US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Move2CLT]

Said old brown eye.

Sure breeze. Whatever you say.

 

[cactusboy53]

The old Bular is the east's buddy routine. That had died off after the events of last summer, but when you run out of anything else....... How many hulls does he east have over min fleet, one or two? That might change this year as -300s go away.

What voters are you talking about? The ones that voted almost 2 to 1 east in the first election? I'm guessing you will get some pissed off Cleary crowd voters turning to the west, but not many. I was actually surprised the west got as few as they did in the first round. What happened to your solidarity? You had a lot of westies that couldn't bother to vote.

Congrats on your new AB type(I believe this is your first time on it, right)?

8 years on AB prior. MCDU knowledge was safely tucked away in the back of the head somewhere. Boeing 737 was fun, time to get comfortable & relax (again).

It's a simple choice: Chose a leadership that can and will move forward with the company OR a leadership that has two faces (let the courts decide .....oh wait....we will use every resource to get that DOH), and has proven to the company that they are NOT interested in any contract unless it has DOH.

In the mean time USAPA has racked up two more devastating legal losses (one with PREJUDICE, again). Delay is the only ring being offered in this carousel ride, and it ain't GOLD. It's dirty, brown and scuffed up.

Vote educated or vote emotional. It's your vote, use it as you wish.

 

[Pi brat]

Sure breeze. Whatever you say.

You drunk already? Posting the same thing twice, confusing the posters.........

 

[Pi brat]

It's your vote, use it as you wish.

Thanks, I will.

 

[fifidriver]

Yeah, there is. But you west know all about the world, aviation and pretty much everything so I won't try to dissuade you.

I suppose that one could argue that he is not strictly one or the other, but is instead some combination of the two. The inability to grasp the concept that "this is not the same airline that went into BK all those years ago", could be labeled as just a minor misconception. Maybe in his euphoria at the thought of ridding his airline of ALPA he missed the significance of the DOH mantra. One could even argue, (and I suspect that this is how Bob justifies himself), that his noble "sacrifice" of the last five years was only to help his less fortunate fellows recoup their unfortunate losses that resulted from the vagaries of the industry. The only problem with his viewpoint is that the recovery of those losses necessarily comes off the back and paycheck of people that Bob assumes can and should afford it. Never mind that it has cost the very people he was trying to help significantly more in the long run. He has the same unscrupulous viewpoint as the communist platform. "... to each according to his need, from each according to his ability". On paper it all sounds very honorable, til you are the one who is being robbed.

I stand corrected. He is either ignorant, unscrupulous or some combination of the two.

 

[cleardirect]

Since the open and honest communications committee of our union has failed to inform the members of the current developments let me post the conclusion from the court in NY.

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in full. Counts I, II, III, and IV are dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(B)(1).20 Count IV is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 12(B)(6). Given the allegations of plaintiff and the facts attested to by the parties in
litigating this motion, the court is doubtful that plaintiff could cure this count through
amendment. However, should plaintiff seek to do so, plaintiff’s counsel shall file a letter,
pursuant to the court’s individual motion practices, requesting leave to amend and outlining in
detail the additional facts it could allege in support of its claim. Failure to do so within thirty
days will result in the dismissal of Count I with prejudice, the entry of judgment, and the closing
of the docket in this case.

SO ORDERED.

20 The parties have made an evidentiary showing on these counts that demonstrate that plaintiff cannot cure its
complaint to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Leave to amend would therefore be futile, and the court dismisses
these counts with prejudice. See 5B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1350 (3d Ed. 2011)
(“Only when the affidavits show that the pleader cannot truthfully amend to allege subject matter jurisdiction should
the court dismiss without leave to replead.”); see also Pot Luck, L.L.C. v. Freeman, No. 06-Civ. 10195, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 25097 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2009) (“[A] court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment
would be futile.”).

In plain language the NY judge told usapa to get the hell out of his court and NEVER bring this loser case back to me ever again. Read the entire order when usapa comm gets around to giving out the bad news. Not a single thing in this order that was good for usapa. SPANKED!!!

 

[Phoenix]

What 320 fails to say all the time when he talks about his "accomplishments"....he was based at the Naval Air Test Center, or more commonly known as NAS Patuxent River. He was in a tenant squadron on the base, which had NOTHING to do with the Test Pilot School also on station. He conveniently refers to his being at the Naval Air Test Center, but no test pilot stuff, unless it was a maintenance check flight on a C130. (or the E6) Also, he has no way of knowing what NATOPS Evaluators were over at Strike and what aircraft they were qualified on.

No! Say it isn't so. 320 makes #### up and equivicates? I am so distraught now. I have to go back and change my vote. How could I have been so gullible?

 

[CallawayGolf]

8 years on AB prior. MCDU knowledge was safely tucked away in the back of the head somewhere. Boeing 737 was fun, time to get comfortable & relax (again).

It's a simple choice: Chose a leadership that can and will move forward with the company OR a leadership that has two faces (let the courts decide .....oh wait....we will use every resource to get that DOH), and has proven to the company that they are NOT interested in any contract unless it has DOH.

