April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

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.

Agreed she has a lot of white noise to sift through, and if the May 14th hearing were about an original complaint rather than simply a request for a preliminary injunction I would expect her to just mill around and do nothing until it is overcome by events. However since she has already acknowledged the time sensitive nature of the request for injunction I think she intends to rule on the injunction in a timely manner, but of course soon after the POR would still be soon enough.

 

[end_of_alpa]

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.

Looks like USAPA is going to fight fire with NUCS! Since "Plaintiffs" wish to violate the rules of Civil Procedure and "back door" discovery and evidentiary hearings, why not just do the safe thing and "inundate the court" with exhibits. Harper doesn't seem to follow the rules, why should USAPA have to? I wish I could be there next week. Pat and the team looks like they will FINALLY be well prepared for the Court this time around.

"LET'S.......GET READY TO.......RUMBLEEEEEE!

 

[snapthis]

Marty vs Pat.

My money is on Marty!

 

[Phoenix]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Where (as here) two [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]parties are participating in illegal conduct, it is entirely proper for the Court to order both[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]to act legally. It is particularly necessary to do so here where the East Pilots have a[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]history of changing their identity to evade their legal obligations. The West Pilots, having[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)] [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]struggled to defend the Nicolau Award for nearly six years, are entitled to effective relief.[/background]

Did Marty personally write this or should we grant that he failed to review all of the stuff the amateurs wrote?

 

[Black Swan]

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.

Well, if the Leonidas group says the MOU is a JCBA, then how are you harmed if 97% of that group votes in the affirmative? If it was harmful, why was it not rejected?
That was a particularly damning vote. If you are going to claim harm, you should reject the agreement that triggers it. It is akin to reading the label of a poisonous substance, ingesting it and then suing the manufacturer. Harper gave you the worst advice ever.

 

[mrbreeze]

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.

BS!

You're sitting at the computer now, just check Catcrew and answer the freakin question!
breeze

 

[end_of_alpa]

Marty vs Pat.

My money is on Marty!

My money is on the law.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Marty vs Pat.

My money is on Marty!

Yes. No doubt you already have lots of your money on Marty.

And some on Pat, too! Thanks!

 

[cactusboy53]

Hey Dave, how's that living the past working out for you. I hate to break it to you, but you were hired old at an airline that the death knell(Doug's words, not mine) had sounded. He managed to pull off a merger that saved us both, but you were denied the windfall that would prevent your fall during the greatest recession since the great depression. Some of us tried to come up with a solution, but no, none of that, Nic or nothing. Oh well.

So tell me Dave. As a PHX rep did you tell the pilots you represent that you are still overstaffed and don't even need any extra pilot for the new rest rules, or were you too busy attending meet and greets?

You won't SMIC, but we'll see what happens.

Would you please provide the "death knell" time & place? I recall him stating that AWA needed the merger (too), but I always thought it was a tactic to remain "neutral".

The "windfall" that you speak of is your opinion. That does not change the fact that you entered into a process that had a final & binding outcome.

It's not my job to tell any pilot what & how a particular base is staffed & why. That task falls in management, thus we have heard things if this nature from LCC management. What a surprise.

We'll see what next weeks hearing brings. As always, you kids are supremely confident. Too bad you won't be in court. I'm sure it will be interesting.

 

[FL430]

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.

You have proven nothing except for the fact that you are one SMF.

 

[cactusboy53]

BS!

You're sitting at the computer now, just check Catcrew and answer the freakin question!
breeze

Wow. What if he's posting from his phone? What if he's just trying to wind you up? What if he just doesn't give a rip about your (or others) opinion of him?

 

[fatherabraham]

Is that moved2dca?

He'll always be just Boo Boo to me

FA

 

[FL430]

Would you please provide the "death knell" time & place? I recall him stating that AWA needed the merger (too), but I always thought it was a tactic to remain "neutral".

The "windfall" that you speak of is your opinion. That does not change the fact that you entered into a process that had a final & binding outcome.

It's not my job to tell any pilot what & how a particular base is staffed & why. That task falls in management, thus we have heard things if this nature from LCC management. What a surprise.

We'll see what next weeks hearing brings. As always, you kids are supremely confident. Too bad you won't be in court. I'm sure it will be interesting.

"Death knell?" Yes, it was inevitable. You closed your Columbus, Ohio and Las Vegas hubs. Doug was the very first airline CEO to go begging for the ATSB loan. You fly 24% of former east routes so Doug could keep your min block hours. You operate a single hub in a leisure market with low yields and strong competition with SWA. You had little to no International flights and no widebodies. You still have furloughed pilots. Your workforce has stagnated and you are being kept afloat by the east. Many of your pilots are flying east and will even upgrade east. Your market will continue to me eroded by the merger with American because of your close proximity to LAX and DFW. You will be downsized further. There is no longer any work for you in Australia. There is nowhere for you to scab again.................................. "Windfall" , well if you would pull your head out and look around you it is plain and obvious to see that close to 30000 legacy airline pilots think you got a windfall. Why do you think they changed ALPA merger policy after old Nic came out with his screwed up "award?" Why do they now use three arbitrators in SLI's now? Why is it that good old St Nick is all but unemployed right now? Why did not NWA/DAL and United/Continental pick him to arbitrate their SLI's? Why does merger policy have a LOS policy inclusion now?

 

[FL430]

Wow. What if he's posting from his phone? What if he's just trying to wind you up? What if he just doesn't give a rip about your (or others) opinion of him?

What if he's just a dumbass?

 

[prechilill]

YOU HAD BETTER HOPE & PRAY THAT APA DOESN'T TREAT YOU LIKE YOU HAVE TREATED THE WEST. SYIC.

It would be very satisfying to see the APA do just that.