2014 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

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

 
 
There you go again with your little "facts" fantasy, or maybe another huge misunderstanding....  Filings of defendants or plaintiffs are merely opinions.  "Facts" will occur during discovery, under oath.  😀
 
You misrepresent the "facts" and point to opinions as PROOF, ha.  I'ld like to think you are smart enough to understand, but that would mean you understand how someone might attempt to corrupt a lawsuit.  

 

[Phoenix]

[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]

 
 
You ask a lot of leading questions.  Why?  
 
The law is not written in the form of questions.  The more you ask leading questions the more you show you have no legal footing for your implicit assumptions and misrepresentations/missaplications of fact.  

 

[dariencc]

 
 
You misrepresent the "facts" and point to opinions as PROOF, ha.  I'ld like to think you are smart enough to understand, but that would mean you understand how someone might attempt to corrupt a lawsuit.  

 
That idiot couldn't read a comic book with any comprehension.  Here is one his long forgotten golden oldies from 2009.  The twit started a thread entitled, "Wellington Management Acquires 5% of US Airways."
 

Wellington Management has acquired 5% of US Airways per a recent SEC 13G filing made on April 30. To view the 13G form click here.

Wellington Management's website povides an overview of their company per the following paragraph.

Wellington Management's Overview - With approximately US$396 billion in client assets under management, Wellington Management serves as an investment advisor to over 1,600 institutions located in over 40 countries. We are not brokers, lenders or underwriters. Our expertise is investments — from global equities and fixed income to currencies and commodities. We like to describe ourselves as a collection of teams that create solutions designed to respond to specific client needs. Our most distinctive strength is our proprietary, independent research, which is shared across all areas of the organization and used only for managing our clients' portfolios. Wellington Management Company, LLP is a private partnership. We exist solely to meet the needs of our clients. An independent structure and collegial culture are two of the main reasons investment professionals join Wellington Management — and stay for their entire careers.

To view Wellington's website click here.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 
That's when the fun started.  Later that night, Boeing Boy pointed out that the filing actually stated that Wellington was selling a 5% share, not acquiring it.  Our resident financial/legal/aviation/hair replacement savant had gotten the story bass ackwards. 
 
 

Actually it's just the opposite - Wellington ceased to be the owner of more than 5% of the stock. To quote the filing (emphasis mine):

Ownership of Five Percent or Less of Class.
If this statement is being filed to report the fact that as of the date hereof the reporting person has ceased to be the beneficial owner of more than five percent of the class of securities, check the following: [X]

According to the filing, this leaves Wellington with 2.65% of the stock and that would apparently be before US sells over 15 million new shares. Being the beneficial owner of nearly 14 million shares at the end of 2008 (the 2nd largest holder of US stock at 12+%) it appears that Wellington dumped most of it's shares.

Jim

 
Idiot alert!

 

[Phoenix]

The District Court (Silver) made several other statements in the Order concerning the rights of USAPA and nonparty APA (the bargaining representative for the pre-merger American pilots) if APA was certified as the representative for the merged pilot group. These statements were beyond the scope of the issues litigated, were not briefed by any of the parties, were not essential to the court's holdings, and were, in any event, erroneous.
 

 

 
 
Agreed.  Silver's extraneous musings in her dicta have created the hinge point for continued separate ops for a very long time.  

 

[Phoenix]

 
That idiot couldn't read a comic book with a any comprehension.  Here is one his long forgotten golden oldies from 2009.  The twit started a thread titled, "Wellington Management Acquires 5% of US Airways."
 
 
That's when the fun started.  Later that night, Boeing Boy pointed out that the filing actually stated that Wellington was selling a 5% share, not acquiring it.  Our resident financial/legal/aviation/hair replacement savant had gotten the story bass ackwards. 
 
 
 
Idiot alert!

 
 
That may be true, but he can always claim intellectual property rights to the Unique Corporate Transaction (UCT) acronym.   No one else will fight him for that one.  

 

[nevergiveup]

 
 
Agreed.  Silver's extraneous musings in her dicta have created the hinge point for continued separate ops for a very long time.  

