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

[UtterlyUdder]

Without the company filing we all were in a stalemate. We were never going to get a contract.

The filing told the court and usapa we were never getting a contract under the current conditions and they need to change the game. What Parker is looking for is cover from the court.


Weonder why there are three alternatives? The first one is asking the court to tell the company to use what everyone agreed to. No more law suits and finish a contract. The second is give the company a free pass on an unknown product before it is complete. The third is take away someones right to sue (Addington) by releasing the company and still clog up the courts with another law suit down the road over final and binding arbitration. Given these choices the court has one logical direction.

You should never say "never". But then you know that, don't you? It is absurd to think the judge will accept this filing.
You don't address the fact that she will certainly avail herself of the decision by the 9th. That should be the 4th alternative.

Can you tell me why you and Nic 4 seem so obsessed with wanting the East pilots to never get a thing? Others are as well, but you two seem to post incessantly. Just asking why you wish the East such ill will......I don't frequent this board much at all and when I did come read again, it is just you and Nic 4 and a few others doing the same ol' same ol' diatribes.

One would wonder why you don't want this over with asap.

The company filing was mean and cruel. They obviously don't want a contract. May they get their heads handed to them. No..... perhaps they could have better relationships with the pilots if they never got their heads back.

Airlines are a service industry and as such one would think pilots would be respected as they were many years ago. Kudos to the pilots for going to work and doing a good job day in and day out in spite of the backbiting going on and the company's ill conceived idea of how to run an airline.

Did you forget that you wanted ALPA gone too?

 

[UtterlyUdder]

I just read the company filing and this is an easy one. The company is asking for one of three declarations clarifying the company's legal rights and obligations. The first two have already been decided by the 9th circuit in a published judgment that is binding on the district court.

Since as stated in the 9th ruling USAPA is not required to negotiate for the Nic award in a joint contract then obviously the company with no DFR obligation could not be required to either. Requiring the company to only negotiate for the Nic would have the same effect as requiring USAPA to negotiate for the Nic which would directly defy the 9th's published ruling.

The 9th also ruled that USAPA's DFR liability cannot be determined until a joint contract is ratified. The District court could not make a determination of USAPA's DFR liability now without directly defying the 9th's published ruling.

The third declaration sought by the company actually does have some merit. The company does have a legal right to conduct its business free from the threat of lawsuits so long as a proven controversy exists and there is an established threat of a future lawsuit. The company is asking for immunity from liability or possible economic damage caused by being effectively forced to take one of two possible opposing bargaining positions.

The third declaration is also an easy one. The company cannot be sued for breach of contract since that is under the jurisdiction of the system board and not the Federal court. The company also has no DFR obligation to the pilots. The threat is a lawsuit against the company by West pilots for colluding or assisting USAPA in completing an allegedly illegal DFR violation. Since the company cannot be required to negotiate for the Nic award and USAPA's DFR liability cannot now be determined as stated above the company is effectively asking the court for the same permission to abandon the Nic award during negotiations as the 9th has already granted USAPA. The company is also asking for release from DFR liability and the right as allowed by law to conduct its business free from the threat of a future lawsuit.

The third declaration request by the company seems to be reasonable thus USAPA and the 9th circuit would probably have no objection should the court decide to grant the company's request for a declaratory judgment.

underpants

How long do you think this will take?

 

[Black Swan]

How long do you think this will take?

This will be really fast. And I don't believe the company is trying to drag it out. They want distance, lack of blame and freedom from legal action. It is all about them being postured and protected. I would do it too if I were running it. They know what is coming down, and it is going to really piss off the west and they know it.

 

[Captain Underpants]

How long do you think this will take?

The court could throw out the first two requested declarations after a quick hearing and review of the 9th's decision. If it decided to consider the third declaration and USAPA had no objection, it would also just be a quick hearing with a decision on a narrow point of law. The company filing is really just asking for a clarification of the company's legal position, rights and obligations in light of the 9th's ruling. USAPA's legal position, rights and obligations have already been established by the 9th's ruling.

My guess would be less than 6 months.

underpants

 

[Black Swan]

The court could throw out the first two requested declarations after a quick hearing and review of the 9th's decision. If it decided to consider the third declaration and USAPA had no objection, it would also just be a quick hearing with a decision on a narrow point of law. The company filing is really just asking for a clarification of the company's legal position, rights and obligations in light of the 9th's ruling. USAPA's legal position, rights and obligations have already been established by the 9th's ruling.

My guess would be less than 6 months.

underpants

Less than two weeks. The work has been done. This is just to have the company make someone else state the obvious, and then say, "we have no choice........." Will the west then sue the messenger? Probably try......

 

[e28]

Less than two weeks. The work has been done. This is just to have the company make someone else state the obvious, and then say, "we have no choice........." Will the west then sue the messenger? Probably try......

