AWA320
Veteran
Naw I Fed or UPS no more pax air carriers, how about you though? Think some carrier will take a chance on a pilot that says he's former usair east that lost his job due to fragmentation that could have been avoided??
AWA320
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Naw I Fed or UPS no more pax air carriers, how about you though? Think some carrier will take a chance on a pilot that says he's former usair east that lost his job due to fragmentation that could have been avoided??
AWA320
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 906
- Reaction score
- 254
think (at least on the east) they have always done that, except for new hires during their first initial (which didn't make a lot of sense) but so what is your point? Doesn't seem like a change. Previously, they didn't have any "f/o" training cirriculm, and had guys going through the full type course (in the sim) but just not sitting for the type ride, while a new hire. So instead of doing the smoke and mirrors with the training program, and rewriting everything again, just send guys through the normal typed course.......
So your hypothesis of a quick and easy transition seems more like the old alpa fud......
GuntherA320
Senior
It seems the only meltdown that is going on is you. The east has always typed its F/O's. Sounds to me like they are just bringing the west up to east standards.
You are delusional... So hows that Addington lawsuit working out for ya???
No don't care for your info I'll be retired! MM! And do you think you have control over it? Dream on!
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Ah, yes.
But you west people can't have ripeness without a DOH contract.
USAPA is ready for ripeness. Are you ready for the DOH contract?
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,920
- Reaction score
- 1,961
So USAPA and Management have come to an agreement on section 22? I missed that announcement.
And the company can have neither. So they sue for declaratory judgement.
Seems ripe to me. usapa's intentional disregard toward the TA mandated seniority solution and their reneging on their contractual obligations in same.
Oh well. Once the courts determine binding arbitration means binding, and contracts carry penalties for breach, the little lawyer and his entourage of self-centered malcontents can ready themselves for the ripe damages headed their way.
Zone5
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2010
- Messages
- 773
- Reaction score
- 696
Let’s focus on the company’s request for a Declaratory Judgment. They are asking the court to make one of four declarations as detailed below.
Number 1 would seem to be an attempt to achieve that which was sought by DFR-I. This issue is no riper today than it was when the 9th ruled that it was not. It could be reasonably argued that it is less ripe today, now that the SCOTUS has upheld the Court of Appeals in that matter. What are the chances of Judge Silver countermanding the SCOTUS?
Number 2 would open up a “can of worms” that Judge Silver would no doubt be loath to do. Furthermore and more importantly to the West pilots, it would essentially be denying the ability to even file a DFR-II, as it seeks to have the court “declare” that a non-NIC JCBA “would not constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the West Pilots”. What are the chances that Judge Silver would be willing to abrogate the rights of DFR-II proponents to pursue a ripe claim?
Number 3 is nothing more than an attempt by the company to “cover their asses” for any liability to all of the defendants in this filing, which could even remotely arise if they were to do something illegal. What are the chances of Judge Silver issuing blanket immunity to the company?
Number 4 is an invitation to Judge Silver to get creative and unilaterally pull something out from under her robes to throw into the fray. What are the chances that Judge Silver would grab that “tar baby”?
seajay
"PRAYER FOR RELIEF
US Airways prays for judgment against the Named Addington Pilots, the West
Pilot Class, and USAPA as follows:
1. For a declaration that: (a) USAPA is currently violating its duty under Section 2, First, of the Railway Labor Act “to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions” by its continued insistence in current collective bargaining negotiations upon an integrated seniority list other than as reflected in the Nicolau Award, and entry into a collective bargaining agreement between US Airways and USAPA which does not incorporate the Nicolau Award would constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the West Pilots in violation of the Railway Labor Act, and therefore US Airways is prohibited from accepting or implementing a non-Nicolau seniority list; or
2. In the alternative, for a declaration that: (a) entry into a collective bargaining agreement between US Airways and USAPA which does not incorporate the Nicolau Award would not constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the West Pilots in violation of the Railway Labor Act; and USAPA would therefore not violate its duty under Section 2, First, of the Railway Labor Act “to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions” if it continues to demand that US Airways agree to an integrated seniority list other than as reflected in the Nicolau Award, and therefore US Airways is not prohibited from accepting or implementing a non-Nicolau seniority list; or
3. In the alternative, for a declaration that, regardless of whether it would constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the West Pilots or otherwise violate the Railway Labor Act for USAPA to insist upon or enter into a collective bargaining agreement that does not incorporate the Nicolau Award, US Airways would not be liable under the Railway Labor Act or otherwise if it were to enter into such a collective bargaining agreement; and
4. For such other, further, and/or different relief as the Court may deem just and proper."
Number 1 would seem to be an attempt to achieve that which was sought by DFR-I. This issue is no riper today than it was when the 9th ruled that it was not. It could be reasonably argued that it is less ripe today, now that the SCOTUS has upheld the Court of Appeals in that matter. What are the chances of Judge Silver countermanding the SCOTUS?
