US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/13- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Waketurbulence]

Under federal rules on Declaratory judgement, when served with a complaint, there is 30 days for the named defendant or defendants to respond. Discovery is a minimum of 6 months per the federal rules, any challenges or objections delays another 90, so in essence it will be close to a year until Judge Silver actually has a hearing on the merits.... , it will likely be at least a year from now.

Maybe, maybe not...

The case could be remanded back to Judge Wake for just this reason...

 

[nic4us]

The suit appears calculated to provide an excuse to hold up progress in bargaining. In the view of USAPA legal counsel, the lawsuit lacks merit and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons articulated by the Ninth Circuit in its recent dismissal of the Addington action. Therefore, the Association will vigorously oppose this lawsuit, and upon further review will provide a more detailed analysis of the Company’s filing and other communications.

USAPA Communications

Well there is your problem right there. Still do not understand the position you are in, and you are still listening to Seham, who apparently does not understand what the 9th has ruled.

I do not read the tripe that comes out of usapa communications unless it is posted in some other forum. This whole update reeks of ignorance and inflamitory BS. Is usapa actually this ....I am at a loss for the correct word...

What part of it does usapa not get? You are not getting DOH. All the same parties who entered into the TA are still here. Not ripe does not mean anything other than not ripe. "final and binding" does however mean just that, and Duty of Fair Respresentation means you cannot steal from your co-workers for your or your "unions" benefit.

Pass anything other than the Nic, get sued, waste money, lose "unquestionably ripe DFR". Looks to me like the company wants out of that "unquestionably ripe" part.

 

[nic4us]

Obviously this is an attempt to maintain the status quo, keep the infighting ongoing, and avoid negotiating in a serious way for a new contract. The 9th Circuit ruled on the issues of ripeness and its almost as if the attorneys filing didn't read the opinion, or their motives aren't what they are claiming. The 9th ruled that USAPA is free to bargain without interference, period. It clearly ruled that it has an obligation to do so in good faith, which it defined by citation in its opinion and because of any number of variables, some listed, adjudication would be premature and the case lacked jurisdiction. All of those same facts still exist. The case cited in US Airways' complaint was a general catch all case, that isn't in anyway similar to the facts of this one. Typically a complaint contains no case citation, it is usually just consists of the facts associated with the alleged complaint. It was kind of odd, that they included it.

Under federal rules on Declaratory judgement, when served with a complaint, there is 30 days for the named defendant or defendants to respond. Discovery is a minimum of 6 months per the federal rules, any challenges or objections delays another 90, so in essence it will be close to a year until Judge Silver actually has a hearing on the merits. If she were to actually grant US Airways request for Declaratory judgement, she would have to conduct her own trial on the merits of what USAPA's obligations and responsibilities pursuant to DFR are make a ruling as to whether negotiating bases off its own Constitution and By-Laws and the seniority methodology was a breach of "Good Faith", so an entirely new trial before her conducted with the same jurisdictional issue that was argued and answered before the 9th Circuit. If the trial conducted before her turned out in USAPA's favor, the Addington plaintiffs would appeal and use the decision just rendered by the 9th Circuit, to argue for the case to be dismissed on ripeness. Given the precedent of that opinion it would likely be granted. So anyone with any legitimate legal knowledge and perspective can see that this case will likely be dismissed on the ripeness issue but because the time and structure built into federal court rules, it will likely be at least a year from now.

You sure know a lot for a longshoreman.

But again you read way more into it than is actually there.

First and foremost, the 9th did not rule that usapa is "free to bargain without interference, period". And even if they did, who is usapa going to bargain with? A company who is not going to be dragged into usapa's next "unquestionably ripe DFR" lawsuit?

 

[nic4us]

767jetz,

767jetz asked: "As an east pilot yourself, I'm wondering what you hear out on the line speaking to other east pilots about what USAPA is doing or planning?"

USA320pilot comments: 767jetz, I believe the tide has shifted on the East where most Captains and many First Officers now believe the information they were provided by Steve Bradford, Lee Seham, and USAPA's founding fathers was invalid. The majority of East and West pilots want to move forward, accept the Nicolau Award, and negotiate a reasonable joint contract. And, I believe there are enough votes to elect a new union through an NMB ordered Representation Election, with most likely seeking a return to ALPA forthcoming, if USAPA loses the LOA 93 Pay Freeze Arbitration, with the Opinion & Award due in August or September.

