cltrat
Veteran
- Aug 29, 2007
- 5,481
- 3,051
April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Mar 6, 2003
- 1,430
- 1,143
nevergiveup
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2010
- 2,125
- 2,148
I was comparing the American contract to the MOU brochure. The contract says 177.95 I believe. The MOU brochure says 186.53.
Excellent summation. Bookmarked.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
It's a no brainer for everyone except the westies, IT'S OVER.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
"Take what you can, give nothing back!". The Pirates of PHX speak again:
"Your Phoenix Representatives are dedicated to the swift, correct, and legal binding conclusion of this unnecessary delay of our seniority integration. It is our opinion that had this pilot body accepted the results of the agreed upon process, we would ALL have benefited both professionally and financially. Have a great Memorial Day Weekend & Stay Safe!!
Warmest Regards,
John, Roger & Dave"
NO RESOLUTION FROM THE SECRET TALKS.
"Your Phoenix Representatives are dedicated to the swift, correct, and legal binding conclusion of this unnecessary delay of our seniority integration. It is our opinion that had this pilot body accepted the results of the agreed upon process, we would ALL have benefited both professionally and financially. Have a great Memorial Day Weekend & Stay Safe!!
Warmest Regards,
John, Roger & Dave"
NO RESOLUTION FROM THE SECRET TALKS.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
AwFOL violates the confidentiality agreement:
"Your Phoenix Representatives voted in favor of this resolution generally speaking, as USAPA was bound by the court's recommendation. We reserve further comment on USAPA’s mandate to this Ad Hoc Committee due to the Non-Disclosure Agreement that we all signed."
WE WILL NOT BUDGE.
"Your Phoenix Representatives voted in favor of this resolution generally speaking, as USAPA was bound by the court's recommendation. We reserve further comment on USAPA’s mandate to this Ad Hoc Committee due to the Non-Disclosure Agreement that we all signed."
WE WILL NOT BUDGE.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,894
- 5,045
So much for no disclosure from the PHX reps. " we will not budge" is a clear statement of their discussion. Or lack thereof. Any party making a statement like that after signing a non disclosure document has violated it.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
The PHX pilots have the exclusive lock on power and USAPA's waste of $100,000 for the ad hoc committee is simply a show of good faith.
PHX Domicile Update
Details Created on Friday, 24 May 2013 11:05
Your Phoenix Domicile had a meeting on Friday, May 17. During that meeting we had a NAC update from Ken Holmes. Ken basically updated us on the progress of the JCBA between management, APA and USAPA. We were also briefed by Jeff Koontz on the Grievance Committee events that included the ACARS Grievance and the LOA 5 Grievance (LAS improper base closure).
The following resolutions were offered and accepted for the next BPR meeting:
Resolution to Maintain USAPA’s Integrity – Button
Resolution for Pilot Ratification of the Recent .5% Dues Increase – Holmes
Resolution for Forgiveness of Dues for the $40 Million Dollar Signing Bonus & the Retrospective Pay – Holmes
We also voted in the following new members to USAPA unanimously:
Brian Townsend
Steve Hawk
Carl Schiele
Robert Cunningham
If you have been reading USAPA updates you know that USAPA, the Company, and lawyers for the Addington Plaintiffs have been involved in recent litigation in Judge Silver’s courtroom regarding the second filed DFR case. The hearing for this took place on the 14th of this month.
While the mountains of filings are enormous, you should each take time to read as much as you can and discuss these documents with your co-workers. Knowledge is POWER. Information is POWER. Some of you may be familiar with this quote: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Note, the following is a quote from Judge Silver in the recent transcripts:
“Let's read all of the order which I thought I was very clear to make the -- all counsel and the parties in front of me; but I basically said that you could, in fact, go forward and make a decision without the Nicolau Award but I didn't say that you unequivocally could reject it. I said that it was dangerous for you to do that because it was considered fair.
So you had to consider it. Now that's what I said and there's no way you could read that order any other way.”
Here’s an exchange between Judge Silver and USAPA legal counsel Pat Szymanski (emphasis added in bold):
“MR. SZYMANSKI: And, Your Honor, I'm not saying that the Nicolau Award is not fair although there were significant problems with it, and I'm not saying that a date-of-hire proposal is not fair. We've given the Court cases and citations to a number of Court decisions that say that a date-of-hire proposal is within the union's duty of fair representation and is fair. But there are a number of other possible proposals and we were prepared to discuss those with representatives of the West Pilots and they said no. They did not want to talk about that.”
