westcoastflyer
Advanced
- Aug 12, 2004
- 157
- 103
There is so much "spin" here (from both sides), I'm just getting dizzy reading all of this endless drivel. Let's wait until the ruling from the 9th finally comes out; hopefully it will be definitive.
US Pilots Labor Discussion 2/10- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Aug 4, 2007
- 882
- 12
Honestly the longer the 9th takes the more uncertainty there is for both sides. On the one hand we could argue that they are going to make this airtight dotting all their i's and crossing all their t's. This, at first blush, would seem to bode well for the west considering if they felt USAPA's argument had merit they would have issued a stay of the injunction surely by now. On the other hand maybe they are having a hard time nailing this case shut because there is some issue concerning ripeness thus delaying any swift response. I don't know what to think. Frankly all the other BS is just that. BS. From my perspective lately there have been a lot of reasonable posts from the east and I appreciate that as it brings hope that this will all end someday. However those that wish to perpetuate the hate and discontent on both sides will reap what they sow. Here's to better days guys...
Hate2fly
Veteran
Tiger,
This situation will never be right. This merger has been an abortion from the beginning. What we all have to hope for is seperate operations just like we have today. If the 9th rules in favor of the east and we get our LOA93 pay restoration, I can't imagine anyone in the east voting for a single contract with the chance that the west will try the DFR thing again. This is a terrible situation.
Hate
Elevation
Veteran
- Oct 21, 2002
- 869
- 32
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;Steve Wargocki,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
US Airline Pilots Association; US Airways, Inc.,
Defendants.
ORDER
CV08-1728-PHX-NVW
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620). On February 9, 2010, the counsel for all parties participated in a status conference with the Court regarding whether to stay proceedings in this Court pending the current appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The Court took the issue under advisement, set oral argument on pending motions on attorneys’ fees and dismissal tentatively for February 24, 2010, and indicated it would issue its ruling on a stay shortly. (Doc. # 634.) This is that ruling.
On July 23, 2009, USAPA filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the Partial Judgment and Permanent Injunction (doc. # 594) filed July 17, 2009, and sought an expeditious hearing. (Doc. # 595.) The Ninth Circuit processed USAPA’s appeal expeditiously and heard oral argument on December 8, 2009. The Ninth Circuit likely will also render its rulings on the appeal expeditiously.
The parties agree that if the Ninth Circuit reverses the July 17, 2009 partial judgment and permanent injunction, the pending motions will be moot, and staying proceedings will have had no adverse effect on Plaintiffs. If the Ninth Circuit affirms the partial judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, a stay will have delayed resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees and individual damages for the length of the stay. Defendants seek a stay of one to three months. However, the Ninth Circuit may make rulings on the appeal that should be considered in deciding the pending motions to ensure that the Court’s rulings are consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s rulings. Weighing these competing legitimate interests, the Court concludes that it is likely that a decision on appeal will be made expeditiously and that the net balance of fairness and economy to all parties favors a stay of the pending motions and of the case until then.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620), the proceedings in this Court are stayed pending decision of the appeal of the July 17, 2009 partial judgment and permanent injunction in the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 09-16564, or until further order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620) set for February 24, 2010.
DATED this 11th day of February, 2010.
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;Steve Wargocki,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
US Airline Pilots Association; US Airways, Inc.,
Defendants.
ORDER
CV08-1728-PHX-NVW
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620). On February 9, 2010, the counsel for all parties participated in a status conference with the Court regarding whether to stay proceedings in this Court pending the current appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The Court took the issue under advisement, set oral argument on pending motions on attorneys’ fees and dismissal tentatively for February 24, 2010, and indicated it would issue its ruling on a stay shortly. (Doc. # 634.) This is that ruling.
On July 23, 2009, USAPA filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the Partial Judgment and Permanent Injunction (doc. # 594) filed July 17, 2009, and sought an expeditious hearing. (Doc. # 595.) The Ninth Circuit processed USAPA’s appeal expeditiously and heard oral argument on December 8, 2009. The Ninth Circuit likely will also render its rulings on the appeal expeditiously.
