US Pilots Labor Discussion 2/10- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[traderjake]

Why do you care? You are retired and probably have some time to waste. Check it out on your own.

Hate

What a pathetic thing to say.

 

[cactusboy53]

There would be no more litagation ,the west does not have the money and most of the pilots out there are fed up with the cactus 18 that are causing all this.

?? :blink: ??
To quote Dean Wormer: "0.2... Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

The lion's share of the meat is already on the table with regard to discovery & fact. Re-trying the Addington case wouldn't come close to the 1.8 million that has been tallied. Fed up? There is only one thing that we are fed up with.... knuckle dragging miscreants that spew hyperbole & puffery that can not be held to their word. Finally, the Cactus 18 is completely separate from Addington.

 

[veritasaequitas]

guess what gentlemen. No one cares what you want, if you do or do not want this merged the company is merged.

News flash we did not want to be hooked up with you guys. Delta did not want to be hooked up with you guys. UAL did not want to be hooked up with you guys. Can anyone find the common denominator?

We don't want it but we are stuck with east pilots. Learn to deal with the facts as they are or be disappointed your whole life.

Can anyone find the common denominator?, you inquired. Yes the common denominator is the seniority of the pilot group that they were possibly merging with.

 

[ClueByFour]

You don't get any tenents of labor law. Neither did the Desert Judge. Seniority is negotiable. The deal was never finished under ALPA. You have a new union.

I am going to laugh when whomever gets the carcass of LCC staples you guys and uses the "Seeham Precedent" to do it.

Each and every one of the junior (and presumably) angry FOs at East deserves to still be employed when/if US merges with a larger carrier---if USAPA prevails.

If seniority is indeed "negotiable" there is nothing you can do (including McCaskill-Bond) to avoid the stapler in a merger with any of CO/UA/DL. Nothing. And should USAPA prevail on Addington, it could not happen to a nicer bunch of fellows.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Yes the common denominator is the seniority of the pilot group that they were possibly merging with.

Not seniority, but longevity. In a DOH integration longevity is all that matters - whether a 20 year pilot is a 747 captain or a 737 fo makes no difference at all. Which is why the East wants DOH so badly...those junior fo's suddenly have the seniority to be captains while the captains on the other side no longer have the seniority to hold their job.

Jim

 

[veritasaequitas]

I keep asking "what part of binding, do you not get?"

The results provided a windfall, (against ALPA merger policy) for the America West pilots, this is powerfully evident by the polarization of the east and west pilot groups to date.

The East pilots do not want to take anything the West has. The West pilots are not very happy with staying on their side of the fence, because they realize the grass is greener on the other side.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The results provided a windfall, (against ALPA merger policy) for the America West pilots

So the East pilots say. Of course, East pilots say lots of things that aren't backed up with facts but are nothing but justification for attempting to get DOH.

The East pilots do not want to take anything the West has.

So easy to say that it just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? Then why do USAPA's own proffered C/R's allow the East pilots to do exactly that?

Jim

 

[Freebird]

Phoenix,

Ever since the desert judge had a change of direction the other day the westies have been flustered. As you know the judge has gone the west way from the start. Must have been really tough day for the judge.
The 9th is about to spank the westies on the ripeness issue.

Hate

You couldnt be more wrong. Enjoy your 'sense' of reality. Keep Kissing the ring !!!

 

[HPearlyretiree]

The results provided a windfall, (against ALPA merger policy) for the America West pilots, this is powerfully evident by the polarization of the east and west pilot groups to date.

The East pilots do not want to take anything the West has. The West pilots are not very happy with staying on their side of the fence, because they realize the grass is greener on the other side.

East, West and the company agreed to binding arbitration, but East reneged.

You can't do that.

 

[aquagreen73s]

If seniority is indeed "negotiable" there is nothing you can do (including McCaskill-Bond) to avoid the stapler in a merger with any of CO/UA/DL.

No worries. The case is clearly ripe:

(3) USAPA conflates accrual of limitations with ripeness.

A claim can be ripe before limitations begin to run. Neither Ramey nor other published decisions offered by USAPA show that this claim lacks ripeness. None of these decisions hold that a union must complete CBA negotiations before a claim can be ripe. Indeed, some hold to the contrary. A decision that superficially supports USAPA’s position, Breeger, is unpublished and otherwise too flawed to be at all persuasive. Ramey v. District 141, IAMAW, 378 F.3d 269 (2d Cir. 2004), must be read carefully because it addresses limitations, not ripeness, and it identifies an exception to the general rule that a claim accrues for purpose of ripeness at the same time it accrues for purpose of limitations. Cf. Gemtel Corp. v. Community Redevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 1542, 1545 (9th Cir. 1994) (applying rule).

Ramey explains this exception by drawing an analogy to "a party's anticipatory repudiation of a contractual duty." Id. at 279. In the contract repudiation context, Ramey explains, ripeness and limitations need not accrue at the same time. The aggrieved party has a choice. It can elect to treat the claim as ripe at the time of repudiation and proceed on an action for remedy or it can wait for concrete injury and assert a claim then. It can do so, even where the statute of limitations would have expired by the time of concrete injury if it was timed from the repudiation. Id. Hence, for purpose of ripeness, an action accrues at repudiation; for purpose of limitations, it need not accrue before concrete injury.


DFR repudiation, the Ramey court explained by analogy to contract repudiation, occurs with a "union's announcement of its intent to advocate against its members'€interests." Id. Ramey, quoting Franconia Assoc. v. United States, 536 U.S. 129, 144 (2002), explained that "the time of accrual depends on whether the injured party chooses to treat the anticipatory repudiation as a present breach." Id. (alteration marks omitted). According to Ramey, therefore, the West Pilots had a ripe claim as soon as USAPA unequivocally announced its intention to breach its DFR. Ramey, therefore, supports the West Pilots'€position on ripeness.

