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

[CallawayGolf]

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

To whom would US sell itself? When has this management team ever discussed or insinuated that selling was even an option to be considered? Mergers? Yes and always positioned so as the HP/US business model and executive leadership would be transferred to the merged entity (DL/UA). Management believes in consolidation, yes. Parachuting out with lined pockets? I see no evidence to substantiate your claim. However, it would seem that the biggest impediment to another merger transaction is the east pilot contract which requires a specific COC structure such as the HP/US deal to make it work. The sooner USAPA accepts NIC and advances a JCBA, the better off all, including management will be. This lends evidence to the claim that management does actually want the pilots under one unified contract.

 

[CallawayGolf]

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.)

What else did the Ninth opine on? Is their opinion worth any more than the chairman of IBM predicting that there would be a world-wide market for maybe five computers, or Einstein predicting that nuclear energy would never be attainable, or a Columbia University climatologist claiming in 1975 the world was inescapably heading into another ice age?

What the ninth didn’t do was to look at the Addington case in terms of merit. The only court to have done that thus far is the District court which found USAPA guilty of a DFR under Federal law, including the RLA. The ignorance of the DFR law based on the merits is not to be on the side of the plaintiffs or the District Court. USAPA takes that honor.

 

[luvn737s]

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?

The only way to shift out of Park will be to push the brake on Cleary and Co. first. Dump USAPA and put the representation vote out there. Make USAPA defend their record or be replaced.

 

[cleardirect]

Ignorance, though destined for ultimate failure, still takes time and money to fight

That could be said about a frivolous RICO law suit filed by USAPA. Dismissed and affirmed by a circuit court.

 

[hp_fa]

Cleardirect's quotations from the transcript didn't include what I thought was the real telling point of the Wake/Granath exchange. I'll pickup where Cleardirect left off.

MR. GRANATH: Maybe not under the rule, Your Honor, but under the constitutional right that my client has to a fair trial. And I would note that there is juris prudence in this circuit, as well as others, that have redirected judges on to different cases when the bias standard wasn't met. And I think that's an example of resolving doubts in favor of the appearance as well.

THE COURT: I'm asking you whether you are saying that your client could not get a fair trial if I transfer this case. And if so, I'm going to be asking you for the specifics.

MR. GRANATH: Our position at this time, Your Honor, is we do not think we could get a fair trial.

THE COURT: Okay. Tell me the specifics. We have all day.

MR. GRANATH: And Your Honor, those specifics we elaborated in our brief in Docket 648. And I could do no more than repeat what's been written there.

THE COURT: Well, let's go through them then. This is on Page 13 of your brief.

MR. GRANATH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: At Line 13, quote, "Expression mid-trial that, quote, 'there is a unique quality about the Nicolau Award that established both a legal and an "honorable obligation" togo forward with it,'" close quote.

How does that express prejudice or bias or unfairness? That certainly expresses a view, but how is that biased or unfairly deprive you of a fair trial?

MR. GRANATH: The objection there Your Honor is that that goes beyond the law of the honorable obligation phrase.

THE COURT: So that reflects a lack of a fair trial?

MR. GRANATH: It does to the extent, Your Honor, that it appears there that the Court was prejudging based on other than legal criteria.

THE COURT: Well, not at all. This is a fair observation on a view of the evidence and nothing more than what judges do routinely in cases.

Let's go to the next one. Quote, "The Court's declaration at the outset of litigation that USAPA's seniority proposal was 100 percent victory for the East Pilots and 100 percent defeat for the West Pilots, a statement made by the Court before it reviewed any of the conditions and restrictions which USAPA's constitution mandates be included in order to protect the un-merged career expectations of the West Pilots," close quote.

Now, we had -- that was the other side's point of view and looking at what was before me at that time, it certainly looked that way. And with the benefit of eight days of trial and exposing things, how could -- you had a different view and the West Pilots had a different view. How could this be something not grounded in evidence that's a reflection of bias and prejudice, Mr. Granath?

MR. GRANATH: It's a fair question, Your Honor. I can only say we respectfully disagree in that our point in making this was this is what we had said to the appellate court, right or wrong, and that now for a transfer to come in, we have a judge that already went through this and expressed strong rulings. My point is that there's a random judge that's fresh. I understand the Court disagrees with our perspective here, and I respect that.

THE COURT: This is my responsibility, to review the evidence. And I frankly don't remember the context of this particular discussion. But this is in no way an indication of bias or prejudice or lack of a fair trial.

