US Pilot Labor Thread--11/16-23

[V1cut]

You don't seem to be very informed.

AWAPPA does NOT "collect dues" from anyone. Any money is by voluntary contribution only.

Parker never said we have to "join" or be fired. No one ever has to join a union...what he said was they beleive section 29 is in effect. So you may be required to pay dues or be fired, but you don't ever have to join.

Keep it up, junior, posts like these are what will cost you your case.

(among other things)

You argue semantics...and lose the war.

OK.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Thanks...NYC, I hesitated to go there, but it is what it is..

I guess no westie has thought about the appellate process and how long and expensive it is....especially considering our seemingly nice west 25 year guy on the tape who has to pay for "both sides of the case"...yep...exactly right.

Well, sue away, I guess.

And, another point to observe. In light of the fact that USAPA went ahead and started the appeals process in the federal lawsuit in NC only points to the fact that this will be their modus operandi.

And, far from any westie's contention, USAPA is flush with cash, and will be drowning in it once the west grudgingly starts sending in their germane payments.

I think I'll go to law school part time. This stuff will still be being litigated by the time I pass the bar, and maybe I can cash in on some of the booty being tossed about.

 

[Waketurbulence]

You know, Tiger, at first I was flattered that you keep calling me Machtuck...but I am not, and therefore I'm asking you in front of the mods to stop for the last time. There is a policy to address the posters by their posted screen name, that includes you.

And that would include you as well. Oh I forgot, you don't have to follow the rules. You just make them up as you go.

 

[Tiger 1050]

The 'tactical mistakes" are numerous...but lets keep it simple: TOTAL DEFIANCE and OPEN IGNORANCE of the new CBA that was VOTED ON BY ALL USAIRWAYS PILOTS...EAST AND WEST.

Purely opinion...

It was not a given USAPA would win, there are a few die-hards out east still....

After the legal vote..the west immediately launches an anti-USAPA campaign, starts up AWAPPA which advertises that they collect dues...ONLY from WEST pilots, BUT...(and this is good) they are an LLC...NOT a "representative" of west pilots.
"Army of Leonidas" magically appears as well, but seems to have conflicting 'warfare tactics" AGAINST USAPA..so they finally ameliorate into a semi-simbiotic anti-USAPA force.

So does this mean we can put the east pilots on the hot seat for campaigning for and advocating the removal of ALPA? Uh-oh!

Now, when faced with the reality that Parker cited, in no uncertain terms, the west has to join USAPA or be fired...in strict accordance with the law...the floodgates magically open? (although we've heard all the usual pontifications about this from active westies) Seems the "VIRUS 2" is to join and reach out a withered hand in exasperation that USAPA has so forsaken them....they look longingly to the Judge.....a tear runs down everyone's eye...

Explain how, until a recent vote to amend the C&BL's, one was to become a member. Each and every pilot is afforded rights under the RLA regarding dues. Members or not.

 

[Tiger 1050]

You don't really think ANY of this will end when Judge Wake rules, do you? Can you possibly be that naive? If the west wins, USAPA will appeal it. I suspect if USAPA wins, you westies will do the same. Your court case could very well end up in the Supreme Court given the new territory we are collectively treading. Any idea how long it will take to get past the appeals court stage?

If the appeals court finds the trial in Judge Wake's court in error, it will be sent back to be retried. And then it may get bounced around some more.

We could all be retired (you, too, westies) before the dust settles on ANY of these cases. Meantime, the company is not going to budge on any contract due to the pending litigation. (Can't say I blame them.) Enjoy your contract; it's going to be around for a long, long time.

(Oh, and be prepared to pay for BOTH sides of the litigation, westies. Defending the union is a germane expense, so even the non-members will pay to play in the big time courts...both sides. And we all know that Parker said ON CAMERA that he has to fire if payments to the union aren't made. Hope your kids like public school and community college.)

You and the rest of the east regulars have tried many times, in vain, to convince us out west that we never had a leg to stand on. Well Judge Wake appears to disagree with you. Can you tell me about a case, any case, where binding arbitration has been overturned? I might believe you guys have a chance if Seham wasn't your lawyer. But then maybe he is not that bad. Maybe our case is just so crystal clear and no lawyer could fight his/her way out of it. Either way it does not bode well for your side.

"Enjoy your contract..." Wow! This coming from a guy who is rotting in LOA93 land. Right back atcha "brotha."

 

[EastUS]

You don't really think ANY of this will end when Judge Wake rules, do you? Can you possibly be that naive? If the west wins, USAPA will appeal it. I suspect if USAPA wins, you westies will do the same.

We could all be retired (you, too, westies) before the dust settles on ANY of these cases. Meantime, the company is not going to budge on any contract due to the pending litigation. (Can't say I blame them.) Enjoy your contract; it's going to be around for a long, long time.

Indeed sir...and with that = Seperate ops/etc. I'm loathe to even try and ever guess at any litigation's ultimate outcome, but; It occurs to me that I've simply been assuming that the people out west are fully cognizant of how the system actually works, but one does have to wonder with all the renewed and exuberant pom pom thrashing of late. Perhaps there's some magical "fast track" through the legal system that only they know of, and that we're all just completely ignorant of....?? Who knows? Maye they're counting on a new "legal speed record" being set within these proceedings to come. I'd think it certain that the granting of an expeditious trial start will keep west hopes very high for a "speedy" overall resolution, and virtually guarantee that they'll appeal if defeated. That the Union will appeal if found wanting in trial's also a given.

