April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[cleardirect]

The problem I see here, is AMR is trying to redefine what a higher court stated in their opinion of ripeness. AMR has a slightly biased look at things, as they could careless on seniority as long as it doesn't interfere with their millions waiting to be dumped into their pockets.

Their filing sounds nice and all, but I believe Judge Silver is going to have to take the esteemed opinions of these lawyers (with no real vested interest, ya right) and compare them to what the higher court stated and laid down as to the requirements to meet the ripeness test.

What was it that the 9th stated about ripeness?

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)).

It is difficult to imagine a labor case in which impending injury would be more certain, or in which the direct and immediate hardship that would result from waiting is more patent. American is about to embark on a merger valued at approximately $10 billion. As with most mergers, the value in the merger is bound up in the ability to achieve efficiencies from combining operations as soon as possible; the longer the merged company is required to operate separately one “American” pilot workforce and a second “US Airways” pilot workforce, the more the value of the merger for shareholders will be degraded. The competitive capacity of the merged airline — and thus the livelihood of the tens of thousands of individuals the airline will employ — will turn on the airline’s ability to capitalize quickly on the opportunities the merger presents. Delay means diminished opportunities.
It was precisely for that reason that US Airways, American and their respective pilot unions negotiated a detailed, comprehensive pre-merger collective bargaining agreement, with meticulous attention to deadlines, to ensure that the labor components of the merger could be effectuated as soon as possible. USAPA, however, continues to delay the process of resolving the internal US Airways pilot seniority integration dispute (a resolution that obviously would facilitate the process of merging the American and US Airways pilot seniority lists). It now claims, not only that this dispute is not currently ripe, but that it will not become ripe for years — until the operational integration of the airlines is otherwise completed and the parties have finished the JCBA process.
That is not tenable. The bankruptcy court has approved the merger. The Plan of Reorganization, which incorporates the MOU, has been filed and is awaiting approval by the bankruptcy court. The risk of harm to American is imminent. USAPA has contractually agreed to begin the merger-related seniority integration process “as soon as possible after” the Plan is approved and American emerges from Chapter 11 — a date scheduled to arrive early in the third quarter. This potential injury to American’s contract rights is not remote or insubstantial; it is here and now.
To the extent it applies here, ripeness is a prudential doctrine, not a jurisdictional rule. See Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass’n, 606 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2010). Given the current state of affairs, it would be unwarranted and imprudent in the extreme to use that doctrine to deny the merging parties the benefit of their bargain and frustrate American’s efforts to realize the advantages expected by the new company’s shareholders and employees alike.7


7 It is worth noting that the bankruptcy court expressed unequivocally its view that “[t]here needs to be a decision as to what the integration is going to be by [USAPA].” See Transcript of April 3, 2013 hearing, In Re AMR Corporation, United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 13-01282-shl, Doc. 20-1, attached hereto as Exhibit B, at 33. Resolving the US Airways seniority dispute, the court concluded “is a precondition to the [seniority] integration [process] that’s contemplated by this merger . . . . You have to figure out what the rights are within [US Airways] first.” Id., at 21. The court observed that “[c]ertainly there is a live dispute about [US Airways] seniority as a result of that merger. I would think after 13 [sic; eight] years I guess one would think it's ripe for decision.” Id., at 31.

I guess you missed it the first time. All those cases cited by AMR are from what circuit court? There is not just one case in the entire ninth circuit that defines ripeness.

You may want to go back and read what the ninth said. The ninth used GENERAL PRINCIPLES to determine ripeness. Not some set in stone black letter law.

[2] No published case has expressly addressed when a DFR claim based on a union’s negotiation of a CBA becomes ripe. Thus, we apply the general principles underlying the ripeness doctrine and take guidance from our decisions regarding the related issue of when a DFR claim accrues for statute of limitations purposes in the context of the administration of a CBA. We conclude that Plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not yet ripe.

What did the ninth say had to happen before this case was ripe?

Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s seniority proposal-

AMR and the company just told the court that the airline responded, the parties completed negotiations, the membership voted and ratified a MOU (75%). Both companies told the court that an MOU is a JCBA. Ripeness satisfied per the ninth circuit.

Besides why wait? What is going to change from now until the JCBA is singed and the merger closed? Is usapa going to negotiate and get some big fat raise or great bonus for the west that the east or APA pilots will not get? the ecomonics of the MOU are set. There is nothing usapa can offer of get to off set stealing an arbitrated list. Two parties to the deal understand the negotiations to be complete. There is no more voting.

This is done and over. Ripeness is not an issue anymore. usapa needs an LUP next week. That is what you guys should be worried about not ripeness.

 

[EastUS1]

What is going to change from now until the JCBA is singed and the merger closed?

None can now say, little Michel de Nostradame...Not even judges, who may well realize that far better than yourself. Just for starters: You live on a world where hundreds of thousands are born and/or die every day.

