Edward
Veteran
New thread. Same rules.
US Pilot Labor Thread 10/27-11/2
- Thread starter Edward
- Start date
- Status
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
Quote by John John on Oct 25: "Allegheny-Mohawk Merger LPP is the law now for future airline mergers ?"
Yes, it is, since last December. And for those unfamiliar it means binding arbitration.
Yes, it is, since last December. And for those unfamiliar it means binding arbitration.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
You'll have to give me the section and subsection reference. The official TA as approved by the BK court .
should the Airline Parties acquire aircraft in excess of the number identified for that airline in Attachment B, such aircraft will operate as part of US Airways.
Now, are any other made up rules...
Jim
I'm not trying to make up any rules Jim.
I was wrong, it was the LOA between the MEC's Regarding 757 Growth flying not the TA I was referring to. In any case, overall 757 fleet count has gone from 44 in the TA down to 39 currently despite any ATA arrivals.
Since the LOU specifically refers to 'growth' and bidding on a 'vacancy' basis only: yet on the East we are seeing reductions and displacements I fail to see how any West pilot is being disadvantaged?
should the Airline Parties acquire aircraft in excess of the number identified for that airline in Attachment B, such aircraft will operate as part of US Airways.
Now, are any other made up rules...
Jim
I'm not trying to make up any rules Jim.
I was wrong, it was the LOA between the MEC's Regarding 757 Growth flying not the TA I was referring to. In any case, overall 757 fleet count has gone from 44 in the TA down to 39 currently despite any ATA arrivals.
Since the LOU specifically refers to 'growth' and bidding on a 'vacancy' basis only: yet on the East we are seeing reductions and displacements I fail to see how any West pilot is being disadvantaged?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #4
The changes in the 757 fleet came after the arrival of the ex-ATA 757's. Besides, the west side has seen as big or bigger percentage reduction in the total fleet. But I guess that only East should be protected from shrinkage by new arrivals.
Just another part of the TA that's inconvenient so should be disregarded....
Jim
Just another part of the TA that's inconvenient so should be disregarded....
Jim
As many of you already know, U.S. Federal District Judge Neil Wake compressed the timeline in our request for a preliminary injunction. To recap, we currently have three claims pending before two different courts. One is a "Hybrid" claim against both USAPA and US Airways. The second is a class action complaint. Both were filed on September 4th, but in different venues. The Hybrid was filed in U.S. District Court and the class action was filed in the Superior Court of Maricopa County. The named defendants in the class action are Bradford, Diorio, Frear, King, Mowrey and Stephan. Although this is a class action, it is not of the typical type of class action that you have read about in the newspapers,where giant monetary awards are made to a class of harmed individuals. The relief requested by the plaintiff class – the America West pilots – is in the form of an injunction. There are two types of injunctions: one is preventative and the other operates as an order directing a party to do something. We have asked the Superior Court to exercise its equitable powers through both types of injunctions; one to prevent the East from taking any further steps toward negotiating a collective bargaining agreement that is inconsistent with the binding arbitration, and then to also direct the East pilots to make good-faith efforts to negotiate a single collective bargaining agreement that fully implements the Nicolau Arbitration. The defendants removed this case to Federal Court, which they have an automatic right to do. On October 20th, our attorneys filed a motion with the Federal Court to remand the case back to the Superior Court and we are awaiting a ruling from the U.S. District Court judge.
The Hybrid action filed in federal court joins separate causes of action against separate defendants into a single action. This claim had to be filed in the U.S. District Court because Congress mandates that this type of action can only be adjudicated at the federal level. The two defendants are US Airways, Inc. and USAPA. The claim against US Airways is for a breach of our collective bargaining agreement and the claim against USAPA is for breach of their “duty of fair representation,†or “DFR†for short. Although technically these are two different claims, they both grow from the same facts beginning with the publication of the Nicolau Arbitration and running through the company’s selective furloughing of West pilots out of seniority. The relief requested is therefore similar as applied to both defendants: (1) an order preventing US Airways from furloughing any West pilots out of Nicolau seniority; (2) an order preventing either defendant from negotiating a collective bargaining agreement inconsistent with the Nicolau Arbitration. You can access both filings under the “Current Litigation Documents†link inside cactuspilot.com.