Underpants said it best.
I'll remind everyone that the West pilots have ALREADY threatened to sue the company if they accept a DOH list by USAPA....remember?
Cleardirect has proclaimed this "guaranteed lawsuit" himself. This 3rd item is simply disarming the west pilots before they attempt to "go to guns" against the company. Frankly, I dont blame the company. It most assuredly indicates that the company is anticipating some west heartburn going forward. There is no heartburn concerning USAPA, because the relationship between the company and USAPA is already established by the RLA and the NMB, so no joy there.

This is really bad news for the AOL who is about to come unglued over this...

 

[snapthis]

Why all the speculation, spin and long winded interpretations? Seems pretty straight forward to
me. This comes from the documents filed.

33. If US Airways agrees to USAPA’s position on the integrated seniority list, the West Pilots will seek legal recourse against USAPA and US Airways. According to counsel for the West Pilots, the West Pilots assert that, following the Ninth Circuit’sripeness decision in Addington, “nothing has changed regarding the validity of the Nicolau Award and its proper inclusion into a single collective bargaining agreement for all US Airways Pilots.” The West Pilots “will be watching the negotiations carefully.”And, according to their counsel, “they will act if US Airways and USAPA agree to a seniority proposal” that does not reflect the Nicolau Award. The West Pilots have further threatened that US Airways would be held liable for “facilitat[ing],” or “assist[ing],”USAPA’s alleged breach of the duty of fair representation if it were to accept a non-Nicolau seniority list.

 

[nic4us]

Can you tell me why you and Nic 4 seem so obsessed with wanting the East pilots to never get a thing? Others are as well, but you two seem to post incessantly. Just asking why you wish the East such ill will......I don't frequent this board much at all and when I did come read again, it is just you and Nic 4 and a few others doing the same ol' same ol' diatribes.

I cannot speak for Cleardirect, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not wish the east ill will, actually far from that. I want the east pilots to be successful in their careers under the terms to which we all agreed. I do not know if you are aware of this, but I have had east pilots who live in PHX straight up tell me they would like to see the Nic implemented so that they could stop their x-country commutes and simply drive to work. usapa is harming them also both in their rights to the resulting Nic award and the ever increasing postponement of better work rules and pay.

The matter of seniority integration between AWA and USA was completed in a "final and binding" arbitration proceding. What I want is for the illegal challenges to that award to stop, for the LCC pilot group to get at very least an industry standard contract, and equal representation which is owed me by the bargaining unit. Nothing more, and certainly not anything that harms of deprives the east pilots of their rights.

 

[Waketurbulence]

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.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. Perhaps you should talk to your neighbor and ask about this. (copied post from another webboard from someone much smarter than you)

"In fact, under the "related case" rule, there is a strong argument that it WILL go to Wake:

F.R.Civ.P. 42. Consolidation; Separate Trials
LRCiv 42.1
RELATED CASES; CONSOLIDATION; SERVICE; ASSIGNMENT

(a) Related Cases.

(1) Whenever two or more cases are pending before
different Judges and any party believes that such cases (A)
arise from substantially the same transaction or event; (b.)
involve substantially the same parties or property; (C)
involve the same patent, trademark, or copyright; (D) calls
for determination of substantially the same questions of law;
or (E) for any other reason would entail substantial
duplication of labor if heard by different Judges, any party
may file a motion to transfer the case or cases involved to a
single Judge. The motion shall be filed in the case with the
lowest case number and shall be heard by the Judge assigned to
that case. The caption of the motion to transfer shall list
the case number of that case, followed by a complete listing
of the case numbers of all the cases to be considered for
reassignment. In addition, a notice of filing motion to
transfer, with a copy of the motion attached, shall be filed
in each case to be considered for reassignment."

 

[flyinawa]

No, they know if they flat out take the DOH list from USAPA without at least pandering to the west expectations of life, they will get a hissy fit. All posturing, and you can't see it for what it is. Wait for the reply, this is again, going to be funny.

Everything the East has done has been a calculated legal maneuver and everything the West has done has been a "hissy fit", right? Classic.

 

[nic4us]

Underpants said it best.
I'll remind everyone that the West pilots have ALREADY threatened to sue the company if they accept a DOH list by USAPA....remember?
Cleardirect has proclaimed this "guaranteed lawsuit" himself. This 3rd item is simply disarming the west pilots before they attempt to "go to guns" against the company. Frankly, I dont blame the company. It most assuredly indicates that the company is anticipating some west heartburn going forward. There is no heartburn concerning USAPA, because the relationship between the company and USAPA is already established by the RLA and the NMB, so no joy there.

This is really bad news for the AOL who is about to come unglued over this...

Since you seem to have a short memory, I will remind you that not only did the West threaten to sue the company, we actually did in the original Addington trial. The company was excused by judge Wake when after sworn testimony they made it clear that they had followed all their contractual obligations and had accepted the Nic list.