And then later in the discussion:
MR. SZYMANSKI: We haven't had any discussions because they don't want to discuss anything other than the Nicolau Award and I don't want the Court to misunderstand the fact that doing the Nicolau Award itself as it is, as it stands, is a realistic possibility. It isn't. It just – it isn't. But we are willing to say --
THE COURT: Why isn't it?
MR. SZYMANSKI: Because we think it was unfair.
THE COURT: Well, why isn't it -- but it was unfair. Why is it not fair now in the future, as you're working this out? As I said quite clearly in my order, you're not bound by it but it may well be that it is the fair way to go. I mean --I made that clear that it's quite dangerous for you to reject it.
Here is another excerpt from Judge Silver’s Order:
"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’?”
As mentioned in recent USAPA communications, the BPR met May 20, 2013 at 1400. The session was largely held in closed session. As announced by USAPA, there were five USAPA members chosen to represent USAPA as the “Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee.” To that end there was on resolution that was passed pertaining to this Ad Hoc Committee and the details of that could be made public. Here is that resolution:
Whereas the parties in the Phoenix litigation have been ordered by Judge Silver to engage in settlement discussions regarding the possible settlement of the action, and
Whereas the Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee has been appointed to enter into settlement discussions;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the BPR gives the Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee the power to enter into discussions with the plaintiffs in Addington v USAPA, 13-CV-00471-ROS (District of Arizona). The results of these settlement discussions must be submitted to the Board of Pilot Representatives on or before June 5, 2013 for consideration, and if appropriate approval and/or pilot ratification, and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the Board of Pilot Representatives authorizes the funding of the Ad Hoc Committee unallocated line item to $100,000.
Your Phoenix Representatives voted in favor of this resolution generally speaking, as USAPA was bound by the court's recommendation. We reserve further comment on USAPA’s mandate to this Ad Hoc Committee due to the Non-Disclosure Agreement that we all signed.
Your Phoenix Representatives are dedicated to the swift, correct, and legal binding conclusion of this unnecessary delay of our seniority integration. It is our opinion that had this pilot body accepted the results of the agreed upon process, we would ALL have benefited both professionally and financially. Have a great Memorial Day Weekend & Stay Safe!!
Warmest Regards,
John, Roger & Dave
PHX Domicile Update
Details Created on Friday, 24 May 2013 11:05
Your Phoenix Domicile had a meeting on Friday, May 17. During that meeting we had a NAC update from Ken Holmes. Ken basically updated us on the progress of the JCBA between management, APA and USAPA. We were also briefed by Jeff Koontz on the Grievance Committee events that included the ACARS Grievance and the LOA 5 Grievance (LAS improper base closure).
The following resolutions were offered and accepted for the next BPR meeting:
Resolution to Maintain USAPA’s Integrity – Button
Resolution for Pilot Ratification of the Recent .5% Dues Increase – Holmes
Resolution for Forgiveness of Dues for the $40 Million Dollar Signing Bonus & the Retrospective Pay – Holmes
We also voted in the following new members to USAPA unanimously:
Brian Townsend
Steve Hawk
Carl Schiele
Robert Cunningham
If you have been reading USAPA updates you know that USAPA, the Company, and lawyers for the Addington Plaintiffs have been involved in recent litigation in Judge Silver’s courtroom regarding the second filed DFR case. The hearing for this took place on the 14th of this month.
While the mountains of filings are enormous, you should each take time to read as much as you can and discuss these documents with your co-workers. Knowledge is POWER. Information is POWER. Some of you may be familiar with this quote: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Note, the following is a quote from Judge Silver in the recent transcripts:
“Let's read all of the order which I thought I was very clear to make the -- all counsel and the parties in front of me; but I basically said that you could, in fact, go forward and make a decision without the Nicolau Award but I didn't say that you unequivocally could reject it. I said that it was dangerous for you to do that because it was considered fair.
So you had to consider it. Now that's what I said and there's no way you could read that order any other way.”
Here’s an exchange between Judge Silver and USAPA legal counsel Pat Szymanski (emphasis added in bold):
“MR. SZYMANSKI: And, Your Honor, I'm not saying that the Nicolau Award is not fair although there were significant problems with it, and I'm not saying that a date-of-hire proposal is not fair. We've given the Court cases and citations to a number of Court decisions that say that a date-of-hire proposal is within the union's duty of fair representation and is fair. But there are a number of other possible proposals and we were prepared to discuss those with representatives of the West Pilots and they said no. They did not want to talk about that.”
