US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/28- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[hp_fa]

I am not going to search the archives, but does anyone remember whether USAirways was already granted immunity during preliminary court proceedings on the eve of the Addington lawsuit?

My recollection is no, they were simply dismissed since the issues that the court found to be present in the case were between USAPA and the Addington class and that the issues to be litigated did not actually involve the comapny at that point in time. Remember that the company, represented by Mr. Siegal, also got to address the court in the proceedings that took place in open court while the jury was still either deliberating or immediately after the verdict was entered. (I forget the exact timing of when he spoke.)

 

[hp_fa]

While I agree that your reasoning is sound, it begs the question "with whom?"

I have no idea. If I had to guess it would be AA, but that is merely a guess.

 

[cleardirect]

I am not going to search the archives, but does anyone remember whether USAirways was already granted immunity during preliminary court proceedings on the eve of the Addington lawsuit?

Nope! The company was dismissed but not released. Right now the company is still on the hook when the west files again if the company agrees to anything other than Nicolau. That is why they are in court.


5 The court has considered entering final judgment at this time dismissing the claims
against US Airways. The court declines to do so because there is “just reason for delay” in
entry of a final judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(B). There would be little benefit to the parties
in a final judgment now because this court will conclude this case promptly, at which time
all aggrieved parties may appeal. Moreover, if discovery or further events show actual
collusion of US Airways in USAPA’s alleged breach of duty of fair representation, the court
would consider a motion to amend the complaint to renew the allegation of a hybrid claim
against US Airways.


IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant US Airline Pilots Association’s
Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (docs. # 35, 36) is
denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant US Airways’ Motion to Dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction (docs. # 30) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
(doc. # 12) is denied for lack of jurisdiction.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2008.

 

[cleardirect]

Parker addressed the "whom" question in the last crew news in CLT. I don't think we will see a merger with AA until they go through a BK and eliminate their pension. Parker does not want to be the bad guy on that so he will let someone else bring that bad news.

Also AA said that they have a $600 million cost disadvantage against the rest of the industry. Pension. It is easy to do the math on that. AA will continue to lose money until they make some major changes.

 

[hp_fa]

Hypothetical, what if AA intends to be the acquiring party and Doug basically wants to cash-out?

 

[767jetz]

Parker addressed the "whom" question in the last crew news in CLT. I don't think we will see a merger with AA until they go through a BK and eliminate their pension. Parker does not want to be the bad guy on that so he will let someone else bring that bad news.

Also AA said that they have a $600 million cost disadvantage against the rest of the industry. Pension. It is easy to do the math on that. AA will continue to lose money until they make some major changes.

I know this is very hypothetical, but imagine a merger with AA, (even if they are in BK and need exit financing and US is calling the shots) and a USAPA majority rules DOH contract? Do all the TWA guys get their DOH back and jump from furloughed to 767/777 captains? I'm just sayin'... Fair is fair, right? YOS, LOS and so on.

 

[PullUp]

I too was surprised by the company's filing of the declaratory relief action, but it immediately made a lot of sense to me. Think it through.

The company is mired in a situation where it has two divergent seniority plans competing for the Section 22 language. One is the expected USAPA list, which will be based on DOH/LOS and will supposedly also contain some terms, conditions and protections. The second is the substance of the Nicolau list, which would likely need some tweaking after the amount of time that has passed since the original award and a future possible implementation date. The company has already accepted the Nicolau list back in December 2007, so just the act of changing the list that they agreed to accept and subsequently accept would potentially fuel legal action against the company. Arguably the company wants to forestall that and seems to want to accelerate the resolution of how Section 22 will look at the time that a contract is meaningfully negotiated.

I disagree with posters and others who claim that the company is no longer acting in a neutral fashion. The company, in its lawsuit, provided the court with three potential resolutions for the court to consider and rule upon. The company would merely have to act according to the eventual court ruling to be clear of future liability. They want guidance and they want it sooner rather than later and also a path that will free itself of future liability in resolving the clear conflict of what seniority list it needs to follow going forward.

The question, that most of the posters seem to have not asked, is why is the company attempting to expedite the resolution of this problem? The company could have continued to sit entirely neutral, waited for any determination of of whether the Supreme Court will accept certiorari, if accepted waited for any proceedings to play out and then move forward accordingly. Many have argued that the company benefits from any and all delay in that it continues to pay less than any future contract might provide. So what is driving the company to move forward in an effort to find resolution of these issues sooner rather than later when resolving the issues sooner may cost the company more (sooner) in the form of wages? My primary theory is a merger. It is likely that no other airline wants anything to do with LCC as long as the pilot's labor dispute is unresolved. Accordingly my theory is that potential merger is a sufficient reason to get the company to move forward, even at the potential cost of higher wages sooner rather than later.

