US Pilot Labor Thread 10/27-11/2

[cleardirect]

Nos,

So what is your point? Why do you insist on wasting everyone’s time. That is old news with no basis in reality. Just because you cut and paste a bogus complaint means nothing. It was dismissed with prejudice.

This is what the judge had to say about the malicious case filed against 18 individual pilots. The judge also deigned the temporary restraining order dreamed up by the east.

Motion to Dismiss Filed by AWAPPA Defendants [Doc. 77] are GRANTED
to the extent that Counts One and Two of the Amended Complaint are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rules 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Just so everyone knows how far reaching USAPA wanted to go. This is from the temporary restraining order requested by USAPA in federal court.

3. From denying, conspiring to deny, or instigating denial or, access to jumpseats on aircraft operated by any commercial carrier because of suspected membership in, or support of, USAPA, or status as an East pilot, or because of any pretextual excuse to hide such anti-USAPA animus, or animus against East pilots:
So what USAPA wanted was a judge to tell every captain in the US that he did not have the captains authority over his own jumpseat. That it belonged to the east pilots.

The arragance is stunning.

 

[jetjok1]

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.

Nic, fod, and any other west/east pilot denying J/S,

I don't post much but I read all the posts here,( it's entertainment at best), but this denying a J/S has struck a nerve. I have never in my 24 years denied anyone the opportunity to get to work, play, or whatever the reason. I will continue to offer any West pilot my J/S. You cannot give me any good reason for denying a J/S- PERIOD!!!. At the very least, put him/her on the Jumpseat and tell them to sit down and shutup. If you can't do that then your a weak Captain for not being able to control your cockpit. This bitterness on both sides is a sad state of affairs- one I'm embarrassed to be associated with- East or West.

 

[nostradamus]

Nos,

So what USAPA wanted was a judge to tell every captain in the US that he did not have the captains authority over his own jumpseat. That it belonged to the east pilots.

The arragance is stunning.

First of all your emotion and anger seems to be pegged out.

Now as far as Captains authority, america west pilots not only did not defend Captains who wanted to add more fuel that they considered a safety buffer, they accused East pilots for using this as a negotiation leverage.

Your america west pilot group worries about a but on a seat more than fuel in a tank. Priority check.

 

[nostradamus]

Nos,

So what is your point? Why do you insist on wasting everyone’s time. That is old news with no basis in reality. Just because you cut and paste a bogus complaint means nothing. It was dismissed with prejudice.

""Judge Reidinger concluded that, while the alleged facts supported a finding that the defendants were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to destroy USAPA property""

Judge Martin Reidinger issued a decision

 

[Sir Lurk-A-Lot]

""Judge Reidinger concluded that, while the alleged facts supported a finding that the defendants were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to destroy USAPA property""

Using a USAPA update to prove a legal argument? Clearly an objective quote! :blink:

 

[Megasnoop]

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.

fod,

Its kind of difficult not to get down in the gutter and trades nasties to your reply, but Ill try to stay respectful. First, our side has NOT harmed you beyond belief. In fact, if you win your lawsuit next week, there will be no harm at all. But depriving pilots of the right to get to work is no way to vent your anger. That is harm. All it does is guarantee years of divisiveness ahead of us. Last week we brought a West JSer home from Europe. All 3 of us in the cockpit, we werent going to screw this guy over. Politics belongs on a chat board, not on a JS. The JSer could have gotten home anyway, since there were empty seats, but the CA saved this guy $150 taxes and upgrade fee putting him in first class. If I was in the left seat (which Ill never hold, NIC or DOH, with or without fences), Id do the same thing. Your JS war is pure childishness.

The company worked up the furlough list, not USAPA. Sue the company, yeah, go for it, sue us if you want, but its going to be your own agency fees defending USAPA. After the susie loophole is closed, you will be paying or youll get fired. You charge were costing you thousands of $$. Then your buddies say USAPAs costing its own pilots thousands of $$ by not getting a contract in place. You think ALPO would have a contract by now? As long as separate operations only cost the company $25 million in synergies and just bringing the east up to west contract will cost them $100 million, Parkers not in any hurry to put this together. Parker wants parity all right, West having "parity" with us. My bet, we wont get a contract for 2 years. Then ALPO will have a chance to be voted in. Then well go another 2 years with no contract.

