2014 Pilot Discussion

[luvthe9]

West pilots do let those AOL thugs bully you, they have already cost you big time, calls are starting to come in on how to join in the growth, start contacting your reps if that does not work then recall them. More growth coming for AA and US, nothing for AWA, your choice.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Today completes the fourth business week since USAPA provided APA USAPA's ideas for a new Protocol Agreement (PA), Union Merger Transition Agreement (UMTA), Global Agreement (GA), and a M-B Lawsuit Settlement (MBLS) offer. Has APA responded? What's up? How come the rank-and-file members have not heard anything?

Will the pilots hear something over the holiday weekend? 
 
Is the East pilots' growth by those who do not honor agreements and support violating a contract about to come to a screeching halt as a Phyrric victory unfolds?

 

[Phoenix]

West pilots need to rise up against the little AOL group, they have damaged your career, senior pilots have been held back form wide body slots and F/Os prevented from upgrading. How much longer will you let this happen, how much more money will go to waste to buying stupid ties and paying Marty. Ferguson and Koontnz have been lying to you for too long now. Every west pilot with half a brain knows it's finished.

Maybe not lying, perhaps just overly optimistic in their implicit assumptions, and unwavering in their commitment to futility.

 

[Phoenix]

Today completes the fourth business week since USAPA provided APA USAPA's ideas for a new Protocol Agreement (PA), Union Merger Transition Agreement (UMTA), Global Agreement (GA), and a M-B Lawsuit Settlement (MBLS) offer. Has APA responded? What's up? How come the rank-and-file members have not heard anything?[/size]Will the pilots hear something over the holiday weekend? [/size]
 
Is the East pilots' growth by those who do not honor agreements and support violating a contract about to come to a screeching halt as a Phyrric victory unfolds?[/size]

Those who ask leading questions and have no evidence are guilty of implicit assumptions, and are alone.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Those who ask leading questions and have no evidence are guilty of implicit assumptions, and are alone.

 
[SIZE=10pt]Is this an opinion or a fact?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]A fact is that "Today completes the fourth business week since USAPA provided APA USAPA's ideas for a new Protocol Agreement (PA), Union Merger Transition Agreement (UMTA), Global Agreement (GA), and a M-B Lawsuit Settlement (MBLS) offer" and as of this week BPR members reported APA has not responded to USAPA's requests.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Another fact is USAPA's M-B Injunction lawsuit violates law and Judicial Estoppel.[/SIZE]

 

[end_of_alpa]

Based on what "legal opinion"? Yours?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Is this an opinion or a fact?[/size]
 [/size]
A fact is that "Today completes the fourth business week since USAPA provided APA USAPA's ideas for a new Protocol Agreement (PA), Union Merger Transition Agreement (UMTA), Global Agreement (GA), and a M-B Lawsuit Settlement (MBLS) offer" and as of this week BPR members reported APA has not responded to USAPA's requests.[/size]
[/size] 
Another fact is USAPA's M-B Injunction lawsuit violates law and Judicial Estoppel.[/size]

Based on what "legal opinion"? Your flawed logic? You don't know what you're talking about, CM. You have NEVER been willing to confront me on the legal basis for your "opinions". NEVER, because you have always been a coward to openly debate in any public forum WHY you think your "opinions" merit even the most scant sense of logic and reasoning.

I know, you will not address me since I am on your no contact list. Coward.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Today completes the fourth business week since USAPA provided APA USAPA's ideas for a new Protocol Agreement (PA), Union Merger Transition Agreement (UMTA), Global Agreement (GA), and a M-B Lawsuit Settlement (MBLS) offer. Has APA responded? What's up? How come the rank-and-file members have not heard anything?[/size]Will the pilots hear something over the holiday weekend? [/size]
 
Is the East pilots' growth by those who do not honor agreements and support violating a contract about to come to a screeching halt as a Phyrric victory unfolds?[/size]

Today completes the fourth business week since USAPA provided APA USAPA's ideas for a new Protocol Agreement (PA), Union Merger Transition Agreement (UMTA), Global Agreement (GA), and a M-B Lawsuit Settlement (MBLS) offer. Has APA responded? What's up? How come the rank-and-file members have not heard anything?[/size]Will the pilots hear something over the holiday weekend? [/size]
 
Is the East pilots' growth by those who do not honor agreements and support violating a contract about to come to a screeching halt as a Phyrric victory unfolds?[/size]

why don't you just quit if it's so unfair?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Based on what "legal opinion"? Your flawed logic? You don't know what you're talking about, CM. You have NEVER been willing to confront me on the legal basis for your "opinions". NEVER, because you have always been a coward to openly debate in any public forum WHY you think your "opinions" merit even the most scant sense of logic and reasoning.

