The sun won't come up? The world will stop turning? Not much, and I'll admit it.
April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
The sun won't come up? The world will stop turning? Not much, and I'll admit it.
Indeed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
US Airways, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Don Addington, et al.,
Defendants.
))))))))))
No. CV-10-01570-PHX-ROS
AMENDED JUDGMENT
(to add description of class)
Pursuant to the Court’s resolution of the motions for summary judgment,
IT IS ORDERED Counts I and III of the complaint are dismissed and judgment is
entered in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint. US Airline
Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation
provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose. This judgment is binding on the
following class: “All pilots employed by US Airways in September 2008 who were on the
America West seniority list on September 20, 2005.”
DATED this 4th day of December, 2012.
The Honorable Judge Silver
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
US Airways, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Don Addington, et al.,
Defendants.
))))))))))
No. CV-10-01570-PHX-ROS
AMENDED JUDGMENT
(to add description of class)
Pursuant to the Court’s resolution of the motions for summary judgment,
IT IS ORDERED Counts I and III of the complaint are dismissed and judgment is
entered in favor of US Airline Pilots Association on Count II of the complaint. US Airline
Pilots Association’s seniority proposal does not breach its duty of fair representation
provided it is supported by a legitimate union purpose. This judgment is binding on the
following class: “All pilots employed by US Airways in September 2008 who were on the
America West seniority list on September 20, 2005.”
DATED this 4th day of December, 2012.
The Honorable Judge Silver
Read this order carefully, it is really not an order, it is a request for information. Nothing is leagally demanded by the court except information. Judge Silver is only trying to mediate at this point, not her job frankly, she will in short order have to issue a dismissal in the frivolous, not ripe, DFR suit brought on by the west.
"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don Addington, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
US Airline Pilots Association, et al.,
Defendants.
))))))))))))
No. CV-13-00471-PHX-ROS
ORDER
Defendants US Airline Pilots Association (“USAPA&rdquo
, US Airways, Inc. (“US
Airways&rdquo, and Plaintiffs Don Addington, et al., (“West Pilots&rdquo have filed various motions.
At the hearing set for May 14, 2013, the parties are to be prepared to discuss the following:
• If the Court were to find West Pilots’ claim ripe, the motion to dismiss might
be granted with leave to amend to allow West Pilots to add factual allegations
regarding USAPA’s allegedly wrongful conduct, some of which appear to be
in the evidence attached to West Pilots’ motion for preliminary injunction.
What additional factual allegations are necessary for West Pilots to state a
plausible claim for relief?
• If West Pilots’ claim against USAPA is ripe, what genuine disputes of material
fact exist such that a trial is necessary for West Pilots to establish their DFR
claim?
• The West Pilots cite to statements made by USAPA’s counsel Patrick J.
Szymanski at a public meeting of Charlotte-based pilots. (Doc. 14 at 22). Will
Mr. Szymanski be a witness?
• At oral argument in the previous case, Mr. Szymanski stated “we’re prepared
to talk and we want to talk and we want genuine engagement from the West
Pilots about the seniority proposal and we are prepared to make changes.”
CV-10-1570-PHX-ROS, Doc. 187 at 31. Does this statement conflict with Mr.
Szymanski’s more recent statements indicating “USAPA will do whatever it
takes to see that there is no Nicolau” and that USAPA will vigorously fight to
prevent the West Pilots from being heard during the McCaskill-Bond process?
(Doc. 14-3 at 50-51). Is this approach in violation of this Court’s prior Order
stating “[a]n impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method
of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result” and “[d]iscarding
the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground”?
• In USAPA’s view, if it does not use the Nicolau Award in the McCaskill-Bond
process, when, if ever, would the West Pilots’ claim become ripe?
• Are there only two possible seniority proposals? In other words, is there any
legitimate possibility of a compromise such that USAPA will enter the
McCaskill-Bond process with a seniority list sharing and including provisions
from the Nicolau Award and date-of-hire?
• Has USAPA’s date-of-hire proposal ever changed?
• What is USAPA’s legitimate union purpose for discarding the Nicolau Award
now?
• Recent briefing seems to indicate the West Pilots have changed their theory
against US Airways. What is the precise claim the West Pilots have against
US Airways and why is it not a “minor dispute” subject to mandatory
arbitration?
• American Airlines’ motion to intervene does not include “a pleading that sets
out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(c). If American Airlines is allowed to intervene, what claim or defense will
it assert?
• Do we know the position of the Allied Pilots Association on the ripeness of the
West Pilots’ claim?
• Do we know what seniority integration the Allied Pilots Association will
propose in the McCaskill-Bond process?
• Based on the MOU, have American Airlines and US Airways agreed to never
take a position regarding the appropriate seniority list to be used by the merged
airline?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2013."