In the mean time USAPA has racked up two more devastating legal losses (one with PREJUDICE, again). Delay is the only ring being offered in this carousel ride, and it ain't GOLD. It's dirty, brown and scuffed up.

Vote educated or vote emotional. It's your vote, use it as you wish.

One of my axioms I coined back in my 20's (don't know for sure that it is original, but it very well may be) is that you can't use reason and logic to persuade someone who is being led by their emotions. It just doesn't work. If someone has become emotionally convinced that 2+2=5, then there is just no way to show them that the correct answer is "4". Believe me, I have tried. I used this very example in a class I was teaching on faith, logic and reason which is founded upon a principle that truth is discovered not invented by man. For example, man didn't invent the mathematically provable idea that 2+2=4 because its true independent of what man may think about it. Then a contrarian type says, "but that's not true to someone with an eastern philosophy, because 2+2 can equal anything you think it may equal." So I reach in my pocket and grab four coins and ask him to explain how he can get a count other than the number four from these coins. He refuses to play along but holds firm to the idea that 2+2 can equal 5 or whatever he might like it to be. It was obvious that he and I could have spent hours debating the point of whether or not 2+2 actually equals 4. Total futility.

The point is that convincing someone who refuses to accept facts, logic and reason as valid and independently verifiable truth is an exercise in futility. It doesn't matter how many losses USAPA amasses or how many campaign promises the leadership fails to deliver on, there will be some people who are completely detached from all sense of objective reasoning that will still believe in not just the idealism of DOH, but will never be persuaded that this fight will not eventually go their way. A loss in Wake's courtroom, Bybee's dissenting opinion based on the merits of the Addington claim, Kasher, Conrad, Silver, the RICO suit, and the other more recent decisions don't persuade them at all that USAPA's view on the law and legal agreements is completely out of phase with reality. Emotions are driving this cognitive dissonance and factual truths will never pierce through the veil the east has erected to protect them from accepting truth as truth. So, they will likely vote to continue the same failed viewpoints that they supported four years ago. You would have better luck trying to explain quantum physics to a Chiwawa.

 

[cleardirect]

What kind of rookie lawyers did usapa hire for this case?

Plaintiff’s allegations fall far short of the level of egregious, bad-faith bargaining found to
have existed in Horizon. In large part, plaintiff’s claims are conclusory in nature and void of
factual content that would permit a conclusion that defendants engaged in the misconduct
alleged, as opposed to mere speculation that they did so.

Because plaintiff’s allegations of broad anti-union bias are unsubstantiated by well-pleaded facts, they cannot give rise to the inference that defendants are negotiating in bad faith. See Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 402 U.S. at 575 (stating that an employer’s duty to bargain in good faith is essentially a corollary of its duty to recognize a union).

Plaintiff’s other allegations—including that defendants have not significantly altered their
proposals from the Kirby proposal—similarly fall short of stating a claim for bad faith
bargaining. Plaintiff misconceives the scope of the duty “to exert every reasonable effort” to
reach an agreement, which does not require one side to accede to the other’s proposals:
[M]ovement toward the position of the other side is not a requirement of good
faith bargaining. . . .

Mere insistence on demands that seem extremely harsh to the
other side and that a neutral party may consider “hard” is not a violation of
bargaining duties. An employer may insist on positions consistent with . . . its
asserted needs, even if the union may consider the proposals greedy.

Any first year law student should have been able to understand this issue. Guess that is what happens when you have a client with more money than brains and operates on emotion instead of logic. The lawyer looks foolish and the client gets spanked.

 

[Move2CLT]

You drunk already? Posting the same thing twice, confusing the posters.........

My apologies hair Pi.

My post contained a rolling eyes emoticon to convey my sarcasm. You and breeze seems to be having a bad week and both of you have resorted to childish retorts.

I was merely pointing that out.

 

[cleardirect]

This is usapa version of the world.

In her 35-page Opinion, Judge Ross noted USAPA's "well-pleaded allegations in the amended complaint," but eventually found that the extremely anti-union decisions of previous courts under the RLA militated her finding that USAPA's claims should be dismissed. The Judge made reference to the role the Company has played in the lack of progress in contract negotiations and the creation of a large grievance backlog, but did not believe the facts of this case were sufficient to establish viable claims in light of the unfavorable stance federal courts have recently adopted with respect to lawsuits brought by unions under the Railway Labor Act.

OMG I am getting dizzy reading the spin from usapa. There are 2 mentions of “well pleaded” This is the version of the real world from the judge.

A footnote. (Why is it usapa has to go to footnote to find any justification?) This footnote just says they are well pleded not that they have any facts.

2 The facts are compiled from the well-pleaded allegations in the amended complaint and from declarations and
exhibits the parties have submitted as relevant to the determination of the court’s jurisdiction in this case. Any
instances in which one party specifically contests the facts as presented by the other party are noted. Pursuant to
defendants’ request, see US Airway, Inc.’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 29), the court takes judicial notice
of the documents submitted from related federal actions insofar as the fact of those filings and orders are relevant to
the resolution of this motion. See Sea Tow Servs. Int'l v. Pontin, 607 F. Supp. 2d 378, 384 n.10 (E.D.N.Y. 2009).

