Nope, my retirement is the one to strive for.......16 months 6 days. Damn... just 4 months short of getting that 40 yr. pin. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to settle for the Plaque.
Bob
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Bob
Benz M-100
Advanced
I'm enjoying the beer snob hijack!
"Life's too short to drink Sh**ty beer!"
Slainte!
"Life's too short to drink Sh**ty beer!"
Slainte!
Sorry to disrupt the beer discussion, but for east pilots, on option 2 in CATCREW there is an under/over fly in the bottom right corner. I don't remember that there before, is it a new addition? Easier viewing of the malcontents? B)
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,737
- Reaction score
- 897
Yep, looks like something new to me.
Reed Richards
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 1,161
I have not looked, but that has always been available on the bottom of screen 5. What would being a "malcontent" have to do with either? I routinely get both under and overfly for no reason other than the operation at hand.
Sometimes a few minutes of underfly can make the difference in whether you are legal for a trip. It is one thing to strive for between 80 and 85 hours, which I have for over 26 years..but is sucks to lose a 4 day because you are 5 minutes over on projection. 5 minutes of underfly will allow you to pick up that trip. Useful info now in a more user friendly place.
RR
Maybe I should have put malcontent in quotes, as I feel that is how the company see us, not me. I think that will be the next battleground, east and west. % of overfly vs. underfly against the average.
Oil is falling to 83. Your airline spends more time on tracking employees than tracking oil. Very revealing. Oil will go back up soon, your airline will be known for being experts at filming employees, timing employees, not operating effectively.Not hedging fuel. Analysts are noting this. Your leaders will continue to create an untenable situation with labor. It will get worse, other groups will join when they see the way management is making an issue of a specific group. They have brought in groups to specifically attack your pilots, and their success here will be used against others later. They are spending millions on this, to make an example because they know your mechanics are ready for their contract. This is a display of resolve by your Parker. If your Parker cannot control eastern mechanics and western joined mechanics and eastern pilots, Parker will be replaced. You will get a new leader who will attempt to sway you, but offer nothing. Your future is not good facing these false prophets of capitalism. God is their wallet.
Whistling past the graveyard. There is a reason for this. Ask the Eastern Pilots. It is not there for your viewing pleasure. You will be interviewed for your overfly. Trust me.
Your visitor Sparrowhawk is correct, but you pay him no heed with Gerrold Glass. The pilots are under extreme attack now by this man and his devices. So far nobody realizes they are the test case, and the Glass Group will be used against ALL employees if they are successful with the eastern pilots. There will be no good contract for western pilots either. Parker wants the eastern to leave the company, and reduce their numbers. Then the western pilots will be of numerical superiority to control politics, but Parker will not reward them either. They will rule a gulag, that is all. Their working conditions and compensation will always lag the other airlines always, as Parker is a brawler, and is a smart fighter. He cannot run a financially smart airline, only intimidate and gain advantage through lower costs, not operational intelligence. Control labor, raise fees. His only arsenal. Same for mechanics. They will be afraid of Parker when they see the pilots being terminated, unless they capitulate. There will be no raises of any note for any group.
prechilill
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,544
- Reaction score
- 3,406
So, if you believe what you say above then why did you (USAPA) decide to pick a fight with the west four years ago?
This is a game for Glass. You didn t win either. That fact is widely know throughout the industry. You are the lowest paid, like the pilots. You are going nowhere unless all the groups unite on this property. And it isn't taking place. First the pilots, then the mechanics. The prophets of capitalism will win over labor again in this company. It is too divided.
Leonidas Update August 7, 2011
August 07, 2011
Leonidas Update
Tonight we will update you on two filings in the Declaratory Action case and provide some commentary on Mike Cleary’s sudden reversal of his exhortations to continue wearing USAPA's “Safety First” yellow lanyards in defiance of company policy. Lastly, we will comment on the company’s injunction lawsuit against USAPA.
