2015 Pilot Discussion.

[luvthe9]

I wonder how pissed you're going to be when you realize that your greedy, self serving pilot group won't reach into their pockets to help you climb out of the legal cesspool you buried yourself in to aid and abette their theft of West dues money. Get used to the sound of crickets when you come begging.

Frivolous lawsuit, Say it with me boy, DISMISSED.

 

[Monkee]

 
Whew! "serial killers"? I cant recall ever personally killng, or even remotely assisting in the killing of so much as a single American myself, but what do I know? I wasn't properly rejected by even the FBI while wanting "to serve my country and make my family proud".....And just what kind of pathetically warped, hopeless little pussy-excuse for a "Pilot" could ever even imagine any supposed "dogfight" in merely a mighty "Piper Warrior"?
 
Sigh...You truly (and very seriously) need a great deal of professional help son...Period!

 
Commander McBragg, tell us some more tales of your bravery.  You are Ace of Aces.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoBIavBFVbs

 

[luvthe9]

It didn't go unnoticed that you utterly failed to address the fact that East pilots have destroyed several aircraft and hurt dozens of passengers in the last 10 years and the West hasn't had a single incident. So when you're sitting at your TRS-80 keyboard, playing with your long deceased fallice, dreaming of "you'se Pyluts" just remember how much of an idiotic, hypocritial azzhole you are by willfully ignoring the facts in hopes that no one noticed. BTW, you have no proof that you haven't crashed one of those aircraft. It wouldn't shock me Ace.

Such an angry little boy, must suck to be you.

 

[luvthe9]

Seriously 9? That's happy news to me, if so.  I miss the 767's. No offence to those of the Airbus persuasion, but Boeing is always a good thing! 😉

I hate the bus!, and yes happy news for the east, the west made the choice not to be part of the growth.

 

[EastUS1]

 
Commander McBragg, tell us some more tales of your bravery.  You are Ace of Aces.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoBIavBFVbs

 
I'd love to oblige, little princess, but I'm neither tough nor "brave"...so likely best to look to "you'se" fellow "spartan solders" for a "hero"....and of course, AWAsome "Ace"...Heck, you should, at least according to the videos, be able to land yourself even a "knight", soaked in "valor" and tested in many "battles", or perhaps even a "dire wolf"!

 

[CactusPilot1]

Sigh...It's almost a certainty that both their highly evolved "middle finger"(s) and "you'se" attitude will change the entire earth's rotational axis and make all the difference to all concerend. Once more; Have fun with your fantasies, but seriously, just grow up kids...at least eventually. You've clearly now NO idea on how much your perspectives and opportunities in life would benefit from your doing so. Your choice.

Sigh...It's almost a certainty that both their highly evolved "middle finger"(s) and "you'se" attitude will change the entire earth's rotational axis and make all the difference to all concerend. Once more; Have fun with your fantasies, but seriously, just grow up kids...at least eventually. You've clearly now NO idea on how much your perspectives and opportunities in life would benefit from your doing so. Your choice.

Sigh...It's almost a certainty that both their highly evolved "middle finger"(s) and "you'se" attitude will change the entire earth's rotational axis and make all the difference to all concerend. Once more; Have fun with your fantasies, but seriously, just grow up kids...at least eventually. You've clearly now NO idea on how much your perspectives and opportunities in life would benefit from your doing so. Your choice.

Sigh...It's almost a certainty that both their highly evolved "middle finger"(s) and "you'se" attitude will change the entire earth's rotational axis and make all the difference to all concerend. Once more; Have fun with your fantasies, but seriously, just grow up kids...at least eventually. You've clearly now NO idea on how much your perspectives and opportunities in life would benefit from your doing so. Your choice.

Sigh...It's almost a certainty that both their highly evolved "middle finger"(s) and "you'se" attitude will change the entire earth's rotational axis and make all the difference to all concerend. Once more; Have fun with your fantasies, but seriously, just grow up kids...at least eventually. You've clearly now NO idea on how much your perspectives and opportunities in life would benefit from your doing so. Your choice.

I can use fewer words to tell you to GFY.

 

[EastUS1]

I can use fewer words to tell you to GFY.

 
And words are all "you'se" could ever use kid. No matter. "Don' worry, be happy." 😉
 
P.S. Why a five times repeated, quoted post? Temporary intoxication, a jammed keyboard, or just a well-practiced lifetime of stupidity, coupled with an obvious inability to otherwise express yourself in anything even remotely resembling coherent terms? I'd gently suggest cleaning that up some. Trust me on at least this: "You'se" need no additional help in presenting yourself as an utter fool.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I'd support the action.

It certainly looks like Marty has backed them in a corner. Do think East pilots will collect donations for their defense? I doubt it.

Defendants authorized the use of, used, and continue to use USAPA
funds for purposes that do not constitute collective legal action on behalf of the pilot
group. Specifically, between September 16, 2014, and January 9, 2015, Defendants
expended USAPA funds to advance USAPAs position before the PAB that the West
Pilots should be denied separate representation in the seniority integration process
occasioned by the merger with American Airlines. USAPAs position before the PAB
advanced only the interests of the East Pilots (which includes Defendants here) at the
expense of the interests of the West Pilots. Accordingly, expenditures in furtherance of
this position were not collective in nature nor on behalf of the pilot group as a whole.
34. Since September 16, 2014, and continuing to the present, Defendants have
authorized the use of, used, and continue to use USAPA funds for the purpose of
advancing the seniority interests of only the East Pilots (including Defendants) at the
expense of the interests of the West Pilots (including Plaintiffs) in the Substantive SLI
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 12 of 19
13
Process. More specifically, on information and belief, Defendants have authorized the
use of, used, and continue to use USAPA funds to, inter alia, pay the fees of lawyers and
experts and to pay flight pay loss and expenses of East Pilots who are members of the
East Pilots Merger Committee, all of whom who will advance the East Pilots interest in
the Substantive SLI Process.
35. In correspondence dated December 4, December 23, December 31, January 9, and
January 20, attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 610, counsel for the West Pilots,
Marty Harper, further advised USAPA General Counsel Brian ODwyer of the National
Officers fiduciary duties to account for the funds in USAPAs treasury, to disburse those
funds to USAPAs membership, and to cease using USAPA funds in furtherance of
matters adverse to the West Pilots interests. Mr. Harper re-asserted Plaintiffs demands
for, inter alia, a full accounting of USAPAs treasury, a detailed list of what collective
legal actions Defendants relied upon in determining to defer dissolution, an immediate
distribution of USAPA funds that are in excess of those contemplated legal actions, a
specific accounting of what funds are needed to wind down USAPAs affairs, and an
immediate stop to the use of USAPA funds to support litigation and other legal action
adverse to the West Pilots interests. See id.
36. On February 13, 2015, Plaintiffs wrote Defendants reiterating the demands
previously made by Mr. Velez and Mr. Harper. (attached to Complaint as Exhibit 11.)
37. Despite being fully advised of Defendants fiduciary duties, Defendants failed to
accede to any of Plaintiffs and the West Pilots legitimate and reasonable demands.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 13 of 19
14
Consequently, Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, their fiduciary duties to
USAPAs members, including Plaintiffs.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim against USAPA National Officers Gary
Hummel, Stephen Bradford, Rob Streble, and Steve Smyser, and BPR Members
Robert Frear, Courtney Borman, Ronald Nelson, Paul DiOrio, Paul Music, John
Taylor, Joe Stein, Pete Dugstad, Jay Milkey, and Stephen Nathan.)
38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1
through 37.
39. As the National Officers of USAPA, Defendants Hummel, Bradford, Streble, and
Smyser as well as Defendant BPR members Frear, Borman, Nelson, DiOrio, Music,
Taylor, Stein, Dugstad, Milkey, and Nathan, are USAPA fiduciaries, obliged by section
501(a) of the LMRDA, to hold [USAPAs] money and property solely for the benefit of
[USAPA] and its members and expend the same in accordance with [USAPAs]
constitution and bylaws . . . . 29 U.S.C. § 501(a).
40. By expending USAPA funds after the decertification of USAPA as the exclusive
bargaining representative of US Airways pilots and after the appointment of a West Pilots
Merger Committee to represent the interest of the West Pilots in the Substantive SLI
Process in a manner that does not advance collective legal action on behalf of the pilot
group, Defendants violated their section 501(a) duties to hold USAPAs money solely
for the benefit of its members and to expend such monies only in accordance with
USAPAs constitution and bylaws.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 14 of 19
15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(1) Order an accounting of USAPAs treasury from September 16, 2014, to the
present, including a full itemization of the value of the treasury as of September 16, 2014
(including any special assessment funds); monies paid in furtherance of any USAPA
legal action since September 16, 2014; USAPAs indebtedness as of September 16, 2014
(and any subsequently accrued debts); and an itemization of any funds reasonably
necessary to wind down the affairs of USAPA as a labor organization.
(2) Order the Defendants to pay restitution of the funds wrongfully expended.
(3) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from further expending
any USAPA monies in furtherance of the Substantive SLI Process.
(4) Order Defendants to disburse immediately to USAPA members in
accordance with Article I, section III of its Constitution all funds remaining in its treasury
as of its decertification as an exclusive bargaining representative on September 16, 2014,
except such funds reasonably necessary for the collective action on behalf of the pilot
group and ordinary expenses of winding down.
(5) Award Plaintiffs their attorneys fees and costs for bringing this lawsuit
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 501(b.
(6) Award Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1

