2014 Pilot Discussion

[nevergiveup]

My kids enjoyed that sim. It was nice that you could fly with external power connected! Save from burning APU fuel.

 

[A320 Driver]

 
You're right.  However, letting "her rip" in the wrong direction is not the best airmanship nor the best fuel usage.  George Patton said (with different criteria) best: "I don't like to pay for the same real estate twice."
 
If ATC has a specific need for aircraft to accelerate to 250 knots ASAP, it should be noted in the SID (as other airports do.)

It's a change and something we will have to get used to. It has nothing to do with airmanship or fuel usage and everything to do with airspace utilization. Pretty soon we won't even think about it. We'll just do it and ATC can increase departures as we all increase our separation by accelerating sooner.
 
If you think THIS is an issue, just wait until you get a load of the new international procedures.
 
It's just a thing...

 

[nevergiveup]

It's a change and something we will have to get used to. It has nothing to do with airmanship or fuel usage and everything to do with airspace utilization. Pretty soon we won't even think about it. We'll just do it and ATC can increase departures as we all increase our separation by accelerating sooner.
 
 
 
If you think THIS is an issue, just wait until you get a load of the new international procedures.
 
 
 
It's just a thing...

But what if it's a hard time trip? 

 

[flyer63]

I like the new procedure 90 percent of the time. I'm not sure the folks in the neighborhoods will. Took off in fully loaded 321 yesterday out of TPA. Aircraft at 1000 feet nosed over to accelerate to 250. Probably took 5 miles before we reached 250, all the while barely climbing and flying very low over houses. Took a good while before we reached 3000. Not very friendly to the people but much smoother for those on board.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I like the new procedure 90 percent of the time. I'm not sure the folks in the neighborhoods will. Took off in fully loaded 321 yesterday out of TPA. Aircraft at 1000 feet nosed over to accelerate to 250. Probably took 5 miles before we reached 250, all the while barely climbing and flying very low over houses. Took a good while before we reached 3000. Not very friendly to the people but much smoother for those on board.

 
Bureaucratic authors of regulation are almost uniquely oblivious to "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

 

[Piedmont1984]

Just fly like you LLH and LLH like you fly.

LLH - Last Leg Home

 

[Crzipilot]

But what if it's a hard time trip? 

 
Never accelerate past 250?

 

[Freighterguynow]

I have no ax to grind with Skinner and just learned of this development myself.
Rumor is he's head of pilot recruitment at Envoy.

As we work to restore American to greatness, we’re focused on several areas of the operation. One area in which we want to be industry leaders is pilot recruitment. And with the expansion of our regional family to include a larger number of wholly owned carriers, we see the relationship between the regional carriers and the mainline operation becoming increasingly important. To be the best, we want to hire and train the best, and position the mainline operation for success by coordinating efforts for pilot recruitment, hiring and training.

To help achieve this goal, Captain Bob Skinner will take on a new role, reporting directly to me, with a primary focus on creating ways to ensure that our wholly owned regional carriers continue to have the exceptional candidate pool we’ve experienced thus far. Captain Skinner will also work closely with each of our regional carriers to ensure our pilots are fully prepared to successfully transition to the new American when they are offered new hire positions.

Captain Skinner’s extensive training experience and overall passion for bringing new pilots into the industry will position American Airlines as a driving force in addressing and overcoming this industry challenge. In this new role, he will be uniquely positioned to help us maintain a steady supply of highly-skilled and customer-focused pilots.

 

[nycbusdriver]

As we work to restore American to greatness, we’re focused on several areas of the operation. One area in which we want to be industry leaders is pilot recruitment. And with the expansion of our regional family to include a larger number of wholly owned carriers, we see the relationship between the regional carriers and the mainline operation becoming increasingly important. To be the best, we want to hire and train the best, and position the mainline operation for success by coordinating efforts for pilot recruitment, hiring and training.

To help achieve this goal, Captain Bob Skinner will take on a new role, reporting directly to me, with a primary focus on creating ways to ensure that our wholly owned regional carriers continue to have the exceptional candidate pool we’ve experienced thus far. Captain Skinner will also work closely with each of our regional carriers to ensure our pilots are fully prepared to successfully transition to the new American when they are offered new hire positions.

