US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/13-- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[BoeingBoy]

What evidence do you have to support that comment?

Now, now...how dare you not accept the apparent fact, as presented by nycbusdriver, that USAPA is incapable of doing two things at the same time... Expecting them to negotiate and have their lawyer fight a legal battle at the same time...how dare you?

Jim

 

[aquagreen73s]

The company is itching to ignore Nic, but they want to cover their rear.

But Seham said the company didn't care which seniority list was used. Remove separate ratification and the problem was supposed to be solved. DOH and a big fat pay raise, right? So if the company is itching to ignore the Nic, then why file a dec action in the first place? Answer:it's preposterous to claim that the dec action somehow manifests anything other than the following: there was an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitrator produced a result that was accepted by the company, now the union which happens to be controlled by the majority wants to repudiate the arbitration award. But, the necessary conditions to change the award are: (1) better deal for the company; and (2) the other party has the authority to consent. The problem for you (USAPA) is that a union just can't arbitrarily consent to give away the rights of a minority. That is something called a DFR. That's the position you're in, and it's exactly why Seham sold you all a bucket of crap when he prophesied that the "company wouldn't care," that "the obstacle would be removed," and that "the company would be more than willing to negotiate." No, the company sees the situation for what it is. You need to read the filings on Friday. The company spells it out clearly.

Once the court gives them a pass on liability for dropping their lip-service support of Nic, they will run that list through the shredder so fast it will make your eyes spin.

More Easter Bunny talk I see. Yeah. Sure. Ok, I'll play along. So if what you say is true, then why didn't Seham and Bradford tells us this before? They insisted the company could care less which seniority list was used, and that the 9th gave USAPA the green light to negotiate whatever they wanted vis a vis seniority. So, why the dec action?

Ok, now I'll sit back and wait to hear the black helicopter conspiracy excuses from the USAPA apostles.

 

[N924PS]

But let me ask you this,,,did Lakefield, Gangwall or Wolf ride around on the airplanes unaccompanied and act like just one of the guys? I heard Wolf had bodyguards or at least an entourage when he traveled.

Wolf did most of his flying on United, even as CEO of USAirways. Not sure if he travelled with an entourage.

Lakefield and Gangwal flew unaccomanied. Gangwal rode in coach. Both gentlemen were very approachable and direct.

The best version of USAir/USAirways to date was under the Wolf-Gangwal regime. Operations and customer service were the best I've seen it since the PSA-PI-US mergers. Of course, this was all designed to make the UAL merger happen.

"I'll take famous quotes for $300, Alex."

"Plan B is there is no Plan B."

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

There is a reason why America West's code was HP.....we are largely reasonably Happy People.

If I may have as much latitude as johnjohn - I love this!

Happy people vs. turning to the dark side. As someone I once knew observed - "try not to turn Philish!"

Go HappyPeople!

 

[Richard]

Folks,

The next person who postulates who may or may not post here, or for that matter who has a dog in or out of this fight, will have an extended vacation....as will the next person who makes a demeaning comment about a specific poster. Discuss the ISSUES not the PEOPLE.

We are getting tired of the snide personal jibes...stay on topic.

 

[cleardirect]

Question for all of you in the know.

What is going on with the MDA case? The last paperwork was filed June 28. That was a motion for summary judgment.

What's up, 4 months and no answer? This is a slam dunk case right. When is the trial date? Is this case even still alive?

 

[crazystnic]

What evidence do you have to support that comment? USAPA is delivering the DOH contract every day that a new one is delayed. Their sole purpose is to delay and convince you that that is an accomplishment worth 2-3% of your pay.

give me a break.. Pilots on both sides know .. if ALPA or USAPA that this MGMT is going to drag this out for as long as possible. They are using the NMB all teh way to the bank.. With our without a senority solution... DP plans on taking it all the way until the NMB says we have a cooling off period and then some...

you work for scoundrals.. sorry...

 

[cleardirect]

The transcripts from the transfer hearing are public. Yet no comment from the east posters.

What is it that you east guys like to say? Oh yeah. Grananth got SPANKED in court that day. What was the big argument from usapa? Not legal but the appearance of fairness. Well who are the only ones worried about Wake not being fair? East pilots. Why? Because usapa told you guys that judge Wake was not fair. That he appeared not to be fair. Read the list of rulings that went in favor of usapa. The word appearance was used 9 times.