What I take away from your comments is you think its fair to punish any east pilot because of the politics of the moment. It sickens me that pilots who have nothing to do with USAPA other than joining are getting dumped on by the angry west mob (but then, according to your side, East pilots are resgning from USAPA in droves). snooper

 

[Tiger 1050]

Hmmm. Character assassination. Good one Nos! It gets me thinking you and USAPA just might be right after all...

 

[Megasnoop]

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.

nic, once again, its obvious your not a senior awa pilot. Ive looked at the seniority list and based on DOH, your most "senior" loudmouth has a July 1990 hire date. Your agitators average a 1999 hire date. Pilots hired 20 years ago would put them in the top 10% of westies and hardly in a position to be furloughed or downgraded. You keep bringing this "east pilot junior to them" when right now there are still 2 lists. Until theres one contract, theyll be 2 lists. Until then, seniority resides in the list your on. Sounding like a broken record, it was LCC that decided who would be furloughed and downgraded, not USAPA. snuper

 

[cleardirect]

First of all your emotion and anger seems to be pegged out.

Now as far as Captains authority, america west pilots not only did not defend Captains who wanted to add more fuel that they considered a safety buffer, they accused East pilots for using this as a negotiation leverage.

Your america west pilot group worries about a but on a seat more than fuel in a tank. Priority check.

Man Nos facts and reality must really be getting to you. There was no emotion or anger in my statement. I used the judges words and Seaham’s language from the USAPA filing.

3. From denying, conspiring to deny, or instigating denial or, access to jumpseats on aircraft operated by any commercial carrier because of suspected membership in, or support of, USAPA, or status as an East pilot, or because of any pretextual excuse to hide such anti-USAPA animus, or animus against East pilots:
Those are not my words they are USAPA’s. This is the quote from the requested TRO. Notice “any commercial carrierâ€￾ That is Delta, NW, SWA, CAL and commuter any US airline. Talk about emotion. USAPA wanted to dictate to the entire industry. The jump seat is a captains discretion. Yes it is a captains authority thing. Look in the FAR’s and the FOM.

I did not mention the fuel issue. Why would you? But if you want to bring it up fine.

Once again you are tying to distort reality. No one ever deigned any captain fuel if they wanted it. The company only asked the question why. Unlike most east pilots that blindly follow whatever flavor of leadership comes along. West pilots actually think about what is being said. No we did not defend captains that were doing indefensible things. Like flying across the Atlantic with the APU running for no reason. Try and tell me that did not happen.

Just for the record. I have never been short of fuel. Before the merger landing with 4.0 on a VFR day was normal. Using experience and knowledge an extra 1000 pounds added rarely. Now landing with 5000, 6000 or more pounds are the norm. But I guess that 3000 extra on a WB is needed if you are going to stick it to the company by running the APU all the way to Europe.

Sir lurk a lot is right. Try reading the actual judges order instead of blindly reading propaganda from a self appointed dictator. The file is to big to attach here otherwise I would post it for you to read reality.

 

[cleardirect]

""Judge Reidinger concluded that, while the alleged facts supported a finding that the defendants were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to destroy USAPA property""

Judge Martin Reidinger issued a decision

Nowhere in this order does it say, "Judge Reidinger concluded that, while the alleged facts supported a finding that the defendants were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to destroy USAPA propertyâ€

What it says is that USAPA motion to dismiss was incorrect and undermined the RICO claims. Seham messed up his own case.

Go to the source not a second hand propaganda version. Ask the USAPA Dictators why they have not posts the original AOL complaints or the response to the USAPA motion to dismiss or the amended complaints. Is the east not interested in reading both sides? If the judge rules in favor of the west it will be a lot easier to explain and accept if you guys know the whole truth. Maybe Bradford and the boys will just call this judge names like they did with Nicolau.

Judges order to dismiss USAPA’s Federal RICO charges against individual west pilots.