And then later in the discussion:
MR. SZYMANSKI: We haven't had any discussions because they don't want to discuss anything other than the Nicolau Award and I don't want the Court to misunderstand the fact that doing the Nicolau Award itself as it is, as it stands, is a realistic possibility. It isn't. It just – it isn't. But we are willing to say --
THE COURT: Why isn't it?
MR. SZYMANSKI: Because we think it was unfair.
THE COURT: Well, why isn't it -- but it was unfair. Why is it not fair now in the future, as you're working this out? As I said quite clearly in my order, you're not bound by it but it may well be that it is the fair way to go. I mean --I made that clear that it's quite dangerous for you to reject it.
Here is another excerpt from Judge Silver’s Order:
"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’?”
As mentioned in recent USAPA communications, the BPR met May 20, 2013 at 1400. The session was largely held in closed session. As announced by USAPA, there were five USAPA members chosen to represent USAPA as the “Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee.” To that end there was on resolution that was passed pertaining to this Ad Hoc Committee and the details of that could be made public. Here is that resolution:
Whereas the parties in the Phoenix litigation have been ordered by Judge Silver to engage in settlement discussions regarding the possible settlement of the action, and
Whereas the Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee has been appointed to enter into settlement discussions;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the BPR gives the Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee the power to enter into discussions with the plaintiffs in Addington v USAPA, 13-CV-00471-ROS (District of Arizona). The results of these settlement discussions must be submitted to the Board of Pilot Representatives on or before June 5, 2013 for consideration, and if appropriate approval and/or pilot ratification, and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the Board of Pilot Representatives authorizes the funding of the Ad Hoc Committee unallocated line item to $100,000.
Your Phoenix Representatives voted in favor of this resolution generally speaking, as USAPA was bound by the court's recommendation. We reserve further comment on USAPA’s mandate to this Ad Hoc Committee due to the Non-Disclosure Agreement that we all signed.
Your Phoenix Representatives are dedicated to the swift, correct, and legal binding conclusion of this unnecessary delay of our seniority integration. It is our opinion that had this pilot body accepted the results of the agreed upon process, we would ALL have benefited both professionally and financially. Have a great Memorial Day Weekend & Stay Safe!!
Warmest Regards,
John, Roger & Dave
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
That's exactly my point.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,886
So you agree it is ripe but disagree it is ripe. Oh OK.
You don't think it is ripe but she is going to make it ripe and dismiss. What kind of logic is that?
If she declares it ripe but incorrectly dismisses you do understand that the west can go to your all mighty ninth for relief right.
Determining ripeness is not majority rule but the law. Judges also take the advice of the lawyers in front of the court since judges are not expect in all areas of law. Also everyone but usapa the one dragging this out says it is ripe. When everyone on one side of the table says there is no more negotiations the court has to take that into account.
Questions. If this case is not ripe why did she not listen to Shamanski argument on ripeness at the hearing? If it is not ripe why order the meeting? If it is not ripe why waste the courts time with more filings?
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,887
I 100% agree with the reps statement. It is absolutely correct.
What part can you possibly disagree with?
Do you not want a swift correct and legally binding decision
Would we all be money ahead if we had gotten a contract 5 years ago? Does this MOU or would usapa without the merger been able to get a contract big enough to make up for the loss of 5 years of pay and benefits? Did usapa trying to avoid arbitration and divide this pilot group advance or set back labor as a whole?
What part of the reps statement is untrue?
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,888
You truly are a nut.
There was nothing disclosed in that statement. Resolutions and votes are not closed.
Usapa is bound by the court recommendation.
Reserving comment is complying with the NDA.
Will usapa budge? Will usapa move from DOH/LOS? You are implying something from the west message what do you get from usapa?
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #4,889
You guys really have no reading comprehension. Seeing monsters where there are none.
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
This is so good it's worth repeating. Kudos to our reps.
Phoenix Domicile Update
May 24, 2013
PHX Domicile Update
Your Phoenix Domicile had a meeting on Friday, May 17. During that meeting we had a NAC update from Ken Holmes. Ken basically updated us on the progress of the JCBA between management, APA and USAPA. We were also briefed by Jeff Koontz on the Grievance Committee events that included the ACARS Grievance and the LOA 5 Grievance (LAS improper base closure).