"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don Addington, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
US Airline Pilots Association, et al.,
Defendants.
))))))))))))
No. CV-13-00471-PHX-ROS
ORDER
Defendants US Airline Pilots Association (“USAPA&rdquo
, US Airways, Inc. (“USAirways&rdquo
, and Plaintiffs Don Addington, et al., (“West Pilots&rdquo have filed various motions.At the hearing set for May 14, 2013, the parties are to be prepared to discuss the following:
• If the Court were to find West Pilots’ claim ripe, the motion to dismiss might
be granted with leave to amend to allow West Pilots to add factual allegations
regarding USAPA’s allegedly wrongful conduct, some of which appear to be
in the evidence attached to West Pilots’ motion for preliminary injunction.
What additional factual allegations are necessary for West Pilots to state a
plausible claim for relief?
• If West Pilots’ claim against USAPA is ripe, what genuine disputes of material
fact exist such that a trial is necessary for West Pilots to establish their DFR
claim?
• The West Pilots cite to statements made by USAPA’s counsel Patrick J.
Szymanski at a public meeting of Charlotte-based pilots. (Doc. 14 at 22). Will
Mr. Szymanski be a witness?
• At oral argument in the previous case, Mr. Szymanski stated “we’re prepared
to talk and we want to talk and we want genuine engagement from the West
Pilots about the seniority proposal and we are prepared to make changes.”
CV-10-1570-PHX-ROS, Doc. 187 at 31. Does this statement conflict with Mr.
Szymanski’s more recent statements indicating “USAPA will do whatever it
takes to see that there is no Nicolau” and that USAPA will vigorously fight to
prevent the West Pilots from being heard during the McCaskill-Bond process?
(Doc. 14-3 at 50-51). Is this approach in violation of this Court’s prior Order
stating “[a]n impartial arbitrator’s decision regarding an appropriate method
of seniority integration is powerful evidence of a fair result” and “[d]iscarding
the Nicolau Award places USAPA on dangerous ground”?
• In USAPA’s view, if it does not use the Nicolau Award in the McCaskill-Bond
process, when, if ever, would the West Pilots’ claim become ripe?
• Are there only two possible seniority proposals? In other words, is there any
legitimate possibility of a compromise such that USAPA will enter the
McCaskill-Bond process with a seniority list sharing and including provisions
from the Nicolau Award and date-of-hire?
• Has USAPA’s date-of-hire proposal ever changed?
• What is USAPA’s legitimate union purpose for discarding the Nicolau Award
now?
• Recent briefing seems to indicate the West Pilots have changed their theory
against US Airways. What is the precise claim the West Pilots have against
US Airways and why is it not a “minor dispute” subject to mandatory
arbitration?
• American Airlines’ motion to intervene does not include “a pleading that sets
out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(c). If American Airlines is allowed to intervene, what claim or defense will
it assert?
• Do we know the position of the Allied Pilots Association on the ripeness of the
West Pilots’ claim?
• Do we know what seniority integration the Allied Pilots Association will
propose in the McCaskill-Bond process?
• Based on the MOU, have American Airlines and US Airways agreed to never
take a position regarding the appropriate seniority list to be used by the merged
airline?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 14th day of May, 2013."
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Mar 6, 2003
- 1,430
- 1,143
I was not there, but now understand Pat's deer in the headlights response. The honorable Silver blew it, she did not even remember her previous rulngs. Yikes. But we all follow her demands. Will we all follow her rulings?
Greeter
THE COURT: No. Let me stop you for a second. So I
understand that. Mr. Syzmanski would say, as he has said, that
there's a lot more to happen. MOU is not the end of it. The
MOU is not the Collective Bargaining Agreement despite the fact
that -- and, you know, the union or -- excuse me, the company
has taken the position we're going to leave it up to the union
to decide this but we haven't even sat down and negotiated it
yet. But the MOU is the MOU but it is not the final Collective
Bargaining Agreement. There's a lot to go along the way here.
So that's the first thing is that I have a problem with your
saying the MOU is, in fact, a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
That's not what the Ninth Circuit said.
MR. HARPER: The MOU, if you listen to us, if you
look at Airways and if you listen to American, the MOU is the
new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Substantially all of the
terms --
THE COURT: But the MOU says you negotiate. It
doesn't say this is the agreement. That's what the Ninth
Circuit said. The Ninth Circuit said whatever you end up with
is what is the final agreement and perhaps at that point there
may well be a cause of action. I don't know primarily what the
Ninth Circuit said except they are always right.
So I disagree with you on that point.
understand that. Mr. Syzmanski would say, as he has said, that
there's a lot more to happen. MOU is not the end of it. The
MOU is not the Collective Bargaining Agreement despite the fact
that -- and, you know, the union or -- excuse me, the company
has taken the position we're going to leave it up to the union
to decide this but we haven't even sat down and negotiated it
yet. But the MOU is the MOU but it is not the final Collective
Bargaining Agreement. There's a lot to go along the way here.
