US Pilots Labor Discussion

[cleardirect]

Looking at the bid published today, was that an increase in 25 330 and 7i Capts plus about 68 f/o to blockholder positions? For may! JAMIE, JJ, JG ,MM!

Would that be seasonal increase? Will you also make the same proud announcement when they go away in the fall?

Wow finally got off reserve after 25 years for a few months. You must be so happy.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Would that be seasonal increase? Will you also make the same proud announcement when they go away in the fall?

Wow finally got off reserve after 25 years for a few months. You must be so happy.

I think it was a net gain of about 18 CAPT poitions can you tell? Youve been here for 25years?

 

[AWA320]

Hey Mr. 1999 hire, I hear your 1 year of service and 5 years of furlough equate to junior to Odell. So you know, Odell is junior to Mitch, Clear is senior to Mitch, and all three are senior to you.

Did you actually even get hired at mainline, or did you backdoor your way in through MDA, never even flying a mainline jet?

I guess you have almost 6 years service now, having gotten a job back because of the merger, that gets you to about half the LOS Clear has, and no, usapa is not going to get you his job.

Sorry. But them is the facts junior.

OHhhhhhhhhh that one left a forehead mark

AWA320 says NO to UBS's

 

[Barrister]

The families of the dead passengers probably disagree.

You must be one sick dude to keep bringing this up. Counseling may benefit you.

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Boeing Driver]

Ask the arbitrator. It is easy, just read the decision.

He will explain that his award is a ratioed integration that equitably distributes opportunities moving forward.

There is more of that lowlife AWA buzz words...

They see a job vacated by a US Airways East pilot as an "opportunity".

Why is keeping the attrition they brought to the party not enough for the lowlifes?

It is very simple - an AWA pilot retires an AWA pilot replaces him; a US Airways East pilot retires a US Airways East pilot replaces him. How hard is that?

And yes - in one way or another the Nic is absolutely dead.

Boeing Driver

 

[nic4us]

There is more of that lowlife AWA buzz words...

They see a job vacated by a US Airways East pilot as an "opportunity".

Why is keeping the attrition they brought to the party not enough for the lowlifes?

It is very simple - an AWA pilot retires an AWA pilot replaces him; a US Airways East pilot retires a US Airways East pilot replaces him. How hard is that?

And yes - in one way or another the Nic is absolutely dead.

Boeing Driver

What is so hard is that an AWA pilot no longer retires from AWA, and a AAA pilot no longer retires from AAA.

Retirements are now from a combined airline, LCC, which has a combined list, the Nic.

The renegeing seniority theives at usapa would like to take the combined attrition, plus any growth, and give it to east pilots at West pilot's expense, while stapling the West to the bottom of a unilaterally imposed combined list just in case more furloughs come, so they can graciously give the furloughs to the West pilots.

Speaking of lowlifes, talked to any usapa communication liars lately?

 

[CallawayGolf]

It is very simple - an AWA pilot retires an AWA pilot replaces him; a US Airways East pilot retires a US Airways East pilot replaces him. How hard is that?

Boeing Driver

Is this the seniority solution East pilots proposed at negotiation, mediation or arbitration? If it wasn't even offered prior to the binding arbitration award, why should it be considered now? East pilots brought DOH to each of those venues and chose to fall on their sword to get it or let whatever the neutral arbitration panel decide become the new seniority system. The award was issued; the award is binding on East, West and Management. How hard of a concept is that?

You don’t get to tweak a binding arbitration result after the decision has been made. Of course you could go to George Nicolau and attempt to make your case with him since he alone maintains jurisdiction over the award. I wonder how sympathetic he will be when he practically begged East pilots to bring a moderated position to him before he made his decision, but they were intransigent and completely unreasonable. I guess not much has changed over the years. Thus the NIC lives on waiting for Judge Silver to respond to the company’s DJ request which will likely not go well for $eham and USAPA.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Great Googlie Mooglie!!
The Mighty Marty “Harpie-r “ whacked by Judge “Rosylin” the ROD O’silver. Legal malpractice and professional negligence, Read on.

NO. CIV-04-1367 PHX ROS
ENERGEX ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation; and BRAD GEUKE, an
individual, Plaintiffs,

vs.