The following resolutions were offered and accepted for the next BPR meeting:
Resolution to Maintain USAPA’s Integrity – Button
Resolution for Pilot Ratification of the Recent .5% Dues Increase – Holmes
Resolution for Forgiveness of Dues for the $40 Million Dollar Signing Bonus & the Retrospective Pay – Holmes
We also voted in the following new members to USAPA unanimously:
Brian Townsend
Steve Hawk
Carl Schiele
Robert Cunningham
If you have been reading USAPA updates you know that USAPA, the Company, and lawyers for the Addington Plaintiffs have been involved in recent litigation in Judge Silver’s courtroom regarding the second filed DFR case. The hearing for this took place on the 14th of this month.
While the mountains of filings are enormous, you should each take time to read as much as you can and discuss these documents with your co-workers. Knowledge is POWER. Information is POWER. Some of you may be familiar with this quote: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Note, the following is a quote from Judge Silver in the recent transcripts:
“Let's read all of the order which I thought I was very clear to make the -- all counsel and the parties in front of me; but I basically said that you could, in fact, go forward and make a decision without the Nicolau Award but I didn't say that you unequivocally could reject it. I said that it was dangerous for you to do that because it was considered fair.
So you had to consider it. Now that's what I said and there's no way you could read that order any other way.”
Here’s an exchange between Judge Silver and USAPA legal counsel Pat Szymanski (emphasis added in bold):
“MR. SZYMANSKI: And, Your Honor, I'm not saying that the Nicolau Award is not fair although there were significant problems with it, and I'm not saying that a date-of-hire proposal is not fair. We've given the Court cases and citations to a number of Court decisions that say that a date-of-hire proposal is within the union's duty of fair representation and is fair. But there are a number of other possible proposals and we were prepared to discuss those with representatives of the West Pilots and they said no. They did not want to talk about that.”
And then later in the discussion:
MR. SZYMANSKI: We haven't had any discussions because they don't want to discuss anything other than the Nicolau Award and I don't want the Court to misunderstand the fact that doing the Nicolau Award itself as it is, as it stands, is a realistic possibility. It isn't. It just – it isn't. But we are willing to say --
THE COURT: Why isn't it?
MR. SZYMANSKI: Because we think it was unfair.
THE COURT: Well, why isn't it -- but it was unfair. Why is it not fair now in the future, as you're working this out? As I said quite clearly in my order, you're not bound by it but it may well be that it is the fair way to go. I mean --I made that clear that it's quite dangerous for you to reject it.
Here is another excerpt from Judge Silver’s Order:
"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’?”
As mentioned in recent USAPA communications, the BPR met May 20, 2013 at 1400. The session was largely held in closed session. As announced by USAPA, there were five USAPA members chosen to represent USAPA as the “Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee.” To that end there was on resolution that was passed pertaining to this Ad Hoc Committee and the details of that could be made public. Here is that resolution:
Whereas the parties in the Phoenix litigation have been ordered by Judge Silver to engage in settlement discussions regarding the possible settlement of the action, and
Whereas the Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee has been appointed to enter into settlement discussions;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the BPR gives the Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee the power to enter into discussions with the plaintiffs in Addington v USAPA, 13-CV-00471-ROS (District of Arizona). The results of these settlement discussions must be submitted to the Board of Pilot Representatives on or before June 5, 2013 for consideration, and if appropriate approval and/or pilot ratification, and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the Board of Pilot Representatives authorizes the funding of the Ad Hoc Committee unallocated line item to $100,000.
Your Phoenix Representatives voted in favor of this resolution generally speaking, as USAPA was bound by the court's recommendation. We reserve further comment on USAPA’s mandate to this Ad Hoc Committee due to the Non-Disclosure Agreement that we all signed.
Your Phoenix Representatives are dedicated to the swift, correct, and legal binding conclusion of this unnecessary delay of our seniority integration. It is our opinion that had this pilot body accepted the results of the agreed upon process, we would ALL have benefited both professionally and financially. Have a great Memorial Day Weekend & Stay Safe!!