In this debate people seem to forget the East and West contract requires the pilots to accept the Nicolau Award.

On September 23, 2005 the Airline Parties (US Airways' Management, the East MEC, and the West MEC) signed the Transition Agreement. The Transition Agreement states in Section 1V. A., "the seniority lists of America West pilots and US Airways pilots will be integrated in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy and submitted to the Airlines parties for acceptance. The Airline Parties will accept such integrated seniority list, including conditions and restrictions."

No where in the Transition Agreement does it state anything other than the parties "will accept" the Award.

In the end, for me this issue is about integrity and not going back on our word by breaking a promise. Far too many people are accommodating their thoughts to believe what they want to hear when we all know the East pilots broke a promise for money and their desire to virtually staple the West pilots (85 percent) to the bottom of the seniority list with DOH/C&Rs. It does not matter to me one iota any one else thinks because because I would have to live with myself by knowing I broke a promise - I can't do that.

Reneging or going back on one's word, violating our contract in the process, and breaking a promise for money and to staple another pilot group after agreeing to a "final and binding" arbitration, not maybe "final and binding arbitration", is wrong. That is the truth and everybody knows it. In my opinion, US Airways' pilots are viewed in the industry by managements, other pilot groups, and outside observers as people they do not want to merge or work with because the East pilots cannot be trusted. I can see why.

It's too bad and this probably contributed to US Airways not being part of the Big 3 legacy companies (so far anyways) because US Airways' pilots, both East and West, are some of the best pilots in the world and deserve better from their union leadership that I believe continues to fail its members time-and-time again.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

usa320Pilot,

Nice post. Thank you.

 

[kamono]

usa320Pilot,

Nice post. Thank you.

I agree to very nice post. Thanks

 

[ROACLT]

You sure know a lot for a longshoreman.

But again you read way more into it than is actually there.

First and foremost, the 9th did not rule that usapa is "free to bargain without interference, period". And even if they did, who is usapa going to bargain with? A company who is not going to be dragged into usapa's next "unquestionably ripe DFR" lawsuit?

It's nice when your next door neighbor is a judge and your kids are best friends. I don't claim to be an aspiring lawyer like hp-fa, and I ask questions of those who know more about the law and court processes than I do, which is very little. Bargain without interference, is bargain without interference. You can't define that in any other way. They did stipulate USAPA has a "good faith" requirement but any determination on whether that is met is premature until there is something to actually evaluate which cannot and will not take place until there is a ratified contract.

In essence, they are asking for a court to make a hypothetical ruling, so they may not have some future legal expense resulting out of a DFR claim that has not yet been filed, and which other than verbal sparring may never be filed, may never make it to trial, and if in the eventuality that it did, a whole new trial would take place and no one could predict the outcome, or the appeal, yada, yada, yada,........ If this entire affair had a ripeness issue, that borders the absurd.

The claim here now asks for a whole new layer of hypothetical arguments to be answered on a case that was already deemed "not ripe", and therefore lacked the criteria for judicial intervention. If this Judge, and with a declaratory judgement motion will likely be a bench trial if it gets that far, renders a decision favorable to USAPA, preclude Addington from appealing primarily on the issue of ripeness? No, and with the same jurisdictional question, it is unlikely the motion will be acted upon. Let me ask you this, USAPA can bear the expense of a new trial if it is granted under this request, obviously the plaintiff, what about Addington? I am sure you realize, the potential exists for another expensive trial, that most certainly will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit appellate court, which already answered ripeness issues, with the same underlying question that has been argued and answered, and be right back to where things are now. For all of these reasons, there is probably less than 10% chance the request will be granted. It could easily cost a years worth or court expense for the request to be dismissed and be right back here, and in that sense they won't be doing Addington any favors.

 

[ROACLT]

Maybe, maybe not...

The case could be remanded back to Judge Wake for just this reason...

The case, has already been assigned to another judge. This is an entirely new lawsuit and the rules for discovery can't be bypassed. You are talking about an automatic reversal on appeal if the federal rules weren't followed.

 

[Barrister]

There must be some serious midnight oil being burned while they figure out how to spin this one at USAPA HQ.

I had the same thoughts. Why oppose something like this if you are so sure of the outcome in the first place? The company is just covering their a$$ here. Get the contract with DOH out there and be done with it.

