39950 replies to this topic

[CallawayGolf]

fodase, on 22 February 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Pi doesn't believe for one second usapa will get him doh, he's vote for hummel is all about trying another run around Nic. Such as hummel's longevity based pay scheme.

Pi comes here and regularly claims he is all about finding solutions. However, when I asked him to engage in a serious attempt to craft or propose a viable solution he quickly changes the subject. Perhaps that is because he knows that the only possible solution will come via accepting the NIC and any other proposal or brokered solution is sure to result in a failure. NIC and LOA93 are the only two choices for now; eventually one of those choices will be eliminated despite the east's best efforts to prevent it, and it won't be the former that is going away.

[nycbusdriver]

USA320Pilot, on 21 February 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

USA320 answers: In every level of politics candidates run on a platform, which could change a law or the constitution. For example, abortion and gay marriage are two emotional issues where candidates run for office based on their belief. USAPA was created to break a promise, violate the contract, and for the majority to impose their will on the minority. Tomorrow is the deadline for replies to be filed in the DJ lawsuit case. Then Judge Silver will rule and I believe at that point US Airways will take the position it must implement the Nicolau Award per the court's decision.

Your examples in politics is a straw man argument. Abortion and gay marriage are not enshrined explicitly in the Constitution of the United States, therefore politicians can have varying stances without much downside. Date-of-Hire is explicit in the Constitution of USAPA.

Now, how far exactly do you think a politician would get if he/she advocated a state-sanctioned official religion? Media under exclusive control of the Executive branch? Elimination of the federal court system?

[cleardirect]

3 more years! 3 more years! I can hear the cheering from the Cleary camp. Vote for McKee and continue on the path of the same failed ideas.

All you have to do is look at the people that are endorsing McKee to learn how he would "govern"

Quote

Many of our fellow pilots have taken the time to write letters of endorsement:

• Mike Skinner
• Dave Koseruba
• John Hardy
• Bruce Quinby
• Pat Day
• Rich Peters
• Barry Allison
• Dave Westberg
• Scott Theuer
• Steve “Spike” Szpyrka
• Mike Gillies
• DeWitt Ingram
• Steve Crimi
• Rick Odato

Take the crazy of the crazies and make a list. There you have it. Cleary failed and these guys want more of the same.

[Metroyet]

nycbusdriver, on 22 February 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Your examples in politics is a straw man argument. Abortion and gay marriage are not enshrined explicitly in the Constitution of the United States, therefore politicians can have varying stances without much downside. Date-of-Hire is explicit in the Constitution of USAPA.

Good God. Are you ever going to learn that your Constitution isn't worth the toilet paper it's printed on?

[prechilill]

nycbusdriver, on 22 February 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Date-of-Hire is explicit in the Constitution of USAPA.

And Date of Hire WAS NOT in the ALPA constitution... You know, the CBA we used to integrate our seniority lists.

USAPA was "Johnny-come-lately", too bad for you!

[cleardirect]

nycbusdriver, on 22 February 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Your examples in politics is a straw man argument. Abortion and gay marriage are not enshrined explicitly in the Constitution of the United States, therefore politicians can have varying stances without much downside. Date-of-Hire is explicit in the Constitution of USAPA.

Now, how far exactly do you think a politician would get if he/she advocated a state-sanctioned official religion? Media under exclusive control of the Executive branch? Elimination of the federal court system?

Read the C&BL. DOH is not required it is an objective. Guess what else is an objective of usapa?

Quote

SECTION 8. OBJECTIVES OF USAPA

B. To protect the individual and collective rights of the members of USAPA and promote their professional interests.
C. To establish and exercise the right of collective bargaining for the purpose of negotiating and maintaining employment agreements covering income, benefits and work-rule conditions for the members of USAPA and to promptly settle disputes and grievances which may arise between such members and their employer.
D. To maintain uniform principles of seniority based on date of hire and the perpetuation thereof, with reasonable conditions and restrictions to preserve each pilot’s un-merged career expectations.
E. To promote the safety of scheduled air transportation.
F. To disseminate information in any responsible manner to enhance the professional status of the membership and to ensure a fully informed membership.
G. To levy dues and assessments upon the membership with which to provide the funds necessary to conduct the business and objectives of the Association.
J. To do any and all other acts consistent with and in furtherance of the objectives and purposes set forth in this Constitution and Bylaws, including the establishment of such legal entities as necessary to carry out the legitimate objectives and purposes of the Association.

I would say that usapa has failed in it's objectives of several of these things.

B. Failed.
C. Complete failure. Separate ops does not come close. I would suggest you all read document 164-3 to find out what kind of job Tracy Parrella has been doing.
D. Failed.
E. What would that be? USA Today ads?
F. Failure. Does anyone think that usapa has fully informed the membership?
G. usapa does know how to assess. How is that $45 a month paying off?
J. How did the RICO suit further the objectives of usapa?