SHUGHART, THOMSON & KILROY, P.C., a Missouri
professional corporation d/b/a SHUGHART THOMSON KILROY GOODWIN
RAUP; and, MARTY HARPER, EDWARD R. GLADY, JR., VICTORIA STEVENS,
and KELLY FLOOD, individuals, and BLACK & WHITE CORPORATIONS
I-X; and JOHN DOES I-X and JANE DOES I-X, Defendants. SHUGHART,
THOMSON & KILROY, P.C., a Missouri professional corporation d/b/a
SHUGHART THOMSON KILROY GOODWIN RAUP, Counterclaimant, vs. ENERGEX
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Counterdefendant.
NO. CIV-04-1367 PHX ROS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58395

August 17, 2006, Decided

OPINION BY: Roslyn O. Silver

On July 2, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants (Doc. # 1), followed by an Amended Complaint on October 7, 2004 (Doc. # 4). Plaintiffs allege two counts: professional negligence and breach of contract. Both counts are based on Defendants' representation for the settlement and drafting of the settlement agreement in the first civil action.

B. Causation
Defendants have moved for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim. In order to
prove legal malpractice, Plaintiffs must establish "(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship which imposes a duty on the attorney to exercise that degree of skill, care and knowledge commonly exercised by members of the profession, (2) breach of that duty, (3) that such negligence was a proximate cause of resulting injury, and (4) the fact and extent of the injury." Phillips v. Clancy, 152 Ariz. 415, 733 P.2d 300, 303 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' negligent representation and negligent drafting of the settlement agreement caused them various damages including lost revenues, attorneys' fees, and emotional pain and suffering.

A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c), after pleadings are closed any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. "A district court will render a judgment on the pleadings when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

B. Breach of Contract
Defendants have moved for Judgment on the Pleadings regarding Claim II, the Breach of Contract claim.
(Doc. # 85) Under Arizona law, breach of the duties owed by attorneys to their clients arises out of tort, not contract. Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners, 155 Ariz. 519, 747 P.2d 1218, 1222 (Ariz. 1987) ("The cause of action for malpractice would exist even if the client or patient had expressly declined the professional's services."). A legal malpractice claim can only arise out of contract if there is evidence of a specific promise that was breached apart from the duty imposed by law.

OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion forPartial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 64), Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 85), and a number of [*2] procedural and evidentiary motions. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be denied and the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED trial is set for November 14, 2006 at 9 a.m.


DATED this 17th day of August, 2006.
Rosiyn O. Silver
United States District Judge



You can all bet your bippies that Marty didn’t go to trial.(Lexus Nexus has no trial record of this complaint.) They did a deal.
Ouch….that’s gotta hurt. Hey Marty…there goes an ambulance, fetch boy, fetch.

Sort of like not going well for Marty,!

 

[cleardirect]

I think it was a net gain of about 18 CAPT poitions can you tell? Youve been here for 25years?

I don't know but it appears to me to be a NET increase of 4. Maybe after 25 years you would know how to read these things.

All Equip C RC F RF TOTAL
76I 17 (8) 47 (17) 39
B737 0 (3) 0 2 (1)
A-319 0 0 0 (4) (4)
A-330 7 (7) 20 (24) (4)
E-190 1 (3) 1 (16) (17)
TOTAL 25 (21) 68 (59) 13

Looks to me like 21 capt went from reserve to lineholder. For the net increase of 4. With a shift if 9 F/O's getting a line. NET/NET increase of 13 pilots total. The little ( ) does mean minus right. 25 (21) =4 captains increase.

 

[cleardirect]

Sort of like not going well for Marty,!

Guess you are running out of stuff to cry about. that is the third time you have posted it.

DATED this 17th day of August, 2006.
Rosiyn O. Silver
United States District Judge

Since you don't know the outcome you have know way of knowing what happened.

How about we wait to see how the rule 11 turns out.

In a related context (the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915), “ ‘[f]rivolous’ means ‘of little or no weight, value, or
importance; paltry; trumpery; not worthy of serious attention; having
no reasonable ground or purpose.’ ” Deutsch v. United States, 67 F.3d
1080, 1085-86 (3d Cir. 1995). A claim is frivolous only where it is
“clear under existing precedents that there is no chance of success and
no reasonable argument to extend, modify or reverse the law as it
stands.” Mareno v. Rowe, 910 F.2d 1043, 1047 (2d Cir. 1990); see also
Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 243, 254 (2d Cir.
1985) (“[W]here it is patently clear that a claim has absolutely no
chance of success under the existing precedents, and where no
reasonable argument can be advanced to extend, modify or reverse the
law as it stands, Rule 11 has been violated.”).

Sounds exactly like Seham and the false RICO case that was thrown out court with prejudice without trial because it did not even meet the min standard of the law. A competent lawyer would have known that.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

I don't know but it appears to me to be a NET increase of 4. Maybe after 25 years you would know how to read these things.