Your next quote at Line 18, the Court's statement that basically, that this looks like a situation where the union members who had the political muscle did what they wanted. Now, that -- you had a different view that was presented. It was tried. And upon different evidence, that might come to a different result. Is this not just another example of dealing with evidence and contentions describing them that the Court has to deal with in order to do its job?

MR. GRANATH: It's possible Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And then the next quote, at the top of Page 14, "The Court's comment that USAPA was, quote, 'created and selected by express campaign promises to disregard
the interests of West Pilots,'" close quote, well, that was an issue that was tried to the jury and I accepted the jury's conclusion. I was persuaded to the same on the evidence. How
is that anything other than discharge of the Court's duty to resolve issues?

MR. GRANATH: I have nothing to add on that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I could go -- the others are of the same character.

MR. GRANATH: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: So we won't belabor it. But the only thing that I, for this discussion, raiseis whether you have said anything different in your briefing to the Court of Appeals that I haven't read. So if there's something I should be aware of that would bear on either my impartiality or the appropriateness of a transfer, I would want to know. But I'm going to assume unless you tell me otherwise,

Mr. Granath, that whatever else you said in your Court of Appeals brief is of this same character. Is that correct?

MR. GRANATH: Actually, Your Honor, it was far less than what was in this brief and it was a very, I think, limited and pointed. We felt we had good faith basis to make it.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GRANATH: It's not out of a lack of respect for the Court. It was our position, and I don't want any of my comments to be construed today that we're abandoning that position.

THE COURT: Did you have any other issues you wanted to address?

MR. GRANATH: On the transfer motion, No, Your Honor. No, I don't on any matter.

THE COURT: All right.Thank you.

MR. GRANATH: Thank you.

THE COURT: We'll hear from Mr. Harper in reply.

MR. HARPER: Your Honor, I have nothing to add to what has been said before.

THE COURT: All right. Very well. Thank you, counsel. I don't set many oral arguments, but this is important so I appreciate you all -- well, you all advised me this is the time you are available so I set it when available.

The motions are taken under advisement, and I want to go back and look at specifically, some of these new authorities mainly that Mr. Granath has cited me to. I will look at those and I will try to get these rulings out quickly.

We'll be adjourned.

(Emphasis Added (Bold text and underline) by me.)

 

[CallawayGolf]

Cleardirect's quotations from the transcript didn't include what I thought was the real telling point of the Wake/Granath exchange. I'll pickup where Cleardirect left off.



(Emphasis Added (Bold Text) by me.)

Now we know why $eham didn't have the guts to show up in court.

 

[Barrister]

What else did the Ninth opine on? Is their opinion worth any more than the chairman of IBM predicting that there would be a world-wide market for maybe five computers, or Einstein predicting that nuclear energy would never be attainable, or a Columbia University climatologist claiming in 1975 the world was inescapably heading into another ice age?

What the ninth didn’t do was to look at the Addington case in terms of merit. The only court to have done that thus far is the District court which found USAPA guilty of a DFR under Federal law, including the RLA. The ignorance of the DFR law based on the merits is not to be on the side of the plaintiffs or the District Court. USAPA takes that honor.

You really didn't write that "is there opinion worth.....
no you didnnnnnnttttt. you really did not write that did you....
yea.....I guess you did LMAO

NICDAO
NPJB

 

[KTM300]

I doubt the majority of east pilots understand what motivates the former AWA management that occupy the upper ranks of LCC. But it is my opinion that the majority of West pilots do not either. 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.

I will not be attending any usapa meetings, as I am not a member. I do not join clubs that are formed by people who cannot be trusted, misuse the legal system and would like to steal from me. But I did read usapa's C&Rs. In all sincerity I can see where they are an attempt at mitigating West fears, however, they are just another unilaterally written piece of garbage that the West is going to tell usapa to shove. There is nothing in the C&Rs that protects a West pilots SENIORITY, even in their own domicile.

I heard usapa was taken back a little at their PHX meeting, because on of the 8 or so who showed was a 27 year 757 capt who voiced his concerns. Seem he sees the holes in the C&Rs as well.

Believe me when I tell you the West is not walking lockstep with Ferguson, but the West is 100% opposed to the tactics the east has relied upon.

Do I honestly believe an implemented Nic would not have C&Rs. Good question. I think that if usapa adopted the Nic in a bargaining proposal, and put some minor C&Rs to protect say 9 330s and the 767, and that contract passed, in all likelyhood "the damages plaintiffs fear" would not be sufficient enough to raise the cash for a protracted legal battle. However, if past performance is any indicator, usapa will try to steal everything from the West but the kitchen sink, then tell us that is all our house had in the first place. So, the Nic, unmodified, to its terms, is where we are heading.

