US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/13- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
It is, which made this http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-be...S-81181677.html all the more impressive.
good video, sums up alot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATPu2ceV3fY
True.
But then again, you're not one inch further away from Nic.
Nor are you one inch closer to snapbacks either.
Nor are you one inch further away from LOA 93.
Sorry, but I guess I had to laugh too.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #410
I really find it cute that you still think there is a possibly of some compromise. Aren’t you an idealist.
First the Nicolau award was a compromise to start with. Remember those 517 east pilots that went to the top of the list? Remember the 300 CEL pilots that NEVER flew for mainline? So Nicolau split the baby once, now you want the company or us to split it again. You guys set your position in concrete and expected us to come half way or more to you during N/M/A then after that, now you want us to come another 50% your way so you guys can feel better. So to the east pilots you guys standing pat and letting us, demanding the west to come 75% towards you seems fair? What is the east willing to give up or move toward our position, would that be nothing? Nothing that you mention gives the west anything, just takes, that is not a compromise. What does the west get out of any compromise if it were possible? Where did you guys learn to negotiate?
No the compromise is over. As soon as the east pilots voted ALPA off and took away separate MEC’s the ability to compromise even if we wanted went away. Then the federal injunction locks the Nicolau list right were it is at.
Besides where were these ideas and willingness to move during the time to do that? During the N/M/A phase? Do you think that after negotiating a contract and signing it, would the company then want to come back to the table after the fact if you said now you need to compromise and met us half way again? How about buying a house, make your best deal move in then the former owner comes back and says that you need to pay him more money just to make it fair. Deal is done the time has pasted.
Just a reminder, the east pilots did agree to the method of integration. This list is done, there will be no compromise at all. Don’t know how to be any more clear than that. But save those ideas for the next merger. Maybe this time moving off that DOH mantra at the time of N/M/A will work out a little better than waiting until it is too late.
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
If they had been a bit more reasonable they would not have found themselves in court. Good luck with the job search. I hear it is ugly out there, especially for the elderly.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #412
Where does that DOH list and new contract stand? Any closer to that?
NO! I would say that you are further away than before. When usapa was first voted in you all had the dream of DOH. So far the company ignored your list and C&R when it was presented. Today there is a federal injunction preventing usapa from even talking about a DOH list.
Nope the DOH dream is dead. The Nicolau list is still alive and getting closer.
What a sweet day it will be when usapa that was designed and voted in to stop the Nicolau list is forced to implement the Nicolau list. Thank you east pilots for doing what ALPA was having trouble doing.
Hawkhunter
Veteran
- Jul 11, 2005
- 577
- 521
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
Hawkhunter
Veteran
- Jul 11, 2005
- 577
- 521
Funny, all you westies do is hate talk USAPA. However, the other side of your mouth thenks USAPA for getting you everything you wanted. Please make up your mind
That's odd.
The CEO, COO, CFO, and President all told me they are fine with the Nicolau as it has met all of the requirements that were put forward.
They also told me they weren't in the business of doing seniority lists and were happy with what they have.
The CEO even went on to tell me that they have no opinion on fairness as it's irrelevant to them and the process of negotiating the list was out of their hands.
Then why bother posting?
Waketurbulence
Advanced
Just in case anyone doubts what you say, this is from the CEO :
"We have determined that the list submitted meet these criteria, so the company will accept the submitted list"
View attachment Parker_Letter_20DEC07.pdf
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Not really. The jumpseat belongs to the airline. At USAirways, the captain is given wide control over its use, but it is far from absolute. (Try denying an FAA enroute inspection sometime and see just who the jumpseat belongs to.)
That being said, the control of the jumpseat can be revoked by the company at any time. Look at all those years that Delta pilots couldn't even ride their OWN jumpseat. How could that have happened if the jumpseat "belonged" to the captain?
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Another loss for USAPA.
Change of Venue denied.