What ever happened to "slam dunk; the Nic is dead; internal union matter; the ninth spanked you and it's over; we won and you lost get over it; etc. etc.?????" Apparently it's not quite so dead nor the outcome so certain after all, huh?

I'm sure Luvthe9 and others will spin their heads off trying to put a smile on this one. Not only did the company show their hand, another judge ruling that the nic must be used would bring the "post 9th party" to a screeching halt. This clearly proves that all the speculation by the east on this forum has been nothing but bunk. If it is SO clear cut and straight forward there would be no need for this lawsuit. I guess the company lawyers understand that there are certain legal obligations they will not get out of just because USAPA would like it to be so. I'm dying to see how this curve ball ends up! In the mean time USAPA will waste even more money while the lawyers ride this cash cow.

And people ask why others follow this story. You can't find this kind of drama, suspense, and twisting plot anywhere else! 😉

Everyone here has been telling you, especially me, that Parker will do what his lawyers tell him to do.
This is a major CYA move on Parker's part...my guess they do not recieve this motion well...good possibility that it
will be meaningless.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[KTM300]

No need to spin this. It is evident on the face of it, that this is an attempt to perpetuate the current state of affairs. Just because of the nature of federal rules, it buys almost a year before there would be a hearing on the merits but all of the same ripeness issues still apply. If Judge Silver were to actually grant the request, she would have conduct an entirely new trial between USAPA and the Addington Plaintiffs with the same jurisdictional issue in question. If the trial before her, resolved in USAPA's favor, the Addington plaintiffs could appeal and use the 9th Circuit opinion just rendered to have the case dismissed on ripeness. Nothing is certain but it is very likely she will dismiss the case but it will probably be this time next year before the process gets to that point.

So much for a merger any time soon!

 

[Freighterguynow]

I wonder where oldie, nycbusdriver, Phoenix, frieghterguy, Black Swan, and the rest are?

Some of us have to work ya know? Summer is fleeting in New England and I've spent far too much time here so I'll sign off (till the snow flies ) by saying nothing was going to happen until we see what happens with the pay snap backs. Even with a loss on that the NIC is a non-starter - period.

Drag it out as long as you like.

Best to all,

out.

 

[Barrister]

767jetz,

767jetz asked: "As an east pilot yourself, I'm wondering what you hear out on the line speaking to other east pilots about what USAPA is doing or planning?"

USA320pilot comments: 767jetz, I believe the tide has shifted on the East where most Captains and many First Officers now believe the information they were provided by Steve Bradford, Lee Seham, and USAPA's founding fathers was invalid. The majority of East and West pilots want to move forward, accept the Nicolau Award, and negotiate a reasonable joint contract. And, I believe there are enough votes to elect a new union through an NMB ordered Representation Election, with most likely seeking a return to ALPA forthcoming, if USAPA loses the LOA 93 Pay Freeze Arbitration, with the Opinion & Award due in August or September.

In this debate people seem to forget the East and West contract requires the pilots to accept the Nicolau Award.

On September 23, 2005 the Airline Parties (US Airways' Management, the East MEC, and the West MEC) signed the Transition Agreement. The Transition Agreement states in Section 1V. A., "the seniority lists of America West pilots and US Airways pilots will be integrated in accordance with ALPA Merger Policy and submitted to the Airlines parties for acceptance. The Airline Parties will accept such integrated seniority list, including conditions and restrictions."

No where in the Transition Agreement does it state anything other than the parties "will accept" the Award.

In the end, for me this issue is about integrity and not going back on our word by breaking a promise. Far too many people are accommodating their thoughts to believe what they want to hear when we all know the East pilots broke a promise for money and their desire to virtually staple the West pilots (85 percent) to the bottom of the seniority list with DOH/C&Rs. It does not matter to me one iota any one else thinks because because I would have to live with myself by knowing I broke a promise - I can't do that.

Reneging or going back on one's word, violating our contract in the process, and breaking a promise for money and to staple another pilot group after agreeing to a "final and binding" arbitration, not maybe "final and binding arbitration", is wrong. That is the truth and everybody knows it. In my opinion, US Airways' pilots are viewed in the industry by managements, other pilot groups, and outside observers as people they do not want to merge or work with because the East pilots cannot be trusted. I can see why.