Captain Skinner’s extensive training experience and overall passion for bringing new pilots into the industry will position American Airlines as a driving force in addressing and overcoming this industry challenge. In this new role, he will be uniquely positioned to help us maintain a steady supply of highly-skilled and customer-focused pilots.

 
Is this a quote, or are you VP for Flight Ops, Freighterguy?

 

[snapthis]

Is this a quote, or are you VP for Flight Ops, Freighterguy?

This is how the memo concludes:

Captain Skinner’s extensive training experience and overall passion for bringing new pilots into the industry will position American Airlines as a driving force in addressing and overcoming this industry challenge. In this new role, he will be uniquely positioned to help us maintain a steady supply of highly-skilled and customer-focused pilots.

Please join me in congratulating Bob and welcoming him to our team.

All the best,
Tim Campbell

From Capt Hale:
Earlier today, Tim Campbell announced that Captain Bob Skinner will assume a new role within his organization, one that is focused on positioning American Airlines at the forefront of superior pilot recruitment. This is an outstanding opportunity for Captain Skinner and we wish him all the best in this new and exciting role.

Filling the position of Managing Director Flight Training/Standards & Test is Captain Jim Thomas, our current Director of Flight - DFW. Captain Thomas’ previous experience in the Flight Training department and his thorough understanding of our airline and the training needs of our pilots make him an excellent fit for this role.

Captain Jim Dees will take over as Director Flight – DFW. Many of you know Captain Dees from his work as Fleet Captain on our 777 and 787 fleets, as well as his previous role as a DFW Chief Pilot. His passion for the profession and belief in our airline carries itself into everything he does and is reflected in his work on behalf of the pilots of American.

Each of these aviators brings a wealth of experience and capability that will help us make the new American the best airline in the world. Please join me in congratulating them and welcoming them to their new roles.

CA John Hale

 

[snapthis]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
US AIRWAYS, INC.; AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC.; and ALLIED PILOTS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
Case No. 14-cv-00328 (BAH)