So that's the first thing is that I have a problem with your
saying the MOU is, in fact, a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
That's not what the Ninth Circuit said.
MR. HARPER: The MOU, if you listen to us, if you
look at Airways and if you listen to American, the MOU is the
new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Substantially all of the
terms --
THE COURT: But the MOU says you negotiate. It
doesn't say this is the agreement. That's what the Ninth
Circuit said. The Ninth Circuit said whatever you end up with
is what is the final agreement and perhaps at that point there
may well be a cause of action. I don't know primarily what the
Ninth Circuit said except they are always right.
So I disagree with you on that point.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,327
No she did not order the east and west to negotiate. I said that last week.
What is she doing? Anyone's guess at this point. Catching Shamanski in a lie for one thing. Getting him to admit that usapa was never going to use the Nicolau for another.
But a federal judges order is an order. You easties had better pray to the heavens that you complied with the order. Usapa already failed with their homework assignment on stipulating to the facts. Usapa does not even know what facts are fact and what you lied about to the court.
THE COURT: Well, yes. The proposal they come to the
table with. They come to the table under the MOU and start
negotiating with the APA. Does it have to be Nicolau because
then we're -- the two of you are standing stiff-legged.
MR. HARPER: We are.
THE COURT: And contrary to what I have ordered,
which is that you must both give in and reach an agreement that
can be a confluence of both, the fairness of the Nicolau
agreement and perhaps the fairness of DOH. Now, if you're
taking that position, then there's a problem.
MR. HARPER: We're taking the position that they have
a duty to follow through with what they agreed -- ALPA agreed
to and Airways accepted back in 2007 which is the Nicolau.
That is our position, Your Honor. And we think that the union
has the duty to represent us, the minority, and not trump us
because they are the majority and put something else on the
table.
THE COURT: So, then, are you not, then, in violation
of the agreement or the Court's order? I made quite clear --
do I have to read the Court order to you, too, Mr. Harper?
MR. HARPER: I don't think -- I'm sure we're not in
violation because --
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 it
as the only method and means of adopting a seniority agreement.
MR. HARPER: Your Honor, when you go --
THE COURT: You're trying to get some help from your
father over here.
table with. They come to the table under the MOU and start
negotiating with the APA. Does it have to be Nicolau because
then we're -- the two of you are standing stiff-legged.
MR. HARPER: We are.
THE COURT: And contrary to what I have ordered,
which is that you must both give in and reach an agreement that
can be a confluence of both, the fairness of the Nicolau
agreement and perhaps the fairness of DOH. Now, if you're
taking that position, then there's a problem.
MR. HARPER: We're taking the position that they have
a duty to follow through with what they agreed -- ALPA agreed
to and Airways accepted back in 2007 which is the Nicolau.
That is our position, Your Honor. And we think that the union
has the duty to represent us, the minority, and not trump us
because they are the majority and put something else on the
table.
THE COURT: So, then, are you not, then, in violation
of the agreement or the Court's order? I made quite clear --
do I have to read the Court order to you, too, Mr. Harper?
MR. HARPER: I don't think -- I'm sure we're not in
violation because --
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 it
as the only method and means of adopting a seniority agreement.
MR. HARPER: Your Honor, when you go --
THE COURT: You're trying to get some help from your
father over here.
Be specific, what "lie"?
Your west legal counsel lied to the AMR BK Judge in New York, not a good idea.
"At the time of the status conference, Debtors believed that the seemingly unequivocal statements of counsel for the West Pilots’ counsel disclaiming any interest in interfering with the merger would provide adequate comfort that they intended, and desired, no such interference.
It is now clear, however, that counsel for the West Pilots intended to provide much less comfort than was understood at the time."
"A copy of Chief Judge Silver’s Order is attached hereto as Ex. D."
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,331
No, judge Silver may not be able to order usapa to negotiate. Btw way the west has offered a neutral arbitration not negotiations. Why is that a problem?
But she certainly can order an injunction.
So which would you rather have? A 50%,50% chance in a fair and neutral arbitration or an injunction?
If she dismisses how does this get settled? Usapa just imposes its will and 3 years from now we come back to Silver and say see we told you?
She is not going to let this go any longer. Not after catching Shamanski in multiple lies.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,332
You just posted quotes from the transcripts. Find them yourself.
Oh that's right you don't know the truth so you can't distinguish from lies.