The parties agree that if the Ninth Circuit reverses the July 17, 2009 partial judgment and permanent injunction, the pending motions will be moot, and staying proceedings will have had no adverse effect on Plaintiffs. If the Ninth Circuit affirms the partial judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, a stay will have delayed resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees and individual damages for the length of the stay. Defendants seek a stay of one to three months. However, the Ninth Circuit may make rulings on the appeal that should be considered in deciding the pending motions to ensure that the Court’s rulings are consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s rulings. Weighing these competing legitimate interests, the Court concludes that it is likely that a decision on appeal will be made expeditiously and that the net balance of fairness and economy to all parties favors a stay of the pending motions and of the case until then.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620), the proceedings in this Court are stayed pending decision of the appeal of the July 17, 2009 partial judgment and permanent injunction in the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 09-16564, or until further order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620) set for February 24, 2010.
DATED this 11th day of February, 2010.
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge
Freebird
Veteran
You're right, Parker should have just left US Airways to fold into Chapter 7. Obscurity. Done.
But now we find ourselves in this mess, with a group who knows little of integrity, if any.
Dividing this abortion may be the only option. Im sure USAPA's DOH plans will go over well at any other carrier. At least you didnt have to work at Home Depot the last few years, or maybe you did, to subsidize your pay.
But now we find ourselves in this mess, with a group who knows little of integrity, if any.
Dividing this abortion may be the only option. Im sure USAPA's DOH plans will go over well at any other carrier. At least you didnt have to work at Home Depot the last few years, or maybe you did, to subsidize your pay.
Hate2fly
Veteran
Aqua,
This was probably the desert judges toughest stay he ever issued. He denied USAPA on everything! I am pretty sure the 9th would have issued the stay if your boy hadn't had a change of heart. You are probably right, this doesn't mean anything!
Hate
aquagreen73s
Veteran
- Aug 22, 2005
- 1,979
- 1,877
Let's review this again: today's stay has nothing to do with the injunction which laced USAPA with a straight jacket. USAPA's request to the 9th to undo these shackles imposed by Judge Wake has been sitting, and sitting, and sitting and sitting at the 9th with nary a peep from them. Hmmm. I wonder why?
Hate2fly
Veteran
aqua,
You guys are going to be popular with your west pilot group when you get spanked by the 9th. How much money did you spend 1.8 million. Premature adjudication. The judge took you as far as he could. You should have listened to J. Freund. Remember all the risk is on your side. I feel sorry for you guys.
Hate
Black Swan
Veteran
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,894
- 5,045
How is it we have to work at Home Depot to subsidize out pay? Many pilots here make more than you . I guess you guys always forget to account for the fact you get paid the same on all jets. We don't. Our 75 and 330 guys make more than you do.As usual, only the spin........
Hate2fly
Veteran
Black Swan
Veteran
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,894
- 5,045
Oh man, are we hoping to jettison you guys also! The classic will be if you get wrapped up with Republic, I can't wait to see that integration! Stick with your past practice, you are going to see an abortion like you never expected!
Black Swan
Veteran
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,894
- 5,045
Freebird. 2002 hire. Placed behind Republic Aug 2009 hire. Sound fair to me as far as past practice West Merger thinking goes......
We listened to Freund, still do. He was not kidding when he wrote the letters to Bradford and the company, in which he stated their unlawful attempt to overturn the Nic would be met with litigation for any damages incurred by your breach of contract. Why do you think the company said "thanks, but no thanks" when usapa passed the DOH list at the negotiating table? We just decided to use another law team for the actual seeking of those damages, and I for one am glad we did. What was the lawyers name that told Bradford to conceal his intentions, while breaking the law? That was the lawyer you should have listened to.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Dec 13, 2009
- 2,894
- 5,045
The Desert Judge is looking down the tracks at the light coming on fast. The beacon of Justice, roaring EASTBOUND to deliver the news. The news he should have know was coming when you step WAY out of bounds for your hometown buddies. Kind of like that old Mississippi Justice those good old boys down south used to deliver to the Clan in the days of old. All legal, all sanctioned in the local environment. One problem. It didn't flush quite right with the thinking of the rest of the country. Was a little too local, and inbred. Got away with it just a little too long.Sounded really right and good when you sat it down with the skewed thinking of the locals. Anyone with a little perspective got it real fast. There was something smelly goin on. It is going to take a FEDERAL APPEALS COURT to set the perspective again. Seems things got a little out of hand in the desert sun.....................
L
luvn737s
Guest
Until the 9th wets their pants laughing at USAPA's thinly veiled attempts to disenfranchise 1/3 of the pilot group.
Then it becomes a Western US thing as they try to peddle it to the Supreme Court.
Then it becomes a Western US thing as they try to peddle it to the Supreme Court.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
