April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[dca319]

dca319, on 07 May 2013 - 08:42 PM, said: You know well that I'm not a west pilot....



Hmmm...."We've"..."We", but then suddenly; "you guys"...? That's most interesting from any clinical perspective, little "spartan". I've never seen ANY poster so desperate to employ "we", clearly in some twisted attempt at manufacturing "credibility".

Seriously: You need help.

Quiet down Gunny. You've been good to keep to yourself this whole time and I suggest you continue to do so.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Good for you for standing up and speaking your mind. There are jerks on both sides that want to dictate to people what they should think instead of educating them and letting them decide for themselves.

I hope that made sense, I'm tired. Too much beer and yard work. Oh yeah, I'm not supposed to mix alchohol with my meds, oh well.

A good night to all, both east and west.

Bean

We don't ever have to agree with current events. But thanks for your honesty and humor Bean. Even if we get our rear ends handed to us, its nice to know most of you guys are probably (and this is a complement) just like us.

I can relate to coming in after a 4 day, doing the yard work, and maybe even being too tired to drink that beer! Getting old sux.

Greeter

 

[EastUS1]

Quiet down Gunny. You've been good to keep to yourself this whole time and I suggest you continue to do so.

So; How's life treating you, Move2clt?

"I suggest you continue to do so." Or what?....You'll threaten me with your XBox again, mighty "spartan"?

All kidding aside...You need to get yourself some help.

 

[prechilill]

So; How's life treating you Move2clt?

" I suggest you continue to do so." Or what?....You'll threaten me with your XBox again?

Great!

 

[cleardirect]

More from the AMR filing. The MOU being a contract makes our case RIPE. It also completes the implementation of the T/A. The one signed in 2005 and still in effect.

As part of the merger process, American and US Airways entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU&rdquo with the unions representing the pilots at the two carriers (Allied Pilots Association or “APA” at American and USAPA at US Airways) that constitutes a collective bargaining agreement among the four parties.

AMR and US Airways parties to the MOU have both stated that the MOU is a contract.

That collective bargaining agreement was subsequently ratified by the US Airways pilots overwhelmingly. In that agreement, the parties agreed that once the merger closes, with limited exceptions, the pilots at US Airways would immediately transition, without any further ratification vote, to the terms established in the new six-year American Airlines/APA collective bargaining agreement, which was approved by the bankruptcy court on December 19, 2012, as modified by the MOU. The parties recognized that they would still need to harmonize practices currently applicable to the two pilot groups, and accordingly, they agreed to an expedited process for compiling a new, final “joint” collective bargaining agreement (“JCBA&rdquo, but also agreed that the economic and most critical aspects of the modified six year American/APA agreement would remain in effect throughout.2 Because the JCBA will only implement, rather than alter, the economics of the MOU and would only make other limited changes contemplated by the MOU, the JCBA reached through arbitration will not be subject to membership ratification.

Don’t skip over the part about there not being another vote. The JCBA only implements the MOU it is not a separate item. RIPE!!!!!

 

[FL430]

You nailed it! God you're a genius!!

Seriously, this time next year we will all be on the same team, rowing together in the same direction... We need to learn to get along. I'm looking forward to AVL. A short commute to my left seat in CLT. Are you coming to PHX?

Seriously, I do agree with you on this point as well. I have no problem getting along with you. But if someone is going to exchange barbs with me I can take it or dish it out. However this turns out is anyone's guess but i'm not going to get wrapped up around the axle about it. I'm going to move along - whatever. I'm professional enough about this to let it ride and if I see you in CLT I will welcome you here if that is what happens - so be it. You will love AVL. Look up or google "Mountain Air Country Club" - an awesome place not far from AVL. I'm staying in CLT.

 

[EastUS1]

Getting old sux.

I'm thinking we're still very much blessed. Imo; it beats going any sooner than needed into the beyond.

