2014 Pilot Discussion

[Al Legheny]

Judicial estoppel is “an equitable doctrine designed to protect the integrity of the judicial system and prohibits a litigant from taking inconsistent positions in litigation according to the exigencies of the moment. In the Eleventh Circuit, courts consider two factors in the application of judicial estoppel to a particular case--(1) whether the allegedly inconsistent positions were made under oath in a prior proceeding, and (2) whether such inconsistencies were calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system.” Kipperman v. Onex Corp., 411 B.R. 805 (N.D. Ga. 2009
 
Judicial Estoppel is not the question before the court.  The question before the court is one of Venue.  Is the dispute between APA and USAPA a dispute under the MOU / MTA or is it a dispute over seniority as described by Allegheny / Mohawk / McCaskill Bond.
 
Section 13.
(a) In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settle by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time it is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shallbe final and binding on the parties.
 
It is the Nature of the Dispute which is before the court.  Is it a McCaskill Bond issue or a or Minor Dispute under the Railway Labor Act.  
 
Judicial Estoppel does not enter into the argument before the court.  
 

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Really HAIR PLUG just does not get it! It will not be interesting, AAG, and APA have no  argument just words ! And that veteran thing, Thanx but you can kiss my, well Chip !

 

[dariencc]

 
To my fellow Vets and to those serving today is a day that is about remembrance for those who have served and their families. God bless.  

 
Thanks.  Glad that I never disgraced the uniform by ignoring regulations and wearing it in an infomercial for a commercial product such as hair plug replacements. 

 

[luvthe9]

The boys taking it to the Munnster, you gotta luv it, remember you are going to upset his boyfriend Traitor.

 

[cltrat]

The boys taking it to the Munnster, you gotta luv it, remember you are going to upset his boyfriend Traitor.

isn't that part of the fun of doing it?

 

[USA320Pilot]

[SIZE=10pt]USAPA’s right, pursuant to McCaskill-Bond and Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, to participate in the US Airways/American seniority-integration process as the representative of US Airways (East and West) pilots was previously adjudicated in the Arizona Lawsuit.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Throughout the course of the Arizona Lawsuit, USAPA affirmatively took the position that, pursuant to McCaskill-Bond and Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, only the NMB-certified collective bargaining representative of affected employees could represent those employees in seniority-integration proceedings (assuming there was such a representative). USAPA prevailed on this point in the Arizona Lawsuit, and successfully defeated the McCaskill-Bond claim in that Lawsuit as a result.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Pursuant to McCaskill-Bond, Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, and the January 10, 2014 Order in the Arizona Lawsuit, if and when the NMB makes a single carrier finding and certifies APA as the collective bargaining representative for all pilots of the Company, APA will be entitled to represent all pilots of the Company in the seniority integration process.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Pursuant to McCaskill-Bond, Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, and the January 10, 2014 Order in the Arizona Lawsuit, if and when the NMB decertifies USAPA as the collective bargaining representative for US Airways pilots, USAPA will not be entitled to party status in the seniority integration arbitration.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Pursuant to industry practice, once it is certified as the collective bargaining representative for all pilots of the Company, APA may continue the existing American and US Airways seniority integration committees or may establish new merger committees to act for and on behalf of the pilots on their respective pre-merger seniority lists for purposes of concluding an integrated pilot seniority list.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Since the issuance of the January 10, 2014 Order, USAPA has definitively expressed its intent, contrary to that Order, to exclusively represent US Airways pilots in the US Airways/American seniority integration process, even after it is decertified as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]APA seeks a declaration that, once USAPA is decertified as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots and APA is certified as the collective bargaining representative for all legacy US Airways and legacy American pilots, USAPA may only participate in the MOU seniority integration process if and to the extent APA deems appropriate as the certified representative for all pilots of the Company.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]The Company prays for judgment against USAPA as follows:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]1. For a declaration that: pursuant to 49 U.S.C § 42112, note § 117(a)(2), the terms of the MOU Seniority-Integration Process shall govern the seniority-integration process for legacy US Airways and American pilots.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]2. In the alternative, for a declaration that: because the MOU Seniority-Integration Process provides for an “alternative method for dispute settlement” under Section 13(b) of Allegheny-Mohawk, the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section 13(a) do not apply to the seniority integration of legacy US Airways and American pilots, and that the specific arbitration procedures and timeline set forth in the MOU Seniority-Integration Process shall be used to determine the integrated seniority list.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]3. For a declaration that: by failing and refusing to respond to the Company’s and APA’s proposals for an arbitrator-selection procedure, and instead unilaterally seeking to impose a different arbitrator-selection procedure through its request to the NMB, USAPA has violated and is continuing to violate its duty under 45 U.S.C. § 152 (First), to “exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements.”[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]4. For a declaration that: by filing the instant lawsuit, in which it seeks to repudiate the MOU Seniority-Integration Process in its entirety, USAPA has violated its duty under Section 2, First, of the RLA to “exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements.”[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]5. For such other, further, and/or different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Note: USAPA's arguments are not supportable in court and violates the Judicial Estoppel doctrine. Therefore, Judicial Estoppel = Pyrrhic Victory. "A Pyrrhic Victory is a victory with such 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 a 'hollow victory')."[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Way to go USAPA, the UELs, and their supporters. Way to harm the pilots, again. [/SIZE]