Warmest Regards,
John, Roger & Dave
Phoenix Domicile Update
May 24, 2013
PHX Domicile Update
Your Phoenix Domicile had a meeting on Friday, May 17. During that meeting we had a NAC update from Ken Holmes. Ken basically updated us on the progress of the JCBA between management, APA and USAPA. We were also briefed by Jeff Koontz on the Grievance Committee events that included the ACARS Grievance and the LOA 5 Grievance (LAS improper base closure).
The following resolutions were offered and accepted for the next BPR meeting:
Resolution to Maintain USAPA’s Integrity – Button
Resolution for Pilot Ratification of the Recent .5% Dues Increase – Holmes
Resolution for Forgiveness of Dues for the $40 Million Dollar Signing Bonus & the Retrospective Pay – Holmes
We also voted in the following new members to USAPA unanimously:
Brian Townsend
Steve Hawk
Carl Schiele
Robert Cunningham
If you have been reading USAPA updates you know that USAPA, the Company, and lawyers for the Addington Plaintiffs have been involved in recent litigation in Judge Silver’s courtroom regarding the second filed DFR case. The hearing for this took place on the 14th of this month.
While the mountains of filings are enormous, you should each take time to read as much as you can and discuss these documents with your co-workers. Knowledge is POWER. Information is POWER. Some of you may be familiar with this quote: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Note, the following is a quote from Judge Silver in the recent transcripts:
“Let's read all of the order which I thought I was very clear to make the -- all counsel and the parties in front of me; but I basically said that you could, in fact, go forward and make a decision without the Nicolau Award but I didn't say that you unequivocally could reject it. I said that it was dangerous for you to do that because it was considered fair.
So you had to consider it. Now that's what I said and there's no way you could read that order any other way.”
Here’s an exchange between Judge Silver and USAPA legal counsel Pat Szymanski (emphasis added in bold):
“MR. SZYMANSKI: And, Your Honor, I'm not saying that the Nicolau Award is not fair although there were significant problems with it, and I'm not saying that a date-of-hire proposal is not fair. We've given the Court cases and citations to a number of Court decisions that say that a date-of-hire proposal is within the union's duty of fair representation and is fair. But there are a number of other possible proposals and we were prepared to discuss those with representatives of the West Pilots and they said no. They did not want to talk about that.”
And then later in the discussion:
MR. SZYMANSKI: We haven't had any discussions because they don't want to discuss anything other than the Nicolau Award and I don't want the Court to misunderstand the fact that doing the Nicolau Award itself as it is, as it stands, is a realistic possibility. It isn't. It just – it isn't. But we are willing to say --
THE COURT: Why isn't it?
MR. SZYMANSKI: Because we think it was unfair.
THE COURT: Well, why isn't it -- but it was unfair. Why is it not fair now in the future, as you're working this out? As I said quite clearly in my order, you're not bound by it but it may well be that it is the fair way to go. I mean --I made that clear that it's quite dangerous for you to reject it.
Here is another excerpt from Judge Silver’s Order:
"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’?”
As mentioned in recent USAPA communications, the BPR met May 20, 2013 at 1400. The session was largely held in closed session. As announced by USAPA, there were five USAPA members chosen to represent USAPA as the “Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee.” To that end there was on resolution that was passed pertaining to this Ad Hoc Committee and the details of that could be made public. Here is that resolution:
Whereas the parties in the Phoenix litigation have been ordered by Judge Silver to engage in settlement discussions regarding the possible settlement of the action, and
Whereas the Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee has been appointed to enter into settlement discussions;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the BPR gives the Ad Hoc Settlement Discussions Representatives Committee the power to enter into discussions with the plaintiffs in Addington v USAPA, 13-CV-00471-ROS (District of Arizona). The results of these settlement discussions must be submitted to the Board of Pilot Representatives on or before June 5, 2013 for consideration, and if appropriate approval and/or pilot ratification, and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the Board of Pilot Representatives authorizes the funding of the Ad Hoc Committee unallocated line item to $100,000.
Your Phoenix Representatives voted in favor of this resolution generally speaking, as USAPA was bound by the court's recommendation. We reserve further comment on USAPA’s mandate to this Ad Hoc Committee due to the Non-Disclosure Agreement that we all signed.
Your Phoenix Representatives are dedicated to the swift, correct, and legal binding conclusion of this unnecessary delay of our seniority integration. It is our opinion that had this pilot body accepted the results of the agreed upon process, we would ALL have benefited both professionally and financially. Have a great Memorial Day Weekend & Stay Safe!!
Warmest Regards,
John, Roger & Dave
- Status
