About like LOA93 is for you!
AWA320
Hahahaha......Prech and A320, one and the same...Pre-op or still in therapy ?
BTW, LOA 93 = no nic. Nic, bad. Very bad.
About like LOA93 is for you!
AWA320
Hahahaha......Prech and A320, one and the same...Pre-op or still in therapy ?
BTW, LOA 93 = no nic. Nic, bad. Very bad.
With who?, when?, where? The only thing worth anything is the east,you couldn't give the west away.If oil hits $120 a barrel the east will be soldCome on now JJ, the company has no incentive at this stage to offer anything to the f/a's. They want to roll up all the inflight, pilots and flight attendants around the same time then merge again.
AWA320
How are we going to be forced into using the nic..by the way couldn't that binding agreement be amended by agreement of both sides that being USAPA and the company. and for once give me a answer without your opinion or ifs or ands.Well then JAMIE you will remain at the industy bottom until a contract is imposed upon you/us! I can assure you of one certainty and that is, having a say in your contract is far better than having on imposed. This fight over your not wishing to accept the nic award is costly and one you can never win. This has been pointed out time and time again and still you usapains think you can just ignore a binding agreement and put in what you wish without suffering severe penalty. Now the company is going to be forced to use the nic. What you guys need to decide is if you want to be forced to take a substandard contract!
AWA320
Of course you knew the F-28 was going away shortly and the late 70's Empire guys ended up at say late '85 ?
..by the way couldn't that binding agreement be amended by agreement of both sides that being USAPA and the company.
Deleted by meBTW, there is one other agreement the company has with all its employees, it is called the corporate code of ethics.
Kinda of sad that the west guys blew it. Had they agreed to a five year fence, we would still be ALPA and probably have a contract. They had it made. Now we will never combine. I've never liked ALPA, but this is probably what would have happened. Not wanting equal pay for the east drew a permanent line in the sand. Looks like another bankruptcy is the only answer now.Which agreement?
The TA is a tripartite agreement between 1. the company 2. the east pilots 3. the West pilots. usapa now represents both the east and West pilots, however, usapa has no mechanism for the West pilots to agree to any changes. Jack Stephan warned the east pilot group of this prior to the election. usapa is stuck with the Nic, from the TA's perspective. usapa might be willing to cut out the West pilots, but the company is not, because they know who they signed with, and they know the West will sue and win if they allow a change to the seniority list. Hence, the company's request for DJ.
There is another agreement. Between only the West and east pilots. It was signed when we entered into binding arbitration. I see no way usapa could unilateraly redefine the terms of that agreement either. This is where Seham is soooo wrong. But rather than explain why, I ask you go back and watch the campaign videos. Seham is asked straight up by east pilots, and told straight up by West pilots and our attorney at the time J Freund, the West will sue for DFR. His reply was, well yeah,,but those are real expensive and hard to win. Not,,yeah,, but they do not have a case.
BTW, there is one other agreement the company has with all its employees, it is called the corporate code of ethics. Most of it is boilerplate feel good talk about how to conduct bussiness, and how the company and employees are required to act, and what is acceptable employee behavior. I looked and there is no chapter on how to renege on contractual obligations to steal from your coworkers anywhere in that book.
Kinda of sad that the west guys blew it. Had they agreed to a five year fence, we would still be ALPA and probably have a contract. They had it made. Now we will never combine. I've never liked ALPA, but this is probably what would have happened. Not wanting equal pay for the east drew a permanent line in the sand. Looks like another bankruptcy is the only answer now.
Probably true, but East greed prevented such a rational compromise. You showed up at Wye River demanding a ten year fence with furloughs according to DOH. Basically, the same thing you're doing now. PHX would have downsized just like PSA did, the West would have hit the street while there was hiring on the East No thanks. Don't shed a tear for the West though; you're the ones working at commuter wages and Part135 cargo work rules.Kinda of sad that the west guys blew it. Had they agreed to a five year fence, we would still be ALPA and probably have a contract. They had it made. Now we will never combine. I've never liked ALPA, but this is probably what would have happened. Not wanting equal pay for the east drew a permanent line in the sand. Looks like another bankruptcy is the only answer now.