"This lawsuit involves the integration of pilot seniority lists upon the merger of US
Airways and America West Airlines, now operating under the name “US Airways†with
headquarters in Tempe, Arizona, and employing thousands of pilots residing in numerous
states across the country. A jury found USAPA breached its duty of fair representation
by abandoning an arbitrated seniority list in favor of a date-of-hire list solely to benefit
one group of pilots at the expense of another. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and money
damages.
Most of the Jones factors are not relevant and do not favor either forum. This
case raises federal questions and will be decided under federal law. Neither side contends
they have unwilling non-party witnesses who must be compelled to testify at trial. Where
agreements were negotiated and the parties’ contacts with the forum have no bearing on
the issues to be decided. Whether the forum is Arizona or Washington, D.C., does not
affect the ease of access to sources of proof.
The two relevant Jones factors, the plaintiff’s choice of forum and the differences
in the costs of litigation in the two forums, favor denying transfer. All six Plaintiffs
reside in the Phoenix area. Plaintiffs are represented by a Phoenix law firm, and
Plaintiffs’ counsel all reside in Arizona. USAPA, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.,
estimates there are eighty to one hundred witnesses identified, many of whom reside
closer to Washington, D.C., than to Phoenix, but few of whom actually reside in
Washington, D.C. Litigating in Washington, D.C., instead of Arizona, may somewhat
decrease USAPA’s or individual witnesses’ costs, but would substantially increase
Plaintiffs’ costs and deny Plaintiffs their choice of forum. Testimony of dispersed
witnesses may be presented by deposition, if that is more convenient, regardless of the
forum.
Finally, this litigation has proceeded in this forum for nearly a year and a half,
including a lengthy jury trial on liability, numerous and extensive legal rulings, and great
expenditure of judicial resources. The waste of judicial resources from transfer to a
different judge in another district late in the litigation disfavors transfer. It would be a
bad exercise of discretion and likely an abuse of discretion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue and
Transfer to Another District, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (doc. # 622) is denied.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2010.
Neil V. Wake"
Change of Venue denied.
"This lawsuit involves the integration of pilot seniority lists upon the merger of US
Airways and America West Airlines, now operating under the name “US Airways†with
headquarters in Tempe, Arizona, and employing thousands of pilots residing in numerous
states across the country. A jury found USAPA breached its duty of fair representation
by abandoning an arbitrated seniority list in favor of a date-of-hire list solely to benefit
one group of pilots at the expense of another. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and money
damages.
Most of the Jones factors are not relevant and do not favor either forum. This
case raises federal questions and will be decided under federal law. Neither side contends
they have unwilling non-party witnesses who must be compelled to testify at trial. Where
agreements were negotiated and the parties’ contacts with the forum have no bearing on
the issues to be decided. Whether the forum is Arizona or Washington, D.C., does not
affect the ease of access to sources of proof.
The two relevant Jones factors, the plaintiff’s choice of forum and the differences
in the costs of litigation in the two forums, favor denying transfer. All six Plaintiffs
reside in the Phoenix area. Plaintiffs are represented by a Phoenix law firm, and
Plaintiffs’ counsel all reside in Arizona. USAPA, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.,
estimates there are eighty to one hundred witnesses identified, many of whom reside
closer to Washington, D.C., than to Phoenix, but few of whom actually reside in
Washington, D.C. Litigating in Washington, D.C., instead of Arizona, may somewhat
decrease USAPA’s or individual witnesses’ costs, but would substantially increase
Plaintiffs’ costs and deny Plaintiffs their choice of forum. Testimony of dispersed
witnesses may be presented by deposition, if that is more convenient, regardless of the
forum.
Finally, this litigation has proceeded in this forum for nearly a year and a half,
including a lengthy jury trial on liability, numerous and extensive legal rulings, and great
expenditure of judicial resources. The waste of judicial resources from transfer to a
different judge in another district late in the litigation disfavors transfer. It would be a
bad exercise of discretion and likely an abuse of discretion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue and
Transfer to Another District, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (doc. # 622) is denied.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2010.
Neil V. Wake"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
