Company just picked a side and it wasn't USAPA's
- Thread starter Move2CLT
- Start date
- Status
OP
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #62
Wow breeze, so now I've gone from Koontz to a desk monkey.If Move2CLT is a pilot, I am Doug Parker. He is a desk monkey with a lot of time on his hands, playing on these boards instead of doing his work for the company. Just a worthless antagonizer.
I have a very good idea of who Koontz is on this board, but choose not to expose him.
breeze
Which is it?
Watching you guys chase your tails is second only to your watching you rot on LOA 93.
OP
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #63
What a fantastic update:
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 during a conference call with Judge Silver’s clerk, USAPA insisted on filing a reply brief. USAPA attorneys told the clerk (not Judge Silver) that they already had a brief written and insisted that they be allowed the right to file what the local rules of the district court automatically provide for.
This is the actual language of the local rule from page 32 of the Arizona Court Local Rules of Civil Procures:
"(d) Reply Memorandum. The moving party, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall have seven (7) days after service of the responsive memorandum to file a reply memorandum if that party so desires."
Judge Silver only set dates for the motion and the response briefs. It appeared she didn't want a reply, otherwise logic would dictate that she would have set a date for the reply brief as well. As per the local rule, all three parties have the right to file a reply “unless otherwise ordered by the court.”
Leonidas’ attorneys felt that there is more than enough information filed in the motion and response briefs already provided to the court. It just so happened that the company attorneys held the same opinion in the interest of expediting the case. Apparently, two parties agreeing on a particular issue constitutes a form of collusion in the eyes of USAPA legal. Their insistence on filing a brief deemed unnecessary by the other two parties is yet more proof that the attorneys for USAPA are more interested in creating delays and racking up billable hours than they are in getting a decision from the court. In any event, the optional reply brief, which the judge limited to 15 pages, is now due on March 19th. We will post the briefs as soon as they are available.
On Friday March 9, 2012, the Company filed its “Opposition to USAPA’s Motion to conduct Discovery” Doc 170. in the same case asking Judge Silver to deny USAPA’s motion to conduct discovery because “the discovery USAPA seeks is not material to the issue that must be decided by the defendants’ summary judgment motions, it would only serve to cause unnecessary delay in the resolution of this case.” You can read the filing here. There are two statements in the seven-page document that are particularly salient, especially in the light of USAPA’s recent legal updates:
“US Airways does, however, believe that there should be an expedited process for resolution of the legal issues presented in those Counts, so that a major obstacle to completing its collective bargaining negotiations with USAPA can be removed. As part of that expedited process, US Airways believes that discovery is not neede...” (pg 1)
The discovery USAPA seeks generally relates to the “correctness” of the Nicolau Award, as evaluated in hindsight several years after it was issued. One factor Arbitrator Nicolau considered in his Award was the legitimate pre-merger career expectations of the East and West Pilots, in light of the financial conditions of US Airways and America West at the time of the merger. (See Doc. No. 34-6 at 25-26.) USAPA argues that the fortunes of the East and West Pilots have changed since the time of the Nicolau Award, and it requests discovery regarding how the legacy East and West operations have fared so that it can present evidence about post-merger career expectations. But discovery regarding post-merger changes in the relative career prospects of East and West Pilots is unnecessary unless the Court first decides, as a legal matter, that post-merger career expectations – developed during a period when USAPA was actively resisting the Nicolau Award – could justify USAPA’s requirement that a date-of-hire seniority list, rather than the Nicolau Award, be included in any collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (pg 1/2).
A reminder to USAPA Communications that, because of the ongoing run-off elections, we are still in the political election mode and that editing, such as found in the USAPA March 8th Legal update, appears to be yet another election violation of the LMRDA.
On to another matter.
Judge Ross issued a dismissal order regarding the ENDY “Status Quo” complaint filed by USAPA in late May 2011. Three of the four claims in the case were dismissed with prejudice (which means don’t come back), and regarding the fourth claim Judge Ross states,“the court is doubtful that plaintiff could cure this count through amendment.”
USAPA appears to have severely missed their target when they file this suit as the law allows significant latitude favoring a Plaintiff as the court comments, “Where the defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint’s allegations, the court must treat all factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the complaining party (page 17).” It appears that the evidence USAPA presented did not come close to the bar that favor’s them as the complainant.
The dismissal order does not paint a flattering picture, and takes specific aim at the long history of ineffectiveness of USAPA’s Grievance Chair, Tracy Parrella, going all the way back to her tenure as ALPA Grievance Chair. We highly encourage every US Airways pilot to read this order. Pay special attention to Judge Ross’ statements regarding the transition agreement, the reasons for the backlog of grievances and for the refusal by the company to grant Last Chance Agreements (LCAs) in nine pilot termination cases (page 11).