All Equip C RC F RF TOTAL
76I 17 (8) 47 (17) 39
B737 0 (3) 0 2 (1)
A-319 0 0 0 (4) (4)
A-330 7 (7) 20 (24) (4)
E-190 1 (3) 1 (16) (17)
TOTAL 25 (21) 68 (59) 13

Looks to me like 21 capt went from reserve to lineholder. For the net increase of 4. With a shift if 9 F/O's getting a line. NET/NET increase of 13 pilots total. The little ( ) does mean minus right. 25 (21) =4 captains increase.

Well it will be 25 years in a couple mos but thanx for the breakdown! JAMIE, JJ, JG, MM! Got my hunch on that rule 11,

 

[traderjake]

You must be one sick dude to keep bringing this up. Counseling may benefit you.

NICDOA
NPJB

The truth is ugly and hits a nerve.

Quit the BS about how the East is superior to the West and I'll quit refuting your BS.



NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT
USAIR, INC.
BOEING 737-400
LAGUARDIA AIRPORT
FLUSHING, NEW YORK
SEPTEMBER 20, 1989


3.2 Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the
probable cause of this accident was the captain's failure to exercise his
command authority in a timely manner to reject the takeoff or take sufficient
control to continue the takeoff, which was initiated with a mistrimmed
rudder. Also causal was the captain's failure to detect the mistrimmed
rudder before the takeoff was attempted


3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Findings
1. The flight and cabin crews were properly certificated and
qualified for the flight.
2. The airplane was certificated, equipped, and maintained in
accordance with Federal regulations and approved procedures.
3. Rudder trim moved full left while the airplane was parked with
engines off at LGA.
4. The captain could have detected the mistrim rudder condition
during taxi, during the flight control freedom-of-movement
check and during the response to a checklist challenge. He
failed to do so.
5. The captain did not use the autobrake system during the
takeoff roll, as recommended by Boeing and USAir management.
His failure to do so delayed the onset of maximum braking and
extended the airplane's stopping distance.
6. Both pilots were relatively inexperienced in their respective
positions. The captain had about 140 hours as a B-737
captain, and the first officer was conducting his first nonsupervised
line takeoff in a B-737, and also his first takeoff
after a 39-days non-flying period.
7. Early in the takeoff attempt, the first officer inadvertently
disarmed the autothrottle. He then manually advanced the
throttles; the resultant delay and the slightly low thrust set
on the left engine lengthened the airplane's ground roll and
added to the directional control problem.
8. The captain's use of the nosewheel steering tiller during the
takeoff roll was not proper and may have masked the initial
directional control problem created by the mistrimmed rudder.
9. Because of poor communication between the pilots, both
attempted to 'maintain directional control initially and
neither was fully in control later in the takeoff, compounding
directional control difficulties.
10. Neither pilot was monitoring indicated airspeed and no
standard airspeed callouts occurred.
56
11. The captain should have been aware of the directional control
problem and should have initiated an RTO before accelerating
to high speed.
12. Unusual noise and vibration from the cocked nosewheel, and the
leftward veer, led the captain to reject the takeoff.
13. Computed VT speed was 125 knots and action by the captain to
reject the takeoff began at 130 knots.
14. After initiating the RTO, the captain used differential
braking to steer the airplane. This delayed the attainment of
effective braking until 5 l/2 seconds after the takeoff was
rejected.
15. Braking during the RTO was less than the maximum braking
achievable on the wet runway; the airplane could have been
stopped on the runway.



NTSB Identification: DCA94MA065 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR USAIR
Accident occurred Saturday, July 02, 1994 in CHARLOTTE, NC
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/19/1996
Aircraft: DOUGLAS DC-9-31, registration: N954VJ
Injuries: 37 Fatal, 16 Serious, 4 Minor.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