Why would you want to see the JCBA become "singed" anyway?

 

[nevergiveup]

What was it S. Kirby said about the MOU being a JCBA?

 

[Crzipilot]

I guess you missed it the first time. All those cases cited by AMR are from what circuit court? There is not just one case in the entire ninth circuit that defines ripeness.

You may want to go back and read what the ninth said. The ninth used GENERAL PRINCIPLES to determine ripeness. Not some set in stone black letter law.





What did the ninth say had to happen before this case was ripe?




AMR and the company just told the court that the airline responded, the parties completed negotiations, the membership voted and ratified a MOU (75%). Both companies told the court that an MOU is a JCBA. Ripeness satisfied per the ninth circuit.

Besides why wait? What is going to change from now until the JCBA is singed and the merger closed? Is usapa going to negotiate and get some big fat raise or great bonus for the west that the east or APA pilots will not get? the ecomonics of the MOU are set. There is nothing usapa can offer of get to off set stealing an arbitrated list. Two parties to the deal understand the negotiations to be complete. There is no more voting.

This is done and over. Ripeness is not an issue anymore. usapa needs an LUP next week. That is what you guys should be worried about not ripeness.

Don't really personally care about the ripe issue, I want to see this completed too. I'm not about to go back and read everything again. Either way I think something in the 9th decision said something to the effect of a completed JCBA (which we have if you go by the AMR lawyers decision) and I think also an implemented final seniority list. There's the rub, disagreement on what will be the final list. As until that list is negotiated and finalized, THEN you can see if there has been harm.

 

[Metroyet]

What was it S. Kirby said about the MOU being a JCBA?

Kirby lied.

 

[Metroyet]

Don't really personally care about the ripe issue, I want to see this completed too. I'm not about to go back and read everything again. Either way I think something in the 9th decision said something to the effect of a completed JCBA (which we have if you go by the AMR lawyers decision) and I think also an implemented final seniority list. There's the rub, disagreement on what will be the final list. As until that list is negotiated and finalized, THEN you can see if there has been harm.

It's a two way street. If YOU feel you've been harmed, knock yourself out suing. This is over. The West is winning this.

 

[cleardirect]

What was it S. Kirby said about the MOU being a JCBA?

What was it the company and AMR said in court?

I will take signed documents over some spin session.

 

[cleardirect]

Don't really personally care about the ripe issue, I want to see this completed too. I'm not about to go back and read everything again. Either way I think something in the 9th decision said something to the effect of a completed JCBA (which we have if you go by the AMR lawyers decision) and I think also an implemented final seniority list. There's the rub, disagreement on what will be the final list. As until that list is negotiated and finalized, THEN you can see if there has been harm.

This is what the ninth said.

Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s seniority proposal

Nowhere did the ninth say an implemented seniority list. Notice the word proposal.

The parties completed negotiations.
The membership ratified the MOU. According to US Airways and AMR that is a JCBA.

What part of the ninth's requirements have not been fulfilled?

 

[nevergiveup]

This is what the ninth said.



Nowhere did the ninth say an implemented seniority list. Notice the word proposal.

The parties completed negotiations.
The membership ratified the MOU. According to US Airways and AMR that is a JCBA.

What part of the ninth's requirements have not been fulfilled?

So why did the company not allow you to participate in the recent east equipment bid? Perhaps they just forgot.

 

[Pi brat]

This is what the ninth said.



Nowhere did the ninth say an implemented seniority list. Notice the word proposal.

The parties completed negotiations.
The membership ratified the MOU. According to US Airways and AMR that is a JCBA.

What part of the ninth's requirements have not been fulfilled?

I get all of that and actually agree with you, AMR and the company that for practical matters the CBA is done. The issue I see is that it is all contingent on the merger going through. It certain looks like it will, but mergers fall apart everyday. That and the fact that they MOU called for a CBA between east and west and we don't have that yet. But, what happens then? Can she make her ruling contingent on the merger going through? Serious questions, not baiting.

 

[Res Judicata]

So why did the company not allow you to participate in the recent east equipment bid? Perhaps they just forgot.

No. That's the injustice of the hybrid DFR. Don't worry, when this is over, you can bet Doug Parker's company is getting sued on all fronts next. Johnny come lately's "neutrality" is going to bite him on the ass.

 

[Pi brat]

No. That's the injustice of the hybrid DFR. Don't worry, when this is over, you can bet Doug Parker's company is getting sued on all fronts next. Johnny come lately's "neutrality" is going to bite him on the ass.

Save your money, they've got that covered.

 

[Pi brat]

What are the chances of Judge Silver throwing the whole MOU out?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

http://media.nbcdfw.com/documents/APA+USAPA+MOU+JAN+2013.pdf

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Conditional? Contingent? Not a JCBA that make!