When we last spoke of the company’s Declaratory Action, one of the filings we discussed was the company’s motion to dismiss USAPA’s counterclaim (Doc. 98). After Judge Silver denied USAPA’s motion to have the company’s entire Declaratory Action dismissed (see Judge Silver’s order, Doc. 85), USAPA was forced to file their response to the company’s complaint (Doc. 1). Rolled into USAPA’s response (Doc. 88), was a counterclaim against the company which essentially asked Judge Silver to grant the company’s third claim for relief – that irrespective of whether a Nicolau or non-Nicolau seniority list is used, that no liability will attach to the company. The company then asked Judge Silver to dismiss USAPA’s counterclaim because USAPA failed to join the West pilots as a necessary party (citing Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). USAPA responds (see Doc 99 ) by arguing that the company is wrong because the West is already a party to the lawsuit, and therefore the West need not be joined under Rule 19. So, the issue between USAPA and the company centered on the distinction between whether Rule 19 required an existing party to a suit must be joined on an individual claim. USAPA, says no, which is consistent with their history of trying to believe that the West does not exist and therefore has no individual legal standing to assert their rights in a court of law. The company explains why (Doc 102 ) USAPA is wrong:
“EEOC v.Peabody Western Coal, 400 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2005), on which USAPA places primary reliance, addressed a necessary party (the Navajo Nation) against whom the plaintiff could not assert a direct cause of action. There is no such problem here: USAPA’s Counter- Claim for declaratory judgment can be asserted directly against the West Pilots. Moreover, the eventual outcome of the EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal litigation was that the Navajo Nation had to be (and in fact was) named as a defendant on the claim at issue rather than merely being present in the lawsuit in some other capacity—the exact opposite of the result sought by USAPA with respect to the West Pilots.” [Doc. 102, Pg. 2]
Pay particular attention to Footnote 2 on the same page (our emphasis is added):
“In EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal, 400 F.3d at 780, the Ninth Circuit held generally that the Navajo Nation was a necessary party under Rule 19, but did not specify precisely how the Navajo Nation should be joined in the litigation given that the EEOC could not assert a direct claim against it. A subsequent appeal in the same case, which USAPA fails to cite, clarifies the matter. See EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal, 610 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010). On remand from the original appeal, the EEOC named the Navajo Nation as a defendant on its Title VII claim. The district court dismissed the Nation from the lawsuit on the ground that it could not be sued under Title VII. Id. at 1078. The Ninth Circuit reversed, and held that the Navajo Nation was a proper defendant. Id. at 1080.” [Doc. 102, Pg. 2, FN2]
Peabody is a complex case with a long history in the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, but if you care to read the latest opinion which the company cites (and USAPA conveniently fails to cite), you can download it here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1529059.html
Finally, the company rounds out their argument by noting that USAPA’s counterclaim fails on its face:
“USAPA’s Counter- Claim is for a declaratory judgment to the effect that “US Airways would not be liable” to any pilot employed by US Airways (which includes the West Pilots) if it were to agree to a collective bargaining agreement with USAPA that does not implement the Nicolau Award. (Doc. No. 88 at 20 ¶ 67 (emphasis added). To state a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, however, USAPA must establish that “there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests, and the controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief.” Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 (9th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). US Airways is not adverse to USAPA with respect to a declaration of US Airways’ nonliability. The West Pilots are. Thus, the West Pilots are not merely necessary parties to this action; they are necessary parties to USAPA’s Counter-Claim.” (Doc. 102, Pg. 3)
Notwithstanding the obvious defect in USAPA’s counterclaim as stated immediately above, our point is this: There is absolutely no excuse to improperly cite holdings from case authority, either by not citing the latest authority, or by flagrantly arguing that a holding means something wholly contrary to what the plain text says. USAPA manages to commit both infractions in Doc. 99. USAPA does not cite to the latest Peabody authority, nor does USAPA disclose to the tribunal the adverse holding of Peabody to USAPA’s argument. We call your attention to this now for several reasons. One, there is a long history of USAPA doing this, which was first demonstrated throughout its campaign to replace ALPA. USAPA repeatedly and grossly embellished the legal efficacy of its DOH pursuit. We saw it again throughout the Addington proceedings when the clear holdings of case law were routinely perverted and argued well out of proper context. Judge Wake routinely admonished USAPA for this, and it appears that this practice will continue throughout these proceedings.
Secondly, the principal-agent relationship is a special relationship which demands and deserves the highest level of honesty as to what the truly law is, and how that translates into the client achieving their goals. If any East pilots are reading this (and we know many do), we ask you to reflect on the last three-and-a-half years of USAPA representation, and measure what you have been told all along against where we are today as a pilot group. Read the latest filing in Judge Silver’s court by the company and ask yourself how your legal bargaining agent can be telling you the truth if they can’t even cite the holdings of case law correctly. Think about the duty you are owed by your legal representatives to be honest with you, and ask yourself how that duty is being fulfilled when your bargaining agent fails to be candid with tribunals.