The main topic for tonight’s Update involves the third and most recent claim: our request for a preliminary injunction to prevent US Airways from furloughing any of the West pilots out of seniority. You might be wondering why we filed this claim, since it addresses one of the harms already identified in the Hybrid claim. The reason for asking a court for a preliminary injunction is that this action is designed to give a petitioner a compressed litigation timeline in order to prevent an immediate harm. As time has passed, every move that the USAPA and the company have made have clearly indicated the need for this type of immediate judicial intervention, so the defendants in this action were again USAPA and US Airways. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss this action by claiming that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. As we explained in an earlier Update, Congress defines the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts, and Congress has also determined that many of the legal disputes involving employees working under the Railway Labor Act should first be heard by an administrative agency you all know of – the National Mediation Board. Congress has also limited the ability of federal courts to hear or overturn the rulings coming out of the NMB. However, there are situations where employees can seek immediate redress in the federal courts without first having to look to the NMB. Our situation is well within one of those exceptions. The doctrine we argue is called the “Futility Doctrine†and our attorneys explain this argument beautifully in our complaint and our response to both defendants’ motions. If you have not yet read these documents, we would implore every West pilot to download and read them.
This brings us to where we are at this evening. We were originally given a timeline that called for a hearing on only the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction on Wednesday, October 29th. Then, assuming we were successful against the defendants’ motions to dismiss, we were anticipating a hearing on the merits of our request for a preliminary injunction sometime in late November, or early December. Needless to say, we were disappointed by this schedule since it would have occurred well after the first and second rounds of furloughs. Last Friday, however, Judge Wake issued an Order which completely changed this schedule (a copy of the order is pasted below). As you can tell by reading the Order, much has changed from what we thought was going to be the schedule, and we at Leonidas will say that we are generally pleased by this acceleration. Judge Wake will now be hearing both the jurisdiction motion and arguments on the merits of our request for an injunction on the same day. He has cleared his docket to give us all day to make our case of why the company should be prevented from furloughing West pilots in direct violation of the Transition Agreement and Nicolau's decision. We anticipate Judge Wake to issue an order either that day or soon thereafter. Although this could potentially be seen as good news for every West pilot, it is important to remember that this is only one of three claims pending before the justice system. We are confident in all of our claims, but as a practical measure we would not think it wise to put all of our proverbial eggs into one basket. That is why we have these three claims plus several addtional claims which are still under consideration. We are optimistic about this claim and the other two for the simple reason that we are clearly in the right. Our main challenge has never been trying to paint a fact pattern into something that it clearly is not. Rather, given the jurisdictional hurdles that Congress has put in place for RLA employees, our largest obstacle has always been jurisdiction. We knew if we could get past that, then all we needed was an opportunity to lay out the facts because the facts will speak for themselves. Now it looks as though we will have an opportunity this coming Wednesday to let the facts do the talking.
The Hybrid action filed in federal court joins separate causes of action against separate defendants into a single action. This claim had to be filed in the U.S. District Court because Congress mandates that this type of action can only be adjudicated at the federal level. The two defendants are US Airways, Inc. and USAPA. The claim against US Airways is for a breach of our collective bargaining agreement and the claim against USAPA is for breach of their “duty of fair representation,†or “DFR†for short. Although technically these are two different claims, they both grow from the same facts beginning with the publication of the Nicolau Arbitration and running through the company’s selective furloughing of West pilots out of seniority. The relief requested is therefore similar as applied to both defendants: (1) an order preventing US Airways from furloughing any West pilots out of Nicolau seniority; (2) an order preventing either defendant from negotiating a collective bargaining agreement inconsistent with the Nicolau Arbitration. You can access both filings under the “Current Litigation Documents†link inside cactuspilot.com.
The main topic for tonight’s Update involves the third and most recent claim: our request for a preliminary injunction to prevent US Airways from furloughing any of the West pilots out of seniority. You might be wondering why we filed this claim, since it addresses one of the harms already identified in the Hybrid claim. The reason for asking a court for a preliminary injunction is that this action is designed to give a petitioner a compressed litigation timeline in order to prevent an immediate harm. As time has passed, every move that the USAPA and the company have made have clearly indicated the need for this type of immediate judicial intervention, so the defendants in this action were again USAPA and US Airways. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss this action by claiming that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. As we explained in an earlier Update, Congress defines the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Courts, and Congress has also determined that many of the legal disputes involving employees working under the Railway Labor Act should first be heard by an administrative agency you all know of – the National Mediation Board. Congress has also limited the ability of federal courts to hear or overturn the rulings coming out of the NMB. However, there are situations where employees can seek immediate redress in the federal courts without first having to look to the NMB. Our situation is well within one of those exceptions. The doctrine we argue is called the “Futility Doctrine†and our attorneys explain this argument beautifully in our complaint and our response to both defendants’ motions. If you have not yet read these documents, we would implore every West pilot to download and read them.