All that means is they were OK lawyers. the allegations were will plead but the facts to back up the allegations fell short.

Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 29), the court takes judicial notice
of the documents submitted from related federal actions insofar as the fact of those filings and orders are relevant to
the resolution of this motion

You guys do know what judicial notice is right? That would be the Addington case. The case you east guys keep believing is dead. The NY judge let it in his court too.

Because plaintiff’s allegations of broad anti-union bias are unsubstantiated by well-pleaded facts, they cannot give rise to the inference that defendants are negotiating in bad faith.

As far as who is responisible for the grievance backlogs?

Finally, US Airways has enumerated several ways in which USAPA has failed to
pursue efforts to reduce the backlog of pilot grievances. In response, USAPA has provided only
a few discrete examples of delay on the part of US Airways and reasserted its generalized allegations of defendants’ unilateral abrogation and bad faith.

While USAPA alleges that US Airways’ unilateral actions resulted in the functional equivalent
of an abrogation of the agreed-upon dispute resolution procedures, it admits that such processes
are still being utilized and has failed to make a showing of bad faith on US Airways’ part.
Indeed, as summarized supra, there is evidence that USAPA’s own lack of diligence has had a
significant role to play in the backlog of pilot grievances. Moreover, the concrete figures that
plaintiff has provided lend little support to its allegations of an exploding backlog of pilot
grievances:

More usapa spin

With respect to USAPA's claim that the Company failed to meet its obligation to bargain in good faith under the Railway Labor Act, the Judge ordered that said claim was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that USAPA can request permission to file a second amended complaint. Should USAPA seek to amend, it must file a letter within 30 days requesting leave to amend and outlining in detail the additional facts it wishes to assert therein.

Sure usapa can request it. But they have to have more facts than they have now in order to get permission to file an amended complaint. But according to a NY east coast judge he does not think usapa has a chance in hell of fixing this broken complaint. This update was so full of spin I am getting motion sickness. How is it you east guys can allow your union to continue to lie to you? Read the order for yourself and decide if it was victory or a total loss.

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in full. Counts I, II, III, and IV are dismissed
with prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(B)(1).20 Count IV is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 12(B)(6). Given the allegations of plaintiff and the facts attested to by the parties in
litigating this motion, the court is doubtful that plaintiff could cure this count through
amendment. However, should plaintiff seek to do so, plaintiff’s counsel shall file a letter,
pursuant to the court’s individual motion practices, requesting leave to amend and outlining in
detail the additional facts it could allege in support of its claim. Failure to do so within thirty
days will result in the dismissal of Count I with prejudice, the entry of judgment, and the closing
of the docket in this case.
SO ORDERED.

20 The parties have made an evidentiary showing on these counts that demonstrate that plaintiff cannot cure its
complaint to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Leave to amend would therefore be futile, and the court dismisses
these counts with prejudice. See 5B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 1350 (3d Ed. 2011)
(“Only when the affidavits show that the pleader cannot truthfully amend to allege subject matter jurisdiction should
the court dismiss without leave to replead.”); see also Pot Luck, L.L.C. v. Freeman, No. 06-Civ. 10195, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 25097 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2009) (“[A] court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment
would be futile.”).

 

[Pi brat]

One of my axioms I coined back in my 20's (don't know for sure that it is original, but it very well may be) is that you can't use reason and logic to persuade someone who is being led by their emotions.

Oh CG, I'm sure you are the first human to come to that conclusion or put it into words. And in your 20's too. Impressive. Now, can you get that across to clear, res jude, nic4us and fodase? Because that statement comes to mind when they post and they won't listen to me.

Hey, did you invent the internet too?

 

[767jetz]

Finally something newsworthy happens, and all the usual suspects mysteriously disappear. True to form, they just can't face reality. Of course if this were a win for USAPA we'd have 500 pages of screaming from the rooftops, overnight. And the word "spanked" would have appeared on at least 100 of those pages.

Back to lurking. See you all when the DJ is settled.

 

[nevergiveup]

What kind of rookie lawyers did usapa hire for this case?





Any first year law student should have been able to understand this issue. Guess that is what happens when you have a client with more money than brains and operates on emotion instead of logic. The lawyer looks foolish and the client gets spanked.

Kind of like knowing the West case wasn't ripe but taking your money anyway.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Kind of like knowing the West case wasn't ripe but taking your money anyway.

But then again, not at all like it. Getting a case tossed with prejudice at the MTD phase of the trial is night and day different than having a case be adjudicated and won at the district court level and then remanded because of a technicality on a 2:1 ruling of the appellate court. Furthermore, everyone knows $eham was seeking to claim that Addington was not ripe while simultaneously preparing to claim that the harm had passed the statute of limitations. And now, look at how many federal courts are making reference to the Addington trial despite the 2:1 "not ripe" decision. If any two cases are similar, it would be the two cases in which USAPA was the plaintiff and had their cases dismissed with prejudice for wasting the courts' time with spurious or fraudulent claims of harm.