Looks like the TWA pilots are joining the party as well.  Looks like the "ONION" we call APA is peeling apart!!!
As I DID predict, the lawsuits will continue to keep the West in PHX for years to come.  Tried cut and paste but the scanned formatting didn't translate well so just go to the web site.  The point is, they're suing too.  Labor unions are on their way out.  Wisconsin now has right to work law and Congress will be taking up the issue soon.  Serna v. TWU is also going before the courts and hopefully, soon.....NO MORE LABOR UNIONS!!!!
 
Then the Company can give promotions to anyone they want without seniority!!
 




 








[SIZE=12pt]HEARING DATE AND [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TIME: [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]April [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]15, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2015 at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) OBJECTION [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]DEADLINE: [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]April [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]8, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2015 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Allen P. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Press [/SIZE][SIZE=6pt]- [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]pm hac [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]vice [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]JACOBSON PRESS [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]& [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]FIELDS, P.C. 168 N. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Meramec [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Ave., [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Suite [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]150[/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]St. Louis, MO [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]63105
Telephone: (314) 899-9789 pressArchCityLawyers.com Attorneys [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for Plaintiffs [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [/SIZE]




[SIZE=11pt]In [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]re: AMR CORPORATION, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]et [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]al., Debtor. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Case [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]No. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]11-15463 Chapter [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]11 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]JOHN KRAKOWSKI, KEVIN HORNER [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]M. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ALICIA SIKES, individually [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]behalf [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]those [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]similarly [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]situated, [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]et [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]al., [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]Adv. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Proceeding [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]No. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]13-01283-SHL [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]Plaintiffs, [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Defendants. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=7pt]A [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]IN [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]SUPPORT [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]OF [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]THEIR MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION [/SIZE]








[SIZE=12pt]TABLE OF CONTENTS [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]SUMMARY
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]THE AMERICAN/US [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]AIRWAYS PILOT SENIORITY [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]LIST [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]INTEGRATION [/SIZE]


[SIZE=9pt]1 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]ARGUMENT
CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]OF [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]SERVICE [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]3 8 10 13 14 [/SIZE]








[SIZE=14pt]Cases[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]Insurance [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Bankof [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Services, Securities [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]906(8th [/SIZE]




[SIZE=14pt]Statutes 28U.S.C.1651 49U.S.C.42112 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Rules [/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]2,10 3,9 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Express [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Massanari, [/SIZE]






[SIZE=11pt]In [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]re American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](2d Cir. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2011) [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Financial Advisors [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]Litigation, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]672 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]F.3d [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]113 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]TABLE OF AUTHORITIES [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Allstate [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Co. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]v. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Hisham Elzanaty, 929 F.Supp.2d [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]199 (E.D.N.Y. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2013) [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]10, 11, 12 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]America, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]NA. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]v. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]UMB [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Financial [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Inc., [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]618 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]F.3d, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Cir. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2010) [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]10 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Kamerllng [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]v.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]v. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Airlines, Inc., Adv. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Proc. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]No. 14-01 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]920-SHL [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Fed.R.Civ.Proc.15(d) [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]6 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]295 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]F.3d [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]206 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](2d Cir. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2002) [/SIZE]


[SIZE=11pt]11 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]1, 2, 7 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=7pt]II [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]10 [/SIZE]








[SIZE=10pt]I. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Summary. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]PLAINTIFFS’ [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]MEMORANDUM [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]IN [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]SUPPORT [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]Plaintiffs [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]are [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]employed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]defendant American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Airlines, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Inc. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](“American”). [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]They were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]formerly pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]at Trans [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]World Airlines (“TWA”). [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American acquired [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2001. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]There are approximately [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]850 former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]currently [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American. Hundreds more have [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]recall rights. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]American and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]union, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]defendant [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Allied Pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Association [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](“APA), [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]long stifled [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the legitimate career expectations [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots. This [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]case, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and the companion case referred [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]as “Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]if’ [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](Adv. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Proc. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]No. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]14-01920-SI-IL, collectively [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the “Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]litigation”), [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seek [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]restore these expectations. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Recent [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]actions [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]taken [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]defendants [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]connection [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American/US [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Airways [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]merger threaten [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]undermine the Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]litigation [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its entirety. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]American completed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]merger [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with US Airways [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]December 2013. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]certified [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]as [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining agent [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the combined group [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of 15,000 pilots. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]In [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]January [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2015, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]entered [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]into [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]a new [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining agreement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American. That [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]agreement [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]governs the combined [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]group. The agreement includes [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]process [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]determine [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]how [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]US Airways pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]be placed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]That process culminates [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]an arbitration scheduled [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to begin [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]June [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]29, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2015. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]arbitration [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]result [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]in a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]that combines [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]some fashion the American [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]US Ai[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]rways [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots’ [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]lists. As is [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]common [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]such [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]cases, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE]




[SIZE=10pt]I [/SIZE]








[SIZE=13pt]arbitrators [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]also assign protected [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]tights [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]certain groups [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]through the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]imposition [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]so-called “fences” [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]A “fence” limits [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ability of a pilot to [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]bid on work [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]that [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]his [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]would [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]otherwise make available [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to him, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]reserving that [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]within [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the fence. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=11pt]If [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]decided [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]plaintiffs’ favor, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]litigation would [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have profound [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]impact [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the upcoming seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]arbitration. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]case seeks [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]set aside an arbitration [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]award [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]that substantially [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]diminished preferential [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying rights [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]reserved [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]prior to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Ba[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]nkruptcy. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]II [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seeks [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]re-assign the seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]accordance [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their “Occupational Dates,” [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]as required [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American/APA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining agreement. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Either, [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]if [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]successful, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]would [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]profound affect [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]how [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American’s [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots bid for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]work [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]under any future [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]Yet, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]alt[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]hough [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]plaintiffs’ [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]claims [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]necessarily [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]heavily [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]impact the seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]arbitration, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the arbitrators are powerless [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]address the claims. That power [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]is with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]this [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Court [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]alone. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Nevertheless, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA intend to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]proceed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the arbitration. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]should [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]be [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]stopped. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Once seniority and preferential [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]rights for all [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]15,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]are [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]established [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the arbitrators, [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]it [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]would [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]be [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]nearly impossible [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“egg [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]unscramble” [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]after resolution [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Krakowski litigation. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]All [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Writs Act, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]28 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]U.S.C. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]fi [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]1651, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]authorizes courts [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]stay arbitrations [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]proper cases. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]is [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]such [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]case. The Court should stay defendants’ upcoming seniority arbitration [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]until [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]after the resolution [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]litigation, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and order the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]expedited discovery and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]trial of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the cases. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]2 [/SIZE]