I know, you will not address me since I am on your no contact list. Coward.

 
[SIZE=10pt]Fact No. 1[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]- In the practice of [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]law, Judicial Estoppel (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions) is an [/SIZE]estoppel which precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings. Although, in the United States, it is only a part of common law and therefore not sharply defined, it is generally agreed that it can only be cited if the party in question successfully maintained its position in the earlier proceedings and benefited from it.
 
[SIZE=10pt]See description:[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Fact No. 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]- In the Addington II DFR trial Judge Silver unequivocally held that USAPA cannot participate once it is no longer the certified bargaining agent. Silver said, "USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU, in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by all of the post-merger pilots.13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration proceedings.14 The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified representatives should participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be allowed to participate."[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Fact No. 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]- The Double-Edged Sword of Judicial Estoppel: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]http://www.schwabe.com/pdf/judicial_estoppel.pdf  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Fact No. 4[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - AOL said, "Judge Silver was unequivocal on this point: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]“[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]”[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]Doc. 298 at pg. 21:11-12. We will enforce the Court’s ruling that USAPA cannot be involved in seniority integration at the earliest practicable date."  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Does Judicial Estoppel = Pyrric Victory?  [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]A Pyrrhic victory[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]is a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory")[/SIZE].
 
[SIZE=10pt]Pyrric victory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory[/SIZE] 
 
Does Judicial Estoppel = Pyrric Victory? Me thinks so... 

 

[algflyr]

USA320Pilot, Judge Silver never ruled that USAPA cannot participate in the SLI once the APA takes over. I directly challenge to produce a RULING of hers that says such...
 
You cannot. It wasn't in her ruling. It was just her opinion, which I believe we will find out soon was wrong. (That's my opinion). 
 
For someone that projects to have so much knowledge of the judicial system, I'm surprised you think that was a ruling...
 
Also, there will NOT be an election for a new union. The NMB can declare the APA the new union simply due to the size of their membership as compared to USAPA. 
 
Sorry you have to wait for the APA response like the rest of us common folks... BTW, has the APA kept their membership informed?? How come the rank and file membership of the APA is not being informed by the APA? I wonder what they're hiding... Hmmm...

 

[im back..!!]

Look usa320, lets opine on M/B.... If the larger union is allowed to represent both sides in a seniority integration, what are the chances they will represent anything other than an advantage to there original side?

Do you really think you would advise a friend to just use the same divorce lawyer as their spouse? Really? How stupid are you trying to pretend to be?

M/B will require representation elected or appointed by the elected representatives from both parties involved in the arbitration. Anything else is a waste of time...

What are the chances APA would accept a seniority proposal that puts all usairways pilots on the bottom? And whats the chances that their appointed representatives of the usairways pilots would accept such an arraingement?

Do you not see the stupidity of not allowing both parties to have their own representation?

Laws in the US sometimes assume the level of mental apptitude of the parties involved. In certain cases where the parties might not be up to speed, attorney's are appointed.
We have attorney's that wouldnt allow such an injustice, just as the APA does...for the same reason...

Now, do you really want us to think your that stupid? Or are you so vain, you think we're that stupid? ...... (me thinks.. LOL)

 

[ROACLT]

[size=NaN]Fact No. 1[/size] [size=NaN]- In the practice of [/size][size=NaN]law[/size], Judicial Estoppel (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions) is an estoppel which precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings. Although, in the United States, it is only a part of common law and therefore not sharply defined, it is generally agreed that it can only be cited if the party in question successfully maintained its position in the earlier proceedings and benefited from it.
 