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO STAY DISCOVERY
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 34 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 9
INTRODUCTION
Defendants US Airways, Inc., American Airlines, Inc. and the Allied Pilots
Association (collectively, defendants) demonstrated in their opening brief (Dkt. 32
(Mot.)) that there is good cause for a stay of all discovery pending resolution of
defendants motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings (Dkt. Nos. 26 & 27) and,
if those motions are granted, pending the results of the arbitration, because (1) plaintiff
US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) may obtain discovery pertaining to the parties
contract-interpretation disputes only upon the order of the arbitrator in accordance with
the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and board of adjustment procedures, and (2) proceeding
with discovery on non-contract issues at this time would be wasteful and premature
because discovery will likely be unnecessary once the arbitrator has issued a decision
interpreting the contract. In its Opposition, USAPA argues primarily that a stay of
discovery is unnecessary because, it says, [t]here is no contract dispute regarding the
proper interpretation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that requires
arbitration. Dkt. 33 (Opp.) at 2. In addition, USAPA contends that, even if
defendants motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings are granted, the
arbitration will not fully dispose of the claims pending before this Court and, therefore, a
stay of discovery will simply prolong this litigation. Id. at 6. For the reasons set forth
below, USAPAs arguments are flawed.
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 34 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 9
2
ARGUMENT
I. AN ARBITRATOR HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE
THE PARTIES CONTRACT-INTERPRETATION DISPUTES.
Despite its repeated assertions that its claim in this case merely seeks a
determination of the MOUs status under McCaskill-Bond and that there are no
contractual issues to be resolved through arbitration, USAPA cannot explain how or why
the parties dispute over the proper interpretation of the MOU is not the fundamental
question that must be answered before any legal issue under the McCaskill-Bond statute
can be addressed. That such a dispute exists is undeniable. USAPA agreed to the
process for integrating pilot seniority lists in Paragraph 10 of the MOU that it now seeks
to repudiate by its claims in this lawsuit. In its effort to invalidate MOU Paragraph 10,
USAPA contends that the MOU was not meant to qualify as a collective bargaining
agreement under McCaskill-Bond Section 117(a)(2), or as an alternative arrangement
under Section 13(b of the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs referenced in McCaskill-Bond, and
that the pilot seniority integration must therefore be conducted according to the
procedures set forth in Allegheny-Mohawk Section 13(a). (See Opp. at 2 & 4.) In order
for USAPA to succeed, however, its interpretation of the MOU must prevail. The
provisions in the MOU specifying that three arbitrators are to determine how the pilot
seniority lists will be integrated, and specifying when the arbitration is to begin, must be
construed as entirely meaningless under USAPAs interpretation, an interpretation that is
very much disputed by defendants, as explained in their motions to compel arbitration
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 34 Filed 07/02/14 Page 3 of 9
3
and stay proceedings.1 (See Dkt. 26 at 9-10; Dkt. 27 at 8-10.) And the RLA mandates
that any dispute over the meaning of the MOU must be resolved through arbitration
before the board of adjustment established by Paragraph 20 of the MOU. (See Dkt. 26
at 10-12; Dkt. 27 at 10-15.) Accordingly, in this case, t is wise to await the
completion of the arbitration process because the primary focus of the complaint though
it does present independent statutory claims is on the alleged violation [that requires
interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement], and arbitration, if had, may either
resolve the entire controversy or at least aid in the solution by the court of the statutory
contentions.2 Air Line Pilots Assn v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 627 F.2d 272, 275
(D.C. Cir. 1980); see also Dkt. 26 at 15-18; Dkt. 27 at 17.
II. BECAUSE THIS COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO RESOLVE THE
PARTIES CONTRACT-INTERPRETATION DISPUTES, THE
ARBITRATOR MUST DETERMINE WHAT DISCOVERY IS
APPROPRIATE IN CONNECTION WITH THOSE DISPUTES; THE
NEED FOR ANY OTHER DISCOVERY IS SPECULATIVE.
Contrary to USAPAs suggestion, defendants do not mere[ly] allege that
resources will be conserved by granting the stay. (Opp. at 5 (quoting People with Aids
Health Group v. Burroughs Wellcome Co., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14389 at *2 (D.D.C
1 USAPAs denial of the existence of the parties contract-interpretation disputes is
contradicted by USAPAs own arguments in opposition to defendants motions to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings, which depend upon USAPAs interpretation of the MOU (see
Dkt. 31 at 1-3), and by USAPAs discovery requests, which, inter alia, seek documents
regarding the negotiation of the MOU and the failed negotiations to reach a Seniority-Integration
Protocol Agreement pursuant to the MOU documents that can only be relevant to the parties
contract-interpretation disputes.
2 Despite its persistent denial of the existence of the parties contract-interpretation
disputes, USAPA offers no alternative for resolving the McCaskill-Bond claims in this lawsuit
without first resolving the question of how to properly interpret Paragraph 10 of the MOU.
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 34 Filed 07/02/14 Page 4 of 9
4
1991)).) Rather, defendants have demonstrated that an arbitrator has exclusive
jurisdiction over much of the discovery sought by USAPA and that the arbitration will
likely eliminate the need for further discovery. In these circumstances, a stay of
discovery is an eminently logical means to prevent wasting the time and effort of all