[SIZE=11pt]II. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Factual and Procedural [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Back[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]ground. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Defendants’ hostile [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]discrimination [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]toward the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]began when [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]they added them [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]November 2001. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]The merger of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]lists [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]was done pursuant [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]an amendment [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]American!APA collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining agreement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]known [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]as [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]“Supplement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC.” [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Supplement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]was exceptionally harsh [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]treatment [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots. More [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]than [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]half of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]them, or 1,200 [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]total, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“stapled” to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the bottom [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]given no [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]credit [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]made [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]hundreds [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]ve[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]teran [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]junior [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]brand-new probationary [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]at American. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]All [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]1,200 of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]stapled [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the bottom [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ultimately [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]furloughed. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]This [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]group included [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]plaintiffs Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and Homer.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]The remaining [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]1,100 former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“integrated” into [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list, but [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]manner [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by which [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]they retained [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]only a fraction of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their actual [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Man[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]y [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]these [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were demoted [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]from [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Captain [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to First Officer. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Some [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]also furloughed. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Such [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]massive loss [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to a pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]group as part [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]an [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]airline [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]merger was [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]unprecedented [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]at the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]time, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and has [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]not [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]been repeated.1 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]even acknowledged [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]December [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]2001 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]memorandum [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]members that the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]modified [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]created [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Supplement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“unfair” to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=10pt]TWA’s [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]flight [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]attendants [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]mechanics also had [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]their seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]stripped [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]from [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]them [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]American. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]devastation [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]TWA’s [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]20,000 employees was so severe [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]it [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]led to [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]congressional hearings, and [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]ultimately [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]legislation [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]designed [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]prevent such actions [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]future. That law, [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]known [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]as [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]McCaskill-Bond,” [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]mandates [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]“fair and equitable” integration of [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]employee groups. See [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]49 U.S.C. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]§ [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]42112. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]3 [/SIZE]








[SIZE=13pt]as [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Supplement [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]was the breached [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]that
affair representation [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]years, breach [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]been [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]that [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]was [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]organize [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]replace [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]that pre-merger [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]breached [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]last [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]proposed [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]close [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]terminate Supplement [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]fences.
created Supplement [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]desired [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]made [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]compensate agreed that [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Supplement the [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]between [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]close the determine [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]base, defendants agreed conduct accommodations be [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]represent represented [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Supplement was entered [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]aspect fences [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Supplement [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]that [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]harshness based [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Defendants [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]event [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]ended [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]years [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]as [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]events [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]agreement base [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]sought, among other the [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]person [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Jersey [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]agreed [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]placement [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]These [/SIZE]






[SIZE=12pt]APA did not [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]at the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]time CC[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]into. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]They [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by Air Line Pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Association [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](t’ALPA”). [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]however, simultaneously [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]working [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]to the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots to [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]union. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]product [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of conflict of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]interest. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]claimed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ALPA failing to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]protect their seniority. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]A [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]12 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]unanimously [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]found ALPA [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]its duty (“DFR”) [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]jury [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]New District [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Court [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]it[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]s [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]DFR to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]For the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have the beneficiaries [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]historic [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]that cu[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]lminated [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots’ [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]perilous [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]only pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were certain [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]ameliorated [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]benefiuing former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]St. Louis. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]protections, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]however,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]filed its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Bankruptcy [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]November [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2011. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]things, a new [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to its pilot [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]with its pilots. As [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]part [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]negotiations, [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]12 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]later part [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]leading [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]this [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]lawsuit. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]APA, which [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]had [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]long[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by CC, readily to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the proposal. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]As [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]part [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]plan to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]arbitration, Themselves, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]St. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Louis[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]what, [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]if [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]any, [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]an [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]would [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]protections. also [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the loss [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]no would [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]CC’s [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]job former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots’ [/SIZE]




[SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]St. Louis [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]terminate the job protections [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]ALPA, [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]CC’s [/SIZE]

 

[end_of_alpa]

I'd support the action.

It certainly looks like Marty has backed them in a corner. Do think East pilots will collect donations for their defense? I doubt it.

Defendants authorized the use of, used, and continue to use USAPA
funds for purposes that do not constitute collective legal action on behalf of the pilot
group. Specifically, between September 16, 2014, and January 9, 2015, Defendants
expended USAPA funds to advance USAPAs position before the PAB that the West
Pilots should be denied separate representation in the seniority integration process
occasioned by the merger with American Airlines. USAPAs position before the PAB
advanced only the interests of the East Pilots (which includes Defendants here) at the
expense of the interests of the West Pilots. Accordingly, expenditures in furtherance of
this position were not collective in nature nor on behalf of the pilot group as a whole.
34. Since September 16, 2014, and continuing to the present, Defendants have
authorized the use of, used, and continue to use USAPA funds for the purpose of
advancing the seniority interests of only the East Pilots (including Defendants) at the
expense of the interests of the West Pilots (including Plaintiffs) in the Substantive SLI
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 12 of 19
13
Process. More specifically, on information and belief, Defendants have authorized the
use of, used, and continue to use USAPA funds to, inter alia, pay the fees of lawyers and
experts and to pay flight pay loss and expenses of East Pilots who are members of the
East Pilots Merger Committee, all of whom who will advance the East Pilots interest in
the Substantive SLI Process.
35. In correspondence dated December 4, December 23, December 31, January 9, and
January 20, attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 610, counsel for the West Pilots,
Marty Harper, further advised USAPA General Counsel Brian ODwyer of the National
Officers fiduciary duties to account for the funds in USAPAs treasury, to disburse those
funds to USAPAs membership, and to cease using USAPA funds in furtherance of
matters adverse to the West Pilots interests. Mr. Harper re-asserted Plaintiffs demands
for, inter alia, a full accounting of USAPAs treasury, a detailed list of what collective
legal actions Defendants relied upon in determining to defer dissolution, an immediate
distribution of USAPA funds that are in excess of those contemplated legal actions, a
specific accounting of what funds are needed to wind down USAPAs affairs, and an
immediate stop to the use of USAPA funds to support litigation and other legal action
adverse to the West Pilots interests. See id.
36. On February 13, 2015, Plaintiffs wrote Defendants reiterating the demands
previously made by Mr. Velez and Mr. Harper. (attached to Complaint as Exhibit 11.)
37. Despite being fully advised of Defendants fiduciary duties, Defendants failed to
accede to any of Plaintiffs and the West Pilots legitimate and reasonable demands.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 13 of 19
14
Consequently, Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, their fiduciary duties to
USAPAs members, including Plaintiffs.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim against USAPA National Officers Gary
Hummel, Stephen Bradford, Rob Streble, and Steve Smyser, and BPR Members
Robert Frear, Courtney Borman, Ronald Nelson, Paul DiOrio, Paul Music, John
Taylor, Joe Stein, Pete Dugstad, Jay Milkey, and Stephen Nathan.)
38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1
through 37.
39. As the National Officers of USAPA, Defendants Hummel, Bradford, Streble, and
Smyser as well as Defendant BPR members Frear, Borman, Nelson, DiOrio, Music,
Taylor, Stein, Dugstad, Milkey, and Nathan, are USAPA fiduciaries, obliged by section
501(a) of the LMRDA, to hold [USAPAs] money and property solely for the benefit of
[USAPA] and its members and expend the same in accordance with [USAPAs]
constitution and bylaws . . . . 29 U.S.C. § 501(a).
40. By expending USAPA funds after the decertification of USAPA as the exclusive
bargaining representative of US Airways pilots and after the appointment of a West Pilots
Merger Committee to represent the interest of the West Pilots in the Substantive SLI
Process in a manner that does not advance collective legal action on behalf of the pilot
group, Defendants violated their section 501(a) duties to hold USAPAs money solely
for the benefit of its members and to expend such monies only in accordance with
USAPAs constitution and bylaws.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 14 of 19
15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(1) Order an accounting of USAPAs treasury from September 16, 2014, to the
present, including a full itemization of the value of the treasury as of September 16, 2014
(including any special assessment funds); monies paid in furtherance of any USAPA
legal action since September 16, 2014; USAPAs indebtedness as of September 16, 2014
(and any subsequently accrued debts); and an itemization of any funds reasonably
necessary to wind down the affairs of USAPA as a labor organization.
(2) Order the Defendants to pay restitution of the funds wrongfully expended.
(3) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from further expending
any USAPA monies in furtherance of the Substantive SLI Process.
(4) Order Defendants to disburse immediately to USAPA members in
accordance with Article I, section III of its Constitution all funds remaining in its treasury
as of its decertification as an exclusive bargaining representative on September 16, 2014,
except such funds reasonably necessary for the collective action on behalf of the pilot
group and ordinary expenses of winding down.
(5) Award Plaintiffs their attorneys fees and costs for bringing this lawsuit
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 501(b.
(6) Award Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1

Looks like the TWA pilots are joining the party as well.  Looks like the "ONION" we call APA is peeling apart!!!
As I DID predict, the lawsuits will continue to keep the West in PHX for years to come.  Tried cut and paste but the scanned formatting didn't translate well so just go to the web site.  The point is, they're suing too.  Labor unions are on their way out.  Wisconsin now has right to work law and Congress will be taking up the issue soon.  Serna v. TWU is also going before the courts and hopefully, soon.....NO MORE LABOR UNIONS!!!!
 