[size=NaN]See description:[/size] [size=NaN]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel[/size]
 
[size=NaN]Fact No. 2[/size] [size=NaN]- In the Addington II DFR trial Judge Silver unequivocally held that USAPA cannot participate once it is no longer the certified bargaining agent. Silver said, "USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU, in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by all of the post-merger pilots.13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration proceedings.14 The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will [/size]change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified representatives should participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be allowed to participate."
 
[size=NaN]Fact No. 3[/size] [size=NaN]- The Double-Edged Sword of Judicial Estoppel: [/size][size=NaN]http://www.schwabe.com/pdf/judicial_estoppel.pdf  [/size]
 
[size=NaN]Fact No. 4[/size][size=NaN] - AOL said, "Judge Silver was unequivocal on this point: [/size][size=NaN]“[/size][size=NaN]when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.[/size][size=NaN]”[/size] [size=NaN]Doc. 298 at pg. 21:11-12. We will enforce the Court’s ruling that USAPA cannot be involved in seniority integration at the earliest practicable date."  [/size]
 
[size=NaN]Does Judicial Estoppel = Pyrric Victory?  [/size]
 
[size=NaN]A Pyrrhic victory[/size] [size=NaN]is a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory")[/size].
 
Pyrric victory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory[/size]  [/size]
 
Does Judicial Estoppel = Pyrric Victory? Me thinks so...[/size] [/size]

Fact vs Opinion

Judge Silver's dicta has already been raised in various statements and motions in front of Judge Howell in the D.C. District Court and yet she issued an order providing a schedule for motions, discovery, trial, etc. It is pretty clear what she thinks of your arguments.

I would say Judge Howell's opinion matters a little more that of a hair plug salesman.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Look usa320, lets opine on M/B.... If the larger union is allowed to represent both sides in a seniority integration, what are the chances they will represent anything other than an advantage to there original side?

Do you really think you would advise a friend to just use the same divorce lawyer as their spouse? Really? How stupid are you trying to pretend to be?

M/B will require representation elected or appointed by the elected representatives from both parties involved in the arbitration. Anything else is a waste of time...

What are the chances APA would accept a seniority proposal that puts all usairways pilots on the bottom? And whats the chances that their appointed representatives of the usairways pilots would accept such an arraingement?

Do you not see the stupidity of not allowing both parties to have their own representation?

Laws in the US sometimes assume the level of mental apptitude of the parties involved. In certain cases where the parties might not be up to speed, attorney's are appointed.
We have attorney's that wouldnt allow such an injustice, just as the APA does...for the same reason...

Now, do you really want us to think your that stupid? Or are you so vain, you think we're that stupid? ...... (me thinks.. LOL)

 
[SIZE=10pt]American Airlines & US Airways' Reply and Counterclaim (lawsuit filed against USAPA) [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - Failure To State A Cause Of Action [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]USAPA’s claim, as set forth in the Complaint, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]cause of action against either US Airways or American. [/SIZE]
 
 
[SIZE=10pt]SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of USAPA’s claim to [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]the extent resolution of USAPA’s claim would require the Court to interpret or apply the MOU. [/SIZE]
 
 
[SIZE=10pt]THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE - Estoppel [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]USAPA’s claim, including its request for equitable relief, is barred in whole or in part [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]because USAPA is estopped by its own conduct to claim any right to relief. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Unclean Hands [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]USAPA’s claim, including its request for equitable relief, is barred in whole or in part by [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]USAPA’s unclean hands and/or inequitable or wrongful conduct.[/SIZE]
 