1) THE FLIGHTCREW'S DECISION TO CONTINUE AN APPROACH INTO SEVERE CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY THAT WAS CONDUCIVE TO A MICROBURST; 2) THE FLIGHTCREW'S FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE A WINDSHEAR SITUATION IN A TIMELY MANNER; 3)THE FLIGHTCREW'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE PROPER AIRPLANE ATTITUDE AND THRUST SETTING NECESSARY TO ESCAPE THE WINDSHEAR; AND 4) THE LACK OF REAL-TIME ADVERSE WEATHER AND WINDSHEAR HAZARD INFORMATION DISSEMINATION FROM AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, ALL OF WHICH LED TO AN ENCOUNTER WITH AND THE FAILURE TO ESCAPE FROM A MICROBURST-INDUCED WINDSHEAR THAT WAS PRODUCED BY A RAPIDLY DEVELOPING THUNDERSTORM LOCATED AT THE APPROACH END OF RUNWAY 18R. CONTRIBUTING TO THE ACCIDENT WERE: 1) THE LACK OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL PROCEDURES THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE CONTROLLER TO DISPLAY AND ISSUE AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR-9) WEATHER INFORMATION TO THE PILOTS OF FLIGHT 1016; 2) THE CHARLOTTE TOWER SUPERVISOR'S FAILURE TO PROPERLY ADVISE AND ENSURE THAT ALL CONTROLLERS WERE AWARE OF AND REPORTING THE REDUCTION IN VISIBILITY AND RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE VALUE INFORMATION, AND THE LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERTS THAT HAD OCCURRED IN MULTIPLE QUADRANTS; 3) THE INADEQUATE REMEDIAL ACTIONS BY USAIR TO ENSURE ADHERENCE TO STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES; AND 4) THE INADEQUATE SOFTWARE LOGIC IN THE AIRPLANE'S WINDSHEAR WARNING SYSTEM THAT DID NOT PROVIDE AN ALERT UPON ENTRY INTO THE WINDSHEAR. (NTSB REPORT AAR-95/03)

 

[cleardirect]

Well it will be 25 years in a couple mos but thanx for the breakdown! JAMIE, JJ, JG, MM! Got my hunch on that rule 11,

So what is it 4 or 18 capts?

 

[aquagreen73s]

That is where you are wrong. You will never be able to justify putting a 17 year guy below a new hire. Especially when
the 17 year guy works for a company who will be retiring 200 plus a year in 2 years. And spin it anyway you want to
they will ALL be senior to the guy who was a new hire at AW. He would have moved up just fine by not leaping ahead of the 17 year guy.
Why NIC thought that would fly is amazing to me. He was pissed that our guys would not do the dirty work for him. The most anyone
lost at other companys was 3-5 years. NOT 17. That is your burden.......justify placing that 17 year dues paying pilot
below a new hire.......Go ahead try it......you can't, never will....and it is one of the most shameful things ever done to a pilot at any carrier.
Just admit that your jaw dropped when that list came out........go ahead admit it. We all know we were close to being out of a job but
until you show me a pay stub where you financed the deal it doensn't matter one bit. We know where the value of this business is and it
ain't the West. You think Parker will risk his BIG PAYDAY to take up your NIC cause. If so, you ain't been paying attention. He wants delay
and cover. When he sees the BIG PAYDAY on the horizon you will become merger road kill. But if you keep jogging, eat right, and put in say..
...another 10-20 years here...you too will finally "get it" ........MAYBE.

NICDOA
NPJB

You are way off on many fronts. First, self interest has been driving this situation all along and it will continue to do so. That's where you Angry F/Os are screwed because you cannot deliver a contract expediently that has DOH. You took a pseudo log jam and created a real log jam. Now there is no West to negotiate with, so the options for all of us is status quo or the Nic. There are more than enough East pilots who are not willing to keep up the fight for DOH if it means LOA 93 into perpetuity. Second, YOU may not think it's fair to put a newhire ahead of an 88 hire, but the fact is that that the 88 hire was on the street and therefore brought no job to the merger. Cleary and Mowery themselves said in a 2003 Airways article that there's not much for furloughs to come back to in a merger situation. Guess what - Cleary and Mowery were right.

Vote no all you want. I'm sure that serves you best but the problem you have is that fighting your DOH battle does not serve the majority of the pilot group. You had your opportunity to cram DOH down the West's throats but you failed. If you don't understand the predicament you're in, then ask Bradford. He understood very well the importance of getting the DOH list solidified into a contract as soon as possible. The West sits well entrenched in the legal high ground. We're well funded and you're no where close to getting released. We eat meat while you Easties eat rice. We can wait.

 

[prechilill]

Excellent post, Aqua and I agree with you 100%. The west is satisfied with things so far- DOH is a distant realm, shot down once already in court and dismissed on a technicality. *If* we have to go down that road again with DFR 2 I have a depth of confidence having Addington under our belts. Also, as you state time is on our side. 25+ years to amortize the losses from the east stupidity. Thirdly, the AFOs are floundering and you can see the frustration level here on this board. Notice too none of these guys populate any other chat board because nobody puts up with their whining. This closed community highlights the desperation of the AFO's predicament and their support dwindles with each new contract gained by other employee groups and more importantly other pilot groups. DAL is approaching their second contract, UAL will have theirs closed out probably within the next six months and here the east pilots sit at regional airline rates. That is their decision- the west pilot group is free from any responsibility going forward and that makes things sit well with me, my fellow pilots and most importantly how we support our reps in PHX.
When the east tires of being stupid we can move forward.