Then the Company can give promotions to anyone they want without seniority!!
 




 








[SIZE=12pt]HEARING DATE AND [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TIME: [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]April [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]15, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2015 at 11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) OBJECTION [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]DEADLINE: [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]April [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]8, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2015 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Allen P. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Press [/SIZE][SIZE=6pt]- [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]pm hac [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]vice [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]JACOBSON PRESS [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]& [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]FIELDS, P.C. 168 N. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Meramec [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Ave., [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Suite [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]150[/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]St. Louis, MO [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]63105
Telephone: (314) 899-9789 pressArchCityLawyers.com Attorneys [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for Plaintiffs [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [/SIZE]




[SIZE=11pt]In [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]re: AMR CORPORATION, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]et [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]al., Debtor. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Case [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]No. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]11-15463 Chapter [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]11 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]JOHN KRAKOWSKI, KEVIN HORNER [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]M. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ALICIA SIKES, individually [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]behalf [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]those [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]similarly [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]situated, [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]et [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]al., [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]Adv. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Proceeding [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]No. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]13-01283-SHL [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]Plaintiffs, [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Defendants. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=7pt]A [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]IN [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]SUPPORT [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]OF [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]THEIR MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION [/SIZE]








[SIZE=12pt]TABLE OF CONTENTS [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]SUMMARY
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]THE AMERICAN/US [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]AIRWAYS PILOT SENIORITY [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]LIST [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]INTEGRATION [/SIZE]


[SIZE=9pt]1 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]ARGUMENT
CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]OF [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]SERVICE [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]3 8 10 13 14 [/SIZE]








[SIZE=14pt]Cases[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]Insurance [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Bankof [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Services, Securities [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]906(8th [/SIZE]




[SIZE=14pt]Statutes 28U.S.C.1651 49U.S.C.42112 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Rules [/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt]2,10 3,9 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Express [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Massanari, [/SIZE]






[SIZE=11pt]In [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]re American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](2d Cir. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2011) [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Financial Advisors [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]Litigation, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]672 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]F.3d [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]113 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]TABLE OF AUTHORITIES [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Allstate [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Co. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]v. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Hisham Elzanaty, 929 F.Supp.2d [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]199 (E.D.N.Y. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2013) [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]10, 11, 12 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]America, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]NA. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]v. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]UMB [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Financial [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Inc., [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]618 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]F.3d, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Cir. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2010) [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]10 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Kamerllng [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]v.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]v. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Airlines, Inc., Adv. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Proc. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]No. 14-01 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]920-SHL [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Fed.R.Civ.Proc.15(d) [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]6 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]295 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]F.3d [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]206 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](2d Cir. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2002) [/SIZE]


[SIZE=11pt]11 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]1, 2, 7 [/SIZE]




[SIZE=7pt]II [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]10 [/SIZE]








[SIZE=10pt]I. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Summary. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]PLAINTIFFS’ [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]MEMORANDUM [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]IN [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]SUPPORT [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]Plaintiffs [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]are [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]employed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]defendant American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Airlines, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Inc. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](“American”). [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]They were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]formerly pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]at Trans [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]World Airlines (“TWA”). [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American acquired [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2001. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]There are approximately [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]850 former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]currently [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American. Hundreds more have [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]recall rights. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]American and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]union, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]defendant [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Allied Pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Association [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](“APA), [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]long stifled [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the legitimate career expectations [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots. This [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]case, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and the companion case referred [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]as “Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]if’ [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](Adv. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Proc. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]No. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]14-01920-SI-IL, collectively [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the “Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]litigation”), [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seek [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]restore these expectations. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Recent [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]actions [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]taken [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]defendants [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]connection [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American/US [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Airways [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]merger threaten [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]undermine the Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]litigation [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its entirety. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]American completed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]merger [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with US Airways [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]December 2013. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]certified [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]as [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining agent [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the combined group [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of 15,000 pilots. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]In [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]January [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2015, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]entered [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]into [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]a new [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining agreement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American. That [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]agreement [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]governs the combined [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]group. The agreement includes [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]process [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]determine [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]how [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]US Airways pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]be placed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]That process culminates [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]an arbitration scheduled [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to begin [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]June [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]29, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2015. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]arbitration [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]result [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]in a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]that combines [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]some fashion the American [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]US Ai[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]rways [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots’ [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]lists. As is [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]common [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]such [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]cases, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE]




[SIZE=10pt]I [/SIZE]








[SIZE=13pt]arbitrators [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]also assign protected [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]tights [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]certain groups [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]through the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]imposition [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]so-called “fences” [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]A “fence” limits [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ability of a pilot to [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]bid on work [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]that [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]his [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]would [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]otherwise make available [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to him, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]reserving that [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]within [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the fence. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=11pt]If [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]decided [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]plaintiffs’ favor, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]litigation would [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have profound [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]impact [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the upcoming seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]arbitration. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]case seeks [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]set aside an arbitration [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]award [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]that substantially [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]diminished preferential [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying rights [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]reserved [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]prior to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Ba[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]nkruptcy. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]II [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seeks [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]re-assign the seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]accordance [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their “Occupational Dates,” [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]as required [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American/APA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining agreement. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Either, [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]if [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]successful, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]would [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]profound affect [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]how [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American’s [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots bid for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]work [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]under any future [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]Yet, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]alt[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]hough [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]plaintiffs’ [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]claims [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]will [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]necessarily [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]heavily [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]impact the seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]arbitration, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the arbitrators are powerless [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]address the claims. That power [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]is with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]this [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Court [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]alone. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Nevertheless, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA intend to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]proceed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the arbitration. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]should [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]be [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]stopped. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Once seniority and preferential [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]flying [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]rights for all [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]15,000 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]are [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]established [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the arbitrators, [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]it [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]would [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]be [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]nearly impossible [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“egg [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]unscramble” [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]after resolution [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Krakowski litigation. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]All [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Writs Act, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]28 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]U.S.C. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]fi [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]1651, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]authorizes courts [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]stay arbitrations [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]proper cases. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]is [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]such [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]case. The Court should stay defendants’ upcoming seniority arbitration [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]until [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]after the resolution [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]litigation, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and order the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]expedited discovery and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]trial of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the cases. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]2 [/SIZE]








