the meantime. Good thing you chuckleheads threw out all of ALPA's work (75% plus complete on the joint bargaining agreement four years ago) and started again.
You all on the East had better plan on at least a decade at BK wages. Way to go fellas.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
Oh we will. Kasher is airborne and will drop his paybomb very shortly. Between Wake and Silver, the 9th clerks say "BATTER UP!!!!"
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
You are really mistaken. He never lost even the first one. He just has to take it to San Fran. to undo the Arizona screwups. He wins every time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