I'm happy with it!  

 

[end_of_alpa]

Counterclaims, Chip. Counterclaims. It IS a fact that they are counterclaims. But most all of what both the APA and the company ALLEGE in their counterclaims has yet to be vetted with discovery and trial. Why don't you read AOL's amended complaint and compare IT to Judge Silvers ORDER. APA WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT PROCEEDING AND THE QUESTION (ISSUE) of USAPA's participation after the NMB decides who will be the CBA was NOT an issue before the court. SHE CANNOT DECIDE WHAT WAS NOT BEFORE HER. THAT US NOT JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

CHIP MUNN IS AN IDIOT.

 

[end_of_alpa]

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.
 
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 APAs M-B lawsuit Reply and Counterclaim or Countersuit to dismiss the D.C. federal court action.
 
Way to go USAPA and the UELs. 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 AAs labor leaders and AAG. 
 
USAPA = Irrelevant?

Hey idiot. Judicial estoppel is NOT a violation. It is an argument. The DOCTRINE of judicial estoppel can ONLY be validated in a court of competent jurisdiction . Read the idiots bible, Wikipedia which states: "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.

Judicial estoppel is a doctrine which may be applied in matters involving closed bankruptcies wherein the former debtor attempts to lay claim to an asset which was not disclosed on the bankruptcy schedules."

The ISSUE in Silvers court, from AOL amended complaint:

IV. Claim Four: Declaratory Claim
120. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
121. McCaskill-Bond provides that employees affected by an airline merger have the right to a fair and equitable seniority integration.
122. The West Pilots are employees affected by the US Airways- American Airlines merger.
123. In the process of obtaining a fair and equitable seniority integration of the US Airways and American Airlines pilots that will commence soon after AMRs Petition of Reorganization is approved and final (hereinafter the MOU Seniority Integration), which is expected to occur within approximately the next two months, USAPA and its representatives and counsel are bound by USAPAs constitution to advance a date-of-hire seniority order for US Airways pilots.
124. The West Pilots have an interest to see proper implementation of the Nicolau Award seniority list in the course of the MOU Seniority Integration.
125. USAPA and its representatives and counsel have an unwaivable conflict of interest with the West Pilots in regard to seniority integration.
126. USAPA and its representatives and counsel, therefore, cannot fairly represent the West Pilots interests in the course of the MOU Seniority Integration.

ISSUE:
127. The West Pilots contend that they have the right to fully participate in each phase of the MOU Seniority Integration process. (Doc. 97 at 5:23 to 5:25.)
ISSUE:
128. US Airways also contends that the West Pilots have the right to participate fully (with counsel of their own choice) in the MOU Seniority Integration process and that such participation will promote a more effective process. (Doc. 98 at 1:6 to 1:10.)
ISSUE
129. USAPA contends that the West Pilots have no legitimate right to participate in any phase of the Airways-American McCaskill-Bond process. (Doc. 95 at 10:17 to 11:6.)
130. There is a substantial controversy, therefore, between the West Pilots and USAPA as to whether the West Pilots have a right to participate in the MOU Seniority Integration process.
131. Consequently, there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
132. The West Pilots are entitled, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to an order declaring that they have party status and the right (but not the obligation) to participate fully (with counsel of their own choice) in the MOU Seniority Integration process.

JUDGE SILVERS ANSWER:
C. Participation in McCaskill-Bond

The West Pilots seek a declaration that they are entitled to participate in the upcoming seniority integration process for all pilots at the post-merger airline. That process is governed by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 42112 note (McCaskill-Bond). Under that statute, the West Pilots are not entitled to participate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant US Airline Pilots Association on Count I and "COUNT IV" (of Plaintiffs AMENDED COMPLAINT) a judgment in favor of US Airways, Inc. on Count II, and a judgment of dismissal without prejudice on Count III.
DATED this 10th day of January, 2014.