[SIZE=11pt]II. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Factual and Procedural [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Back[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]ground. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Defendants’ hostile [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]discrimination [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]toward the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]began when [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]they added them [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]November 2001. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]The merger of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]lists [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]was done pursuant [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]an amendment [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]American!APA collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining agreement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]known [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]as [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]“Supplement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC.” [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Supplement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]was exceptionally harsh [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]treatment [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots. More [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]than [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]half of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]them, or 1,200 [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]total, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“stapled” to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the bottom [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]given no [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]credit [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]This [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]made [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]hundreds [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]ve[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]teran [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]junior [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]brand-new probationary [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]at American. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]All [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]1,200 of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]stapled [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the bottom [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ultimately [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]furloughed. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]This [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]group included [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]plaintiffs Krakowski [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and Homer.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]The remaining [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]1,100 former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“integrated” into [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list, but [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]manner [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by which [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]they retained [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]only a fraction of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their actual [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Man[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]y [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]these [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were demoted [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]from [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Captain [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to First Officer. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Some [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]also furloughed. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Such [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]massive loss [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to a pilot [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]group as part [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]an [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]airline [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]merger was [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]unprecedented [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]at the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]time, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and has [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]not [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]been repeated.1 [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]even acknowledged [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]a [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]December [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]2001 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]memorandum [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]members that the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]modified [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]created [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Supplement [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]was [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“unfair” to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=10pt]TWA’s [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]flight [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]attendants [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]and [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]mechanics also had [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]their seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]stripped [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]from [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]them [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]by [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]American. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]devastation [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]TWA’s [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]20,000 employees was so severe [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]it [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]led to [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]congressional hearings, and [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]ultimately [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]legislation [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]designed [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]prevent such actions [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]future. That law, [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]known [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]as [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]McCaskill-Bond,” [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]mandates [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]“fair and equitable” integration of [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]employee groups. See [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]49 U.S.C. [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]§ [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]42112. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]3 [/SIZE]








[SIZE=13pt]as [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Supplement [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]was the breached [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]that
affair representation [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]years, breach [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]been [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]that [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]was [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]organize [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]replace [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]that pre-merger [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]breached [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]last [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]proposed [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]close [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]terminate Supplement [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]fences.
created Supplement [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]desired [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]made [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]compensate agreed that [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Supplement the [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]between [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]close the determine [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]base, defendants agreed conduct accommodations be [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]represent represented [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Supplement was entered [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]aspect fences [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Supplement [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]that [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]harshness based [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]Defendants [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]event [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]ended [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]years [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]as [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]events [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]agreement base [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]sought, among other the [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]person [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]Jersey [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]agreed [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]placement [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]These [/SIZE]






[SIZE=12pt]APA did not [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]at the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]time CC[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]into. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]They [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by Air Line Pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Association [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt](t’ALPA”). [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]however, simultaneously [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]working [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]to the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots to [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]APA [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]union. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]product [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of conflict of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]interest. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]claimed [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]ALPA failing to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]protect their seniority. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]A [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]12 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]unanimously [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]found ALPA [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]its duty (“DFR”) [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]jury [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]New District [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Court [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]it[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]s [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]DFR to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]For the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have the beneficiaries [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]historic [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]that cu[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]lminated [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots’ [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]perilous [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]The [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]only pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]were certain [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]CC [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]ameliorated [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]benefiuing former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]St. Louis. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]protections, [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]however,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]filed its [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]Bankruptcy [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]November [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]2011. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]things, a new [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]collective [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]bargaining [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to its pilot [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]with its pilots. As [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]part [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]negotiations, [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]12 [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]later part [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]leading [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]this [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]lawsuit. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]APA, which [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]had [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]long[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]by CC, readily to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the proposal. [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]As [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]part [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]their [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]plan to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]arbitration, Themselves, [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]St. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Louis[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]what, [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]if [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]any, [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE]


[SIZE=13pt]an [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]would [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]protections. also [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the loss [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]no would [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]CC’s [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]job former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots’ [/SIZE]




[SIZE=11pt]in [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]St. Louis [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]and[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]terminate the job protections [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]for [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]former [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]ALPA, [/SIZE]




[SIZE=12pt]CC’s [/SIZE]

 

[EastUS1]

 
Looks like the TWA pilots are joining the party as well.  Looks like the "ONION" we call APA is peeling apart!!!
As I DID predict, the lawsuits will continue to keep the West in PHX for years to come.
 


[SIZE=12pt]it[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]s [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]DFR to [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots. [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]For the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=13pt]the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilots [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]have the beneficiaries [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]of [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]historic [/SIZE]




[SIZE=13pt]that cu[/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]lminated [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]with [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]TWA pilots’ [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]perilous [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]seniority [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]list. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]on [/SIZE][SIZE=13pt]the American [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]pilot [/SIZE]





 

 
"...the lawsuits will continue to keep the West in PHX for years to come."...?  Oh well. The PHX "spartans' just love lawyers and eternal litigation, so where's the even possible harm?...And really; why should anyone, outside of PHX  that is, give even a single hair off a rat's arse level of concern over this latest? Frankly; my sympathies are entirely with the TWA folks with this.

 

[EastCheats]

"Looks like the TWA pilots are joining the party as well. Looks like the "ONION" we call APA is peeling apart!!!
As I DID predict, the lawsuits will continue to keep the West in PHX for years to come. Tried cut and paste but the scanned formatting didn't translate well so just go to the web site. The point is, they're suing too. Labor unions are on their way out. Wisconsin now has right to work law and Congress will be taking up the issue soon. Serna v. TWU is also going before the courts and hopefully, soon.....NO MORE LABOR UNIONS!!!!

Then the Company can give promotions to anyone they want without seniority!!"

What does TWA have to do with US as in all the pilots of the former US Airways. Apples and Oranges You are completely clueless.

End_of_story

 

[CactusPilot1]

"Looks like the TWA pilots are joining the party as well. Looks like the "ONION" we call APA is peeling apart!!!

What does TWA have to do with US as in all the pilots of the former US Airways. Apples and Oranges You are completely clueless.
End_of_story

The scumbag lost his beloved Ucrapa, now he wants to fuc with the APA.

 

[EastUS1]

The scumbag lost his beloved Ucrapa, now he wants to fuc with the APA.

 
No need for excessive vulgarity. Don't stress son. I'd thought it axiomatic within all of "sparta" that your incredibly astute and ever-so-capable lawyers will see the "nic on steroids" happen any day now, and that you'll all be magically liberated from PHX and "righteously" placed atop the whole world of lesser mortals. Additionally?...I'm certain you'll soon see millions returned to you from usapa's coffers, so don't fret...Really just don't, well, unless you don't honestly believe in your own BS, that is. Did you ever honestly imagine you were the only ones on earth who could hire lawyers? No worries really...Your love of eternal litigation's actually kinda' "cute"....especially these days.

 

[end_of_alpa]

I'd support the action.

It certainly looks like Marty has backed them in a corner. Do think East pilots will collect donations for their defense? I doubt it.

