US Pilots Labor Discussion 9/23- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[pitchlow]

Yes it did... because of the merger. Once that happened, US Airways ceased to exist. As did America West. What remains is a new company. The snapshot used in the Nicolau award was accurate and based solely on facts at the time, not future speculation.

Facts like MDA pilots were furloughed when there paycheck origination routing numbers were USAirways. This fact was not addressed. But your right, when you build a rationale you must choose your facts.

 

[Hate2fly]

Looks like the 9th and the NMB will be watching the desert judge.........

Lets see how far he goes this time. The 9th spanked him before, they would love to spank him again.

The young clerks in the 9th will be texting back and forth already that the desert judge will be bringing them more work.

USAPA just put out a legal update.


It has been Judge Wake’s practice in this case to hear oral argument on a variety of issues. Judge Wake commented in February of this year that he has "set oral argument on an awful lot in this case." (Tr. 02/20/10). Therefore, the decision to hold oral argument does not indicate, in any way, how the Court will rule on the merits of either pending motion. However, what is not in dispute is that the Arizona district court is bound to follow the decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit, which constitutes binding precedent.

Looks like the army of ? has it all figured out.

Hate

 

[N924PS]

However, what is not in dispute is that the Arizona district court is bound to follow the decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit, which constitutes binding precedent.

Hmmm.

Binding precedent. Binding arbitration.

Seems like binding is only binding when it suits your cause.

 

[nic4us]

Looks like the 9th and the NMB will be watching the desert judge.........

Lets see how far he goes this time. The 9th spanked him before, they would love to spank him again.

The young clerks in the 9th will be texting back and forth already that the desert judge will be bringing them more work.

USAPA just put out a legal update.


It has been Judge Wake’s practice in this case to hear oral argument on a variety of issues. Judge Wake commented in February of this year that he has "set oral argument on an awful lot in this case." (Tr. 02/20/10). Therefore, the decision to hold oral argument does not indicate, in any way, how the Court will rule on the merits of either pending motion. However, what is not in dispute is that the Arizona district court is bound to follow the decision handed down by the Ninth Circuit, which constitutes binding precedent.

Looks like the army of leotards has it all figured out.

Hate

Thanks for the update Hate.

Did usapa legal put out any other updates that might actually be relevant, or was this enough to calm the masses?

Yep, we all know the district court is bound to the decision handed down by the 9th. That decision said, with the evidence before us the case is not ripe. The district court then followed the 9ths instruction and dismissed the case.

The oral arguements are for a different case, and whether or not it should be tranfered to Judge Wake. It just so happens this different case, brought by another party, covers the same legal ground as Addington. So it appears that there is new evidence the 9th did not know about, and that just may get Addington a rule 60b relief from judgement.

Further, something that has not been discussed yet. usapa filed a motion to have the Addington plaintiffs removed from the case. Looks like that is yet another loser for usapa, as AOL will be there on the 12th.

I do not know if the clerks at the 9th are excited, but I would bet the paralegals at SSM&P are counting their Christmas bonus.

 

[hp_fa]

Further, something that has not been discussed yet. usapa filed a motion to have the Addington plaintiffs removed from the case. Looks like that is yet another loser for usapa, as AOL will be there on the 12th.

That does raise a potentially interesting question. Let's cover a few facts first.

1. USAPA has previously removed any difference between East and West as far as voting or ratification rights are concerned.
2. USAPA has now moved to have the Addington class removed from the Declaratory Relief action even though the West pilots were signatories to the Transition Agreement.

Now the question that could be raised before Judge Wake in support of the Plaintiff's Rule 60( B ) Motion for Relief from the Judgment Dismissing for Lack of Ripeness is whether USAPA has now made the unripe case suddenly ripe by actually attempting to tangibly deny the West pilots the right to be be represented as a party in the Declaratory Relief action even though the West pilots were signatories to the Transition Agreement which, at least in part, is the justification for the company filing this action?

 

[A320 Driver]

That does raise a potentially interesting question. Let's cover a few facts first.

1. USAPA has previously removed any difference between East and West as far as voting or ratification rights are concerned.
2. USAPA has now moved to have the Addington class removed from the Declaratory Relief action even though the West pilots were signatories to the Transition Agreement.

Now the question that could be raised before Judge Wake in support of the Plaintiff's Rule 60( B ) Motion for Relief from the Judgment Dismissing for Lack of Ripeness is whether USAPA has now made the unripe case suddenly ripe by actually attempting to tangibly deny the West pilots the right to be be represented as a party in the Declaratory Relief action even though the West pilots were signatories to the Transition Agreement which, at least in part, is the justification for the company filing this action?

I generally respect your opinion on these things, but just on the surface, this looks like a bit of a stretch to me. Crazier things have happened though. I'm sure Judge Wake would like some kind of vindication for being overruled by the 9th.

Guess we'll see.

Driver

 

[hp_fa]

I generally respect your opinion on these things, but just on the surface, this looks like a bit of a stretch to me. Crazier things have happened though. I'm sure Judge Wake would like some kind of vindication for being overruled by the 9th.