THE COURT: So your argument is that if there is a reversal and a remand and the judge has already expressed views on points of law and the persuasiveness of evidence as presented, that that judge cannot fairly address matters that require repetition in a retrial? Is that your argument?

MR. GRANATH: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, it's hard for me to see how that's not your argument, because trial judges routinely retry cases that they have tried before and there's error found, and they do it all over again. So what is your argument?

MR. GRANATH: My point is only that the system randomly assigns judges, and all parties can now go through the process with Judge Silver knowing that they have a fresh judge, and that appearance has value. And that's a factor that should outweigh any gains in efficiency or any losses in efficiency.

THE COURT: Is there any dispute that as burdensome as it is, there is great efficiency in having the same judge address the litigation involving the exact same transaction and the same parties, although it will now involve another party as well?

MR. GRANATH: That's correct, Your Honor. And I think the simple answer is of course there's going to be some efficiency gains but there's always going to be new issues that are addressed in the case, and there already are new issues pending. So I don't know that there's a net gain. Obviously there's some gain.

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Granath, of course it is the duty of every judge at all times, in every case, to consider whether the judge has a bias or prejudice. And if the judge has a bias or prejudice, it is the duty of the judge to recuse then regardless of the consequences. So I have examined this with that in mind. And I have gone back through this case, and your argument, apparently what you argued in the Court of Appeals, too, is that I made numerous rulings against your client and expressed them strongly and therefore, it would be, although you on the one hand say I'm not biased and prejudiced, it would have the appearance of bias and prejudice and I should not transfer. That's how I read what you said. And having gone back, I made
a lot of rulings for both sides in this case, did I not?

MR. GRANATH: You did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: So for example, I granted your motion to consolidate the two cases. I granted your motion dismissing the plaintiff's removed state court case as entirely pre-empted by federal law, threw the whole case out at your request. I did grant the airline's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. That was their motion, but it had collateral benefits to your client in the litigation as well. We hotly litigated the question of whether you had a right to jury trial. It was a close question and I ruled in your favor on that.

MR. GRANATH: That's correct.

THE COURT: Not because I was ruling for you but because I thought, as in everything, that was the strongest weight of authority. And I also granted your motion for judgment as a matter on the pleadings on the claim for restitution of union dues and fees, eliminating that entirely. On the motions in limine, there were many -- by the way, there were too many motions in limine -- and those were a mixed bag. You won some; you lost some. I denied the West Pilots' motion for additional discovery. I struck their supplemental reply. And it came to what probably is one of the most important aspects of the entire litigation, and that is, settling what jury instruction to give on DFR in these circumstances. I rejected entirely West Pilots' proposal. And the instruction I gave, although it wasn't exactly what you proposed, it was a lot closer to your instruction with one change than theirs. So if adverse rulings are enough to give rise to an
appearance of impartiality and unfairness, I haven't been very efficient at being biased, have I?

MR. GRANATH: I take your point, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, what about the point that the fundamental principle of disqualifications that neither
disqualification or bias and prejudice can be shown from adverse rulings? What about that point of law, Mr. Granath.

MR. GRANATH: I understand. I'm familiar with the juris prudence, Your Honor. I think our argument was a little different in the Ninth Circuit. I may have to respectfully --

THE COURT: I haven't read your briefs in the Ninth Circuit, so is it different from what you argued here?

MR. GRANATH: I think so, Your Honor. But I really don't have anything to add to that. My only point directed to the motion that's on the table is all doubts should be resolved in favor of the full appearance of justice. We have a randomly assigned judge. There's no quarrel there.

THE COURT: That's not the standard on transfer. The standard on transfer is what is stated in Rule 41.2.
Now, of course, as I said, in any case, if the judge is actually biased and prejudiced it is the judge's duty to
examine that and to recuse. Go ahead. I want to hear whatever you have to say in support of that argument.

MR. GRANATH: It's true that that's the standard, Your Honor, but also it's true that all parties are entitled to due process and fairness under the constitution. My point is that we have a judge that it was randomly assigned to and there's no issue on that side with that judge. As Mr. -- as counsel has said, Judge Silver can do it. And it seems to me if there's any -- I understand the Court disagrees with our position. I respect that.