The Company, APA AND USAPA are under federal law and STATUTE SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE MOU, IN PARTICULAR, 10(e.). Which STATES:

e. The obligations contained in this Paragraph shall be specifically enforceable on an expedited basis before a System Board of Adjustment in accordance with Paragraph 20, provided that the obligations imposed by McCaskill-Bond may be enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction.

USAPA did NOT make the argument that they have no status in SLI after the APA becomes the CBA. It's federal law, idiot. They are NOT ADJUDICATING THE CONTRACT, THEY ARE ADJUDICATING RIGHTS.

Chip Munn intends to inflame the West pilots further causing them to suffer the lack of advancement and isolation in PHX. If Doyal and AWAPPA are putting Chip up to this then all they do is suffer more isolation for many more years.

CHIP MUNN CANT EVEN DEBATE THE LAW AND IS A LOSER.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Hey idiot. Judicial estoppel is NOT a violation. It is an argument. The DOCTRINE of judicial estoppel can ONLY be validated in a court of competent jurisdiction . Read the idiots bible, Wikipedia which states: "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.

Judicial estoppel is a doctrine which may be applied in matters involving closed bankruptcies wherein the former debtor attempts to lay claim to an asset which was not disclosed on the bankruptcy schedules."

The ISSUE in Silvers court, from AOL amended complaint:

IV. Claim Four: Declaratory Claim
120. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein.
121. McCaskill-Bond provides that employees affected by an airline merger have the right to a fair and equitable seniority integration.
122. The West Pilots are employees affected by the US Airways- American Airlines merger.
123. In the process of obtaining a fair and equitable seniority integration of the US Airways and American Airlines pilots that will commence soon after AMRs Petition of Reorganization is approved and final (hereinafter the MOU Seniority Integration), which is expected to occur within approximately the next two months, USAPA and its representatives and counsel are bound by USAPAs constitution to advance a date-of-hire seniority order for US Airways pilots.
124. The West Pilots have an interest to see proper implementation of the Nicolau Award seniority list in the course of the MOU Seniority Integration.
125. USAPA and its representatives and counsel have an unwaivable conflict of interest with the West Pilots in regard to seniority integration.
126. USAPA and its representatives and counsel, therefore, cannot fairly represent the West Pilots interests in the course of the MOU Seniority Integration.

ISSUE:
127. The West Pilots contend that they have the right to fully participate in each phase of the MOU Seniority Integration process. (Doc. 97 at 5:23 to 5:25.)
ISSUE:
128. US Airways also contends that the West Pilots have the right to participate fully (with counsel of their own choice) in the MOU Seniority Integration process and that such participation will promote a more effective process. (Doc. 98 at 1:6 to 1:10.)
ISSUE
129. USAPA contends that the West Pilots have no legitimate right to participate in any phase of the Airways-American McCaskill-Bond process. (Doc. 95 at 10:17 to 11:6.)
130. There is a substantial controversy, therefore, between the West Pilots and USAPA as to whether the West Pilots have a right to participate in the MOU Seniority Integration process.
131. Consequently, there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
132. The West Pilots are entitled, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to an order declaring that they have party status and the right (but not the obligation) to participate fully (with counsel of their own choice) in the MOU Seniority Integration process.

JUDGE SILVERS ANSWER:
C. Participation in McCaskill-Bond

The West Pilots seek a declaration that they are entitled to participate in the upcoming seniority integration process for all pilots at the post-merger airline. That process is governed by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 42112 note (McCaskill-Bond). Under that statute, the West Pilots are not entitled to participate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant US Airline Pilots Association on Count I and "COUNT IV" (of Plaintiffs AMENDED COMPLAINT) a judgment in favor of US Airways, Inc. on Count II, and a judgment of dismissal without prejudice on Count III.
DATED this 10th day of January, 2014.


The Company, APA AND USAPA are under federal law and STATUTE SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE MOU, IN PARTICULAR, 10(e.). Which STATES:

e. The obligations contained in this Paragraph shall be specifically enforceable on an expedited basis before a System Board of Adjustment in accordance with Paragraph 20, provided that the obligations imposed by McCaskill-Bond may be enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction.