Number 2 would open up a “can of worms” that Judge Silver would no doubt be loath to do. Furthermore and more importantly to the West pilots, it would essentially be denying the ability to even file a DFR-II, as it seeks to have the court “declare” that a non-NIC JCBA “would not constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the West Pilots”. What are the chances that Judge Silver would be willing to abrogate the rights of DFR-II proponents to pursue a ripe claim?
Number 3 is nothing more than an attempt by the company to “cover their asses” for any liability to all of the defendants in this filing, which could even remotely arise if they were to do something illegal. What are the chances of Judge Silver issuing blanket immunity to the company?
Number 4 is an invitation to Judge Silver to get creative and unilaterally pull something out from under her robes to throw into the fray. What are the chances that Judge Silver would grab that “tar baby”?
seajay
"PRAYER FOR RELIEF
US Airways prays for judgment against the Named Addington Pilots, the West
Pilot Class, and USAPA as follows:
1. For a declaration that: (a) USAPA is currently violating its duty under Section 2, First, of the Railway Labor Act “to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions” by its continued insistence in current collective bargaining negotiations upon an integrated seniority list other than as reflected in the Nicolau Award, and entry into a collective bargaining agreement between US Airways and USAPA which does not incorporate the Nicolau Award would constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the West Pilots in violation of the Railway Labor Act, and therefore US Airways is prohibited from accepting or implementing a non-Nicolau seniority list; or
2. In the alternative, for a declaration that: (a) entry into a collective bargaining agreement between US Airways and USAPA which does not incorporate the Nicolau Award would not constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the West Pilots in violation of the Railway Labor Act; and USAPA would therefore not violate its duty under Section 2, First, of the Railway Labor Act “to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions” if it continues to demand that US Airways agree to an integrated seniority list other than as reflected in the Nicolau Award, and therefore US Airways is not prohibited from accepting or implementing a non-Nicolau seniority list; or
3. In the alternative, for a declaration that, regardless of whether it would constitute a breach of USAPA’s duty of fair representation to the West Pilots or otherwise violate the Railway Labor Act for USAPA to insist upon or enter into a collective bargaining agreement that does not incorporate the Nicolau Award, US Airways would not be liable under the Railway Labor Act or otherwise if it were to enter into such a collective bargaining agreement; and
4. For such other, further, and/or different relief as the Court may deem just and proper."
AWA320
Veteran
The only thing that will come out of a declaratory judgement are the responsibilities of all the parties. The court can not offer indemnity therefore the threat of law suit hangs. Now when that happens and it will usapa will have to either accept the fact that the nic stands as written or continue to stall. That move of stalling will no doubt produce a DFR all itself for lack of representation. In essence, the DJ will produce rock and hard place for usappy!
AWA320
AWA320
Veteran
Dont wait just leave now. You're headed out on LOA93 anyway with only the PBGC to look fwd to so why continue to suffer under the industries worst contract?
AWA320
AWA320
Veteran
Not at all. I just see all that FEAR in you all in the east and it shows with each post. Personal attacks, insults, name calling etc. The end is near and you all feel it. Usappy never had a winning arguement and LCC is not going to side with you unless the court tells them they must do so. I dont care if you want to sentence yourself to years of the worst contract and benefits in all of aviation, thats YOUR chioce! I get paid BETTER than you top f/o on the same a/c and there is no two ways about it. I will collect my profit sharing and still be content. I will continue to wave and say hello to you all as I taxi by you in CLT and Philly all the while knowing that I am getting more per hr than the guy sittin in the blue top to do the same job. If my flt gets cancelled for any reason I rest easy knowing that I head to the hotel WITH PAY just like I flew the trip.