There is a reason why East pilots remain at the absolute bottom of the industry and why negotiations are stalled. It is the same reason why pilot unity is nonexistent, and it is the same reason why Cleary exhorts blatant defiance of the new lanyard policy but then promptly reverses course. It is the same reason why USAPA now stares down the business end of a legal shotgun in the company’s injunction action. All one needs to do is read the deceptive arguments contained within Doc. 99 to understand why life for the average line pilot is fraught with frustration, anger and despair.
The path to achieving a new contract is clearly defined in Section 6 of the RLA. While the current USAPA leadership accuses the company for creating obstacles to an improved contract, it is obvious to everyone else that USAPA's insistence that Section 22 be renegotiated is the primary roadblock. USAPA's position on the seniority matter is unprecedented in the history of the Railway Labor Act, as the combined seniority list at issue was the product of a mutually agreed-to binding arbitration! For three-and- a- half years now, this approach has proven entirely fruitless. The angst felt by the East rank-and-file is understandable, but taking it out on the company in the form of an illegal job action is not the answer. The blatant effort of Cleary, Kubic and much of USAPA's leadership to harvest this rage and channel it into an illegal job action that jeopardizes the union's existence, harms the company, and puts individual pilots at risk of termination is reprehensible.
As always, we encourage every pilot to download and read all of the filings in all of the ongoing litigation, with extra emphasis on the company's injunction case this week. We are not rooting for the company here, but pay particular attention to the sixty-nine page report of the company’s expert witness, Dr. Darin Lee, who received his doctorate in economics from Brown University. Consider the scope and detail of the company data presented in Dr. Lee’s report, and consider the time, money and effort that management has invested in building the mountain of evidence which is soon to be argued before Judge Conrad in North Carolina. While the PHX based pilots have been operating in a “business as usual” fashion, if the company's data is to be believed, it is clear that the pilots from the other bases have not. What is most revealing, however, is that if all East pilots were really “On Board,” the numbers would be far more disparate as between East and West. Even with the very best efforts of Cleary's “true believers,” it is obvious that his real support has dwindled to a relative handful of malcontents. Those malcontents probably take pride in Cleary's recent statement calling superficial union symbols “Spent Cartridges of the Battlefield.” Spent cartridges . . . give us all a break, Mike.
We are now to the point where the collision between reality and USAPA’s spin can no longer be masked by the USAPA Minister of Propaganda, Scott Theuer. There is only one way out for this pilot group: HONESTY - honesty about the facts leading up to our present situation, honesty about the legal obligations of the bargaining agent to fairly represent all of its members, and honesty about how to achieve the goals set for Section 6 negotiations within the letter of the law. We as a pilot group must admit that seniority was never just an intra-union dispute. Under the radical leadership of Cleary, it was only a matter of time before the seniority dispute grew into an issue which the company could no longer afford to ignore, making it quite predictable that the company would have to step in and do something about.
To our fellow pilots on the East: Think long and hard about what is really transpiring and what the outcomes might be (and how long it has taken and has yet to take). Your livelihood, your family’s fortunes, and your own career depends on it.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
www.cactuspilot.com
August 07, 2011
Leonidas Update
Tonight we will update you on two filings in the Declaratory Action case and provide some commentary on Mike Cleary’s sudden reversal of his exhortations to continue wearing USAPA's “Safety First” yellow lanyards in defiance of company policy. Lastly, we will comment on the company’s injunction lawsuit against USAPA.