Guess we'll see.

Driver

You noticed that I didn't predict the answer, only the question that could be raised based upon the facts.

The truth is that I have never actually known of a trial court essentially over-ruling an appellate court, but then this case has never been normal.

I do plan on trying to attend the hearing on the 12th. It could be very interesting.

 

[luvthe9]

Jusge
Hmmm.

Binding precedent. Binding arbitration.

Seems like binding is only binding when it suits your cause.

You are not getting to PHX anytime soon "Mr. my money is on Doug Parker".

 

[mikey60]

You noticed that I didn't predict the answer, only the question that could be raised based upon the facts.

The truth is that I have never actually known of a trial court essentially over-ruling an appellate court, but then this case has never been normal.

I do plan on trying to attend the hearing on the 12th. It could be very interesting.

Could they rule that this is now a " internal union problem" ?

 

[hp_fa]

Could they rule that this is now a " internal union problem" ?

Not likely in the declaratory relief action.

In an Addington v. USAPA case they could, but I would bet against that happening because of the full and final arbitration issue.

 

[Freebird]

Looks like the 9th and the NMB will be watching the desert judge.........

Lets see how far he goes this time. The 9th spanked him before, they would love to spank him again.


Hate

Spanked? Dude really? Spanked? You are wrong on so many levels. Enjoy your nightmare.



USAPA = Getting ready to lose. Collect the furniture. Get the matches.

 

[Phoenix]

Not likely in the declaratory relief action.

In an Addington v. USAPA case they could, but I would bet against that happening because of the full and final arbitration issue.

Yes.. now you have a pattern going.. you have employed the term "full" twice. Nowhere in the 9th Opinion does the term "full" appear (not even in the dissent) so I have to question its relevance (indeed the 9th used the term... internal arbitration.)

The 9th also said, "At this point, neither the West Pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA. Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new, single CBA..... in the context of negotiations toward a CBA, the parties could shift positions until negotiations are complete, and the final agreement could be acceptable to Plaintiffs." (clearly the 9th had no intention of affecting negotiations in the least).

Additionally, the 9th clearly used the terms "internal arbitration", "internal dispute", "internal affairs", "internal conflict", "internal rules and processes", and "internal policies". Who can find a circumstance for which the company could be held liable for acquiescing to the union's assertion that an outcome to an internal union process is reached, whenever and whatever that assertion may be, regardless of which current union states it, and regardless of how frequently the union may change its assertion?

Declaratory judgement complete.

 

[hp_fa]

The 9th also said, "At this point, neither the West Pilots nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of a final CBA. Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new, single CBA..... in the context of negotiations toward a CBA, the parties could shift positions until negotiations are complete, and the final agreement could be acceptable to Plaintiffs." (clearly the 9th had no intention of affecting negotiations in the least).

No, the Addington class only exists in courts because USAPA did away with any representation of west pilots in any way as far as the TA or merger is/was concerned. USAPA can't negotiate because there is no one to negotiate with who represents anyone.

So because AAA/East members chose to try to not honor their agreement to abide by a full and final arbitration there is a mess to be cleaned up.

(There, I've used it three times now. The "internal" stuff that gets mentioned won't fly because either through the declaratory action or a future USAPA action this pile of feces will ripen and, besides being ripe feces, will provide a court with lots of free amusement.)

 

[Phoenix]

No, the Addington class only exists in courts because USAPA did away with any representation of west pilots in any way as far as the TA or merger is/was concerned. USAPA can't negotiate because there is no one to negotiate with who represents anyone.
...

You have misread the 9th. In the context, it is clear they refer to the possibility of acceptable outcomes as a result of negotiations between USAPA and the company. The 9th never mentions or proposes any hypothetical, actual, or speculative negotiations between the plaintiff and defendant going forward. The negotiations to which the 9th refers are "in fact". Neither the plaintiff or defendant expressed a desire to negotiate with each other and certainly the 9th assumed no mediatory role for itself to assist the plaintiff and defendant to negotiate. USAPA can and is negotiating with the company and the 9th fully recognized the legality of that fact, as well as the possibility that the outcome of those negotiations could render plaintiff's lawsuit without (or with) merit, depending on the outcome of those negotiations.

 

[Metroyet]

You have misread the 9th. In the context, it is clear they refer to the possibility of acceptable outcomes as a result of negotiations between USAPA and the company. The 9th never mentions or proposes any hypothetical, actual, or speculative negotiations between the plaintiff and defendant going forward. The negotiations to which the 9th refers are "in fact". Neither the plaintiff or defendant expressed a desire to negotiate with each other and certainly the 9th assumed no mediatory role for itself to assist the plaintiff and defendant to negotiate. USAPA can and is negotiating with the company and the 9th fully recognized the legality of that fact, as well as the possibility that the outcome of those negotiations could render plaintiff's lawsuit without (or with) merit, depending on the outcome of those negotiations.

Great. No problem then right? See you on the 12th BACK in front of The Honorable Neil V. Wake.