Obviously from the request, the company has recieved a notice from West legal counsel, reiterating the position first documented by J. Freund. That being that the use of any seniority proposal other than the Nic would subject them and usapa to litigation that they would likely lose. From the obvious ducking for cover request, they seem to agree with Freund and Harper, and judge Bybee (btw), in that they are in an incredibly awkward position, break their contract and get sued by the West, or fail to negotiate with the union that is breaking its DFR and face job action.

Something all you east posters are missing is that the 9th absolutely did not say usapa could do whatever it wanted to do and be free from fear of being on the losing end of a lawsuit. Quite the contrary. All they said was not "ripe", and we are not going to answere the "thorny question", and how about usapa gets a clue and does not promote something that "works the disadvantages plaintiffs fear".

Well the company wants the "thorny question" answered. What a surprise.

 

[luvthe9]

Place your bets boys! I say the court comes out, says it is USAPA they have to deal with, and the Nic is not the seniority list they have to use. Because they cannot dictate INTERNAL union affairs. Loved the part where the company said the dispute between the West pilots and USAPA. There are no West pilots anymore. Only USAPA pilots. The 9th already said what the company knows. The company is ONLY doing this so they can say they HAD to. This is going to be hilarious! Can't wait for the next spin job you guys put on it. Or do you fall back to the DFR goal line stand immediately????

I think you hit this one dead center, the west boys know they are on there last leg, and this whole drawn out process will be ending soon. At least they can start saving there money now. Most of the west guys I talk to are fed up with the AOL group holding things up and seem to be more concerned about getting on with things, and also don't seem to want to move or commute from the PHX area.

 

[e28]

Since you seem to have a short memory, I will remind you that not only did the West threaten to sue the company, we actually did in the original Addington trial. The company was excused by judge Wake when after sworn testimony they made it clear that they had followed all their contractual obligations and had accepted the Nic list.

Obviously from the request, the company has recieved a notice from West legal counsel, reiterating the position first documented by J. Freund. That being that the use of any seniority proposal other than the Nic would subject them and usapa to litigation that they would likely lose. From the obvious ducking for cover request, they seem to agree with Freund and Harper, and judge Bybee (btw), in that they are in an incredibly awkward position, break their contract and get sued by the West, or fail to negotiate with the union that is breaking its DFR and face job action.

Something all you east posters are missing is that the 9th absolutely did not say usapa could do whatever it wanted to do and be free from fear of being on the losing end of a lawsuit. Quite the contrary. All they said was not "ripe", and we are not going to answere the "thorny question", and how about usapa gets a clue and does not promote something that "works the disadvantages plaintiffs fear".

Well the company wants the "thorny question" answered. What a surprise.

FYI, I'm not an east pilot.

And you can read this in the same manner as you have read everything so far...from a flawed perspective.
You have said a thousand times that USAPA faces "an unquestionably RIPE DFR..."
Do you understand what that actually means? It doesnt mean a "sure win for the west in a DFR suit"...you and your buddies continually skip right past the core of the quote you love so much...

"unquestionably ripe" means nothing more than "once a contract has been ratified not to your liking, you may THEN sue for an alleged breach of DFR"..(and take your chances in a court of law)

I shouldn't have to explain this to you...several have tried, but you dont get it. And yes, I know you named the company is a suit and they were dismissed early on.

This isnt going to have a happy ending for the west....that much seems clear.

 

[flyinawa]

I think you hit this one dead center, the west boys know they are on there last leg, and this whole drawn out process will be ending soon. At least they can start saving there money now.

Wrong.

Most of the west guys I talk to are fed up with the AOL group holding things up and seem to be more concerned about getting on with things, and also don't seem to want to move or commute from the PHX area.

Also incorrect. Just saying it doesn't make it true, even if you wish it was.

 

[nic4us]

FYI, I'm not an east pilot.

And you can read this in the same manner as you have read everything so far...from a flawed perspective.
You have said a thousand times that USAPA faces "an unquestionably RIPE DFR..."
Do you understand what that actually means? It doesnt mean a "sure win for the west in a DFR suit"...you and your buddies continually skip right past the core of the quote you love so much...

"unquestionably ripe" means nothing more than "once a contract has been ratified not to your liking, you may THEN sue for an alleged breach of DFR"..(and take your chances in a court of law)

I shouldn't have to explain this to you...several have tried, but you dont get it. And yes, I know you named the company is a suit and they were dismissed early on.

This isnt going to have a happy ending for the west....that much seems clear.

In order to avoid that "unquestionably ripe DFR", usapa would have to "bargain in good faith for all USAirways pilots, both east and West".

So, exactly how does forming a union with the intent of overturning a final and binding arbitration award for the purpose of promoting the position of east pilots at the direct expense of the West pilot group fit into that notion of "bargain in good faith"?

This has not, and will not, have a happy begining, middle or end for the West. That much is clear. What is also clear is that usapa has failed the West in their DFR owed them, and would likely lose again once the suit was "unquestionably ripe".