It's too bad and this probably contributed to US Airways not being part of the Big 3 legacy companies (so far anyways) because US Airways' pilots, both East and West, are some of the best pilots in the world and deserve better from their union leadership that I believe continues to fail its members time-and-time again.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

You are doing an incredible disservice to the readers of this board when you perpetuate the idea that
most East Captains and some F/O's are ready to move on. Sir, what alternate reality world do you live in
For you to write this is a telling sign that you have an agenda. And no I have no problem stapling someone
who is 20 years youger than our F/Os with 15 years less service than them. Nuff said.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[UtterlyUdder]

It's nice when your next door neighbor is a judge and your kids are best friends. I don't claim to be an aspiring lawyer like hp-fa, and I ask questions of those who know more about the law and court processes than I do, which is very little. Bargain without interference, is bargain without interference. You can't define that in any other way. They did stipulate USAPA has a "good faith" requirement but any determination on whether that is met is premature until there is something to actually evaluate which cannot and will not take place until there is a ratified contract.

In essence, they are asking for a court to make a hypothetical ruling, so they may not have some future legal expense resulting out of a DFR claim that has not yet been filed, and which other than verbal sparring may never be filed, may never make it to trial, and if in the eventuality that it did, a whole new trial would take place and no one could predict the outcome, or the appeal, yada, yada, yada,........ If this entire affair had a ripeness issue, that borders the absurd.

The claim here now asks for a whole new layer of hypothetical arguments to be answered on a case that was already deemed "not ripe", and therefore lacked the criteria for judicial intervention. If this Judge, and with a declaratory judgement motion will likely be a bench trial if it gets that far, renders a decision favorable to USAPA, preclude Addington from appealing primarily on the issue of ripeness? No, and with the same jurisdictional question, it is unlikely the motion will be acted upon. Let me ask you this, USAPA can bear the expense of a new trial if it is granted under this request, obviously the plaintiff, what about Addington? I am sure you realize, the potential exists for another expensive trial, that most certainly will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit appellate court, which already answered ripeness issues, with the same underlying question that has been argued and answered, and be right back to where things are now. For all of these reasons, there is probably less than 10% chance the request will be granted. It could easily cost a years worth or court expense for the request to be dismissed and be right back here, and in that sense they won't be doing Addington any favors.

One must keep in mind that anybody can sue anybody for anything anytime. I don't think the judge will accept this request for a "declaration" because she does not have a crystal ball. I'm sure she knows about the 9th ruling or if not, she will be reminded of it.

Further, given that anybody can sue anybody, USAir can hardly expect a ruling that will protect them from lawsuits.

 

[oscarjazz]

Yowsa. That sure puts a different light on things. From my reading I see that the company thinks:

1. The Nicolau list is the current seniority list at LCC, the process is over and complete and they accepted the list. They consider themselves bound by the transition agreement. They also hint that USAPA is bound also, but they don't outright say that.
2. Airways is concerned that they have liability for possibly "colluding" with USAPA if they accept a different seniority list.
3. Their claims are ripe, because the ongoing disputes are causing delay in negotiating a single CBA.
4. They are concerned about an "unquestionably ripe" DFR case if they accept a different seniority list other than the Nicolau list. The resultant legal cases could further delay a single CBA for years.

Interestingly, USAPA now faces an opponent in court that can easily outspend them. Maybe when the assessments go out they can give the East pilots a pin made of unobtanium.

I hate to say I told you so, but this is what I have been saying here for a long time now. Perhaps the court will take this up and finish this mess once and for all. It really is unbelievable. Whatever negative effects are perceived by East pilots from the seniority award, they have already lost more than that through this delay. How much longer until someone says "enough"?

 

[luvn737s]

This is yet another reason why a replacement union must be elected and installed ASAP. Without the baggage of USAPA a bipartisan union could easily craft an integration methodology and present a ratifyable contract to the pilots in far less time and with far less expense than waiting on the legal challenges ahead.

Of course you can always throw $10,000 into a Yugo, but you'd probably only do that if it wasn't your money.


REPLACE USAPA NOW

 

[snapthis]

It appears the company feels the 9th's ruling does not end the dispute. This is getting good and I am glad that USAPA has a bit more the plate to deal with.

USAPA should have been wrestling with the company instead of pursuing the Cactus 18. Now they have been forced into the ring. I have my popcorn in hand waiting for the rumble to begin.