Other quotes from Judge Ross:
Finally, US Airways has enumerated several ways in which USAPA has failed to pursue efforts to reduce the backlog of pilot grievances.
US Airways has adduced evidence showing that USAPA’s allegation that US Airways is unilaterally hindering the efficient progress of arbitrations is inaccurate and exaggerated and indicating that, to the degree that US Airways’ actions have produced some delay, USAPA has equally occasioned delay in the conduct and scheduling of arbitrations.
Indeed, as summarized supra, there is evidence that USAPA’s own lack of diligence has had a significant role to play in the backlog of pilot grievances.
Moreover, the concrete figures that plaintiff has provided lend little support to its allegations of an exploding backlog of pilot grievances: from April 2008, when plaintiff became a party to the CBAs, to July 2011, when plaintiff filed its amended complaint, the overall number of grievances grew by only twenty[-]seven, from 483 to 510
This dismissal adds another legal defeat to USAPA’s already dismal record compiled over the last four years. After the RICO case, the Addington case and the Injunction Case this is the fourth time in three different Federal Court venues that USAPA was proven wrong (of course, this doesn’t take into consideration the many lost Arbitration Cases, such as LOA93, the MDA Longevity issue and the “Little Jets” Arbitration, to name but a few).
We urge everybody to read the filings referenced in this update, in order to have a good understanding of the various litigation issues addressed in both Eastern New York and Arizona Federal Courts. The filings combine to make this a very bad week for USAPA and its legal counsel. The recent legal updates somehow attempt to spin these proceedings from the devastating loss it is into a win. Nice try, but a little factual reading will prove otherwise.
Have a good weekend.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 during a conference call with Judge Silver’s clerk, USAPA insisted on filing a reply brief. USAPA attorneys told the clerk (not Judge Silver) that they already had a brief written and insisted that they be allowed the right to file what the local rules of the district court automatically provide for.
This is the actual language of the local rule from page 32 of the Arizona Court Local Rules of Civil Procures:
"(d) Reply Memorandum. The moving party, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall have seven (7) days after service of the responsive memorandum to file a reply memorandum if that party so desires."
Judge Silver only set dates for the motion and the response briefs. It appeared she didn't want a reply, otherwise logic would dictate that she would have set a date for the reply brief as well. As per the local rule, all three parties have the right to file a reply “unless otherwise ordered by the court.”
Leonidas’ attorneys felt that there is more than enough information filed in the motion and response briefs already provided to the court. It just so happened that the company attorneys held the same opinion in the interest of expediting the case. Apparently, two parties agreeing on a particular issue constitutes a form of collusion in the eyes of USAPA legal. Their insistence on filing a brief deemed unnecessary by the other two parties is yet more proof that the attorneys for USAPA are more interested in creating delays and racking up billable hours than they are in getting a decision from the court. In any event, the optional reply brief, which the judge limited to 15 pages, is now due on March 19th. We will post the briefs as soon as they are available.
On Friday March 9, 2012, the Company filed its “Opposition to USAPA’s Motion to conduct Discovery” Doc 170. in the same case asking Judge Silver to deny USAPA’s motion to conduct discovery because “the discovery USAPA seeks is not material to the issue that must be decided by the defendants’ summary judgment motions, it would only serve to cause unnecessary delay in the resolution of this case.” You can read the filing here. There are two statements in the seven-page document that are particularly salient, especially in the light of USAPA’s recent legal updates:
“US Airways does, however, believe that there should be an expedited process for resolution of the legal issues presented in those Counts, so that a major obstacle to completing its collective bargaining negotiations with USAPA can be removed. As part of that expedited process, US Airways believes that discovery is not neede...” (pg 1)
The discovery USAPA seeks generally relates to the “correctness” of the Nicolau Award, as evaluated in hindsight several years after it was issued. One factor Arbitrator Nicolau considered in his Award was the legitimate pre-merger career expectations of the East and West Pilots, in light of the financial conditions of US Airways and America West at the time of the merger. (See Doc. No. 34-6 at 25-26.) USAPA argues that the fortunes of the East and West Pilots have changed since the time of the Nicolau Award, and it requests discovery regarding how the legacy East and West operations have fared so that it can present evidence about post-merger career expectations. But discovery regarding post-merger changes in the relative career prospects of East and West Pilots is unnecessary unless the Court first decides, as a legal matter, that post-merger career expectations – developed during a period when USAPA was actively resisting the Nicolau Award – could justify USAPA’s requirement that a date-of-hire seniority list, rather than the Nicolau Award, be included in any collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (pg 1/2).
