AMR also believes that the west pilots case is ripe!

[Bringupthebird]

Kirbys crew news comment was after the Effective date there is no east or west. Read into that what you want.

 

[Dornier 335]

(...) Read into that what you want.

What about my two Hate Threads that I crafted with tender loving care? Why were they deleted? (sob)

 

[Dornier 335]

USAPA Update

(note: links have been disabled)



Yesterday (May 9) AMR filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to approve, among other labor agreements, the MOU that was ratified by USAPA members on February 8, 2013. Click here to read the Motion and supporting papers. This is a normal action in a bankruptcy proceeding in that all contracts reached during the pendency of a Chapter 11 proceeding must be approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
The Motion sets May 23 as the deadline for any interested party to file an objection to the approval of the agreements and May 30 as the date for a hearing before the Bankruptcy Court on the Motion.
We expect the Motion will be approved. We will keep you informed of any significant developments concerning the motion.
New Addington II postings in the Legal Library from May 9, 2013:
Doc 63, US Airways Non-Opposition to AMR Motion to Intervene:
We fully expected US Airways to agree with AMR?s Motion to Intervene.
Doc 64, US Airways Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate PI Hearing with Trial on the Merits:
US Airways agrees that it is appropriate to consolidate trial on the merits, with the May 14 hearing on the motion for Preliminary Injunction. We are not surprised. This is an attempt to shortcut the normal District Court process that provides for an answer to the complaint, discovery, and reasonable and adequate notice before a trial on the merits. After years of delay in negotiations and continuing efforts to delay resolution of the appeal from Judge Silver?s decision in the Declaratory Judgment Action, now US Airways wants to expedite matters. As we said in a previous message concerning recent filings, a motion of this sort is rarely if ever granted, where, as in this case, there has been no answer, no discovery, and no reasonable advance notice. (Plaintiffs Motion to Consolidate (Doc 60) was filed on May 8, less than a week before the hearing.) We are confident that this matter and all other matters before Judge Silver will be decided on the facts and the law, and not on what US Airways wants, or AMR wants, or on how many parties weigh in on a particular position. Judge Silver?s court is a court of law, not a political referendum.
Doc 65, USAPA Reply in support of USAPA Motion to Dismiss:
This is USAPA?s Reply to the Plaintiffs? Opposition to USAPA?s Motion to Dismiss. USAPA?s Motion to Dismiss is Doc 44; Plaintiffs? Opposition is Doc 52. There are two main points to the Reply:

• The Court previously decided that USAPA is not tied to the Nicolau Award which was an internal proceeding, binding only on the previous bargaining representative. The Court's decision is binding, and that defeats the Plaintiffs? claim to the contrary.
• The Plaintiffs? claim, concerning its fears about the ultimate result of the McCaskill-Bond proceeding, is not ripe for the reasons previous stated by the Ninth Circuit in Addington I and by Judge Silver in the Declaratory Judgment Action.

The Reply also reiterates that any dispute concerning the 2005 Transition Agreement is a ?minor dispute? under the Railway Labor Act, which must be submitted to the System Board of Adjustment, and that there is no merit to Plaintiffs? belated claims for attorneys? fees for cases they lost.
There will be a number of filings today (Friday, May 10) as the parties prepare for the May 14 hearing on Plaintiffs? Motion of a Preliminary Injunction in Phoenix.
USAPA Communications

 

[cbrown1]

2 vendors for PBS are being looked at now for implementation JAN 2014.

I heard one of them is AOS. I used it at skywest and it wasn't very good.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Opposition is Doc 52. There are two main points to the Reply:

• The Court previously decided that USAPA is not tied to the Nicolau Award which was an internal proceeding, binding only on the previous bargaining representative. The Court's decision is binding, and that defeats the Plaintiffs? claim to the contrary.

That is not true. The court said that USAPA is as free to bargain as the previous bargaining representative. It did not absolve them of responsibility for damages resulting from not using the Nicolau list. They have been repeatedly warned, but they continue to ignore good advice to abandon DOH and simply live up to their agreements.

Why do you folks continue to finance these liars who have yet to earn a cent of their dues money in real quantifiable benefits to ALL the members?

Why is there no card drive to bring in APA as the bargaining rep BEFORE the effective date?

 

[pave driver]

APA will be the new union and does not require a vote.

 

[General Lee]

APA will be the new union and does not require a vote.

