April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

This is going to be a very interesting next few weeks / months. Get in, sit down & buckle up. It's going to be a ride that you (nor I) will EVER forget. B)

Oh definately. I just can't even imagine anything more truly thrilling and memorable in life than a buncha' smarmy laywers blowing smoke at each other.....Yawn....Some "ride". 😉

 

[EastUS1]

Sorry Rat;
I had heard an unconfirmed rumor that the new call sign would be: CAACTI (No more US).

Oh yeah...Sigh!...That'd be SO much better and far more prideful than just using a "lesser" term like American....Words just fail me here.

 

[Phoenix]

Sorry Rat;
I had heard an unconfirmed rumor that the new call sign would be: CAACTI (No more US).

Yes, and RAAt, and WAAlmAArt Greeter, and EAAstus, and PiBrAAT (Ooops, my apologies, I'll never do it again! )

 

[cactusboy53]

When did the government say the merger happened? Rather, when did the "law" say it happend. With a little research, I think you will given pause.

Greeter

I just referenced the document that supported that at the time of the merger there were nearly 1700 furloughed US Air pilots. Wishing that document away won't make it disappear.

CB

 

[CallawayGolf]

.."what he just said."

Not ripe, no court is going to entertain "conditional" DFR parameters, other than the trinity that has defined them for over half a century.

Judge Silver: "Res Judica, not ripe." To paraphrase...."see you after a ratifed JCBA."

Greeter

My instincts tell me you are likely correct that Silver will not suddenly decide that the MOU has unquestionably ripened the DFR claim. However, judges are wildly capricious at times so making predictions at this point before the initial hearing is not based on any reasoned position. The fact that this matter is before her once again within months of the last ruling while her DJ ruling is being appealed to the Ninth shows just how ineffective the whole deferral on ripeness has been. It should be quite clear to her that all parties, which now includes AMR and the UCC, want to see judicial relief of this matter based on the merits - well all parties except USAPA that is.

The irony is that the laws in this nation are moving more and more towards criminalizing free speech so that a person can be arrested for potentially being a terrorist, foreign or domestic; we arrest and expel kids for saying they wish a classmate or teacher were dead; heck we even brining a gun shaped cookie to school - all of which are examples of people doing nothing to harm another person but rather thinking or speaking in a manner that they would like to. Then we have USAPA and the Ninth. USAPA openly declares under oath that they have no intention of implementing the NIC because they say it unjustly favors the west pilots so they have every intention of using a list that harms the west relative to the NIC and the Ninth says, we can't decide if there will be harm to the west pilots until it actually occurs. What further evidence is needed that USAPA will, without judicial intervention, harm the west in violation of its DFR? Perhaps the Company's cogent arguments to this effect will persuade her where she was not able to see that the last time. Certainly by her own words she desired to do more that last time, but felt she was unable to do so because of the constraints placed on her by the Ninth's previous ruling. Seems unlikely, but it it's certainly not beyond reason to suspect that she might. We will see what happens in the 14th.

 

[Phoenix]

I just referenced the document that supported that at the time of the merger there were nearly 1700 furloughed US Air pilots. Wishing that document away won't make it disappear.

CB

AAnd...

 

[EastUS1]

AAnd...

Hey! You said you would never do that again! 🙂

 

[Claxon]

III. Claim Three: Attorneys’ Fees
113. Plaintiffs re-allege each and every allegation set forth above as
if fully set forth herein.
114. USAPA has several million dollars in reserve collected as dues
and agency fees from all US Airways Pilots.
115. Plaintiffs brought this action and the 2008 action and appeared
as defendants in the 2010 action to vindicate the right of all US Airways
pilots to fair representation by USAPA.
116. By obtaining the rulings in the 2008 and 2010 actions and by
prevailing in this action, Plaintiffs conferred a substantial benefit on all
US Airways Pilots.
117. Under common benefit doctrine, the expenses of achieving
those benefits should, in all fairness, be spread among all those who so
benefitted.
118. The expenses of achieving those benefits would be fairly spread
among all US Airways Pilots if paid by USAPA.

119. The Court should, therefore, make an award in favor of
Plaintiffs and against USAPA for all reasonable litigation expenses,
including attorneys’ fees incurred bringing this action, incurred by
Plaintiffs in the actions noted above.

Marty Harper and 28j Jacobs hail mary pass.

Why is the court hearing May 14th and the Meet and greed May 17th? Think about it.

http://leonidas.cact...U_Complaint.pdf

 

[EastUS1]

Why is the court hearing May 14th and the Meet and greed May 17th? Think about it.

"Meet and greed"...? You sir, nor anyone else, could have ever possibly coined a more appropriate term there. 😉

 

[Phoenix]

...USAPA openly declares under oath that they have no intention of implementing the NIC...

LCC and USAPA have no basis to use the Nic if the terms of the TA are not met. If the MOU becomes effective then they have no basis to use the Nic or their current proposed DOH list.

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]h. US Airways agrees that neither this Memorandum nor the JCBA shall provide a basis for[/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]changing the seniority lists currently in effect at US Airways other than through the process set forth in[/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]this Paragraph 10.[/background]

YMMV. 🙂

 

[Claxon]

Speaking of something that flew over ones head. UFO? You west pilots are eccentric to say the least.

 

[snapthis]

We had zero pilots on furlough.

Greeter.

Sorry, but you are completely wrong.

At the time of the merger "snapshot" the former US Air had 5098* pilots on its seniority list. Of that 5098, 1691 (33%) were FURLOUGHED. (Reference: The Nicolau Award, page 5)

* This number also reflects the 105 CEL (Combined Eligibility List) pilots that had never flown a mainline aircraft, and 212 Mid-Atlantic Division pilots.

I should have referred to the seniority list.

OK, omewhat more than zero but less than 1800.

Sixteen Hundered Ninety One furloughed FO's.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I should have referred to the seniority list.

OK, omewhat more than zero but less than 1800.

Sixteen Hundered Ninety One furloughed FO's.

Zero.

Greeter

 

[traderjake]

It is indeed, like crew meals.

Ever notice that the group that said "seniority is like crew meals" doesn't get crew meals.

 

[usabusdriver]

I am not so sure USAPA or APA would cavalierly agree that negotiating SLI is inconsequential and unnecessary to their rights and responsibilities as bargaining agents.

If the order of the lists being negotiated is not as important as merely having a list to start from, then why would the court bother to intervene and tell USAPA what list(s) they must start from seeing they already have an MOU that stipulates the lists they will start from?

I did not say SLI negotiation/arbitration is inconsequential or not an important responsibility of the cba.

What I asked was for you to explain how a court ordered use of the Nicolau limits the union in the SLI process. It is no different or limiting from the APA who has a list that must be used.

The crux of the argument is if the union bound by the tenants of the TA and Nicolau award. If it is, albeit with a LUP the union can change it, elsewise without a LUP not including the Nicolau in the MOU is a DFR.