So continue to hurt me with LOA93 🙄
AWA320
Because I want to contribute to the PI and vote! MM! Besides the EAST will be hiring soon so I can help mentor the new hires on the merits of DOH!
In addition to the substantive challenge that Naugler presents to the legal viability of
Nicolau, the pendency of that action undermines the Company’s request in Count I, which
seeks a declaration that USAPA must, pursuant to its DFR and RLA duties, bargain for
implementation of Nicolau. As recently argued by ALPA in Naugler, it raises the
“prospect of inconsistent judgments,” because Naugler could result in a finding that
Nicolau was tainted by ALPA’s DFR breach, while the Company currently asks this Court,
in Count I, to declare that the list is valid and that USAPA is barred from negotiating for
anything other than Nicolau. (See Granath Decl., Ex. A at 49).
The Company, in its current request for declaratory relief, asks this Court, through
6 The district court in Addington barred USAPA from presenting any evidence challenging
the process, procedure, or decision of the Nicolau Award.” (08-01633, Doc. # 362 at 2).
This included evidence relating to the pending Naugler litigation. The ruling, contrary to
established precedent, precluded USAPA from establishing why it “never accepted the
arbitration decision in principle.” Associated Transport, 185 N.L.R.B. at 633.
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 69 Filed 11/01/10 Page 8 of 10
- 8 -
Counts I and II, to opine on whether or not Nicolau must be included in any future CBA.7
Therefore, the Company seeks a resolution that will affect not only the West pilots, but the
lives and careers of over 3,000 East pilots, who the Ninth Circuit found have already
“expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the Nicolau Award.” Addington,
606 F.3d at 1180. Yet, in the face of this, the Company somehow continues to argue that it
is only the West pilots, and not the East pilots, who are necessary parties.
IV. CONCLUSION
USAPA respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion and order that the
Addington defendants be dropped from this action.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: November 1, 2010 By: /s/ Nicholas Granath
Lee Seham, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Lucas K. Middlebrook, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Stanley J. Silverstone, Esq. (pro hac vice)
SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, And to add to the mess SEA JAY! MM!
Nicolau, the pendency of that action undermines the Company’s request in Count I, which
seeks a declaration that USAPA must, pursuant to its DFR and RLA duties, bargain for
implementation of Nicolau. As recently argued by ALPA in Naugler, it raises the
“prospect of inconsistent judgments,” because Naugler could result in a finding that
Nicolau was tainted by ALPA’s DFR breach, while the Company currently asks this Court,
in Count I, to declare that the list is valid and that USAPA is barred from negotiating for
anything other than Nicolau. (See Granath Decl., Ex. A at 49).
The Company, in its current request for declaratory relief, asks this Court, through
6 The district court in Addington barred USAPA from presenting any evidence challenging
the process, procedure, or decision of the Nicolau Award.” (08-01633, Doc. # 362 at 2).
This included evidence relating to the pending Naugler litigation. The ruling, contrary to
established precedent, precluded USAPA from establishing why it “never accepted the
arbitration decision in principle.” Associated Transport, 185 N.L.R.B. at 633.
Case 2:10-cv-01570-ROS Document 69 Filed 11/01/10 Page 8 of 10
- 8 -
Counts I and II, to opine on whether or not Nicolau must be included in any future CBA.7
Therefore, the Company seeks a resolution that will affect not only the West pilots, but the
lives and careers of over 3,000 East pilots, who the Ninth Circuit found have already
“expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the Nicolau Award.” Addington,
606 F.3d at 1180. Yet, in the face of this, the Company somehow continues to argue that it
is only the West pilots, and not the East pilots, who are necessary parties.
IV. CONCLUSION
USAPA respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion and order that the
Addington defendants be dropped from this action.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: November 1, 2010 By: /s/ Nicholas Granath
Lee Seham, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Lucas K. Middlebrook, Esq. (pro hac vice)
Stanley J. Silverstone, Esq. (pro hac vice)
SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, And to add to the mess SEA JAY! MM!
Pot meet kettle... you probably are the numero uno of personal attacks, insults and name calling... YOUR FEAR IS PALPABLE!
and do you think for one minute... all the BS you spew about how much more you are paid... etc., etc., etc... makes any difference in how we view you?... well, guessing your response... your right...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