That's great and all, but nobody will forget the part where both the East and West, along with the company, signed up for BINDING arbitration. You can try to forget it, but it won't help. Also, the APA expects the feud between the West and East to be concluded before any SLI with them. The Easties would love to continue status quo and "out run" the clock until their own retirements, but that is very unlikely. Management also wants this done, and the AA creditors.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Green]

May 14 hearing on temporary injunction.

When is a ruling expected? Thanks

 

[TWA Dude]

That's up to the judge. Could be days or months. Probably within weeks.

 

[Metrojet]

Sorry, the NIC arbitration was agreed upon by the Easties, the Westies, and the company. Even NIC himself was agreed upon beforehand. So, you will lose. The Westies are DUE seats, and they will take them.


Hey General

You sure seem to have a BIG DOG in this fight
You sure your not a former Westie in hiding or did you get turned down by Piedmont or Usair back in the last

 

[Ex737Driver]

Sorry, but "choice" is the correct word. During the DL/NW SLI hearings, a FNWA pilot tried to tell the story of two Western Airlines pilots who were furloughed and what they did next. One stayed furloughed and came back after DL acquired Western, the other guy eventually went to Northwest. The guy arguing the point to the three arbitrators said they should be considered equal due to them both getting furloughed at the same time. The arbitrators disagreed, saying both had a choice on what to do next, and one stayed put, the other moved on.

Picking an airline is a gamble. Not trying to be cocky, but that is life. Picking the one you want to interview at and hopefully get hired at is your choice, and if that airline fails, you unfortunately made the wrong choice. Sad but true, and that is true in any business.


Bye Bye---General Lee

CAL used that same argument, I think on day 4. 2 pilots hired at UAL, both furloughed after 9/11. Both were hired at CAL one year apart. Both received recall notices to UAL and after the second call, one left and one stayed. The one that left and went back to UAL, was subsequently furloughed again while the one that stayed at CAL and relinquished his UAL # is now holding 737 CA. The other just finished his 737 FO training to fly at CAL until the SLI is complete.

How should the 3 man panel view this? Should the 2 time furlough be slotted relative with the 737 CA since they were both hired at UAL around the same time? Are they equal?

 

[General Lee]

CAL used that same argument, I think on day 4. 2 pilots hared at UAL, both furloughed after 9/11. Both were hired at CAL one year apart. Both received recall notices to UAL and after the second call, one left and one stayed. The one that left and went back to UAL, was subsequently furloughed again while the one that stayed at CAL and relinquished his UAL # is now holding 737 CA. The other just finished his 737 FO training to fly at CAL until the SLI is complete.

How should the 3 man panel view this? Should the 2 time furlough be slotted relative with the 737 CA since they were both hired at UAL around the same time? Are they equal?

No, they are not equal. The arbitrators on the DL/NWA arbitration didn't think so. They looked at your position at the time of the merger, not what you did years ago. The guy above who went to CAL made a better decision, and he will have a higher relative seniority, which every arbitrator has used in the last few SLIs. If the airlines are equal in size and both do similar things (both have domestic and INTL widebodies), then I bet it will be close to relative seniority, plus or minus a couple % points. If you had seperate operations (USAir East had INTL ops, America West didn't), then the arbitrator would take that into account (The top 500 USAir East guys went to the top of the combined SL, because they had INTL ops and INTL widebodies). Since UAL and CAL are pretty close in size and do the same type operations, again I think it will be relative. The CAL Captain made a wise choice.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Sorry, the NIC arbitration was agreed upon by the Easties, the Westies, and the company. Even NIC himself was agreed upon beforehand. So, you will lose. The Westies are DUE seats, and they will take them.


Hey General

You sure seem to have a BIG DOG in this fight
You sure your not a former Westie in hiding or did you get turned down by Piedmont or Usair back in the last

Look, everyone can see what happened here, you guys screwed over the Westies and everyone else in this industry by now making everyone question if binding arbitration will ever stick again. Will another group "pull a USAir?" Yes, I do have friends that are Westies, and they have been through enough. The facts show that your East side, the West side, and even the company agreed to the process, and even agreed to the arbitrator beforehand. Clear cut case.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Dornier 335]

USAPA Update - Addington II Filings

(links deactivated)