I can not speak of Lakefield, Wolf and Gangwal of their travel preferences. I will say that I had both wolf and gangwal on my aircraft at different times and don't recall seeing anyone like you discribed with them. I had heard of the rumor you mentioned about bodygaurds, however.

Sorry for requesting this for clarification but by "West pilots SENIORITY" do you mean longevity or something else?

In reply to one of the few who did not boycott the presentation, I understand he had a lot to say, including that he did 'not like the nic.' He said he likes to fly 99 hours every month and more or less wanted his share of the PBGC money. His arguments was initially that he prefered PBS over line bidding.

I can only speculate about an outcome that isn't on the table, but I would guess it would contain considerable fencing. But that is just an opinion. What I would really like to know is what is it with the nic that y'all want so bad. Put aside your argument about final and binding for a moment. Do you want to fly out of the bases in the east? Do you want to fly the wide body equipment? Do you want the east attrition? Do you want furlough protection? Or...Do you want all of the above?

Many on here seem to think that we(the east pilots) have stolen something from the west. Personally, I don't see it that way. If Capt. 99hrs. a month(see above) with a date of hire of 12/12/83 and now less than 4 years wants to fly anywere outside of PHX and LAS, the C&R allow him to do that and since he was hired about 10 months before me, he would have seniority over me and I have no problem with that. I can also assure you that I have no intentions of ever bidding out west.

 

[fatherabraham]

Now we know why $eham didn't have the guts to show up in court.

Oh what a pitiful cast of characters. I'll leave it at that except to say i am glad he abstained.
The BIG man sometimes needs to be "put in his place", but not at the expense of others.
Was that vague enuf?
FA

 

[88 B.T.D.]

However, it would seem that the biggest impediment to another merger transaction is the east pilot contract which requires a specific COC structure such as the HP/US deal to make it work. The sooner USAPA accepts NIC and advances a JCBA, the better off all, including management will be...

Do you not think this COC is a strong bargaining position for all of us? Why would we want anything less in a new CBA unless the company pays for it in other ways?

 

[CallawayGolf]

Do you not think this COC is a strong bargaining position for all of us? Why would we want anything less in a new CBA unless the company pays for it in other ways?

Whatever the original intent of the current COC provisions were, the only purpose they now seem to serve is to block any straight forward and sound business decision from being advanced to acquire or merger with another carrier for the purpose of making the new company a stronger, more profitable competitor. So if no transaction can or will legitimately take place because of the onerous nature of the COC then they aren’t a benefit to anyone, possibly weakening LCC which in turn puts negative pressure on wages and benefits or more furloughing of staff. If the COCs were redrafted to provide an actual benefit to the pilots without serving to block any/all transactions from occurring, then I would have no issue will calling the COCs a strong bargaining position. For now Management will continue to find ways to structure deals in such a way as to not trigger the provisions, which means they hold no value.

 

[exB717Flyer]

I can't wait for Judge Silver to make her first ruling USAPA doesn't like. Like Wake she'll also be dubbed a biased "Desert Judge". Oh, she's in her sixties so don't forget to call her senile.

 

[aquagreen73s]

I can't wait for Judge Silver to make her first ruling USAPA doesn't like. Like Wake she'll also be dubbed a biased "Desert Judge". Oh, she's in her sixties so don't forget to call her senile.

U.S. District Court

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA


The following transaction was entered on 10/26/2010 at 11:55 AM MST and filed on 10/26/2010

Case Name: US Airways, Inc. v. Addington et al
Case Number: 2:10-cv-01570-ROS <https://ecf.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?539766>
Filer:
Document Number: 65(No document attached)


Docket Text:
The Court has considered Defendant USAPA's Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Doc. Nos. 55, 59. The motion is inartfully drawn and lacks good cause for an extension of the reply deadline. IT IS ORDERED the Motion [63] is DENIED. Signed by Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 10/26/2010.(ROS)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)

 

[nic4us]

I can't wait for Judge Silver to make her first ruling USAPA doesn't like. Like Wake she'll also be dubbed a biased "Desert Judge". Oh, she's in her sixties so don't forget to call her senile.

Well, that did not take long.

 

[hp_fa]

I posted on here that USAPA might well have been better off with the judge they knew, but disliked, as opposed to Judge Silver. Instead they insult Wake to his face and then go all-in on Judge Silver, who they have already aggravated.