US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/13- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[Phoenix]

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.

Imagine that.. the sweet nothings whispered in your ear were different than the sweet nothings whispered in his ear. I'm not telling what was told to me... but it was more special.

 

[OTTER574]

"Implement", "enforce", "execute", "effect", "fulfill", and "complete" are synonyms. "Accept" seems to have been left out of the club.

Nope, thats usapa's job. Someone I and many others pay millions to run MY CONTRACT called a CBA with lcc better known as usairways.

 

[HPDriver]

Yeah.. AND he doth fish too vigorously with ripples and splashes.

And the both of ye doth talketh out the ye backsides too much.

 

[cleardirect]

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.

It looks like the DFR legal strategy is proving to be typical of usapa thinking. Short sighted and situational. Usapa thought that they were going to be smart and change the game for Judge Wake by refusing to let Steve Bradford testify during the trial. Invoking some legal game and not putting the former president and founder of usapa on the stand for the jury to hear. Instead forced a very dry reading of his deposition.

That short sightedness has come back to bite Seham again. If it is good enough for the founder it is good enough for the rest of the defense witnesses.
“Testimony of dispersed witnesses may be presented by deposition, if that is more convenient, regardless of the forum.â€

Also looks like the judge was none to impressed with Seham’s logic that the east coast is the center of the universe specifically Washington DC. There is a big country past the Atlantic sea board, time to stop thinking like an east coast commuter gentlemen.

Lastly it is looking bad for the legal fees portion also for Seham and usapa. The paragraph about “numerous and extensive legal rulingsâ€, "great expenditure of judicial resources", "The waste of judicial resources†I take that to mean that the judge is not happy with the volume and quality of Seham’s filings. That the judge has had to waste a lot of his time ruling on frivolous motions (like this change of venue) and in turn the plaintiffs have had to spend a lot of money responding to frivolous motions therefore costing the plaintiffs more money and the court more time than it should have.

My guess is that we get a ruling from the ninth in the next week and very quickly after that we will see a ruling awarding legal fees to the plaintiffs. Of course Seham/usapa will appeal as they always do. You guys do know that if he were to win a case you don’t have to go to appeal right? But in the mean time usapa / east members will have to put up the money as a cash bond while waiting for the appeal. That is $1.8 million cash. That is OK right it is only about $600 per east pilot. This thing is crashing quickly for you guys.

My prediction is that by summer it is going to be hard to find anyone that voted for usapa or Cleary/Mowery. Somehow it must have been ALPA’s fault or the west tricked you into all of this. Because as everyone knows it is and can never be the east pilots fault, someone else is always to blame.

 

[767intl]

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?

NYC, it's the same old song (SOS) with them. They repeat the same factually challenged premise, then try to make a case for it. If we don't reply, they say we're worried. If we do reply, they say we're worried. Just like clear's totally wrong premise. Then he tries to make the case for Kirby+NIC.

Throw on top of that the $20,000 - $30,000 the east is leaving on the table with a new contract.

IF we were dealing with the best parts of both contracts. IF the TA's 322 range a/c floor remained, instead of the Kirby's 250. IF PBS could be revised to guarantee blocks to block holders. IF line max remained the same. A lot of "IFs."

NYC, no matter how many times we post, Clear and the Gang won't get it. They won't even debate it. They just repeat the SOS, then try to justify it. What do they think? We haven't been down the ALPA carrot/stick road before? Few of our our wide-boy COs will never desert those they fly with. The rest of us know that Kirby+NIC amounts to about 1,000 furloughs, equipment downgrades, seat downgrades, block to reserve downgrades, furloughs, all disproportionately falling on East pilots. The votes aren't there. What good is a $20K payraise for an FO who gets furloughed? What good is a $30K payraise for a CO who gets downgraded, forced to reserve. But I repeat myself. Sometimes I got to wonder why.

Since they refuse to address this, I'll just ask it rhetorically. With West having less than 1/4 of the voting members, where do they get the votes to pass a Kirby+NIC?

 

[Metroyet]

Since they refuse to address this, I'll just ask it rhetorically. With West having less than 1/4 of the voting members, where do they get the votes to pass a Kirby+NIC?

Put it to a vote and let's all actually find out! I'm not saying it would pass but nobody knows what the votes would look like. I do know that eventually, a new contract is going to be executed here and the Nic. is going to be the seniority list moving fwd. When will that happen? Who knows and who cares? There's a reason it's called a "Permanent" injunction.

 

[cynic]

Put it to a vote and let's all actually find out! I'm not saying it would pass but nobody knows what the votes would look like. I do know that eventually, a new contract is going to be executed here and the Nic. is going to be the seniority list moving fwd. When will that happen? Who knows and who cares? There's a reason it's called a "Permanent" injunction.