When we last spoke of the company’s Declaratory Action, one of the filings we discussed was the company’s motion to dismiss USAPA’s counterclaim (Doc. 98). After Judge Silver denied USAPA’s motion to have the company’s entire Declaratory Action dismissed (see Judge Silver’s order, Doc. 85), USAPA was forced to file their response to the company’s complaint (Doc. 1). Rolled into USAPA’s response (Doc. 88), was a counterclaim against the company which essentially asked Judge Silver to grant the company’s third claim for relief – that irrespective of whether a Nicolau or non-Nicolau seniority list is used, that no liability will attach to the company. The company then asked Judge Silver to dismiss USAPA’s counterclaim because USAPA failed to join the West pilots as a necessary party (citing Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). USAPA responds (see Doc 99 ) by arguing that the company is wrong because the West is already a party to the lawsuit, and therefore the West need not be joined under Rule 19. So, the issue between USAPA and the company centered on the distinction between whether Rule 19 required an existing party to a suit must be joined on an individual claim. USAPA, says no, which is consistent with their history of trying to believe that the West does not exist and therefore has no individual legal standing to assert their rights in a court of law. The company explains why (Doc 102 ) USAPA is wrong:
“EEOC v.Peabody Western Coal, 400 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2005), on which USAPA places primary reliance, addressed a necessary party (the Navajo Nation) against whom the plaintiff could not assert a direct cause of action. There is no such problem here: USAPA’s Counter- Claim for declaratory judgment can be asserted directly against the West Pilots. Moreover, the eventual outcome of the EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal litigation was that the Navajo Nation had to be (and in fact was) named as a defendant on the claim at issue rather than merely being present in the lawsuit in some other capacity—the exact opposite of the result sought by USAPA with respect to the West Pilots.” [Doc. 102, Pg. 2]
Pay particular attention to Footnote 2 on the same page (our emphasis is added):
“In EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal, 400 F.3d at 780, the Ninth Circuit held generally that the Navajo Nation was a necessary party under Rule 19, but did not specify precisely how the Navajo Nation should be joined in the litigation given that the EEOC could not assert a direct claim against it. A subsequent appeal in the same case, which USAPA fails to cite, clarifies the matter. See EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal, 610 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010). On remand from the original appeal, the EEOC named the Navajo Nation as a defendant on its Title VII claim. The district court dismissed the Nation from the lawsuit on the ground that it could not be sued under Title VII. Id. at 1078. The Ninth Circuit reversed, and held that the Navajo Nation was a proper defendant. Id. at 1080.” [Doc. 102, Pg. 2, FN2]
Peabody is a complex case with a long history in the District Court and the Ninth Circuit, but if you care to read the latest opinion which the company cites (and USAPA conveniently fails to cite), you can download it here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1529059.html
Finally, the company rounds out their argument by noting that USAPA’s counterclaim fails on its face:
“USAPA’s Counter- Claim is for a declaratory judgment to the effect that “US Airways would not be liable” to any pilot employed by US Airways (which includes the West Pilots) if it were to agree to a collective bargaining agreement with USAPA that does not implement the Nicolau Award. (Doc. No. 88 at 20 ¶ 67 (emphasis added). To state a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act, however, USAPA must establish that “there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests, and the controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief.” Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 (9th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added). US Airways is not adverse to USAPA with respect to a declaration of US Airways’ nonliability. The West Pilots are. Thus, the West Pilots are not merely necessary parties to this action; they are necessary parties to USAPA’s Counter-Claim.” (Doc. 102, Pg. 3)
Notwithstanding the obvious defect in USAPA’s counterclaim as stated immediately above, our point is this: There is absolutely no excuse to improperly cite holdings from case authority, either by not citing the latest authority, or by flagrantly arguing that a holding means something wholly contrary to what the plain text says. USAPA manages to commit both infractions in Doc. 99. USAPA does not cite to the latest Peabody authority, nor does USAPA disclose to the tribunal the adverse holding of Peabody to USAPA’s argument. We call your attention to this now for several reasons. One, there is a long history of USAPA doing this, which was first demonstrated throughout its campaign to replace ALPA. USAPA repeatedly and grossly embellished the legal efficacy of its DOH pursuit. We saw it again throughout the Addington proceedings when the clear holdings of case law were routinely perverted and argued well out of proper context. Judge Wake routinely admonished USAPA for this, and it appears that this practice will continue throughout these proceedings.
Secondly, the principal-agent relationship is a special relationship which demands and deserves the highest level of honesty as to what the truly law is, and how that translates into the client achieving their goals. If any East pilots are reading this (and we know many do), we ask you to reflect on the last three-and-a-half years of USAPA representation, and measure what you have been told all along against where we are today as a pilot group. Read the latest filing in Judge Silver’s court by the company and ask yourself how your legal bargaining agent can be telling you the truth if they can’t even cite the holdings of case law correctly. Think about the duty you are owed by your legal representatives to be honest with you, and ask yourself how that duty is being fulfilled when your bargaining agent fails to be candid with tribunals.
There is a reason why East pilots remain at the absolute bottom of the industry and why negotiations are stalled. It is the same reason why pilot unity is nonexistent, and it is the same reason why Cleary exhorts blatant defiance of the new lanyard policy but then promptly reverses course. It is the same reason why USAPA now stares down the business end of a legal shotgun in the company’s injunction action. All one needs to do is read the deceptive arguments contained within Doc. 99 to understand why life for the average line pilot is fraught with frustration, anger and despair.