USAPA did NOT make the argument that they have no status in SLI after the APA becomes the CBA. It's federal law, idiot. They are NOT ADJUDICATING THE CONTRACT, THEY ARE ADJUDICATING RIGHTS.

Chip Munn intends to inflame the West pilots further causing them to suffer the lack of advancement and isolation in PHX. If Doyal and AWAPPA are putting Chip up to this then all they do is suffer more isolation for many more years.

CHIP MUNN CANT EVEN DEBATE THE LAW AND IS A LOSER.

 
 
End,
 
Trying to make CM understand the facts is like trying to teach a pig to sing.  It only wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

 

[end_of_alpa]

End,
 
Trying to make CM understand the facts is like trying to teach a pig to sing.  It only wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

Tru DAT, Padre!

 

[767one]

 
 
There you go again with your little "facts" fantasy, or maybe another huge misunderstanding....  Filings of defendants or plaintiffs are merely opinions.  "Facts" will occur during discovery, under oath.   😀
 
You misrepresent the "facts" and point to opinions as PROOF, ha.  I'ld like to think you are smart enough to understand, but that would mean you understand how someone might attempt to corrupt a lawsuit.  

 
 
Facts? Just looks like more "bullchip to me!

 

[luvthe9]

The village idiot is known for NONE of his own thought.
We have to just let him wander aimlessly at this point.

I feel like we should band together and get him to a mental health professional, he might be getting called in soon.

 

[USA320Pilot]

MOU, Paragraph 10. A., states, “A seniority integration process consistent with McCaskill-Bond shall begin as soon as possible after the Effective Date.”

USAPA’s pilot contract does not state the APA-USAPA SLI will be conducted using M-B statute, the contract states the “seniority integration process (will be) consistent with McCaskill-Bond.” That’s a big difference. APA and AAG have offered a process “consistent” with M-B with 3 post SCC MC’s: APA, APA Leagcy USAPA East MC, & APA Legacy West MC. USAPA has said “no” because USAPA has been focused on a 5,000 versus 15,000 pilot SLI, which now appears to be very short-sighted (But, what do you expect by people who have zero ISL/MC experience?). 

Furthermore, once USAPA ratified the MOU the USAPA waived its independent union rights per the RLA and agreed to a specific SLI protocol consistentwith M-B as described in the MOU paragraph 10. As one pilot said, “(USAPA’s approval) of the MOU is basically the same really no different than AirTran's approval of the SWA proposal, the only minor difference being the SWA/AT agreement contained a specific SLI order whereas the MOU defines a specific SLI protocol.”

Clearly, the East portion of the BPR did not understand what they negotiated and ratified and now they’re trying to circumvent the pilot’s contract, specifically MOU paragraph 4 and 10. Recognizing their mistake (just like with LOA 96 – coupled with USAPA’s certification – created the DFR violation when ripe for adjudication) the BPR and USAPA UELs want to violate the pilot’s contract (again). However, AAG and APA will not allow USAPA to violate the contract much to USAPA’s disdain. And, now after about one-month since USAPA provided APA USAPA’s ideas on a draft PA, UMTA and GA in a final effort to remain relevant, in exchange for a MBLS offer, APA continues to ignore USAPA while waiting for the NMB to render a SCC decision. 

If this was not so sad it would be comical watching the UELs try to play chess with checkers.

USAPA = Pyrrhic Victory. 

It might make sense for people to clearly read the contract's language versus accommodating their beliefs to believe what they want versus what is their contractual obligation(s).

 

[737823]

You are just like john john (CWA) master of copy and paste.

Josh

 

[Phoenix]

APA and USAPA did not reach agreement on a seniority integration protocol agreement to set aside the MB statutory obligations.   USAPA has not and will not contractually abandon their rights and obligations under MB.  The only dispute is who has the right to choose who participates, and that question has been litigated... it is a matter of law. Participants are assured their right and obligation to participate as a matter of law.  No party can be compelled to enter arbitration with any other party except by mutual agreement to do so, or by law.   The APA is refusing to perform their obligations of the statute, but they will.  They will.   🙂