THE COURT: It's not a matter of subjectivity. We have court rules, and the court rules here lay out the criteria to be followed, the factors to be considered, and that's what matters. Now, it comes back to the question of whether I'm biased or prejudiced or whether there is an appearance of bias and prejudice. I'm asking you, the fact that I have engaged this case thoroughly, I viewed this case from the point of view
of everyone's interest as one of utmost importance --

MR. GRANATH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: And I invested great effort in processing it expeditiously and fairly, and I labored through the numerous issues that were presented and I reached decisions. And as we have just summarized, the other -- this is a battle in which both sides had a lot of ships sunk. How is it that the Court's engagement of counsel with vigorous dialogue and reaching conclusions, sometimes with a strong point of view, even gets close to bias or prejudice that would preclude what is otherwise an appropriate transfer? I'm not saying that the pending requirement is met. But if it were, how is it that that would preclude an otherwise appropriate transfer under Rule 41.2?

MR. GRANATH: Maybe not under the rule, Your Honor,

 

[cleardirect]

This is from the denied motion to transfer.

As to the second category of unusual circumstances warranting case reassignment, consideration of whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice does not weigh against transfer. USAPA states, “The Court’s impartiality has been made an issue of record by USAPA’s public appeal. . . . Now, plaintiffs’ motion to transfer inevitably invites 5,000 pilots to conclude that the outcome of the Company’s action would be pre-ordained, were this Court to accept transfer.” (Doc. 648 at 16.) In essence, USAPA reasons that the Court should not preside over US Airways because USAPA itself has created an appearance of partiality by proclaiming it so. The even-handed application of the LRCiv 41.2 factors directing which judge is best assigned transferred and consolidated cases should not be defeated by a party’s idea that adverse rulings mean bias.

Quite a racket usapa set up. They tell all of you that the judge was biased just because the trial did not go your way. Then usapa tells the ninth that the judge was biased because the trial did not go your way than crys that they can not get a fair trial just because usapa said so.

Here are some of the rulings that went in favor of usapa. As the judge said I guess he did not do a very good job of being biased by ruling in your favor for all of these. The problem usapa had was bottom line they did not represent the west fairly.

 

[nycbusdriver]

But Seham said the company didn't care which seniority list was used. Remove separate ratification and the problem was supposed to be solved. DOH and a big fat pay raise, right? So if the company is itching to ignore the Nic, then why file a dec action in the first place? Answer:it's preposterous to claim that the dec action somehow manifests anything other than the following: there was an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitrator produced a result that was accepted by the company, now the union which happens to be controlled by the majority wants to repudiate the arbitration award. But, the necessary conditions to change the award are: (1) better deal for the company; and (2) the other party has the authority to consent. The problem for you (USAPA) is that a union just can't arbitrarily consent to give away the rights of a minority. That is something called a DFR. That's the position you're in, and it's exactly why Seham sold you all a bucket of crap when he prophesied that the "company wouldn't care," that "the obstacle would be removed," and that "the company would be more than willing to negotiate." No, the company sees the situation for what it is. You need to read the filings on Friday. The company spells it out clearly.

More Easter Bunny talk I see. Yeah. Sure. Ok, I'll play along. So if what you say is true, then why didn't Seham and Bradford tells us this before? They insisted the company could care less which seniority list was used, and that the 9th gave USAPA the green light to negotiate whatever they wanted vis a vis seniority. So, why the dec action?

Ok, now I'll sit back and wait to hear the black helicopter conspiracy excuses from the USAPA apostles.

First, management wants to sell this pig and luxuriously line their pockets in the process.

Second, as long as the pilots are working under separate contracts, the company is not really salable.

Third, as even the Ninth Circuit opined, it is unlikely that a contract containing the Nic would be ratified in the near term.

Fourth, the company really does not care what seniority list is used. They do not care to be sued, however, by ignorant forces that do not understand the RLA. Ignorance, though destined for ultimate failure, still takes time and money to fight (see Addington vs. USAPA.)

With all this in mind, the company wants itself declared by a court to be immune from such lawsuit. That taken care of, they will likely resolve the single contract issue fairly soon afterward. (The contract will mysteriously resemble the American Airlines pilot contract in terms of compensatory rates of pay.) Since a non-Nic contract is the only one likely to be ratified in the near term, that is the contract the company will sign.

Of course, ignorance will again prevail with another ludicrous DFR suit against USAPA, but the company would not care at this point. They would have what they want, and they won't really care if a group of pilots wants to sue their union. They (and any successor corporation) would be immune, and the LCC could be marketed.

But they need the cover of immunity from the court before they can get what they really want, i.e. obscenely rich from selling LCC.

