April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[mrbreeze]

I see that Res is online.....c'mon....lay the truth on us all, bad boy!!!

Do your Johnny Carson impression of "Carnac the Magnifcent" and tell us what the TRUTH really is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=263eG7HfwBM

 

[luvthe9]

. One last chance this week. A dismissal of your claim west is guaranteed, a request for dialogue in her order is relevant for a few more days.

http://leonidas.cact...inute_Order.pdf

Tick Tock......3 days and counting.

 

[cleardirect]

Sorry son, you have been ordered to the table and talk about all those C & R, It will be DOH, that you can take to the bank son. I know you don't believe me, your boys will find out next week.

You may want to rethink that position. Filings are due today.

Your bank is empty. BTW!

I hope you are supremely confident in your position once again. How did that work out for you? It will be interesting to see just how fair you think your DOH list is now.

 

[EastUS1]

Your bank is empty.

Your skull is empty. If you're still whooping it up on the "spartan" drums and "Bad-Boy"-rapping on how "The Nic is IT!" at this point...well...there's just no kinder way to put it.

PS: I see Metromess lurking. Please DO tell us all exactly how the nic's gonna' be forcibly employed now....? That oughta' be good for some serious laughter....Well?...We're all waiting.....?

 

[Beancounter]

You may want to rethink that position. Filings are due today.

Your bank is empty. BTW!

I hope you are supremely confident in your position once again. How did that work out for you? It will be interesting to see just how fair you think your DOH list is now.

Clear,

You know, maybe we should worry. Luv has been wrong about everything so far, sooner or later he's bound to be right about something.

Bean

 

[cltrat]

Clear,

You know, maybe we should worry. Luv has been wrong about everything so far, sooner or later he's bound to be right about something.

Bean

Bean
In all fairness
as a long time reader of this entertaining thread , Clear or Res and nic4's records are not exactly stellar when it comes to predictions

 

[Black Swan]

Translation to the west, Judge Silver essentially said, west you have one week to work it out or I will dismiss your case.

Pretty much. We arrived at this point due to incredible stupidity by Leonidas. Had there been pay parity efforts on the West side, you most likely would have gotten your Nic.
You drove a massive wedge between the groups, and the East pilots figured out separate ops was the best way to proceed. Capture attrition. Capture pay. Capture quality of life issues. Once the attrition started, EVERYONE realized the benefits of separate ops. Now the merger comes along. We realize this is another means to prolonged separate ops, and the pay comes up. Nobody needs the West. We could care less.
It is completely clear the Nic does not have to be used. You guys sued, and now the opportunity presented itself to drop the DOH list right on Parker.the West just opened the door with their court filing. You just got another in a string of judges to say the Nic is not required. Harper did it. Get ready, because you, West plots, made it all possible. There will not be a three way.

 

[luvthe9]

You may want to rethink that position. Filings are due today.

Your bank is empty. BTW!

I hope you are supremely confident in your position once again. How did that work out for you? It will be interesting to see just how fair you think your DOH list is now.

I think I'm OK with it, as for the west track record I would be worried, How much to you owe Marty?, See you boys very soon, chicken is on me this time!!!!!

 

[snapthis]

From Doc 97 filed 5/17:

If USAPA rejects the Nicolau Award it must provide a neutral process for determining seniority integration and disclaim any right to ratify the result.
USAPA must remain neutral when resolving a dispute such as this because it has no legitimate reason to prefer the position of one pilot group over another. Cf. Rakestraw, 981 F.2d at 152 (recognizing as a legitimate reason the goal of discouraging pilots from
crossing future picket lines). Neutrality precludes USAPA, its officers and its attorneys from playing any role in the substantive determination of pilot seniority integration. Neither USAPA, nor its officers, nor its attorneys can advocate for the position of one side or decide the merits of the dispute. USAPA, therefore, must do nothing more than:
(1) defer resolution of the seniority dispute to pilot committees for the East and West Pilot groups; (2) require (and pay) for these committees to be represented by counsel who have not represented USAPA;4 and (3) pay a neutral arbitrator to determine the seniority order to be used for the East and West pilots.Seniority arbitration must be “final and binding.” LPP § 13(a). That means it cannot
be rejected by the USAPA Board of Pilot Representatives. It cannot be put to a member
ratification vote. Rather, USAPA must commit to adopt the result of seniority arbitration without ratification, just as ALPA did in 2005.
III. Conclusion
Under all controlling authority—the LPPs, McCaskill-Bond, and general principles of fair representation—any determination of th seniority dispute here must be done in a fair, neutral process. USAPA cannot take sides in that process (as it has heretofore always 4 USAPA’s present counsel owes fiduciary duties to the entire craft, both East and
West sides,and breaches that duty by advocating East interests over those of West. There is no justification for that to continue during arbitration between East and West Pilots.Its officers an attorneys must be neutral. There must be full participation by Wes Pilot representatives. USAPA must fund the West Pilots’ efforts the same as it does for
the East Pilots.
Dated this 17th day of May, 2013.

 

[snapthis]

From company's resonse Doc 98:

In arguing that it is the exclusive seniority-integration representative for all US Airways pilots, USAPA is expected to rely on its current status as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for US Airways pilots under the RLA. (USAPA’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Doc No. 65), p. 1 (p. 2 of the ECF filing).) Any such reliance would be misplaced. USAPA’s status under the RLA is limited to negotiations between USAPA and US Airways (or its successor). As the Court is well aware, the McCaskill-Bond negotiations in connection with the US Airways/American merger will not be negotiations between a carrier and a union, but
rather negotiaUSAPA’s role as the exclusive collective bargaining representative is irrelevant to the question of whether the West Pilots are entitled to separate representation in the seniorityintegration
process. The CAB decisions discussed above answer that question. In light ofthe fact that there are currently separate seniority lists for the East and West pilots (which will have to be effectively integrated as part of the overall process of integrating the US Airways pilots with the American pilots), and given the sharply-divergent views of the West Pilots and USAPA on this subject, the West Pilots are entitled to participate throughout the McCaskill-Bond process through a representative of their own choosing.