"Let the Games begin!" and, as you've noted above: "Oh, and be prepared to pay for BOTH sides of the litigation, westies."

Whatever else is true: Management couldn't have ever paid any amount of money to enlist more truly useful friends than they found in Alpa and Nic

 

[nycbusdriver]

You and the rest of the east regulars have tried many times, in vain, to convince us out west that we never had a leg to stand on. Well Judge Wake appears to disagree with you.

I never said you didn't have a leg to stand on. Just like USAPA, I never said the Nicolau obscenity would die with the new CBA. I knew it would end up in court. And Judge Wake is simply doing his job. He doesn't disagree with me at all. But his decision to go forward doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with you, either. His decision simply means he decided to TRY the case. TRY is an important term.

Can you tell me about a case, any case, where binding arbitration has been overturned? I might believe you guys have a chance if Seham wasn't your lawyer. But then maybe he is not that bad. Maybe our case is just so crystal clear and no lawyer could fight his/her way out of it. Either way it does not bode well for your side.

If the court rules in the west favor, so be it until the appeal. USAPA never guaranteed a win, simply a TRY. (There's that word again.)

"Enjoy your contract..." Wow! This coming from a guy who is rotting in LOA93 land. Right back atcha "brotha."

Rotting on LOA 93? I get paid more than you; probably work less, too. And I'm junior in my seat. Enjoy paying your lawyers for the next 10 years. And, enjoy paying Seham, too!

 

[BoeingBoy]

And, enjoy paying Seham, too!

Since a dues objector only has to pay the portion of the agency fee germane to contract negotiations and enforcement, it would be improper for USAPA to charge any West objector for any portion of Seham's legal bills that are pertinent to a DFR suit.

Jim

 

[V1cut]

Since a dues objector only has to pay the portion of the agency fee germane to contract negotiations and enforcement, it would be improper for USAPA to charge any West objector for any portion of Seham's legal bills that are pertinent to a DFR suit.

Jim

Uh...is this not a challenge on the "enforcement" of a contract?...

They are claiming DFR...what do you surmise is the topic of the DFR Jim?...the weather?...or their contract? They are arguing about their "contract" and how it is being upheld or not via USAPA...does it matter the target of their claims?

I'd say, expect a lofty bill..with thanks, of course.

I'm just guessin'..of course.

 

[Phoenix]

... there are a few die-hards out east still....

...

Are Lance and Marshall still holding "base meetings" with themselves? Maybe they could put a poster of the Herndon event on the wall to make their meetings feel crowded.

 

[traderjake]

Two, why ever would a Retirement Committee advise an MEC to freeze a retirement plan "years before" a bankruptcy?

Because the Retirement Committee ran the numbers and figured out that you can't pay everyone $1 million lump sums based on what they earned the last 3 years of their career.

The future payments for the pilot plan were projected to be 2.178 billion for years 2003-2009

The retirement fund was in trouble before the company was .

 

[BoeingBoy]

Uh...is this not a challenge on the "enforcement" of a contract?...

Nope, it's not. Dues objector fees are for maintenance of the contract with the company. DFR is all about the responsibility of the union to represent all members of the craft/class fairly. That responsibility certainly includes representation in contract issues, but it's not limited to just that like dues objector fees.

Jim

 

[nostradamus]

While the fight on this message thread is over a carcass that can not feed all, may we make sure that all furloughed pilots have health insurance provided for them, east or west. Placing blame will not help their situation for the next few months.

It should be a number one priority for both groups.

 

[Eastisleast]

Boy I sure miss Machtuck, I would really like his take on all this. I guess I'll just have to settle for V1 cuts opinion...you guys have so muck in common I guess thats why V1 thinks he is so cool! :mf_boff:

 

[ableoneable]

Looks like the trial will start no later than 17 February 2009.

Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Case Management
Conference is set for Monday, December 15, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 504,
Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Federal Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix,
Arizona 85003-2151. In preparation for this Case Management Conference, it is hereby
Ordered as follows:
Defendant USAPA is to file its Answer by no later than December 1, 2008.
INITIAL DISCLOSURES
The parties are ordered to provide initial disclosures by no later than
December 5, 2008 in the form required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). The
parties shall file with the Clerk of Court a Notice of Initial Disclosure; copies of the actual
disclosures need not be filed.

ACCELERATED TRIAL ON PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND LIABILITY FOR
DAMAGES; BIFURCATION OF TRIAL ON AMOUNT OF DAMAGES.
Trial on the claim for permanent injunction and liability for damages is accelerated
and will be set no later than February 17, 2009. Trial on the amount of damages is
bifurcated and will be scheduled, if necessary, after ruling on the trial on permanent
injunction and liability for damages.
No dispositive motions will be allowed, as the parties have already engaged in
extensive pre-trial motion practice and the urgency of the case does not permit time for
another round of substantive motions before the claim for permanent injunction must be
decided.
TRIAL IN TANDEM OR CONSOLIDATION WITH ADDINGTON v. BRADFORD.
The trial on permanent injunction and liability for damages will be done
simultaneously and in tandem with the trial in Addington v.Bradford, No. CV 08-1728
PHX-NVW. The court will consider at the December 15, 2008, Case Management
Conference whether to formally consolidate the two cases.