 

[cleardirect]

give me a break.. Pilots on both sides know .. if ALPA or USAPA that this MGMT is going to drag this out for as long as possible. They are using the NMB all teh way to the bank.. With our without a senority solution... DP plans on taking it all the way until the NMB says we have a cooling off period and then some...

you work for scoundrals.. sorry...

Get to a cooling off period. Another pipe dream.

So who's fault will it be when we get parked? The companies or the unions?

 

[hp_fa]

give me a break.. Pilots on both sides know .. if ALPA or USAPA that this MGMT is going to drag this out for as long as possible. They are using the NMB all teh way to the bank.. With our without a senority solution... DP plans on taking it all the way until the NMB says we have a cooling off period and then some...

I disagree. The company thought that the Addington case would be resolved on merits and not thrown out on ripeness. They have said in their own Opposition to USAPA's Rule 12 ( b ) Motion to Dismiss (Document 61)

US Airways remained neutral regarding the pilots’ seniority dispute while the Addington case was being litigated. Because USAPA’s seniority proposal was being challenged in litigation, US Airways did not respond to it. US Airways anticipated that the Addington case would provide clarification–one way or the other–regarding the legality of entering into an agreement with USAPA for a non-Nicolau seniority list. But given the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on ripeness, that clarification was not provided.

The Company expected an actual result to the Addington litigation and was waiting for that so they could determine how to proceed with the contract negotiations. However, as I said in an earlier post, the Company cannot move forward on issues of pay and benefits until it knows which seniority list will be used and then run the financial numbers of the effect of that seniority list upon any salary and benefits (including vacation, sick days, health benefits, etc.) IMO, the NMB is not going to release the pilots from negotiations until the issue of the seniority list is fully and finally decided and the Company has had a reasonable amount of time to consider that list and then make its financial decisions regarding the ongoing negotiations.

 

[767jetz]

With all this in mind, the company wants itself declared by a court to be immune from such lawsuit. That taken care of, they will likely resolve the single contract issue fairly soon afterward.

But the glaring hole in your theory is the fact that your union is fighting the very court determination that will free the company to get your theoretical DOH contract you so dearly want at all cost. This doesn't pass the sniff test. If it were true, then USAPA would be facilitating the expeditious conclusion of the DJ, and stating so publicly.

Since a non-Nic contract is the only one likely to be ratified in the near term, that is the contract the company will sign.

One more hole in your theory is the fact that the above statement (stated as fact), is purely speculative opinion with zero evidence to support. If USAPA were sure of this being a fact, then a NIC contract would have already gone out for a vote to put the issue to rest and PROVE unequivocally that a Nic contract can not be ratified. I bet there hasn't even been an independent third party survey of the pilots by the union, to test the mood and support of various ideas and positions. USAPA has no interest in facts or the truth, hence the lack of effort to pole the members. Absent an actual vote, there is no proof. In fact the absence of a vote itself proves that the union is wary of it's actual lack of support. Especially now that years have past with no improvements or achieved promises. IMO (and the opinion of may others around here), while the base may still be cheering them on, support has slipped drastically from those on the fence and those tired of LOA 93 and facing the possibility of retiring on LOA 93.

 

[Metroyet]

USAPA has no interest in facts or the truth, hence the lack of effort to pole the members.

Believe me. USAPA has expended CONSIDERABLE effort to "pole" its west membership. Actually, the entire membership and their families are relentlessly "poled" by this pointless, experimental, banana republic of a labor union.

 

[CallawayGolf]

First, management wants to sell this pig and luxuriously line their pockets in the process.

Management is doing just fine in terms of their compensation. I disagree that they have shown any motivation to ditch LCC and go sit on the beach enjoying an endless cache of funds. When US made a run for Delta – Doug was positioned to be the Chairman and CEO. When US and UA were talking about going to the merger dance again, Doug was positioned, at first anyway, to be the new CEO. Contrary to popular opinion, most of the executive leadership isn’t sticking around for more money; they are here for the challenge and prestige that comes from running a major airline. Doug forfeited his salary after 9/11 to help HP stay afloat in challenging times. Then when oil went to $140/barrel and all of the pundits had US on the bankruptcy block, Doug invested half a million dollars in US stock to show that he was committed to achieving a successful, non-bankruptcy outcome for US. The BOD has offered Doug substantial increases in his annual salary on multiple occasions and each time he has turned them down. So, on what basis do you postulate that management is only here to line their pockets and bail out at the first opportunity?