April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[nevergiveup]

IN the event an arbitrator goes with relative position by taking a snap shot at the POR, the west will be losing positions everyday until then. With DOH, they would be gaining positions. A new hire could indeed be placed senior to west pilot using relative position, but not with DOH. Be careful!

 

[cleardirect]

Except the MDA pilots lost that argument. Twice in arbitration. Once in court.

They even lost the appeal.

Next time you see any corporate officer or senior manager ask them if the east and west pilots work for the same airline. If they say no let me know.

Next crew news bring it up to Parker. I would like to hear his answer.

 

[cleardirect]

IN the event an arbitrator goes with relative position by taking a snap shot at the POR, the west will be losing positions everyday until then. With DOH, they would be gaining positions. A new hire could indeed be placed senior to west pilot using relative position, but not with DOH. Be careful!

The snap shot between the east and west is 2005 the time of our merger. The merger between us airways and American is 2013. The new hires go below pilots that were on property in 2005. Just like Nicolau did.

Try and sell DOH all you want. It is still tainted and rotten.

 

[Black Swan]

No!

She did not rule on ripeness or the temporary injunction.

Tuesday was scheduled as an injunction hearing. It tuned out not to be that.

She also did not rule on usapa's motion to dismiss, the company's motion to dismiss or the west class certification.

Is that clear enough for you?

No, not clear enough. "Tuesday was scheduled as an injunction hearing. It turned out not to be that". That is your statement. It turned out not to be that is a rather misleading way to cover for the fact it was nothing close to an injunction. You got nothing whatsoever. In fact this mess is still not ripe, and you just blew another pile of cash. Your meet and greet got cancelled also. You guys are out of money and got another court to say the Nicolau is not required. Thank you for the opportunity.
It is high time for USAPA to submit a DOH list with PHX protections and end the mess. Sue the company if they refuse it.

 

[cleardirect]

No, not clear enough. "Tuesday was scheduled as an injunction hearing. It turned out not to be that". That is your statement. It turned out not to be that is a rather misleading way to cover for the fact it was nothing close to an injunction. You got nothing whatsoever. In fact this mess is still not ripe, and you just blew another pile of cash. Your meet and greet got cancelled also. You guys are out of money and got another court to say the Nicolau is not required. Thank you for the opportunity.

Did I miss the order? Where did the judge say this case is not ripe?

Where did the court dismiss the case? This is not over.

What the court did do was catch your lawyer in several lies. Lying to a federal judge in open court is very very bad. I tell you that because you may not know lying is bad.

Tuesday was scheduled for an injunction hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a preliminary injunction hearing is set for May 14,
2013 at 10:00 a.m. No later than May 10, 2013 the parties shall file a joint status report
containing a proposed schedule for that hearing. The status report should include the identity
of any proposed witnesses as well as the scope of such witnesses’ testimony.


We did not get to the injunction part. So I am correct in saying that it turned out not to be an injunction hearing. Not misleading in any way. Is that what was scheduled for the 14th?

 

[AWE Dog]

No way, to a 3 way. That's the Army's out with no blood on their hands.

 

[snapthis]

Call your lawyer and have him file with the court today that you believe she has overstepped her authority and threaten her with the NMB.

No really please. Do it today. Tell the judge she is wrong. Make the call to the NMB and have them intervene.

Don't talk about it do it.

I'd like to see them send Judge Silver more USAPA press releases so Pat gets more time explaining them in the hotseat. I really enjoyed watching him squirm.

Testimony:

MR. SZYMANSKI: I would like to be heard on the
ripeness at some point, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's next. We're talking about the motion to dismiss here and what my brief analysis of your motion is. There are other issues you raise in the motion to
dismiss and that is the next point here and that's something that I can talk to the West Pilots about and so we can save
some time.