I think that would be a bad thing for the west. If they put out Kirby + Nic, it's going to fail spectacularly as there are enough negatives for people on each side to find something to object to. Where that to happen, you would see the hardliners here, and elsewhere, crowing that it was solely due to Nic and that it shows how united the group is behind them and the DOH principle.

 

[jimntx]

Since they refuse to address this, I'll just ask it rhetorically. With West having less than 1/4 of the voting members, where do they get the votes to pass a Kirby+NIC?

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it also seems that the East refuses to address the issue that they have court ruling that the NIC stands as is. So, you don't get a yes vote on a TA including the NIC. Then, looks to me like you don't get a TA, period. As it stands, you can't have a TA that doesn't include the NIC unless your officers are prepared to go to jail on a contempt of court citation, and unless your union is willing to pay out big bucks in penalties to the court--which we both know would be forthcoming. Federal courts tend to be tacky when their instructions are ignored. Is that really what any of you want? Thanks to the RLA you have to continue working under your old contracts until a new one is approved. Can you all afford to retire under your current contract for the sake of principle? Especially for a principle that a Federal court has said does not apply?

I wouldn't count on the SCOTUS hearing the appeal, either. From what I can determine (and, no I'm not any more of a lawyer than any of you, except hp_fa of course ) there are no Constitutional questions for the court to address. (Seniority was not an issue when the Constitution was written.) Since the court receives so many more appeals in a given year than they could possibly rule on, they tend to not take appeals that have limited affected parties. They look at the "big picture." I don't think a squabble between pilots in a single company meets the test.

Fire away.

 

[cubfan]

Put it to a vote and let's all actually find out! I'm not saying it would pass but nobody knows what the votes would look like. I do know that eventually, a new contract is going to be executed here and the Nic. is going to be the seniority list moving fwd. When will that happen? Who knows and who cares? There's a reason it's called a "Permanent" injunction.

OK.....OK I have to admit, the NIC is probably it. Now the Kirby......thats a horse of a different color. I'm color blind so I can't see that horse. If the union put that out for a vote I would vote yes to throwing them off the property. Thats the only yes vote you'd get from me.

 

[nycbusdriver]

So, Parker said the Nic list met their criteria and is therefore acceptable.

What is their criteria? It doesn't cost the company a dang nickel. That's ALL the criteria Parker is talking about.

So what.

 

[Waketurbulence]

So, Parker said the Nic list met their criteria and is therefore acceptable.

What is their criteria? It doesn't cost the company a dang nickel. That's ALL the criteria Parker is talking about.

So what.

So what is right.

Your wrong about not costing the company a dang nickel though.

They know how much it would cost them NOT to use the Nic list.

And the criteria? That was agreed to by all , especially George Nicilau.

 

[HPDriver]

OK.....OK I have to admit, the NIC is probably it.

That's fantastic cubfan!!! It's a big step toward and better contract. We can now discuss payrates and QoL issues instead of litigation and SCOTUS.

Any other eastie want to take that step? We're ready to embrace you.

 

[BoeingBoy]

What is their criteria

The company's criteria is spelled out in the transition agreement...

Jim

 

[nic4us]

So, Parker said the Nic list met their criteria and is therefore acceptable.

What is their criteria? It doesn't cost the company a dang nickel. That's ALL the criteria Parker is talking about.

So what.

Actually, the Nic cost the company $600,000 out of pocket, paid $300,000 to each Mec. Small potatoes I am sure, yet another transition agreement contractual obligation that the company has lived up to.

The company has been more than obliging of the east's temper tantrum, costing them plenty in lost ability to mantain management rights, yet offset by low pilot wages. However, if they keep placating usapa's DOH or seperate ops at the expense of the West scheme, the company may find themselves enjoined in a damages trial.

 

[Metroyet]

OK.....OK I have to admit, the NIC is probably it. Now the Kirby......thats a horse of a different color. I'm color blind so I can't see that horse. If the union put that out for a vote I would vote yes to throwing them off the property. Thats the only yes vote you'd get from me.

I should have been more specific. Kirby as is doesn't have a snowballs chance. Neither side will vote for it. The West get's absolutely no contractual gains from it, (insert Screams of the Nic. Windfall here) It came out in court that Kirby was willing to go 10+% higher. Make it an immediate 13% gain, decent work rules, and decent annual raises then I think we're in striking distance. There won't be any SWA money here. Ever. Believe me. I wish this whole Nic. thing never happened to. I would have much preferred to not go down merger road with AAA. Nobody asked us but we're here now dealing with the mess.