Defendants authorized the use of, used, and continue to use USAPA
funds for purposes that do not constitute collective legal action on behalf of the pilot
group. Specifically, between September 16, 2014, and January 9, 2015, Defendants
expended USAPA funds to advance USAPAs position before the PAB that the West
Pilots should be denied separate representation in the seniority integration process
occasioned by the merger with American Airlines. USAPAs position before the PAB
advanced only the interests of the East Pilots (which includes Defendants here) at the
expense of the interests of the West Pilots. Accordingly, expenditures in furtherance of
this position were not collective in nature nor on behalf of the pilot group as a whole.
34. Since September 16, 2014, and continuing to the present, Defendants have
authorized the use of, used, and continue to use USAPA funds for the purpose of
advancing the seniority interests of only the East Pilots (including Defendants) at the
expense of the interests of the West Pilots (including Plaintiffs) in the Substantive SLI
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 12 of 19
13
Process. More specifically, on information and belief, Defendants have authorized the
use of, used, and continue to use USAPA funds to, inter alia, pay the fees of lawyers and
experts and to pay flight pay loss and expenses of East Pilots who are members of the
East Pilots Merger Committee, all of whom who will advance the East Pilots interest in
the Substantive SLI Process.
35. In correspondence dated December 4, December 23, December 31, January 9, and
January 20, attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 610, counsel for the West Pilots,
Marty Harper, further advised USAPA General Counsel Brian ODwyer of the National
Officers fiduciary duties to account for the funds in USAPAs treasury, to disburse those
funds to USAPAs membership, and to cease using USAPA funds in furtherance of
matters adverse to the West Pilots interests. Mr. Harper re-asserted Plaintiffs demands
for, inter alia, a full accounting of USAPAs treasury, a detailed list of what collective
legal actions Defendants relied upon in determining to defer dissolution, an immediate
distribution of USAPA funds that are in excess of those contemplated legal actions, a
specific accounting of what funds are needed to wind down USAPAs affairs, and an
immediate stop to the use of USAPA funds to support litigation and other legal action
adverse to the West Pilots interests. See id.
36. On February 13, 2015, Plaintiffs wrote Defendants reiterating the demands
previously made by Mr. Velez and Mr. Harper. (attached to Complaint as Exhibit 11.)
37. Despite being fully advised of Defendants fiduciary duties, Defendants failed to
accede to any of Plaintiffs and the West Pilots legitimate and reasonable demands.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 13 of 19
14
Consequently, Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, their fiduciary duties to
USAPAs members, including Plaintiffs.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim against USAPA National Officers Gary
Hummel, Stephen Bradford, Rob Streble, and Steve Smyser, and BPR Members
Robert Frear, Courtney Borman, Ronald Nelson, Paul DiOrio, Paul Music, John
Taylor, Joe Stein, Pete Dugstad, Jay Milkey, and Stephen Nathan.)
38. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the foregoing paragraphs 1
through 37.
39. As the National Officers of USAPA, Defendants Hummel, Bradford, Streble, and
Smyser as well as Defendant BPR members Frear, Borman, Nelson, DiOrio, Music,
Taylor, Stein, Dugstad, Milkey, and Nathan, are USAPA fiduciaries, obliged by section
501(a) of the LMRDA, to hold [USAPAs] money and property solely for the benefit of
[USAPA] and its members and expend the same in accordance with [USAPAs]
constitution and bylaws . . . . 29 U.S.C. § 501(a).
40. By expending USAPA funds after the decertification of USAPA as the exclusive
bargaining representative of US Airways pilots and after the appointment of a West Pilots
Merger Committee to represent the interest of the West Pilots in the Substantive SLI
Process in a manner that does not advance collective legal action on behalf of the pilot
group, Defendants violated their section 501(a) duties to hold USAPAs money solely
for the benefit of its members and to expend such monies only in accordance with
USAPAs constitution and bylaws.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1 Filed 02/23/15 Page 14 of 19
15
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(1) Order an accounting of USAPAs treasury from September 16, 2014, to the
present, including a full itemization of the value of the treasury as of September 16, 2014
(including any special assessment funds); monies paid in furtherance of any USAPA
legal action since September 16, 2014; USAPAs indebtedness as of September 16, 2014
(and any subsequently accrued debts); and an itemization of any funds reasonably
necessary to wind down the affairs of USAPA as a labor organization.
(2) Order the Defendants to pay restitution of the funds wrongfully expended.
(3) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from further expending
any USAPA monies in furtherance of the Substantive SLI Process.
(4) Order Defendants to disburse immediately to USAPA members in
accordance with Article I, section III of its Constitution all funds remaining in its treasury
as of its decertification as an exclusive bargaining representative on September 16, 2014,
except such funds reasonably necessary for the collective action on behalf of the pilot
group and ordinary expenses of winding down.
(5) Award Plaintiffs their attorneys fees and costs for bringing this lawsuit
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 501(b.
(6) Award Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court deems just.
Case 3:15-cv-00111-MOC-DCK Document 1

Looks like the TWA pilots are joining the party as well.  Looks like the "ONION" we call APA is peeling apart!!!
As I DID predict, the lawsuits will continue to keep the West in PHX for years to come.  Tried cut and paste but the scanned formatting didn't translate well so just go to the web site.  The point is, they're suing too.  Labor unions are on their way out.  Wisconsin now has right to work law and Congress will be taking up the issue soon.  Serna v. TWU is also going before the courts and hopefully, soon.....NO MORE LABOR UNIONS!!!!
 
Then the Company can give promotions to anyone they want without seniority!!
 




 

HEARING DATE AND TIME:
OBJECTION DEADLINE:
April15, 2015 at 11:00a.m. (Eastern Time)
April 8, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Allen P. Press - pro hac vice
JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS, P.C.
168 N. Meramec Ave., Suite 150
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 899-9789
pressArchCityLawyers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re: AMR CORPORATION, et al.,
Debtor.
x
JOHN KRAKOWSKI, KEVIN HORNER and
M. ALICIA SIKES, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
x
Case No. 11-1 5463
Chapter 11
Adv. Proceeding No.
13-01283-SHL
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY 1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 3
THE AMERICANIUS AIRWAYS PILOT SENIORITY LIST INTEGRATION 8
ARGUMENT 10
CONCLUSION 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 14
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hisham Elzanaty, 929 F.Supp.2d 199 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) 10, 11, 12
Bank of America, N.A. v. UMB Financial Services, Inc., 618 F.3d, 906 (8th Cir. 2010) 10
In re American Express FinancialAdvisors Securities Litigation, 672 F.3d 113
(2d Cir. 2011) 10
Kamerling v. Massanari, 295 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2002) 11
Krakowski v. American Airlines, Inc., Adv. Proc. No. 14-01 920-SHL (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) 1, 2, 7
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1651 2, 10
49U.S.C.42112 3,9
Rules
 
Fed.R.Civ.Proc.15(d) 6
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION
L Summary.
Plaintiffs are pilots employed by defendant American Airlines, Inc. (“American”).
They were formerly pilots at Trans World Airlines (7WA”). American acquired TWA in
2001. There are approximately 850 former TWA pilots currently flying for American.
Hundreds more have recall rights.
American and its pilots union, defendant Allied Pilots Association (“APA), have
long stifled the legitimate career expectations of the former TWA pilots. This case, and
the companion case referred to as “Krakowski if’ (Adv. Proc. No. 14-01920-SHL,
collectively the “Krakowski litigation”), seek to restore these expectations. Recent
actions taken by defendants in connection with the American/US Airways merger
threaten to undermine the Krakowski litigation in its entirety.
American completed its merger with US Airways in December 2013. APA was
certified as the collective bargaining agent for the combined group of 15,000 pilots. In
January 2015, APA entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with American.
That agreement governs the combined pilot group. The agreement includes a process
to determine how the former US Airways pilots will be placed on the American pilot
seniority list. That process culminates in an arbitration scheduled to begin June 29,
2015.
The arbitration will result in a seniority list that combines in some fashion the
 
American and US Airways pilots’ seniority lists. As is common in such cases, the
arbitrators will also assign protected flying rights to certain groups of pilots through the
imposition of so-called “fences.” A “fence” limits the ability of a pilot to bid on work that
his seniority would otherwise make available to him, reserving that flying to the pilots
within the fence.
If decided in plaintiffs’ favor, the Krakowski litigation would have profound impact
on the upcoming seniority arbitration. This case seeks to set aside an arbitration award
that substantially diminished preferential flying rights reserved to the former TWA pilots
prior to the Bankruptcy. Krakowski II seeks to re-assign the seniority of the former TWA
pilots in accordance with their “Occupational Dates,” as required by the Amedcan/APA
collective bargaining agreement. Either, if successful, would have a profound affect on
how American’s pilots bid for their work under any future American seniority list.
Yet, although plaintiffs’ claims will necessarily heavily impact the seniority
arbitration, the arbitrators are powerless to address the claims. That power is with this
Court alone. Nevertheless, American and APA intend to proceed with the arbitration.
This should be stopped. Once seniority and preferential flying rights for all 15,000 pilots
are established by the arbitrators, it would be a nearly impossible “egg to unscramble”
after resolution of the krakowski litigation.
The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, authorizes courts to stay arbitrations in
proper cases. This is such a case. The Court should stay defendants’ upcoming
seniority arbitration until after the resolution of the Krakowski litigation, and order the
 
expedited discovery and trial of the cases.
AL Factual and Procedural Background.
Defendants’ hostile discrimination toward the former TWA pilots began when
they added them to the American pilot seniority list in November 2001. The merger of
the American and TWA seniority lists was done pursuant to an amendment to the
American/APA collective bargaining agreement known as “Supplement CC.”
Supplement CC was exceptionally harsh in its treatment of the former TWA
pilots. More than half of them, or 1,200 in total, were “stapled” to the bottom of the
American pilot seniority list and given no credit for their TWA seniority. This made
hundreds of veteran TWA pilots junior to brand-new probationary pilots at American. All
1,200 of the TWA pilots stapled to the bottom of the list were ultimately furloughed. This
group included plaintiffs Krakowski and Homer.
The remaining 1,100 former TWA pilots were “integrated” into the American
seniority list, but in a manner by which they retained only a fraction of their actual
seniority. Many of these pilots were demoted from Captain to First Officer. Some were
also furloughed.
Such a massive loss of seniority to a pilot group as part of an airline merger was
unprecedented at the time, and has not been repeated.1 APA even acknowledged in a
December 2001 memorandum to its members that the modified seniority list created by
Supplement CC was “unfair to the TWA pilots.
 