So let me ask the West Pilots about this issue.So let me ask the West Pilots about this issue. Just so everybody knows, there are a number of allegations about what happened post my order and I think everybody understood what my order stated, which is that I would look at anything subsequent to my order to determine whether or not there was a violation of the duty of fair representation. And, you know, I have, in a very synoptic fashion,
set forth some of the things that have troubled me and some of them, Mr. Syzmanski, are what appear to be allegations to what you said which would perhaps -- perhaps can be explained but
they seem contrary, as I have indicated, to what you set forth in Court which indicated quite clear told me and you were very candid and I thought we're fine. We're going to go forward, have another seniority agreement and the Nicolau Award would be at least considered. And then we have these allegations about what has
been said since that time and also noted what is in a press release which is by USAPA which says USAPA will propose date-of-hire integration in accordance with USAPA's constitution at the outset of the McCaskill-Bond process.The parties exchange accurate information, et cetera. Based upon this information, the pilot groups attempt to negotiate a mutually agreeable merger, merged seniority list and that the Merger Committee will proposed DOH method of integrating
seniority.So it seems to me that something must have changed and that USAPA now claims that the findings that were made in
the Nicolau Award are really no longer applicable, that that is not something that you're going to the table with.
And that I haven't seen in any of the papers that I've received from USAPA that would explain what happened in the interim after you appeared in Court and indicated to me unequivocally that certainly it can be a part of our consideration, certainly we have a basis upon which to go forward and certainly you understand the ruling of the Court which is I am going to look prospectively, not retrospectively,
because that was what I had to do. That's what I was told to do by the Ninth Circuit.
So, okay. Now, tell me. MR. SZYMANSKI: So, Your Honor, first of all, I
think -- I thought that it was clear when we argued about the declaratory judgment action that USAPA's position was that the
Nicolau Award was not its obligation and it did not plan to go ahead and propose the Nicolau Award or follow the Nicolau
Award.
THE COURT: You said that, I believe --
MR. SZYMANSKI: Transcript from the argument?
THE COURT: Yes. You're prepared to talk. We want to talk and we will want genuine engagement with the West Pilots about the seniority proposal and we are proposed to make changes. No changes.
MR. SZYMANSKI: Changes in the date-of-hire proposal, not changes in the Nicolau proposal.
THE COURT: Well, you never said that. If you had said that in open Court, then we would have had a hearing at that time because the issue was what I made quite clear is that you had to go forward. USAPA had to go forward and with an open mind and that the Nicolau Award was not irrelevant. It was to be considered.

 

[AWE Dog]

Except the MDA pilots lost that argument. Twice in arbitration. Once in court.

They even lost the appeal.

Next time you see any corporate officer or senior manager ask them if the east and west pilots work for the same airline. If they say no let me know.

Next crew news bring it up to Parker. I would like to hear his answer.

Ahhh, the MDA guys lost your argument.

 

[Crzipilot]

Snap,

I personally like this little exchange....Sorta trumps your quote.. HAHA

the west has been asking for the LUP, well Silver just delivered it on her platter......

THE COURT: Well, I said they do not have to adopt
Nicolau. Okay?
Now, they have said, and Mr. Syzmanski very candidly
said today they are not Nicolau. Are you saying on the other
side it has to be Nicolau?
MR. HARPER: We are saying the duty is to present the
Nicolau in the course of the pilot integration process --
THE COURT: Okay. Just present it but not propose itas the only method and means of adopting a seniority agreement.
MR. HARPER: When we get to this process here --
that's the process. When we get to the process --
Jen, can we put this back up, the timeline?
Your Honor, we go in to the post-August 15, 2013, and
moving in to the end of the year. We're saying when they go to start that process, that they need to present the Nicolau Award unless they have a legitimate union purpose for not doing so.
The touchstone is the legitimate union purpose.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I agree with you. But the
legitimated union purpose can be in representing everyone whichwould also be the East Pilots and coming up with a combination;
right? You agree that there are a variety of different
seniority agreements --

 

[snapthis]

Back to that pesky press release:

Judge Silver continues:

But somehow, USAPA, it seems to me -- tell me if I'm
wrong -- has rejected all of that and basically said is this
correct that you made this statement that you were -- that
USAPA will do whatever it takes to see that there is no
Nicolau?
MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, I don't recall that
statement. I don't think I made that statement but I will tell
you --
THE COURT: Okay. Let's stop there. That is fine
and I expected that that is probably what you would say and in
fairness, I haven't judged that. But that is a factual issue.
That is a factual issue that relates to whether or not -- of
whether or not there's a violation of the duty of fair
representation and I -- you know, in all fairness to you, I can
imagine that I have an open mind about it. Maybe you didn't say that.
But what are we dealing with here? Why did you get -- why did USAPA get to the point where it decided that as have -- as has been stated in the press release, that date of hire is it, nothing else?

