April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[mrbreeze]

Not really.

So, if you're really dca319 and an East pilot, tell me the last three digits of our flight attendant Hughes payroll number on our flight #751 today, the 10th. It's right there in Catcrew for you to answer.

If you're a West pilot, you don't have access to it.

Don't make excuses or change the subject, just answer the freakin' question, Move. We all await your answer. A chance to prove yourself or fail miserably.
breeze

 

[CaptChill]

So, if you're really dca319 and an East pilot, tell me the last three digits of our flight attendant Hughes payroll number on our flight #751 today, the 10th. It's right there in Catcrew for you to answer.

If you're a West pilot, you don't have access to it.

Don't make excuses or change the subject, just answer the freakin' question, Move. We all await your answer. A chance to prove yourself or fail miserably.
breeze

319 has been asked in the past to provide similar info to verify being an Eastie... Nothing, nada has ever been provided... A poser... and a loser

 

[Phoenix]

319 has been asked in the past to provide similar info to verify being an Eastie... Nothing, nada has ever been provided... A poser... and a loser

By now you would think he could have found a buddy with access to catcrew!

 

[dca319]

By now you would think he could have found a buddy with access to catcrew!

Exactly. These little tests are pointless and worthless. I've more that proven I'm east so move on. You should focus more on our impending loss coming up than on whether or not I'm east.

 

[Phoenix]

"It is not enough for the Court to order only USAPA to use the Nicolau Award
seniority order when integrating seniority with the American pilots. Where (as here) two
parties are participating in illegal conduct, it is entirely proper for the Court to order both
to act legally. It is particularly necessary to do so here where the East Pilots have a
history of changing their identity to evade their legal obligations. The West Pilots, having
struggled to defend the Nicolau Award for nearly six years, are entitled to effective relief."

Conclusory (bordering on pejorative) statements offered as facts. Pro Bono amateurs are helping Marty write the docs again..

 

[nycbusdriver]

We're all men an women of the same stock, both sides of this. My only point with the numbers thing, is that your side was able to use leverage to take this process into a place none of us like. I'm no more noble than any other ####.

The west or any other pilot group would have been capable of the same, given the 'right' circumstances. And they wouldn't be any more right or noble in doing so than you are.

We are all of the same stock! And, if the roles had been reversed, I don't think we would have been prescient enough to let go of the windfall either.

Well stated, both of you.

 

[nycbusdriver]

By now you would think he could have found a buddy with access to catcrew!

Yeah....my thoughts exactly. Why doesn't he get in touch with "Captain" O'Dell?

 

[Bill Brasky]

Exactly. These little tests are pointless and worthless. I've more that proven I'm east so move on. You should focus more on our impending loss coming up than on whether or not I'm east.

No, they're not worthless. They've already proven that you're a liar, which shows you to be a douchebag.

And we're not losing anything. You and the other westies are. Wait and see, douchebag.

 

[A320 Driver]

Looks like things are heating up in the face of the upcoming hearing. I'd like to venture a guess as to what will happen Tuesday. NOTHING will happen. She will schedule briefs if anything. More delays. That's my guess...

 

[Black Swan]

Looks like things are heating up in the face of the upcoming hearing. I'd like to venture a guess as to what will happen Tuesday. NOTHING will happen. She will schedule briefs if anything. More delays. That's my guess...

If they had a valid argument that the issue was ripe, you could talk seriously about it. But they went down this road already with the 9th, and this is what they 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 — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.



[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.



Notice the court said CBA. A MOU is NOT a CBA. Your response Snapthis or Bean? What makes this attempt different with regard to ripeness? And do you contend the MOU is a CBA?

 

[Black Swan]

And the MOU specifically mentions it is a mechanism for reaching a CBA, so how does that mean it is a CBA if it states that implicitly in the language?

 

[A320 Driver]

If they had a valid argument that the issue was ripe, you could talk seriously about it. But they went down this road already with the 9th, and this is what they 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 — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.