 

[prechilill]

Seriously, I do agree with you on this point as well. I have no problem getting along with you. But if someone is going to exchange barbs with me I can take it or dish it out. However this turns out is anyone's guess but i'm not going to get wrapped up around the axle about it. I'm going to move along - whatever. I'm professional enough about this to let it ride and if I see you in CLT I will welcome you here if that is what happens - so be it. You will love AVL. Look up or google "Mountain Air Country Club" - an awesome place not far from AVL. I'm staying in CLT.

Thanks! I'm actually staying in PHX for a while. Kids in school and stuff.

 

[EastUS1]

Great!

The question wasn't meant for you, madam "moderator"/"We'll NEVER pay dues!!!!"/etc.

 

[Claxon]

More from the AMR filing. The MOU being a contract makes our case RIPE. It also completes the implementation of the T/A. The one signed in 2005 and still in effect.






AMR and US Airways parties to the MOU have both stated that the MOU is a contract.





Don’t skip over the part about there not being another vote. The JCBA only implements the MOU it is not a separate item. RIPE!!!!!

Did the DOJ approve this merger, was the POR approved? When is the MOU effective for pay, benefits and seniority?

 

[cleardirect]

This really is the most important paragraph.

II. IF PLAINTIFFS PREVAIL, THE COURT SHOULD FASHION INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF CAREFULLY, MINDFUL OF THE PARTIES’ CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS
As explained above, American’s interest in any injunctive relief the Court may enter is
exceedingly narrow. It extends only to the potential risk that an Order from this Court might
inadvertently prevent USAPA from complying with its contractual obligations under the MOU to
resolve the merger-related integration process on the agreed-upon schedule, or give USAPA the
choice either to begin that process using the Nicolau list or wait until this litigation is concluded.
If the Court concludes that injunctive relief is warranted, it should be careful to avoid any
language in its Order that might provide an arguable basis for USAPA to delay the MOU process
or renounce its bargained-for responsibilities. Language consistent with the proposed injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs would, in American’s view, be adequate to protect its interests in this regard. See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Order, Doc. 53-1.

AMR has no problem with the language of the west injunction. What AMR is concerned about is that usapa will try and screw up their deal, delay or once again fail to live up to your word. usapa has proven to be untrustworthy. the rest of the industry knows this now. AMR knows that usapa has no honor and fails to live up to their word.

 

[prechilill]

The question wasn't meant for you, madam "moderator"/"We'll NEVER pay dues!!!!"/etc.

have you an APA lanyard to spare, brother???

 

[FL430]

Quiet down Gunny. You've been good to keep to yourself this whole time and I suggest you continue to do so.

dca319, do you have a response sir - AWE786 CDG - CLT capt name on 6 May plz?

 

[cleardirect]

It appears that the ninth circuit has other idea about ripeness besides the one usapa points to exclusively.

III. THIS DISPUTE IS RIPE

American agrees with the arguments made by US Airways with respect to the ripeness
issue. It writes separately here merely to emphasize the unique harm that will be done to
American should there be any delay in considering the merits of that dispute. “A court “appl[ies]
a two-part test to determine if a case satisfies prudential requirements for ripeness: the fitness of
the issue for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.”
Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 486 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 132
S. Ct. 366 (2011). A question is fit for decision when it can be decided without considering
“contingent future events that may or may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at
all.” Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“At the same time, a litigant need not ‘await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain
preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending, that is enough.’” Id. (quoting 18 Unnamed
“John Smith” Prisoners v. Meese, 871 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1989)). To meet the hardship
requirement, meanwhile, “a litigant must show that withholding review would result in ‘direct
and immediate’ hardship and would entail more than possible financial loss.” Winter v. Cal. Med.
Review Bd., Inc., 900 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Cal. Dep’t of Educ. v. Bennett, 833
F.2d 827, 833-34 (9th Cir. 1987)).

 

[FL430]

The question wasn't meant for you, madam "moderator"/"We'll NEVER pay dues!!!!"/etc.

That wasn't her. Her name was Karen I think. From NY state.