concerned, and to make the most efficient use of judicial resources. Chavous v. D.C.
Fin. Responsibility & Mgmt. Assistance Auth., 201 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2001) (quoting
Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Department of Energy, 84 F.R.D. 278, 282 (D. Del. 1979)
(citations omitted)).
As defendants established in their opening brief, only an arbitrator may order
discovery pertaining to a dispute over the meaning of a collective bargaining agreement,
consistent with the principles and precepts of the RLA, and USAPA therefore cannot
obtain discovery concerning disputed issues of contract interpretation using the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. (Mot. at 3.) USAPA does not deny this well-established legal
principle, nor can USAPA deny that many of its document requests seek information that
is relevant only to resolving the parties disputes over the proper interpretation of the
MOU. Instead, USAPA attempts to distinguish the case law applying this legal principle
by blithely reiterating its patently false mantra that [t]his case exclusively involves
federal statutory claims within this Courts jurisdiction. (Opp. at 3.) However, simply
because USAPA has invoked a federal statute in its complaint does not deprive the board
of adjustment of its exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the parties contract-interpretation
disputes; to the contrary, arbitration of such disputes may only be avoided where
Congress has clearly expressed an intent to override the provisions of the RLA. (See
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 34 Filed 07/02/14 Page 5 of 9
5
Dkt. 26 at 12-15; Dkt. 27 at 13-15.) And because there is no clearly expressed
congressional intent in McCaskill-Bond to limit the application of the RLAs mandatory
arbitration provisions (Dkt. 26 at 14), the parties contract-interpretation disputes remain
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the board of adjustment established in
Paragraph 20 of the MOU and any discovery ordered by the Court with respect to these
disputes would encroach upon the arbitrators jurisdiction.3
Just as the arbitration decision will narrow or eliminate the disputed issues for this
Court to decide in adjudicating the status of the MOU under McCaskill-Bond, it will
narrow or eliminate the disputed factual issues on which any discovery could conceivably
be needed. (Mot. at 3-4.) This is because, regardless of whether USAPA or defendants
ultimately prevail, the arbitration will largely, if not completely, resolve the factual
disputes relevant to the determination of the MOUs status under McCaskill-Bond. Once
those disputed facts have been finally resolved by the arbitrator, the only remaining issue
for this Court to resolve will involve the meaning and application of McCaskill-Bond
an issue that raises pure questions of law. Accordingly, no discovery should be necessary
3 USAPAs argument that discovery may be necessary to resolve a dispute over whether
the parties agreed to arbitrate the pilots McCaskill-Bond rights (Opp. at 4 & 6) is a red
herring, because defendants do not seek to compel arbitration of the US Airways pilots rights
under the McCaskill-Bond statute. Rather, defendants seek to compel arbitration only with
respect to the parties disputes over the proper interpretation of the MOU disputes which do not
require the arbitrator to interpret or apply McCaskill-Bond. And there is no conceivable factual
disagreement, warranting discovery, embedded in the purely legal question of whether a
contract-interpretation dispute is subject to mandatory arbitration under the RLA. (See Dkt. 31
at 15-16; see also Dkt. 30 at 10-11 (explaining that RLA arbitrability is a threshold jurisdictional
question routinely decided prior to discovery).)
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 34 Filed 07/02/14 Page 6 of 9
6
once the contract-interpretation disputes are resolved in arbitration.4 To proceed with
discovery at this time would thus be premature and wasteful, because the parties would
only be guessing as to what discovery may be relevant to the issues (if any) that remain in
dispute following the arbitration.
While defendants counterclaims in this case extend beyond the MOUs status
under McCaskill-Bond, those counterclaims do not present disputed issues of fact
materially different from the parties contract-interpretation disputes and thus do not
justify proceeding with discovery before the arbitrators decision has been rendered. The
Companys third counterclaim, which alleges that USAPA has violated Section 2, First,
of the RLA, is based on and intertwined with the Companys contractual argument that
USAPA was required by Paragraph 10(a) of the MOU to respond to the APAs and the
Companys proposals for a method to select the three-arbitrator panel for the seniorityintegration
hearing, and that USAPAs continued refusal to respond violated Paragraph
10 (a) and therefore also constituted a failure to exert every reasonable effort to make
4 USAPAs contention that Defendants motion doesnt even bother to explain what
discovery might be unnecessary if an arbitrator resolves the contract interpretation dispute
(Opp. at 6) ignores defendants argument that no discovery may be necessary following the
arbitration because the arbitrator will likely resolve all material factual disputes. (Mot. at 3.) For
its part, USAPA offers no description of the potential discovery that may be necessary after the
arbitration, merely asserting, without explanation, that discovery will inevitably go forward.
(Opp. at 6.)
USAPAs additional contention that defendants submission of documents in support of
their motions to compel arbitration and stay proceedings somehow discredits their argument that
discovery at this stage would be premature and wasteful (Opp. at 6) is likewise misplaced. The
substantive documents submitted by defendants to this Court (most of which are proposals from
the MOU and Protocol Agreement negotiations that were exchanged among the parties, as well
as public filings from the Addington litigation) were in USAPAs possession long ago, and
submitting those documents with defendants motions did not involve the burden or intrusion of
a formal discovery process.
Case 1:14-cv-00328-BAH Document 34 Filed 07/02/14 Page