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

USAPA’s right, pursuant to McCaskill-Bond and Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, to participate in the US Airways/American seniority-integration process as the representative of US Airways (East and West) pilots was previously adjudicated in the Arizona Lawsuit.
 
Throughout the course of the Arizona Lawsuit, USAPA affirmatively took the position that, pursuant to McCaskill-Bond and Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, only the NMB-certified collective bargaining representative of affected employees could represent those employees in seniority-integration proceedings (assuming there was such a representative). USAPA prevailed on this point in the Arizona Lawsuit, and successfully defeated the McCaskill-Bond claim in that Lawsuit as a result.
 
Pursuant to McCaskill-Bond, Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, and the January 10, 2014 Order in the Arizona Lawsuit, if and when the NMB makes a single carrier finding and certifies APA as the collective bargaining representative for all pilots of the Company, APA will be entitled to represent all pilots of the Company in the seniority integration process.
 
Pursuant to McCaskill-Bond, Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, and the January 10, 2014 Order in the Arizona Lawsuit, if and when the NMB decertifies USAPA as the collective bargaining representative for US Airways pilots, USAPA will not be entitled to party status in the seniority integration arbitration.
 
Pursuant to industry practice, once it is certified as the collective bargaining representative for all pilots of the Company, APA may continue the existing American and US Airways seniority integration committees or may establish new merger committees to act for and on behalf of the pilots on their respective pre-merger seniority lists for purposes of concluding an integrated pilot seniority list.
 
Since the issuance of the January 10, 2014 Order, USAPA has definitively expressed its intent, contrary to that Order, to exclusively represent US Airways pilots in the US Airways/American seniority integration process, even after it is decertified as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots.
 
APA seeks a declaration that, once USAPA is decertified as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots and APA is certified as the collective bargaining representative for all legacy US Airways and legacy American pilots, USAPA may only participate in the MOU seniority integration process if and to the extent APA deems appropriate as the certified representative for all pilots of the Company.
 
The Company prays for judgment against USAPA as follows:[/size]
 
1. For a declaration that: pursuant to 49 U.S.C § 42112, note § 117(a)(2), the terms of the MOU Seniority-Integration Process shall govern the seniority-integration process for legacy US Airways and American pilots.
 
2. In the alternative, for a declaration that: because the MOU Seniority-Integration Process provides for an “alternative method for dispute settlement” under Section 13( B) of Allegheny-Mohawk, the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section 13(a) do not apply to the seniority integration of legacy US Airways and American pilots, and that the specific arbitration procedures and timeline set forth in the MOU Seniority-Integration Process shall be used to determine the integrated seniority list.
 