 

[snapthis]

From Doc 96:

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Overview
The Court should consider three remedies for USAPA’s breach of the duty of fair representation (the “DFR&rdquo. The first remedy is to order USAPA to use the Nicolau Award seniority list in the MOU seniority integration process. The second remedy, in the alternative to the first, is to order USAPA to conduct a neutral arbitration to decide between using the Nicolau Award list that was arbitrated in 2007 or a date-of-hire list. In either alternative, the Court should grant a third remedy, awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to common benefit doctrine.

 

[snapthis]

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Overview
The Court should consider three remedies for USAPA’s breach of the duty of fair representation (the “DFR&rdquo. The first remedy is to order USAPA to use the Nicolau Award seniority list in the MOU seniority integration process. The second remedy, in the alternative to the first, is to order USAPA to conduct a neutral arbitration to decide between using the Nicolau Award list that was arbitrated in 2007 or a date-of-hire list. In either alternative, the Court should grant a third remedy, awarding Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to common benefit doctrine.

 

[snapthis]

C. Additional Remedy: Award Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to common benefit doctrine.
Whether the Court applies Plaintiffs’ first or second proposed remedy, it should also award Plaintiffs the attorneys’ fees and other expenses that they reasonably incurred protecting the DFR rights of all USAPA members. Courts make such awards where litigation confers “a substantial benefit on the members of an ascertainable class, and . . . the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit makes possible an award that will operate to spread the costs proportionately among them.” See Mills v. Electric Auto- Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 393-394 (1970). This applies where a worker successfully sues a union, “because to allow the others to obtain full benefit from the plaintiff’s efforts without contributing equally to the litigation expenses would be to enrich the others unjustly at the plaintiff's expense.” Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1973) (internal quotation and alteration marks omitted). In such matters, the union rank-and-file is regarded as “the class that has benefited from [the litigation].” Id. at 8-9. Such fee shifting is mandatory in DFR cases. Harrison v. United Transp. Union, 530 F.2d 558, 564 (4th Cir. 1975), for example, found error where the district court denied a fee award in successful DFR litigation.
Because all pilots have an interest in seeing USAPA abide by its DFR, the entire craft (USAPA members and non-members) benefitted from this litigation. Had Plaintiffs not filed Addington I in 2008, defended in Addington II in 2010, and filed this action in 2013, USAPA could now be shielded by the six-month limitations on DFR claims. Each of these three actions, therefore, is a phase of one course of litigation intended to defend the Nicolau Award. The West Pilots are entitled to a common benefit award for that entire course—from 2008 to the present. The Court, therefore, should include with the remedies addressed above an order awarding reasonable fees and other litigation expenses to Plaintiffs and directing them to submit an application pursuant to L.R.Civ. 54.2.
III. Conclusion
Plaintiffs propose two alternative remedies for USAPA’s DFR breach: (1) order USAPA to use the Nicolau Award in the MOU seniority integration process; or (2) order USAPA to have East and West pilot representatives submit to a neutral arbitrator whether the Nicolau Award list or a strict date-of hire list should be used in that process. Either way, the Court should also award fees and expenses to Plaintiffs pursuant to common benefit doctrine.

Dated this 17th day of May, 2013.

 

[oscarjazz]

It looks like the Company and the Judge see the M/Bond process as the way out. If the West is an interested party, then they can dispute whatever seniority list that USAPA hands over to the APA. That dispute will be solved by final and binding arbitration.

For now the West needs to bargain. That doesn't mean starting with the Nicolau and then moving away from it, just some different result than the Nicolau. My suggestion is to take the 2007 lists and remove any furloughed pilot that bypassed recall and is gone. On the Nicolau list the first AWA pilot is around 520. What you offer is to move that pilot up XX numbers towards the top. Also, you will select XX pilots that were on furlough as of the merger and move them into the "active" ratio. So now you have a pin at the top of the list and the bottom of the list. Do a straight ratio from there. Make USAPA pick the XX number and put the ball in their court. Right now, USAPA wants to box in the AOL and force them to negotiate only for the conditions and restrictions that accompany a date of hire list. In this offer you box in USAPA into making a choice on your turf.

We all know that USAPA is internally incapable of making any tough decision so the whole point is moot. However, AOL should present a serious proposal to USAPA that is not the Nicolau award, again it doesn't have to be a concession from the Nicolau, just different. If they demonstrate serious bargaining, then the judge will most likely put them into the M/Bond process and from there it is a slam dunk that the arbitration result will be the previous arbitration result, the Nicolau award.

It is a tortured path, but the judge is handing AOL a ticket to resolution, they just have to bargain first to get there.

 

[snapthis]

Legal Argument
A. McCaskill-Bond does not apply to the 2005 US Airways-America West merger.
As a preliminary matter, there are three reasons that McCaskill-Bond does not apply to the 2005 US Airways-America West merger and does not provide a process by which USAPA can legitimately disregard the Nicolau Award. First, McCaskill-Bond disclaims applying to airline mergers that occurred prior to December 26, 2007. 49 U.S.C. § 42112, note, § 117(c) (“This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 26, 2007].&rdquo. Not only did the US Airways-America West merger occur long before that date, but by that date Airways had already accepted the Nicolau Award seniority list. (Doc. 14- 1 at App. 130, Doug Parker, Letter to US Airways Pilots (Dec. 20, 2007).)