Probably true, but East greed prevented such a rational compromise. You showed up at Wye River demanding a ten year fence with furloughs according to DOH. Basically, the same thing you're doing now. PHX would have downsized just like PSA did, the West would have hit the street while there was hiring on the East No thanks. Don't shed a tear for the West though; you're the ones working at commuter wages and Part135 cargo work rules.
Herein lies an admission of why the Nic is so abhorrent to the East. We had a very tough time and suffered for it. Furlough's downgrades, loss of pension and LOA93. Grandma says that which doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Here we are with the highest margins in the country and with the implmentation of the Nic what would the East receive for its pain. Hit the street, downgrades, more shrinkage all caused by the money losing PHX operation. West pilots would simply abandon the sinking ship called Phoenix and displace East.
I did say I wanted a fence. Too late for anything now. Things should settle out by 2025...maybe!Here is the part that just crackes me up, if you wanted a fence why not say that PRIOR to arbitration huh??????????????? You guys wanted it all and when you didnt get it you threw a hissy fit. Now sure 5yrs later we are stuck and your pay shows the scares as well so we both got hurt by your childish antics. We had noting to do with your not getting parity that was all on you, the west had no play there. DOH will never be realized and you will get your final act when the court says no indemnity for LCC. BOOM!!!! that's your pipedream world blowing up in your faces...
AWA320
H. Plaintiffs Failed to Join a Necessary Party Under Rule 19.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(7) allows dismissal of an action for failure to join a necessary
and indispensable party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.
"The application of Rule 19 entails a practical two-step inquiry. First, a court
must determine whether an absent party should be joined as a 'necessary
party' under subsection (a). Second, if the court concludes that the nonparty is
necessary and cannot be joined for practical or jurisdictional reasons, it must
then determine under subsection (B) whether in 'equity and good conscience'
the action should be dismissed because the nonparty is 'indispensable.'"
Greenberg v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86621, at *3 (D. Ariz. Nov.
16, 2007) (quoting Va. Sur. Co. v. Northrop Grunman Corp., 144 F.3d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir.
1998)).
The East pilots individually, or as a proposed class, are improperly excluded. The
premise of the Company’s sprint to the courthouse on the occasion of the mandate of the
Ninth Circuit in Addington is its worry over a hybrid-suit against USAPA over a new
seniority term, which they say the “West Pilots ... have made clear that they will challenge
in a future litigation” just as they did in Addington. (Complaint, ¶ 3). Left out by the
Company, however, are the East pilots who also have sued USAPA over seniority, in
Breeger vs. US Airline Pilots Ass., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40489 (W.D. N.C. May 12,
2009). The Breeger plaintiffs’ case was dismissed on ripeness grounds at the district court
level but their issue, the retroactive application of date-of-hire seniority, remains. Also left
out from the Company’s lawsuit is the group of East pilots currently engaged in litigation
24 See Complaint ¶ 58 (correctly citing to Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 474, 493
(N.D. Ill. 1991), aff’d in relevant part and rev’d on other grounds, 981 F.2d 1542 (7th Cir. 1992)
and Kozera v. IBEW, 892 F.Supp. 536 (S.D.N.Y 1995).
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 38 Filed 09/07/10 Page 45 of 68
against ALPA based on ALPA’s introduction of an erroneous East pilot list, which
prejudiced their standing on the Nicolau list. See Naugler, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25173.
Were USAPA forced into a Nicolau term, the Breeger and Naugler plaintiffs (or other East
pilots) cannot reasonably be expected to sit on their hands. Surely they are as necessary as
the West pilots.
Also, conspicuously Sort of sums up that TRI-PARTITE THING, JJ, JG, JAMIE , MM!