The path to achieving a new contract is clearly defined in Section 6 of the RLA. While the current USAPA leadership accuses the company for creating obstacles to an improved contract, it is obvious to everyone else that USAPA's insistence that Section 22 be renegotiated is the primary roadblock. USAPA's position on the seniority matter is unprecedented in the history of the Railway Labor Act, as the combined seniority list at issue was the product of a mutually agreed-to binding arbitration! For three-and- a- half years now, this approach has proven entirely fruitless. The angst felt by the East rank-and-file is understandable, but taking it out on the company in the form of an illegal job action is not the answer. The blatant effort of Cleary, Kubic and much of USAPA's leadership to harvest this rage and channel it into an illegal job action that jeopardizes the union's existence, harms the company, and puts individual pilots at risk of termination is reprehensible.
As always, we encourage every pilot to download and read all of the filings in all of the ongoing litigation, with extra emphasis on the company's injunction case this week. We are not rooting for the company here, but pay particular attention to the sixty-nine page report of the company’s expert witness, Dr. Darin Lee, who received his doctorate in economics from Brown University. Consider the scope and detail of the company data presented in Dr. Lee’s report, and consider the time, money and effort that management has invested in building the mountain of evidence which is soon to be argued before Judge Conrad in North Carolina. While the PHX based pilots have been operating in a “business as usual” fashion, if the company's data is to be believed, it is clear that the pilots from the other bases have not. What is most revealing, however, is that if all East pilots were really “On Board,” the numbers would be far more disparate as between East and West. Even with the very best efforts of Cleary's “true believers,” it is obvious that his real support has dwindled to a relative handful of malcontents. Those malcontents probably take pride in Cleary's recent statement calling superficial union symbols “Spent Cartridges of the Battlefield.” Spent cartridges . . . give us all a break, Mike.
We are now to the point where the collision between reality and USAPA’s spin can no longer be masked by the USAPA Minister of Propaganda, Scott Theuer. There is only one way out for this pilot group: HONESTY - honesty about the facts leading up to our present situation, honesty about the legal obligations of the bargaining agent to fairly represent all of its members, and honesty about how to achieve the goals set for Section 6 negotiations within the letter of the law. We as a pilot group must admit that seniority was never just an intra-union dispute. Under the radical leadership of Cleary, it was only a matter of time before the seniority dispute grew into an issue which the company could no longer afford to ignore, making it quite predictable that the company would have to step in and do something about.
To our fellow pilots on the East: Think long and hard about what is really transpiring and what the outcomes might be (and how long it has taken and has yet to take). Your livelihood, your family’s fortunes, and your own career depends on it.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
www.cactuspilot.com
If you are western, you will gain numerical superiority when the eastern leave with the next war. But you will gain little from it as you too will be contained. It is Parker at his best. Are you eastern or western? Either way, it really matters none. None of you are going anywhere. You will merely fly their equipment at the lowest industry rate as you will not be successful against him either.
We are not rooting for the company here, but pay particular attention to the sixty-nine page report of the company’s expert witness, Dr. Darin Lee, who received his doctorate in economics from Brown University. Consider the scope and detail of the company data presented in Dr. Lee’s report, and consider the time, money and effort that management has invested in building the mountain of evidence which is soon to be argued before Judge Conrad in North Carolina. While the PHX based pilots have been operating in a “business as usual” fashion, if the company's data is to be believed, it is clear that the pilots from the other bases have not. What is most revealing, however, is that if all East pilots were really “On Board,” the numbers would be far more disparate as between East and West. Even with the very best efforts of Cleary's “true believers,” it is obvious that his real support has dwindled to a relative handful of malcontents. Those malcontents probably take pride in Cleary's recent statement calling superficial union symbols “Spent Cartridges of the Battlefield.” Spent cartridges . . . give us all a break, Mike.
This is exactly what I said. Parker has already won the wars present and future. He defeats the eastern, then defeats the western pilots. All will lose. And the west is rooting for the company. Just read. These are words of scabs if I ever heard them. Franke Air at its best.
This is exactly what I said. Parker has already won the wars present and future. He defeats the eastern, then defeats the western pilots. All will lose. And the west is rooting for the company. Just read. These are words of scabs if I ever heard them. Franke Air at its best.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