and maintain agreements as required by Section 2, First. 45 U.S.C. § 152 (First). As
with the McCaskill-Bond claim set forth in USAPAs complaint, this statutory
counterclaim depends first upon the arbitrators resolution of the parties disagreement
over the proper interpretation of Paragraph 10 of the MOU.
The only other claim before this Court is the APAs third counterclaim, which
raises a pure question of law: whether USAPA will have the right under McCaskill-Bond
to continue representing the pre-merger US Airways pilots in the seniority-integration
process after the National Mediation Board extinguishes USAPAs certification as the
collective bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act of the pre-merger
US Airways pilots. There are no disputed issues of fact relevant to this counterclaim and,
therefore, no discovery is needed, either now or after arbitration of the parties contractinterpretation
disputes. There is thus no support for USAPAs contention that a stay of
discovery will prolong the proceedings before this Court.

CONCLUSION
For all the reasons stated above, and for the reasons stated in their opening brief,
defendants respectfully request that their joint motion for a protective order to stay all
discovery be granted.

Dated: July 2, 2014.
OMelveny & Myers LLP
By: /s/ Robert A. Siegel
Robert A. Siegel (D.C. Bar No. 1004474)
OMelveny & Myers LLP
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899

Chris A. Hollinger (pro hac vice)
Susannah K. Howard (pro hac vice)


OMelveny & Myers LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3305

Counsel for Defendants and Counterclaim-
Plaintiffs US Airways, Inc. and American
Airlines, Inc.
James & Hoffman, P.C.
By: /s/ Edgar N. James
Edgar N. James (D.C. Bar No. 333013)

Evin F. Isaacson (pro hac vice)


James & Hoffman, P.C.
1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 950
Washington, DC 20036-3904
Counsel for Defendant and Counter-Claim
Plaintiff Allied Pilots Association

 

[A320 Driver]

Sounds like another USAPA swing and a miss to me...

 

[Zone5]

This is how the memo concludes:
Captain Skinner’s extensive training experience and overall passion for bringing new pilots into the industry will position American Airlines as a driving force in addressing and overcoming this industry challenge. In this new role, he will be uniquely positioned to help us maintain a steady supply of highly-skilled and customer-focused pilots.
Please join me in congratulating Bob and welcoming him to our team.
All the best,
Tim Campbell
From Capt Hale:
Earlier today, Tim Campbell announced that Captain Bob Skinner will assume a new role within his organization, one that is focused on positioning American Airlines at the forefront of superior pilot recruitment. This is an outstanding opportunity for Captain Skinner and we wish him all the best in this new and exciting role.
Filling the position of Managing Director Flight Training/Standards & Test is Captain Jim Thomas, our current Director of Flight - DFW. Captain Thomas’ previous experience in the Flight Training department and his thorough understanding of our airline and the training needs of our pilots make him an excellent fit for this role.
Captain Jim Dees will take over as Director Flight – DFW. Many of you know Captain Dees from his work as Fleet Captain on our 777 and 787 fleets, as well as his previous role as a DFW Chief Pilot. His passion for the profession and belief in our airline carries itself into everything he does and is reflected in his work on behalf of the pilots of American.
Each of these aviators brings a wealth of experience and capability that will help us make the new American the best airline in the world. Please join me in congratulating them and welcoming them to their new roles.
CA John Hale

BOHICA! The "Native" Americans are coming. Best to just lay back and try to enjoy it.


seajay

 

[snapthis]

BOHICA! The "Native" Americans are coming. Best to just lay back and try to enjoy it.
seajay

Native Americans.

Don't say Redskins you might offend the Indians. 😉

 

[Phoenix]

Sounds like another USAPA swing and a miss to me...

"REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION"

It is not the judge's decision. Not hardly.

Snap has a habit of posting entire routine filings, from only one side of the argument.... And it seems s/he implicitly assumes such one-sided postings are favorable to AOL (even though AOL isn't even a party to any legal proceeding, nor even any contract).