Objective not requirement. When DOH is found to be a DFR that objective is just going to go away just like honest and transparent communication.

[traderjake]

deleted

[USA320Pilot]

President's Message - Legal Update: February 22, 2012

Fellow Pilots,

Over the course of the last three weeks, many people at USAPA have been very intently focused on the work of the pilots. The most recent Phoenix Declaratory Judgment filing deadline that passed last night resulted in a great deal of very high quality work from many people. We have had many meetings in CLT, NY and DCA; phone calls; and edited and reedited documents going back and forth throughout every day, including through the weekends -- this all to defend the USAPA pilots' rights to bargain for seniority.

Thank you to all who have worked on these projects and who have, despite the very obvious distractions, remained focused on the work of the pilots yet again. Pilots Randy Mowrey, Jess Pauley, Courtney Borman, and Bill Turbett all deserve thanks for staying on track. Attorneys Pat Szymanski, Roland Wilder, Brian O'Dwyer and Gary Silverman, as well as local counsel Susan Martin and Jennifer Kroll, all worked very hard and very well as a team. Thanks also to Communication's Todd Fieser, Chris Fillar and Courtney Paquette. And as usual, our fantastic staff has provided the quiet support that we all need.

I think I can speak for all of those involved to say that we are very proud of the product that our team has produced. It happened because we worked together for the common goal. Thank you all.

A legal summary is below describing yesterday's filings.

Sincerely,

Captain Mike Cleary
President

Legal Update

All parties to the Phoenix Declaratory Judgment action filed their responding papers on the cross-motions for summary judgment yesterday, February 21. USAPA filed (1) a Responding Memorandum (Doc. 160) to the legal arguments raised by both US Airways and the West Pilot Class in their initial filings, (2) a Response (Doc. 162) to the Statement of Facts previously filed by US Airways, (3) a Response (Doc. 161) to the Statement of Facts previously filed by the West Pilot Class along with supporting declarations and exhibits (Docs. 161-1 through 161-7) and (4) a Motion to Conduct Discovery (Doc. 163). US Airways filed a Responding Memorandum (Doc. 164) and a Supplemental Statement of Facts (Doc. 164-1), along with a supporting declaration and exhibit (Docs. 164-2 and -3). The West Pilot Class filed a Responding Memorandum (Doc. 158), a Response to the Statements of Fact previously filed by USAPA and US Airways, along with a supporting Declaration and Exhibits (Docs. 159-1 through -5). All of these papers are available in the Legal Library.

The purpose of this second round of papers is to allow each party an opportunity to respond to the legal arguments and facts submitted by each of the other parties in the first round. In the first round USAPA filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to issue a declaratory judgment, stating that US Airways is required to bargain with USAPA on its seniority proposal which differs from the Nicolau Award. The West Pilot Class filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to issue a declaratory judgment, stating that USAPA and US Airways are required to incorporate the Nicolau Award in any collective bargaining agreement they negotiate. US Airways did not file a motion of any kind, but did file a memorandum stating its view of the applicable law. Each party filed a statement of what they asserted were the "undisputed" facts necessary to allow the Court to rule on the motions.

In this round of filings, each party has the opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the other parties and, in particular, to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the facts submitted by the other parties. If a party disagrees, and believes a fact submitted by one of the other parties is disputed, it is required to say why and to provide competent evidence to show why the facts is disputed.

USAPA's filings include not only a memorandum responding to the legal arguments made by US Airways and the West Pilot Class in their opening papers (Doc. 160), but also lengthy responses to both the facts submitted by US Airways and those submitted by the West Pilot Class (Docs. 161 and 162). Among other issues, USAPA, as part of its response to the facts submitted by US Airways, moves to strike all references made by US Airways to the finding made by Judge Wake in the Addington case, because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the claims alleged in that case were not ripe for decision and directed Judge Wake to "vacate" his decision. The motion to strike asks the Court to have all references to Judge Wake's finding deleted from the record. USAPA has also asked the Court to strike many of the factual statements made by the West Pilot Class because, in USAPA's view, they are irrelevant to decision of the only legal issue properly before the Court, namely whether as a newly certified bargaining representative USAPA has the right to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement without regard to any agreement that might have been made by the prior representative ALPA.

The Legal Department is in the process of reviewing the papers filed by US Airways and the West Pilot Class.

The next step in the litigation will be the filing of what are known as "reply" papers, which generally are limited to addressing matters raised in the Responses filed by the other parties to the litigation. These papers are currently due to be filed on March 12. Both USAPA and the West Pilot Class have asked for oral argument, and the Court is likely to grant the requests and schedule oral argument on the motions some time after all of the papers have been submitted. We cannot say when oral argument would be scheduled and cannot estimate when the Court would thereafter issue any decision in the case. Both are completely within the Court's discretion.