This brings us to where we are at this evening. We were originally given a timeline that called for a hearing on only the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction on Wednesday, October 29th. Then, assuming we were successful against the defendants’ motions to dismiss, we were anticipating a hearing on the merits of our request for a preliminary injunction sometime in late November, or early December. Needless to say, we were disappointed by this schedule since it would have occurred well after the first and second rounds of furloughs. Last Friday, however, Judge Wake issued an Order which completely changed this schedule (a copy of the order is pasted below). As you can tell by reading the Order, much has changed from what we thought was going to be the schedule, and we at Leonidas will say that we are generally pleased by this acceleration. Judge Wake will now be hearing both the jurisdiction motion and arguments on the merits of our request for an injunction on the same day. He has cleared his docket to give us all day to make our case of why the company should be prevented from furloughing West pilots in direct violation of the Transition Agreement and Nicolau's decision. We anticipate Judge Wake to issue an order either that day or soon thereafter. Although this could potentially be seen as good news for every West pilot, it is important to remember that this is only one of three claims pending before the justice system. We are confident in all of our claims, but as a practical measure we would not think it wise to put all of our proverbial eggs into one basket. That is why we have these three claims plus several addtional claims which are still under consideration. We are optimistic about this claim and the other two for the simple reason that we are clearly in the right. Our main challenge has never been trying to paint a fact pattern into something that it clearly is not. Rather, given the jurisdictional hurdles that Congress has put in place for RLA employees, our largest obstacle has always been jurisdiction. We knew if we could get past that, then all we needed was an opportunity to lay out the facts because the facts will speak for themselves. Now it looks as though we will have an opportunity this coming Wednesday to let the facts do the talking.
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Aug 4, 2007
- 882
- 12
That is good news! Finally, it appears, we will have an opportunity to present our complaint to an unbiased third party...
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #7
AGAIN!
Piedmont1984
Veteran
- Jan 12, 2004
- 1,737
- 897
I can't wish you good luck, but I do hope this leads to a final resolution to this impasse. In the mean time, I just flew with another pilot who was denied jumpseat by a west captain. Some of these denials are on routes flown by east metal not long ago.
These are guys just trying to get to work or home. Why can't your side stop using the jumpseat as though it were a blunt force weapon. If your side is in the right then you will be vindicated in court - meanwhile, give the commuters a break.
Because your side has harmed us beyond belief, because most east pilots voted for this union in the hopes to recover your careers at the expense of the west, because original cactus pilots are on the street while new hires continue flying, because we have and will continue to lose thousands of dollars because of the actions of most east pilots, and because the east pilots deserve to be banned not just from the west aircraft but from all cockpits in the industry.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
Desperation begets emotions. You were hired a few years ago and want it all now. The number one cancer in todays civil society. Maybe you should sling hash in a kitchen where you can take the heat.
sharktooth
Veteran
- Jan 27, 2006
- 1,846
- 0
Please do not blame the "east" pilots.
Your expectations, to a ridiculous level, were served by your MEC and ALPA. Reality bit, and you were brought back to your expectations before the "merger". This is life. Get used to it.
Piedmont,
Did the denied pilot give a reason for the denial other than they were east? I have and will continue to carry east pilots on the jumpseat, however, there could be reasons I would deny a request. I know you may diagree but there is a legitimate concern allowing both plaintiff and defendant to share a flightdeck. If an east pilot runs into one of the 18+6 defendants of the RICO lawsuit, it is pretty much a given they are going to find another ride that day.
NoMoreKoolAid
Senior
- Nov 12, 2007
- 315
- 20
It's also a matter of record that West pilots are denying jump seats to East cabin crew. I know a girl who was left at the gate out West because she was East. The F/O told her she was not allowed on. She was in tears and didn't make a fuss. She wrote it up, took another flight and the pilot was made to write a letter of apology to her. This whole thing is just sick to the core.
Nostradamus,
How do you know they were not hired say 20 years ago, and do not like the USAPA idea of putting furloughs and junior pilots senior to them? Or, maybe they were hired 24 years ago and do not like the lousy discriminating C&Rs, Or, perhaps they are now slinging hash in a kitchen, while an east pilot junior to them is still flying!
Your comment is as shallow as your understanding of the West.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
I would expect this of someone who has been accused of the childish actions mentioned in the law suit. These america west pilots were the bottom of the barrel hires, you could only expect the bottom of the barrel conduct.
I have provided a link below to the lawsuit filed by the union representing the pilots of Us Airways against former america west pilots. Chilling conduct. These pilots were denying jump seats before the law suit was filed, it was not a response to the rico suit.
" "102. Upon information and belief, the defendants and their co-conspirators
have participated in a concerted effort to deprive pilots at US Airways the ability to
commute to work by denying USAPA members the use of the cockpit “jump seat†on
flights flown by former America West pilots as well as flights flown by pilots at other
carriers.
103. Postings on the AWAPPA website indicate that the defendants have
actively solicited pilots at US Airways and other airlines, including American Eagle and
Alaska Airlines, to conspire in the jump seat boycott against USAPA members." "
Law suit against former america west pilots that poster mentioned who are now denying jumpseats
- Status