TWA’s flight attendants and mechanics also had their seniority stripped from them by American. The
devastation to TWA’s 20,000 employees was so severe it led to Congressional hearings, and ultimately to
legislation designed to prevent such actions in the future. That law, known as “McCaskill-Bond,” mandates
 
the ‘lair and equitable” integration of employee groups. See 49 U.S.C. [SIZE=12.5px]§ [/SIZE]42112.
 
APA did not represent the TWA pilots at the time Supplement CC was entered
into. They were represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”). ALPA,
however, was simultaneously working to organize the American pilots to replace APA
as their union. Supplement CC was the product of that conflict of interest.
The TWA pilots claimed ALPA breached its duty of fair representation (“DFR”) in
failing to protect their seniority. A 12 person jury in New Jersey Disifict Court
unanimously found that ALPA breached its DFR to the TWA pilots. For the last 13
years, the pre-merger American pilots have been the beneficiaries of that historic
breach that culminated with the TWA pilots’ perilous placement on the American pilot
seniority list.
The only aspect of Supplement CC that ameliorated its harshness to the TWA
pilots were certain fences benefitting former TWA pilots based in St. Louis. These
protections, however, ended 12 years later as part of the events leading to this lawsuit.
American filed its Bankruptcy in November 2011. American sought, among other
things, a new collective bargaining agreement with its pilots. As part of the negotiations,
American proposed to close its pilot base in St. Louis and terminate Supplement CC’s
fences. APA, which had long desired to terminate the job protections for former TWA
pilots created by Supplement CC, readily agreed to the proposal.
As part of their plan to close the St. Louis base, defendants agreed to conduct an
arbitration, between themselves, to determine what, if any, accommodations would be
made for the former TWA pilots to compensate for the loss of Supplement CC’s job
protections. Defendants also agreed that in no event would the former TWA pilots’
seniority be adjusted as part of the arbitration, the loss of which was the sole
consideration for Supplement CC’s job protections in the first place.
The foregoing agreements were reached in February 2012, but were not
immediately implemented because defendants could not reach agreement on other,
disputed contract terms. Plaintiffs filed suit in May 2012 within the short six-month
statute of limitations applicable to DFR cases. The suit, filed in the Eastern District of
Missouri, alleged that APA breached its DFR to the former TWA pilots in agreeing that
American could terminate Supplement CC without restoring or adjusting the former
TWA pilots’ seniority.
American moved to transfer the case to this Court. While that motion was
pending, American abrogated its collective bargaining agreement with APA under
§ 1113. Defendants then entered into a new contract in December 2012. Their prior
agreement to close the St. Louis base and terminate Supplement CC’s fences became
the subject of a side letter agreement to the new collective bargaining agreement. The
side letter agreement was called “LOA 12-05.”
The case was transferred to this Court in March 2013. After an initial status
conference in April 2013, the Court ordered a briefing schedule relative to defendants’
pending motions to dismiss. The motions were fully-briefed as of June 2013.
During this same time period, APA and American conducted their issue
arbitration under LOA 12-05. A final award was entered by the arbitrators on
September 12, 2013.
Although defendants repeatedly represented that the purpose of the arbitration
was to “replicate” the protections of Supplement CC, the process they implemented for
the arbitration was unlikely to lead to that result. Moreover, the process was infected by
further breaches of APA’s DFR to the former TWA pilots. The resulting award did little
to replicate Supplement CC’s protections. The vast majority of former TWA pilots have
been transferred from St. Louis to other American bases, where they sit on reserve for
up to 18 days every month at reduced pay. The award also limited the opportunities for
promotion to Captain for those former TWA pilots who are still First Officers, while no
other American First Officers face such limitations. The resulting career and economic
losses to the former TWA pilots are substantial, and continuing.2
On October 1, 2013, shortly after the LOA 12-05 arbitration process concluded,
plaintiffs sought leave under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 15(d) to file a supplemental complaint to
include events relating to the issue arbitration that happened after the initial complaint
was filed. That motion was granted in part and denied in part November 19, 2013.
Plaintiffs filed their supplemental complaint, and defendants’ time to respond to the
supplemental complaint was stayed pending a decision on their pending motions to
dismiss the original complaint.
No further action was taken in the case until June 2014. On June 3, 2014, the
Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaint. The Court ruled
that APA did not plausibly breach its DFR to the former TWA pilots in “taking seniority
 
2 The notion of “shared sacrifice” can not justify American’s treatment of the former TWA pilots in
terminating Supplement [SIZE=12.5px]cc’s [/SIZE]fences and not providing replacement job protections. The losses to the
former TWA pilots caused by those actions am unique to them. Their sacrifices are not shared by other
 
American pilots.
 
off the table as a possible remedy” for the issue arbitration. This was the sole allegation
of DFR breach in the original complaint.
The Court then entered an Order requiring plaintiffs to modify their supplemental
complaint to conform to its June 3 Order dismissing the original complaint. Plaintiffs did
so, and filed their Modified Supplemental Complaint June 26, 2014. The Modified
Supplemental Complaint contains a detailed list of actions taken by APA in connection
with the LOA 12-05 arbitration that breached its DFR to the former TWA pilots. Plaintiffs
allege these breaches infected the entire arbitral process, and taints the resulting
award, which should be set aside as a result.
APA timely answered the Modified Supplemental Complaint, while American filed
yet another motion to dismiss. That motion was fully-briefed, and argued September
24, 2014. No further action has been taken in the case.
While this case seeks to set aside the award entered in the LOA 12-05 issue
arbitration, Krakowski II challenges the seniority list adopted by APA and American in
connection with their December 2012 collective bargaining agreement. Krakowski ll is
in a similar procedural posture as this case, and provides further support for the need to
stay the upcoming AmehcanlUS Airways seniority arbitration. The background of
Krakowski 11 is outlined below.
Defendants entered into their December 2012 collective bargaining agreement
after American abrogated their old collective bargaining agreement in September 2012
under § 1113. The abrogation of the old collective bargaining agreement necessarily
 
voided the seniority list made a part thereof, as seniority is purely a creature of contract.
A new seniority list thus had to be established as part of the new collective bargaining
agreement.
 
Unlike 2001, when Supplement CC was imposed on the TWA pilots, APA now
represents the former TWA pilots and owes them a duty to do so fairly. In breach of
that duty, however, APA agreed to place the former TWA pilots in the same seniority
positions assigned to them under the admittedly “unfair” list it created in 2001 when it
owed them no DFR. Furthermore, American and APA agreed to replicate the former,
unfair list in violation of express terms in the December 2012 collective bargaining
agreement that define seniority, and control a pilot’s placement on the list.
In light of the foregoing, plaintiffs filed Krakowski lion May 1, 2013 in the Eastern
District of Missouri. That case was also transferred to this Court in March 2014, even
though American had already completed its merger with US Airways. Defendants
thereafter filed motions to dismiss. Those motions are fully-briefed, and were argued on
June 5, 2014. No further action has been taken in that case.
[SIZE=14.5px]ilk [/SIZE]The American/US Airways Pilot Seniority List Integration.
American and US Airways closed their merger in December 2013. The new
combined entity, American Airlines Group, continues to operate the two airlines
separately while it integrates their operations. The National Mediation Board declared
American and US Airways a “single carrier” on August 8, 2014 for purposes of
representation of their pilots. APA was thereafter certified as the collective bargaining
representative for the combined American/US Airways pilot group. The former US
Airways pilots’ union lost its representational status as a result.
 