Your theory revolves around a potential merger. Parker has stated that there is no merger plans for the immediate future. Your theory further stipulates a rush by the company to 'get 'er done'.
Despite what has been published by management, the fact is that a lawsuit will not expedite matters, but only delay them. Although the choices are clear (pick one of three), the machinations required to arrive at that decision point in the court system will take a long, long time.
Actions speak louder than words. Here it is, big as day. Profitable quarter, lots of stock options cashed in, partying in Tempe. All made possible by bargain-basement wages courtesy of the pilot group who has been financing this post-bankruptcy emergence for far too long. Now, with no end in sight. Does this lawsuit hasten the day when a contract could be signed. No. Does it delay that day? Yes.
I rest my case.

 

[hp_fa]

I don't subscribe to the conclusion you reach simply because the company could have waited and filed this suit later and still presented exactly the same questions. The mere filing of the suit now, as opposed to later. leads me to my conclusion.

 

[Ames]

I just wish to offer congratulations to the Cactus 18 pilots. They stood their ground, refusing to capitulate, refusing to stab one another in the back when offered an easy out. They have proven that "the little guy" can stand his ground against a much larger "bully" and prevail. I do hope this event foreshadows the future in regards to West pilots and usapa.

Moderator note:
Merged into pilot labor thread.

I think it's necessary to reiterate...

Three days and 45 posts have transpired and not ONE comment on the Cactus 18. Are you usapa cheerleaders even aware that you lost the appeal against them? This is very significant. I know your "union" is hiding this fact but inquiring minds should know....

 

[A320 Driver]

I think it's necessary to reiterate...

Three days and 45 posts have transpired and not ONE comment on the Cactus 18. Are you usapa cheerleaders even aware that you lost the appeal against them? This is very significant. I know your "union" is hiding this fact but inquiring minds should know....

I don't think we should dignify the behavior of EITHER the so called "Cactus 18" or USAPA with a comment.

Driver B)

 

[cleardirect]

I don't think we should dignify the behavior of EITHER the so called "Cactus 18" or USAPA with a comment.

Driver B)

What behavior of the cactus 18? A federal district court in NC, usapa's backyard and three circuit judges said that they did nothing. It is usapa that should be ashamed. $300,000 in dues money and lies to the membership.

 

[Ames]

I don't think we should dignify the behavior of EITHER the so called "Cactus 18" or USAPA with a comment.

Driver B)

This comment proves that you do not understand the significance of this recent court decision to deny usapa with prejiduce.

That's the whole reason I post.

 

[luvn737s]

I believe that the company would like to press the contract issue now because this is a fleeting opportuntiy for them. With the majority salivating at a DOH cramdown, the company knows that the momentum for a resolution (even one that has a cost-neutral [read LOA93 redux] contract with it, is there. They sign a contract that USAPA agrees to in haste, and lo and behold the fleet mins disappear and the company can shrink to meet the upcoming economic downturn AND have bargain basement wages.

Parker can read Cleary like a book and why not take advantage of emotional reactionaries if you can make a few million bucks off them?

 

[N924PS]

The scenario I envision from my tea leaves is that, if the Nic does indeed survive AND by some miracle a new contract gets ratified (VERY unlikely, IMHO), there will be a plethora of long term medical disability claims coming in from many of the east pilots who were most affected by the Nic. They will take their half-pay until reaching 65, and find something outside of flying to make up the difference.

LOA 93 also includes an offset to the half pay. And also has a $75,000 cap.

So say your half pay is 65K and your getting 30K from PBGC and 18K from Walmart, you would only get 17K in disbability.

Another chess move from the company to dissuade pilots from doing as you suggest.

 

[A320 Driver]

I don't subscribe to the conclusion you reach simply because the company could have waited and filed this suit later and still presented exactly the same questions. The mere filing of the suit now, as opposed to later. leads me to my conclusion.

I agree with your conclusion. I've heard the explanations for the suit and managements desire for a single contract.

Frankly, I didn't buy either one. I have yet to see this management team do ANYTHING because it was "the right thing to do". It's kind of like dealing with Congress. Unless they have something to gain from it, they don't do a darn thing.

Driver B)