VII. CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff’s allegation that the Defendants’ purpose is to “destroy USAPA†undermines the Plaintiff’s RICO claims in two respects. By asserting that the Defendants’ goal is the destruction of the Plaintiff itself,
the Plaintiff fails to meet the continuity requirement of RICO and also fails to allege adequately an essential element of extortion, namely, that the

Case 3:08-cv-00246-MR-CH Document 97 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 45 of 48

Defendants seek to “obtain†the Plaintiff’s “property.†For these reasons, the Court concludes that Counts One and Two of the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and accordingly, these claims are dismissed. Because the federal claims asserted by the Plaintiff have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367©(3), and these claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff’s request for leave to file its proposed Second Amended Complaint is futile and therefore is denied.
Finally, the Plaintiff’s requests for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are rendered moot by the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s state-law claims, and for that reason are denied.

Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants AWAPPA, McIlvenna, Vasin, Blandino, Ferguson, Koontz, and Payne [Doc. 42] and the Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants Eric Auxier, David Braid, Al Casby, Christopher Cundari, Larry Diehl, Ron Gabaldon, Bruce A. Hannah, Keith Krueger, Robert J. Narloch, Shawn Metzker, CJ Szmal, Kevin Steele, and Jack Tooke, and Joinder in

Case 3:08-cv-00246-MR-CH Document 97 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 46 of 48

Motion to Dismiss Filed by AWAPPA Defendants [Doc. 77] are GRANTED to the extent that Counts One and Two of the Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the federal claims asserted by the Plaintiff have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state-law claims (Counts Three through Eleven) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367©(3), and accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend First Amended Verified Complaint [Doc. 80] is DENIED as futile.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent that the Motion to Dismiss by the Individual Defendants [Doc. 77] seeks dismissal of these Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, such
Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 63] is DENIED AS MOOT.

Case 3:08-cv-00246-MR-CH Document 97 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 47 of 48

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

[cubfan]

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.

OUCH so young so angry

 

[cubfan]

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.

Nic, I agree there could be a reason to deny for both sides. The only one could be either party not having respect for the other side and their views. If the 18+6 feel strong about their case and the expected results, move on and keep politics out of it. Like my AERO MED DR. who helped a west pilot get his medical back sooner than ALPA AERO MED said they could,(6 mo. sooner) " We have different feelings on the political issues, but there is no room in this office for politics. Good advice for all.

 

[john john]

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

What about the 757 Piedmont had on the property before the US/PI merger
Was kindness given then?

 

[john john]

QUOTE (BoeingBoy @ Yesterday, 07:30 AM
The sections of the A/M LPPs that cover employee integration are federal law for airline mergers now, but weren't made retroactive to cover this merger. Looks like the DL/NW merger will be the test case.

Depending on how you read it, the law either applies to any unionized employee group that isn't represented by the same CBA on both sides of a merger, or that doesn't have protection equal to the A/M LPPs even if the same CBA.
Jim

ALPA-drafted language in the new Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions that goes beyond Allegheny-Mohawk regarding seniority in 1991 the ALPA Executive Board amended ALPA Merger Policy to remove date of hire as a factor
The new ALPA language will supersede the new Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions for the integration of seniority lists ALPA language includes consideration of career expectations for the pilots
ALPA pilots go beyond Allegheny-Mohawk integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner with language that supersede the law “consideration of career expectations for the pilotsâ€￾
Preserve jobs
No windfalls
Maintain same or better pay
Maintain same or better status
Preserve career expectations

The Difference Between Allegheny-Mohawk & ALPA
http://1.usairlinepilots.org/old_files/dif...wk_and_ALPA.htm

 

[BoeingBoy]

What about the 757 Piedmont had on the property before the US/PI merger

No 757's on either side before the US/PI merger.

ALPA's merger policy complies with the new federal law since it contains provisions for negotiation followed by binding arbitration (if arbitration is necessary). Thus, if both sides in a merger are represented by ALPA the ALPA language would apply. This is the case with the DL/NW merger.

Where it could get interesting is when the same union represents both sides but that union's merger policy doesn't contain the protections of the law - negotiation/arbitration.

Jim