3. For a declaration that: by failing and refusing to respond to the Company’s and APA’s proposals for an arbitrator-selection procedure, and instead unilaterally seeking to impose a different arbitrator-selection procedure through its request to the NMB, USAPA has violated and is continuing to violate its duty under 45 U.S.C. § 152 (First), to “exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements.”
 
4. For a declaration that: by filing the instant lawsuit, in which it seeks to repudiate the MOU Seniority-Integration Process in its entirety, USAPA has violated its duty under Section 2, First, of the RLA to “exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements.”
 
5. For such other, further, and/or different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
 
Note: USAPA's arguments are not supportable in court and violates the Judicial Estoppel doctrine. Therefore, Judicial Estoppel = Pyrrhic Victory. "A Pyrrhic Victory is a victory with such 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 a 'hollow victory')."
 
Way to go USAPA, the UELs, and their supporters. Way to harm the pilots, again. 

Uh oh, there is a scratch in the record. It just keeps repeating now.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Uh oh, there is a scratch in the record. It just keeps repeating now.

The village idiot is known for NONE of his own thought.

We have to just let him wander aimlessly at this point.

 

[end_of_alpa]

USAPA’s right, pursuant to McCaskill-Bond and Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, to participate in the US Airways/American seniority-integration process as the representative of US Airways (East and West) pilots was previously adjudicated in the Arizona Lawsuit.
 
Throughout the course of the Arizona Lawsuit, USAPA affirmatively took the position that, pursuant to McCaskill-Bond and Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, only the NMB-certified collective bargaining representative of affected employees could represent those employees in seniority-integration proceedings (assuming there was such a representative). USAPA prevailed on this point in the Arizona Lawsuit, and successfully defeated the McCaskill-Bond claim in that Lawsuit as a result.
 
Pursuant to McCaskill-Bond, Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, and the January 10, 2014 Order in the Arizona Lawsuit, if and when the NMB makes a single carrier finding and certifies APA as the collective bargaining representative for all pilots of the Company, APA will be entitled to represent all pilots of the Company in the seniority integration process.
 
Pursuant to McCaskill-Bond, Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, and the January 10, 2014 Order in the Arizona Lawsuit, if and when the NMB decertifies USAPA as the collective bargaining representative for US Airways pilots, USAPA will not be entitled to party status in the seniority integration arbitration.
 
Pursuant to industry practice, once it is certified as the collective bargaining representative for all pilots of the Company, APA may continue the existing American and US Airways seniority integration committees or may establish new merger committees to act for and on behalf of the pilots on their respective pre-merger seniority lists for purposes of concluding an integrated pilot seniority list.
 
Since the issuance of the January 10, 2014 Order, USAPA has definitively expressed its intent, contrary to that Order, to exclusively represent US Airways pilots in the US Airways/American seniority integration process, even after it is decertified as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots.
 
APA seeks a declaration that, once USAPA is decertified as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots and APA is certified as the collective bargaining representative for all legacy US Airways and legacy American pilots, USAPA may only participate in the MOU seniority integration process if and to the extent APA deems appropriate as the certified representative for all pilots of the Company.
 
The Company prays for judgment against USAPA as follows:[/size]
 
1. For a declaration that: pursuant to 49 U.S.C § 42112, note § 117(a)(2), the terms of the MOU Seniority-Integration Process shall govern the seniority-integration process for legacy US Airways and American pilots.
 
2. In the alternative, for a declaration that: because the MOU Seniority-Integration Process provides for an “alternative method for dispute settlement” under Section 13(b) of Allegheny-Mohawk, the dispute resolution procedures set forth in Section 13(a) do not apply to the seniority integration of legacy US Airways and American pilots, and that the specific arbitration procedures and timeline set forth in the MOU Seniority-Integration Process shall be used to determine the integrated seniority list.
 