We have added an extensive number of documents to the Legal Library pertaining to the up-coming hearing next week. They are listed below and were all filed yesterday, May 10. The principal document is Doc 76, Joint Status Report, which indicates that the hearing on May 14 in Phoenix, will not be an evidentiary hearing with witnesses and testimony, and therefore will not be like the hearing held in Charlotte before Judge Conrad almost two years ago, on the Company?s complaint for a Preliminary Injunction against USAPA.
In this case, Judge Silver issued an order on April 18 (Doc 43) setting deadlines for filing certain papers, setting May 14 as the date for a hearing on the Plaintiffs? Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and directing the attorneys to confer and submit a joint status report by May 10, which the Court directed ?should include the identity of any proposed witnesses, as well as the scope of such witnesses? testimony.? When the attorneys began discussing the hearing, Plaintiffs indicated that they did not intend to call any witnesses, were going to submit the matter on the papers they had previously filed, and wanted to spend 6 hours presenting argument before Judge Silver. USAPA agreed to present its evidence in the form of declarations and exhibits but, as indicated in the Joint Report, believes that it is up to the Court to decide how long it wants to spend listening to the lawyers, given that there will not be any witnesses.
Also at issue between the parties is the order of argument. USAPA suggests that the order of argument should be addressed, in this order:
(1) US Airways Motion to Dismiss,
(2) USAPA?s Motion to Dismiss and
(3) Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
The Plaintiffs (joined by US Airways) have suggested a much more complicated schedule that divides the argument by issue rather than by motion. The scheme suggested by Plaintiffs (and US Airways) is in Doc 76. The Court will make the final decision on the order of argument and how much time it will allow.
In any event, there is no plan to present any witnesses at the hearing on May 14. All the evidence concerning the Plaintiffs? Motion for a Preliminary Injunction will be presented by Declarations and Exhibits. Most, if not all of these Declarations and Exhibits have already been filed.


(...)

 

[fam62c]

This is going to be a big mess that is probably going to drag on in the courts for years, it's already been going on forever. If binding arbitration isn't binding on successor representational groups then it can be bypassed in many cases, that's really the issue. If a group gets an award they are not happy with can they just vote in different representation and nullify the award? This case could have implications beyond just the airline industry.

 

[pave driver]

This is going to be a big mess that is probably going to drag on in the courts for years, it's already been going on forever. If binding arbitration isn't binding on successor representational groups then it can be bypassed in many cases, that's really the issue. If a group gets an award they are not happy with can they just vote in different representation and nullify the award? This case could have implications beyond just the airline industry.

A "snapshot" on 14 FEB 13 will be used when arbitration is underway. I think all involved will be dissapointed. Hope I am wrong.

 

[abefly]

A "snapshot" on 14 FEB 13 will be used when arbitration is underway. I think all involved will be dissapointed. Hope I am wrong.

The snapshot will be the POR date not the announcement date.

The East /West seniority issue willl be solved before then by the court.

As far as the US Air/ American seniority that will start after the JCBA is complete. I hear they are almost done with that. It requires no pilot voting.

My prediction is the East will be dissapointed by Judge Silver (but they knew it was coming someday, delay has been their tactic).

Both East and West will be dissapointed in the next SLI. When USAPA goes in screaming DOH they will be laughed out of the room. Thank god the west's merger attorneys get to present at the M/B arbitraion as well. The USAPA idiots can't do anything. What a waste of 2.45% of my income.

 

[General Lee]

This is going to be a big mess that is probably going to drag on in the courts for years, it's already been going on forever. If binding arbitration isn't binding on successor representational groups then it can be bypassed in many cases, that's really the issue. If a group gets an award they are not happy with can they just vote in different representation and nullify the award? This case could have implications beyond just the airline industry.

Good post. You are correct, being able to disregard an award after agreeing to the arbitration process would ruin the process for everyone, in any industry.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

A "snapshot" on 14 FEB 13 will be used when arbitration is underway. I think all involved will be dissapointed. Hope I am wrong.

That's fine, but the NIC award would be grandfathered in for sure. It's tough to avoid a binding award, and the Easties will figure that out soon. After that is cleared up, then the snap shot will be looked at by the next panel of arbitrators.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

The snapshot will be the POR date not the announcement date.

The East /West seniority issue willl be solved before then by the court.

As far as the US Air/ American seniority that will start after the JCBA is complete. I hear they are almost done with that. It requires no pilot voting.

My prediction is the East will be dissapointed by Judge Silver (but they knew it was coming someday, delay has been their tactic).

Both East and West will be dissapointed in the next SLI. When USAPA goes in screaming DOH they will be laughed out of the room. Thank god the west's merger attorneys get to present at the M/B arbitraion as well. The USAPA idiots can't do anything. What a waste of 2.45% of my income.

The snap shot will be when the merger was announced. Delta hired a few hundred pilots after the merger was announced, and all of them were stapled to the bottom by the arbitrators. (NWA wasn't hiring at the time)


Bye Bye---General Lee