 

[Hawkhunter]

"Here comes Captain Gay again, with a lecture disguised as a question....." Scott Kirby
Yes, let the esteemed Captain lecture the judge. He would try if afforded the opportunity.

LMAO, I could see that now. Gay speaking to the judge, but but yo you your.... She would pull her hair out listening to him.

 

[Crzipilot]

Snap, now tie that in with I just posted. How do you correlate the two?

 

[Crzipilot]

Back to that pesky press release:

Judge Silver continues:

But somehow, USAPA, it seems to me -- tell me if I'm
wrong -- has rejected all of that and basically said is this
correct that you made this statement that you were -- that
USAPA will do whatever it takes to see that there is no
Nicolau?
MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, I don't recall that
statement. I don't think I made that statement but I will tell
you --
THE COURT: Okay. Let's stop there. That is fine
and I expected that that is probably what you would say and in
fairness, I haven't judged that. But that is a factual issue.
That is a factual issue that relates to whether or not -- of
whether or not there's a violation of the duty of fair
representation and I -- you know, in all fairness to you, I can
imagine that I have an open mind about it. Maybe you didn't say that.
But what are we dealing with here? Why did you get -- why did USAPA get to the point where it decided that as have -- as has been stated in the press release, that date of hire is it, nothing else?

And if you continue past that pesky press release, she gets her answer as to how USAPA got to where that statement came from. A stiff legged Marty. Now are the west pilots telling Marty to keep his legs stiff or is he going to be allowed to bend them?

 

[algflyr]

I think we will see a 3 way integration. AOL cannot represent the West as USAPA is the bargaining agent for the East and West. It will have to be USAPA.

The NIC cannot be presented because the conditions for its implementation have never been met. I also think USAPA cannot just combine the East and West lists by DOH and present that. I believe for the same reason the NIC cannot be presented. A new combined East/West DOH list will have never been presented for ratification and solidified in a CBA. So I think the only option is for USAPA to present two separate lists for the American integration. Both lists are DOH and will be merged into the APA DOH list. I doubt it will be straight DOH, probably some sort of slotting with C&R's to protect the widebody flying and bases. With USAPA equally representing the East and West, there is the LUP...

I believe a lot of West pilots may fair better than the NIC with a 3 way. There are no West pilots in the top 500 of the NIC, That probably won't be the case with a 3 way slotting. Something like 3 APA, 2 East and 1 West slotting would move a lot of people up on the West from what the NIC would have given them.

I think the top of the lists will do well and move up, the middle will stay basically the same and the bottom will move down. Part of the list happy, part indifferent and part pissed off... Sounds fair...

 

[snapthis]

Snap,

I personally like this little exchange....Sorta trumps your quote.. HAHA

the west has been asking for the LUP, well Silver just delivered it on her platter......

THE COURT: Well, I said they do not have to adopt
Nicolau. Okay?
Now, they have said, and Mr. Syzmanski very candidly
said today they are not Nicolau. Are you saying on the other
side it has to be Nicolau?
MR. HARPER: We are saying the duty is to present the
Nicolau in the course of the pilot integration process --
THE COURT: Okay. Just present it but not propose itas the only method and means of adopting a seniority agreement.
MR. HARPER: When we get to this process here --
that's the process. When we get to the process --
Jen, can we put this back up, the timeline?
Your Honor, we go in to the post-August 15, 2013, and
moving in to the end of the year. We're saying when they go to start that process, that they need to present the Nicolau Award unless they have a legitimate union purpose for not doing so.
The touchstone is the legitimate union purpose.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. I agree with you. But the
legitimated union purpose can be in representing everyone whichwould also be the East Pilots and coming up with a combination;
right? You agree that there are a variety of different
seniority agreements --

I like these exchanges too. There you go,a plus one. You get a point.