A reminder to USAPA Communications that, because of the ongoing run-off elections, we are still in the political election mode and that editing, such as found in the USAPA March 8th Legal update, appears to be yet another election violation of the LMRDA.
On to another matter.
Judge Ross issued a dismissal order regarding the ENDY “Status Quo” complaint filed by USAPA in late May 2011. Three of the four claims in the case were dismissed with prejudice (which means don’t come back), and regarding the fourth claim Judge Ross states,“the court is doubtful that plaintiff could cure this count through amendment.”
USAPA appears to have severely missed their target when they file this suit as the law allows significant latitude favoring a Plaintiff as the court comments, “Where the defendant challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint’s allegations, the court must treat all factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in favor of the complaining party (page 17).” It appears that the evidence USAPA presented did not come close to the bar that favor’s them as the complainant.
The dismissal order does not paint a flattering picture, and takes specific aim at the long history of ineffectiveness of USAPA’s Grievance Chair, Tracy Parrella, going all the way back to her tenure as ALPA Grievance Chair. We highly encourage every US Airways pilot to read this order. Pay special attention to Judge Ross’ statements regarding the transition agreement, the reasons for the backlog of grievances and for the refusal by the company to grant Last Chance Agreements (LCAs) in nine pilot termination cases (page 11).
Other quotes from Judge Ross:
Finally, US Airways has enumerated several ways in which USAPA has failed to pursue efforts to reduce the backlog of pilot grievances.
US Airways has adduced evidence showing that USAPA’s allegation that US Airways is unilaterally hindering the efficient progress of arbitrations is inaccurate and exaggerated and indicating that, to the degree that US Airways’ actions have produced some delay, USAPA has equally occasioned delay in the conduct and scheduling of arbitrations.
Indeed, as summarized supra, there is evidence that USAPA’s own lack of diligence has had a significant role to play in the backlog of pilot grievances.
Moreover, the concrete figures that plaintiff has provided lend little support to its allegations of an exploding backlog of pilot grievances: from April 2008, when plaintiff became a party to the CBAs, to July 2011, when plaintiff filed its amended complaint, the overall number of grievances grew by only twenty[-]seven, from 483 to 510
This dismissal adds another legal defeat to USAPA’s already dismal record compiled over the last four years. After the RICO case, the Addington case and the Injunction Case this is the fourth time in three different Federal Court venues that USAPA was proven wrong (of course, this doesn’t take into consideration the many lost Arbitration Cases, such as LOA93, the MDA Longevity issue and the “Little Jets” Arbitration, to name but a few).
We urge everybody to read the filings referenced in this update, in order to have a good understanding of the various litigation issues addressed in both Eastern New York and Arizona Federal Courts. The filings combine to make this a very bad week for USAPA and its legal counsel. The recent legal updates somehow attempt to spin these proceedings from the devastating loss it is into a win. Nice try, but a little factual reading will prove otherwise.
Have a good weekend.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
one pilot told me a few weeks ago that while the company has been profitable the ops have suffered as a result of this whole pilot debacle issue thing. is that pretty acurate?
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Harry Callahan
Veteran
Perhaps only a Starbucks not an Airbus
Heck I've already said I'll buy him a Starbucks & according to him I'm the guy on the belt loader lmao.
Harry Callahan
Veteran
fatherabraham
Veteran
- Sep 27, 2002
- 814
- 354
Boo Boo,
My crystal ball been broke long long time. If I had to bet, my $ would lean towards a YES within 4 years for a westie who happens to be in the 18 year LOS range.
Leave us no ambiguity please, verify you meant to add LOS after your 18.
FA
Beancounter
Veteran
- Jun 28, 2009
- 1,378
- 1,817
I'd just like what I had prior to the merger, an FO line in PHX. After the merger I got knocked down to reserve.
Bean
fatherabraham
Veteran
- Sep 27, 2002
- 814
- 354
Puhleeeze Boo Boo, I'm calm as a cucumber by nature. Nada you spew could rise my bp one point!
So I'll take that reply as a NO concerning LOS. I don't know or care to learn the Nic magic formulas you westies beat off to.
Good luck with clt, if that fails ya I'm sure the comrade Foda -se will release your pent up tensions.
FA
fatherabraham
Veteran
- Sep 27, 2002
- 814
- 354
- Status