 
APA entered into a new collective bargaining agreement with American on
January 30, 2015 that covers all of its pilots. That agreement, however, does not
include an integrated seniority list including both groups of pilots. Until a combined
seniority list is created, and implemented by American, US Airways will continue to
operate as basically a separate airline.
Although the new collective bargaining agreement does not contain an integrated
seniority list, it does include a process to follow to establish such a list. That process is
outlined in a “Seniority Integration Protocol Agreement.” This agreement provides for “a
seniority integration process consistent with McCaskill-Bond.” The reference to
“McCaskill-Bond” is to the statute noted earlier passed in 2007 in response to the
AmehcanflWA merger. The statute requires that certain “labor protective provisions
imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger apply to
future airline mergers. 49 U.S.C. § 42112(a). In short, these labor protective provisions
require that the airline make provisions for the integration of seniority lists in a “fair and
equitable manner,” including negotiations and binding arbitration if an agreement can
not be reached.
Consistent with the McCaskill-Bond statute, defendants’ Seniority Integration
Protocol Agreement requires arbitration of the seniority integration issue absent an
agreement between the parties. APA recently announced that the seniority arbitration
 
would begin June 29, 2015.
 
[SIZE=15.5px]IV. [/SIZE]Argument.
The Krakowski cases challenge the eliminated job protections and the seniority
rights of the 850 former TWA pilots currenfly flying for American, and the hundreds of
others with recall rights. The cases were filed long before American completed its
merger with US Airways in December 2013, and not with any view to interfere with an
unknown potential future American/US Airways seniority integration. The Krakowski
litigation, however, will not be resolved prior to commencement of the arbitration in
June. Absent a stay, the arbitration will necessarily determine rights that are the subject
of the litigation. The arbitration should thus be stayed pending the resolution of the
Krakowski litigation.
A “district court has the inherent ability to protect its own jurisdiction over the
dispute pending before it.” Bank of America, N.A. v. UMB Financial Services, Inc., 618
F.3d [SIZE=9.5px]906, [/SIZE]914 (8th Cir. 2010). Concurrent with that inherent power, the All Writs Act
expressly gives federal courts the power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
28 U.S.C. [SIZE=15.5px]§ [/SIZE]1651(a). That power includes staying arbitrations. See In re American
Express Financial Advisors Securities Utigation, 672 F.3d 113, 141, n.20 (2d Cir.
2011 )(MSome courts have explicitly relied upon the All Writs Act in enjoining arbitrations
in similar circumstances to those before us in this appeal” [citing cases]).
Allstate Insurance Company v. Hisham Elzanaty, 929 F.Supp.2d 199 (E.D. N.Y.
 
2013), provides an extensive analysis of the case law on this issue. The court found it
“has the power to temporarily stay a pending private arbitration as well as to temporarily
enjoin any future private arbitrations.” Allstate, 929 F.Supp.2d at 221.
The standard for staying an arbitration is a familiar one:
When evaluating whether a stay may be granted, courts look to the
preliminary injunction standard. “In order to justify a preliminary injunction, a
movant must demonstrate (1) irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; and (2)
‘either a likelihood of success on the merits, or a serious question going to the
merits to make them a fair ground for trial, with a balance of hardships tipping
decidedly in the plaintiffs favor.” Metro. Taxicab Bd. of Trade v. City of New
York, 615 F.3d 152, 156 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Almontaser v. N.Y. Dep’t of
Educ., 519 F.3d 505, 506 (2d Cir. 2008)).
Allstate, 929 F. Supp. 2d at 217.
“The showing of irreparable harm is perhaps the single most important
prerequisite for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and the moving party must
show that injury is likely before the other requirements for an injunction will be
considered.” Kamerling v. Massanari, 295 F.3d 206, 214 (2d dr. 2002). “To establish
irreparable harm, a party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must show that there is a
continuing harm which cannot be adequately redressed by final relief on the merits and
for which money damages cannot provide adequate consideration.” Id.
Irreparable harm was found in Allstate on facts analogous to this case. The
plaintiff insurance company brought sought to invalidate allegedly fraudulent claims
submitted by the defendants. Defendants filed simultaneous arbitrations to recover
payment on the claims. Although the arbitrations were unquestionably authorized by
agreements between the parties, as is defendants’ seniority arbitration, the court stayed
the arbitrations in light of the “procedural and substantive train wreck” posed by the
 
“haphazard and contradictory concurrent flow of litigation and arbitration that appears
here.” Allstate, 929 F.Supp.2d at 220. The court thus stayed the arbitrations and
ordered discovery and the trial “proceed on an expedited basis.” Id. at 222. For similar
reasons, the Court should enter the same relief here.
Defendants of course dispute any liability in the Krakowski cases, but they
cannot dispute the fact that rulings favorable to plaintiffs in the cases would have a
profound impact on any arbitration to establish the seniority and preferential bidding
 
[SIZE=12.5px]rights of the combined [/SIZE][SIZE=12.5px]group of 15,000 American and US Airways pilots. And like the[/SIZE]
Allstate case, it would be a “procedural and substantive train wreck” for the Court to
enforce any judgment [SIZE=12.5px]for plaintiffs entered in the Krakowski cases after the seniority[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12.5px]arbitration is decided.[/SIZE]
More accurately stated, it would be impossible for the Court to
[SIZE=12.5px]enforce a judgment in [/SIZE][SIZE=12.5px]the Krakowski cases without also setting aside the arbitration[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12.5px]decision. To set aside [/SIZE][SIZE=12.5px]a decision of such enormous scope, however, would be hugely[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12.5px]disruptive to American [/SIZE][SIZE=12.5px]and the 15,000 affected pilots, so much so that it almost surely[/SIZE]
would never happen.
The seniority arbitration thus threatens to undermine the 
[SIZE=12.5px]Krakowski litigation in its entirety. This is a very real threat of irreparable harm.[/SIZE]
 
The remaining factor of the analysis, “likelihood of success on the merits,” is
likewise easily met in this case:
Likelihood of success is not the focus at the early stages of a case such as this,
because any likelihood of success inquiry would be premature. Instead, the Court
looks to whether there is a serious question going to the merits to make them a
fair ground for trial.
Allstate, 929 F.Supp.2d at 217. A “serious question going to the merits” exists when the
complaint survives a motion to dismiss. Id. at 222. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the
Krakowski cases should be denied. This will leave “serious questions going to the
merits” sufficient to support a stay of the arbitration.
V. Conclusion.
To protect its jurisdiction and avoid irreparable harm to plaintiffs, the Court should
stay the arbitration defendants plan to commence on June 29, 2015, and order
expedited discovery and trial of the Krakowski cases.
Dated: March 3, 2015.
JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS, P.C.
_IsI Allen P. Press
Allen P. Press #39293 (pro hac vice)
Jacobson Press & Fields, P.C.
168 N. Meramec Ave., Suite 150
St. Louis, MC 63105
Phone: (314) 899-9789
 
E-mail: nress@ArchCitvLawvers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 3, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY ARBITRATION
was filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM!ECF system, which will notify the following
people of this filing:
Edgar James
Steven K. Hoffman
JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 950
Washington, DC
skhoffman@jamhoff.com
Counsel for Ailed Pilots Association
Jonathon C. Fhfts
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
jfrittsmorganlewis.com
David H. Luce
Carmody MacDonald P.C.
120 South Central Avenue, Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
dhl©carmodymacdonald.com
Counsel for American Airlines, Inc.
John P. Furfaro
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom LLP
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
john.ftwfaro@skadden.com
Counsel for the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee
I further certify that on March 3, 2015, I also caused the same filing to be served on the
same recipients by email and first-class mail.
Is/Allen P. Press
Allen P. Press
Counsel for Plaintiffs
 
 

 

 

[Claxon]

Yet another premature celebration by ignorant west pilots after reading their own frivolous legal briefs. 
 
The officials of USAPA will use association funds to defend themselves from yet another frivolous Marty harper harping. 
 
The west chose not to be represented by USAPA, not the reverse.  USAPA has a legal obligation to represent the US Airways pilots during seniority negotiations and to defend their officials.