3. For a declaration that: by failing and refusing to respond to the Company’s and APA’s proposals for an arbitrator-selection procedure, and instead unilaterally seeking to impose a different arbitrator-selection procedure through its request to the NMB, USAPA has violated and is continuing to violate its duty under 45 U.S.C. § 152 (First), to “exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements.”
 
4. For a declaration that: by filing the instant lawsuit, in which it seeks to repudiate the MOU Seniority-Integration Process in its entirety, USAPA has violated its duty under Section 2, First, of the RLA to “exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements.”
 
5. For such other, further, and/or different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
 
Note: USAPA's arguments are not supportable in court and violates the Judicial Estoppel doctrine. Therefore, Judicial Estoppel = Pyrrhic Victory. "A Pyrrhic Victory is a victory with such 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 a 'hollow victory')."
 
Way to go USAPA, the UELs, and their supporters. Way to harm the pilots, again. 

Chip, where did you get this ..... Stuff???

 

[700UW]

Where did he get is Jurus Doctorate from?

 

[737823]

Such maturity, didnt get your newspaper in the cockpit?
 
CLT has no A24, and my later career at US I was a stock clerk, not utility.
 
Amazing how immature you are and you are a PIC, I hope I never fly on your flights.

The world doesn't revolve around CLT...

Pretty sure A24 is an international gate at the lovely PHL.

Josh

 

[Phoenix]

[SIZE=10pt]USAPA’s right, pursuant to McCaskill-Bond and Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs, to participate in the US Airways/American seniority-integration process as the representative of US Airways (East and West) pilots was previously adjudicated in the Arizona Lawsuit.[/SIZE]
 
....

 
 
Wrong.  You are lying intentionally or simply unable to read English well enough to know the difference between an implicit assumption and a legal ruling.   

 

[Phoenix]

Where did he get is Jurus Doctorate from?

Could he be posting a company leak? (Questions are so chip-like) If so, Why would any company leak a lock solid legal argument? Nahhh. Never happen.

 

[USA320Pilot]

[SIZE=10pt]On May 20th, about one-week ago, USAPA said, “As previously noted, proposals approved by the BPR (the proposed Protocol Agreement, proposed Union Merger Transition Agreement, and proposed Global Settlement Agreement) were passed to APA on April 29. APA has not yet responded, but the Merger Committee expects a counter proposal soon, possibly by the end of this week.”[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]But, no answer from APA by the end of the week, again. Has USAPA and the UELs become irrelevant, again? Is APA waiting for the NMB to rule on SCC in the not-too-distant future? After unilaterally breaking off PA discussions, then filing their NMB request, and then filing their petition in federal court USAPA waited over one-month to send APA its first pass. Apparently, there is no need for APA to respond any quicker, if at all.

Is APA waiting until they are the exclusive bargaining agent and then they don't have to deal with USAPA anymore? Is this the same strategy the UELs did by creating USAPA and eliminating the AWA MEC? Is turnabout fair play? I could be wrong, but it would not surprise me if USAPA never receives a draft PA, UMTA, GA, and MBLS settlement offer responses from the APA. The response has likely already been obtained by USAPA in APA’s M-B lawsuit Reply and Counterclaim or Countersuit to dismiss the D.C. federal court action.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]Way to go USAPA and the UEL’s. You did it again. You provide an unsupportable argument and a Judicial Estoppel violation that created a federal judge predicted “Pyrrhic Victory,” unless APA authorizes a 3-way M-B ISL arbitration (and Nicolau Award introduction) post SCC, as previously offered by AA’s labor leaders and AAG. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=10pt]USAPA = Irrelevant?[/SIZE]

 

[USA320Pilot]

Could he be posting a company leak? (Questions are so chip-like) If so, Why would any company leak a lock solid legal argument? Nahhh. Never happen.

Check out Doc 12 & Doc 13 if you want to learn the facts.