[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.



Notice the court said CBA. A MOU is NOT a CBA. Your response Snapthis or Bean? What makes this attempt different with regard to ripeness? And do you contend the MOU is a CBA?

I don't see a difference. The 9th said that the case wouldn't be ripe until the West pilots suffered harm. The threat of harm was not enough. That being the case, I would think we would have to complete a SLI without the NIC to achieve that.

 

[luvthe9]

So, if you're really dca319 and an East pilot, tell me the last three digits of our flight attendant Hughes payroll number on our flight #751 today, the 10th. It's right there in Catcrew for you to answer.

If you're a West pilot, you don't have access to it.

Don't make excuses or change the subject, just answer the freakin' question, Move. We all await your answer. A chance to prove yourself or fail miserably.
breeze

He is our old foul mouth friend Move2CLT, aka. JJ

 

[snapthis]

Communications Committee

May 11, 2013


USAPA Update - Addington II Filings

We have added an extensive number of documents to the Legal Library pertaining to the up-coming hearing next week. They are listed below and were all filed yesterday, May 10. The principal document is Doc 76, Joint Status Report, which indicates that the hearing on May 14 in Phoenix, will not be an evidentiary hearing with witnesses and testimony, and therefore will not be like the hearing held in Charlotte before Judge Conrad almost two years ago, on the Company’s complaint for a Preliminary Injunction against USAPA.

In this case, Judge Silver issued an order on April 18 (Doc 43) setting deadlines for filing certain papers, setting May 14 as the date for a hearing on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and directing the attorneys to confer and submit a joint status report by May 10, which the Court directed “should include the identity of any proposed witnesses, as well as the scope of such witnesses’ testimony.” When the attorneys began discussing the hearing, Plaintiffs indicated that they did not intend to call any witnesses, were going to submit the matter on the papers they had previously filed, and wanted to spend 6 hours presenting argument before Judge Silver. USAPA agreed to present its evidence in the form of declarations and exhibits but, as indicated in the Joint Report, believes that it is up to the Court to decide how long it wants to spend listening to the lawyers, given that there will not be any witnesses.

Also at issue between the parties is the order of argument. USAPA suggests that the order of argument should be addressed, in this order:

(1) US Airways Motion to Dismiss,

(2) USAPA’s Motion to Dismiss and

(3) Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

The Plaintiffs (joined by US Airways) have suggested a much more complicated schedule that divides the argument by issue rather than by motion. The scheme suggested by Plaintiffs (and US Airways) is in Doc 76. The Court will make the final decision on the order of argument and how much time it will allow.

In any event, there is no plan to present any witnesses at the hearing on May 14. All the evidence concerning the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction will be presented by Declarations and Exhibits. Most, if not all of these Declarations and Exhibits have already been filed.

The list of USAPA Exhibits is Doc 80. The list of Plaintiffs Exhibits is Doc 82. US Airways has filed a notice that it will not submit any exhibits of its own (Doc 81). Note that the standard practice before Judge Silver is for the numbering of plaintiff exhibits to start at “1” and defendant exhibits to start at “100.” Other filings yesterday involved the admission of three lawyers representing the Allied Pilots Association (Docs 70-73).

Note - In order to immediately notify you after postings to the Legal Library, we have created a new email subscription list: “Legal Postings.” If you subscribe, you will receive a short email similar to the information shown at the bottom of this update. Our Legal Team may enhance the posting with a brief explanation.

USAPA Communications

Addington II Filings from May 10, 2013, now posted in the Legal Library.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Looks like things are heating up in the face of the upcoming hearing. I'd like to venture a guess as to what will happen Tuesday. NOTHING will happen. She will schedule briefs if anything. More delays. That's my guess...

Yup. When has any federal judge listened for an entire day of lawyers hired by two, or three, sides make arguments and presentations, then, at the end of the day, just issue a decision?

I bet the POR is signed before Silver rules.