USAPA's argument to the contrary is wrong. USAPA relies on decisions, other than Ramey, that also fail to support its position. Two of these decisions merit only brief discussion. Federal Express Corp. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 67 F.3d 961, 964 (D.C. Cir. 1995), does not apply to ripeness of a DFR claim because it addresses a dispute between an airline and a union. Gallindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502, 1509-1510 (9th Cir. 1986), does not apply to the issue of ripeness because it addresses limitations.

Gullickson v. Southwest Airlines Pilots' Assoc., 931 F. Supp. 1534, 1541 (D. Utah 1995), also does not address ripeness. Rather, it merely recognizes that the principle of ratification applies to DFR claims. USAPA offers no authority for the proposition that a potential for ratification negates ripeness. If it did, then a host of non-DFR claims would never be ripe because they are open to ratification "at any time."€ See, e.g., Restatement (First) of Restitution § 68, cmt. c (1937) ("A person entitled to affirm a transaction can do so at any time"); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 4.02, cmt. b (2006) ("[R]atification extinguishes claims").

USAPA's argument that the possibility of future ratification negated ripeness, Op. Br. at 20, cannot be right. If it was, no claim by principal against agent would be ripe. That cannot be. Brooks v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 630 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 2009), decides ripeness by applying prudential considerations that are materially different than the considerations in this matter. The Brooks court chose to defer hearing a DFR claim on the basis that the claim raised a discrete issue that would likely soon be mooted by the outcome of a pending grievance. The district court here weighed different prudential considerations, explaining that this dispute does not raise a discrete issue that would be resolved elsewhere. (1ER47:18-20.) Brooks, therefore, does not show any error here by the district court.

Breeger v. USAPA, Case No. 3:08CV490-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 2009), is not persuasive because it is neither on point nor well reasoned. (Add. 13). The Breeger plaintiffs alleged unfair representation based on failure to adhere to a union constitutional provision. They alleged that USAPA wrongly refused to "disturb the relative positions of a group of East Pilots on the East Pilot seniority list, contrary to its constitutional commitment to date-of-hire. Id. at 2-3 (Add. 14-15). A union's constitution, however, does not strictly define its DFR. See Retana v. Apartment, Motel, Hotel & Elevator Operators, 453 F.2d 1018, 1024-1025 (9th Cir. 1972) (not defined by the “union's ‘internal’ policies and practicesâ€). Hence, Breeger should be distinguished because it is not a true DFR case.

Breeger is unpersuasive for three additional reasons. First, the court was not briefed on material case law. See Breeger at 5 ("The parties have not cited, and the undersigned is unaware of, anypublished federal authority addressing whether a union’s conduct may give rise to a ripe DFR claim prior to the conclusion of negotiations with the employer.") (emphasis in original) (Add. 17). Second, Breeger makes no mention of Ramey, a decision that is close on point. (1ER46:26-27.) Third, its analysis fails to reconcile the holding in United Independent Flight Officers, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., that fair representation suits may properly challenge "the negotiations leading to [CBAs]." 756 F.2d 1262, 1273 (7th Cir. 1985). As an unpublished decision having such defects, Breeger should have no persuasive effect.

 

[luvn737s]

They all have seem to forgot about "PROJECT ZANZIZBAR"

OK, now give me a link to the particular details of both Zanzibar and the Kirby proposal.

C'mon, so much is riding on these two documents, you must have access to all the details of both.

You guys never seem to tire of Cleary's bedtime stories, especially the scary ones where USAPA saves the F/O's.

 

[Black Swan]

OK, now give me a link to the particular details of both Zanzibar and the Kirby proposal.

C'mon, so much is riding on these two documents, you must have access to all the details of both.

You guys never seem to tire of Cleary's bedtime stories, especially the scary ones where USAPA saves the F/O's.

Mike is an awesome guy. You just haven't figured him out yet. You too, will kiss the ring someday.

 

[Freebird]

You finish with Integrity Matters. The Cactus 18 consist of a bunch of thugs who blocked the safety hotline, and mailed dog excrement. Imagine how great it would have been if these clowns had been blocking the safety hotline on the day 1549 went down. They should be pursued if they blocked the safety hotline. Pursued they will be. Integrity matters. Keep the pressure on.

What does Usapa hope to gain by pursuing the Cactus 18? What will they gain? A moral victory? Lord knows Cleary needs one. Glad you guys enjoy losing.

Integrity Matters. Honor your agreement.

Afraid a contract will pass? No need to answer, we all know it will. Like I said, stay focused on the main event, the Cactus 18 are old news. They are handling Usapa just fine.

Nic = Final and Binding

 

[CallawayGolf]

You finish with Integrity Matters. The Cactus 18 consist of a bunch of thugs who blocked the safety hotline, and mailed dog excrement. Imagine how great it would have been if these clowns had been blocking the safety hotline on the day 1549 went down. They should be pursued if they blocked the safety hotline. Pursued they will be. Integrity matters. Keep the pressure on.

And of course you have proof of these allegations and that these acts were committed by west pilots rather than east pilots as part of an internal conspiracy to go after the west. Of course you don't save for a few phone calls from a few.

1549 and the safety hotline! Does USAPA know how to turn on a TV? The story was plastered over every news service before the first passenger was rescued. What was USAPA going to do anyway - help Sully land in the Hudson? Call the ferry boats? What a joke. All USAPA amateurs could do would be to get in the professionals' way.

 

[Freebird]

Mike is an awesome guy. You just haven't figured him out yet. You too, will kiss the ring someday.

You certainly have a strange fascination with Kissing his Ring.