 
[SIZE=10pt]APA's Reply and Counterclaim (lawsuit filed against USAPA)[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Fact No. 2 - [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]APA Reply and Counterclaim - Page 29: USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU, in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by all of the post-merger pilots. It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration proceedings. The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified representatives should participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be allowed to participate. The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out. USAPA avoided liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified representative. But all the Court can do at this stage is implore USAPA to, in the words of CAB, “make every effort to see that [the West Pilots’] are given extensive consideration, and that their interests are fairly and fully represented” during seniority integration. National Airlines, Acquisition, 84 C.A.B. 408, 477 (1979). And when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Fact No. 3 - APA Reply and Counterclaim - Page 32: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]In its reply brief in support of its motion, US Airways referred the Court to a number of actions by USAPA indicating that it did not intend to comply with the Court’s January 10, 2014 Order. (Arizona Lawsuit, Doc. No. 303 at 3:19-4:21). USAPA has and continues to attempt to evade the Court’s Order as follows:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]In the days and weeks following the issuance of the Court's Order, USAPA made a number of public pronouncements that it viewed the statements made by the Court regarding its right to participate in the seniority-integration process following decertification as "dicta" and that USAPA would continue to represent the legacy US Airways pilots throughout the entire seniority-integration process, both before and after its decertification.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Fact No. 4[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] - APA's THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF - PGE 41 (Declaratory Judgment (28 U.S.C. § 2201)) Once Decertified, USAPA’s Right to Participate in Seniority Integration Terminates and its Continued Participation is Determined by APA as Certified Representative of All Company Pilots. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]For a declaration that: immediately upon losing its certification as the collective bargaining representative for US Airways pilots, USAPA may only participate in the MOU seniority integration process to the extent APA, as the certified representative for all pilots of the Company, delegates authority to USAPA to act for and on behalf of any legacy US Airways pilots. [/SIZE]

 

[USA320Pilot]

Per Judge Silver's Order, AAG's Reply & Counterclaim, and APA's Reply and Counterclaim "once decertified, USAPA's right to participate in the seniority integration terminates and its continued participation will be determined by APA and the certified agent for all New American Airlines."
 
As Pat Szymanski correctly argued in the Addington II DFR trial the RLA only permits the certified agent to bargain on behalf of its members, which is why ALPA ceased all representation duties once USAPA won the representation election.
 
According to Judge Silver, AAG, and APA USAPA negotiated its right to unilaterally represent all US Airways pilots in the upcoming M-B ISL arbitration, if held.    
 
Lets be honest here. USAPA argued against US Airways' Summary Judgment for a 3-way M-B arbitration and continues to fight APA and AAG because USAPA does not want the West pilots to represent them self in the upcoming M-B arbitration. Why? USAPA knows the Nicolau Award will be introduced to the BOA by the West MC and would likely become the starting point for the USAPA-APA ISL.
 
However, as correctly pointed out by AAG USAPA's actions violate Judicial Estoppel and USAPA has "Unclean Hands." Why? USAPA's argument that it can represent itself post SCC violates the RLA and cannot be supported because it violates the law.
 
In my opinion, if USAPA agrees to a 3-way M-B arbitration, as desired by AAG and included in APA's draft PA, then this fight will stop.    

 

[Claxon]

Fact No. 1 - In the practice of law, Judicial Estoppel (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions) is an estoppel which precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings. Although, in the United States, it is only a part of common law and therefore not sharply defined, it is generally agreed that it can only be cited if the party in question successfully maintained its position in the earlier proceedings and benefited from it.
 
See description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel
 
Fact No. 2 - In the Addington II DFR trial Judge Silver unequivocally held that USAPA cannot participate once it is no longer the certified bargaining agent. Silver said, "USAPA has succeeded here but it is a Pyrrhic victory. As contemplated by the MOU, in the very near future an election will take place and a new representative will be chosen by all of the post-merger pilots.13 It is almost certain USAPA will lose that election. Once that happens, USAPA will no longer be entitled to participate in the seniority integration proceedings.14 The Court has no doubt that–as is USAPA’s consistent practice–USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only certified representatives should participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be allowed to participate."
 
Fact No. 3 - The Double-Edged Sword of Judicial Estoppel: http://www.schwabe.com/pdf/judicial_estoppel.pdf  
 
Fact No. 4 - AOL said, "Judge Silver was unequivocal on this point: “when USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.” Doc. 298 at pg. 21:11-12. We will enforce the Court’s ruling that USAPA cannot be involved in seniority integration at the earliest practicable date." 
 
Does Judicial Estoppel = Pyrric Victory? 
 
A Pyrrhic victory is a victory with such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way; however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit (another term for this would be "hollow victory").
 
Pyrric victory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory[/size]  [/size]
 
Does Judicial Estoppel = Pyrric Victory? Me thinks so...[/size] [/size]

Just like a little yappy dog, that likes to squirt a little pee to try to mark it's' inconsequential existence.