Just what are "dire wolves"? Isn't that the same thing as "desperate wolves"?In much larger measure than you and the whole pack of "dire wolves" do, it would seem. I'll now leave you to resume your long-established pattern of mindless and meaningless blustering.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,334
Well I guess the west gave AMR enough comfort that they filed a motion to dismiss and usapa had enough a$$ beating to withdraw the case.
Reality and result are far better than your speculation.
usapa's case dismissed.
I found the AMERICA WEST AIRLINE drug trafficking trial fascinating. Patrick Thurston, Vice President of Operations AMERICA WEST, Bob Russell, Chief of Pilots, and Carl Wobser, a captain, all pleaded guilty to multiple counts of narcotics trafficking. They had purchased a DC 6 and embarked upon aT h) Tcareer in the drug trade. Unfortunately for them their plane, which they maxed out electronically, had chronic engine problems which required them to touch down unexpectedly in several countries. This was more than embarrassing since they had not filed flight plans. On one such emergency stop in Aruba, on the way back from Columbia, their plane was found packed with marijuana. There is reason to believe that their intended cargo was cocaine and that after a mix)up they did not wish to fly back empty. Dispite the lofty positions these men held with AMERICA WEST they seemed to have no dificulity getting time off for their drug flights and AMERICA WEST wanted to rehire Russell after his 6 months in the Federal country club.
Twenty percent of the stock of AMERICA WEST was owned by ANSETT AIRLINES of Australia and 55% of ANSETT was held by Sir Peter Ables and Rupert Murdock. We know from Jonathan Kwitney's book THE CRIMES OF PATRIOTS that Burny Houghton, perhaps the key figure in the founding of the CIA drug money laundering bank NUGAN)HAND in Australia, had coffee with Sir Peter Ables the night of his first day in Australia.
I watched Assistant U.S. Attorney James Lacey prosecute both rounds of this case. The three AMERICAN WEST pilots had all plea bargained out. If they did not testify truthfully about the others in the case they would be looking forward to serious time. Lacey prosecutes all the large narcotics cases in Arizona. Because he is the son of Frederic Lacey, the federal judge appointed by the Justice Department to be administrator of the TEAMSTERS UNION, Jim Lacey has unusual clout in the U.S. Attorney's office here. Although Lacey could not deny the pertinence of the information I gave him it was clear that he did not want to know where this case ultimately led. I watched him play patty cake with the defendants when he should have been playing hard ball.
The plot began in July of 1986 when Helmut Bubbel called Thurston from Alaska and arranged a meeting at the ARIZONA BILTMORE RESORT HOTEL with Thurston and the other pilots. Ten days later they met again in Bangkok Thailand to arrange their first cargo. Their original plan was to make their pick up in communist Laos. One doesn't go to the great difficulty to travel to restricted Laos to purchase marijuana or Thai stick as the pilots claimed. Pot is legal in Thailand. One goes to Laos for heroin. Thurston testified that his cut of this first flight was to be one million dollars. When I ran the numbers for Lacey it was obvious that only a heroin cargo would generate this amount of profit. With the DC 6 three or four flights a year would have provided the entire US requirement for heroin.
Twenty percent of the stock of AMERICA WEST was owned by ANSETT AIRLINES of Australia and 55% of ANSETT was held by Sir Peter Ables and Rupert Murdock. We know from Jonathan Kwitney's book THE CRIMES OF PATRIOTS that Burny Houghton, perhaps the key figure in the founding of the CIA drug money laundering bank NUGAN)HAND in Australia, had coffee with Sir Peter Ables the night of his first day in Australia.
I watched Assistant U.S. Attorney James Lacey prosecute both rounds of this case. The three AMERICAN WEST pilots had all plea bargained out. If they did not testify truthfully about the others in the case they would be looking forward to serious time. Lacey prosecutes all the large narcotics cases in Arizona. Because he is the son of Frederic Lacey, the federal judge appointed by the Justice Department to be administrator of the TEAMSTERS UNION, Jim Lacey has unusual clout in the U.S. Attorney's office here. Although Lacey could not deny the pertinence of the information I gave him it was clear that he did not want to know where this case ultimately led. I watched him play patty cake with the defendants when he should have been playing hard ball.
The plot began in July of 1986 when Helmut Bubbel called Thurston from Alaska and arranged a meeting at the ARIZONA BILTMORE RESORT HOTEL with Thurston and the other pilots. Ten days later they met again in Bangkok Thailand to arrange their first cargo. Their original plan was to make their pick up in communist Laos. One doesn't go to the great difficulty to travel to restricted Laos to purchase marijuana or Thai stick as the pilots claimed. Pot is legal in Thailand. One goes to Laos for heroin. Thurston testified that his cut of this first flight was to be one million dollars. When I ran the numbers for Lacey it was obvious that only a heroin cargo would generate this amount of profit. With the DC 6 three or four flights a year would have provided the entire US requirement for heroin.
- Status
