Former AWA Pilot writes the truth

[charlie2]

They accepted EMPLOYMENT AT ANOTHER AIRLINE. So yes. They were on a different seniority list. Really not hard to understand.

Not sure what you're saying, I was talking about the attempt by the pathetic US Airways management to start a new express ops with E-170's and within a few weeks were told by the FAA to operate them as mainline or not at all. I think it was due in part to inadequate manuals. The original intent was qickly changed to a mainline operation staffed by mainline pilots. A few years later when they sold those mainline assets the pilots were told by the scumbags in management that because we are only selling some mainline aircraft that the pilots won't go with them. If it were truly a separate op all the pilots would have had to go with the aircraft. You can't have it both ways. Other pilots want to jump on board with these scumbag management guys to screw fellow pilots...that's low.

 

[TWA Dude]

That's just one of my rationalizations and you will never be able to change my mind.

You're not helping me understand. I'm not trying to get you to agree with Nicolau; I'm trying to see how you think it's okay to screw the West pilots. No matter how the MDA suit progresses it won't change the Nic list. You need to find a different outlet for your anger over how badly the world is treating you.

 

[charlie2]

You're not helping me understand. I'm not trying to get you to agree with Nicolau; I'm trying to see how you think it's okay to screw the West pilots. No matter how the MDA suit progresses it won't change the Nic list. You need to find a different outlet for your anger over how badly the world is treating you.

We don't see it as screwing anyone but as not screwing us. I want the "save Dave" guy, who was hired many many years after me to be a PHX 757 captain way before I could hold it, but you want that young man to be my captain...right?

 

[eaglesview]

They accepted EMPLOYMENT AT ANOTHER AIRLINE. So yes. They were on a different seniority list. Really not hard to understand.

That's the great debate isn't it?

ie you're forloughed...you can have a job at this "other airline" that operates on our certificate and will be flown by you "forloughed pilots."

 

[charlie2]

That's the great debate isn't it?

ie you're forloughed...you can have a job at this "other airline" that operates on our certificate and will be flown by you "forloughed pilots."

And we pilots are managements best friends in that regard! It's been done before so many times and will be done again with pilots help and cooperation...nice. Oh ya Eagle I want your job.

 

[C Festerpuss]

http://prhalloffame.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/deadparrot.png

It is quite hard to keep track of the state of litigation going on that is now intruding on the seniority dispute and negotiations at US Airwyas. It is sometimes helpful to use analogy and metaphor to draw and illuminate the similarities and differences between two situations or conditions.
I would invite you to consider the well known Monty Python Dead Parrot Sketch. Every time you hear the words Dead Parrot, or reference to a dead parrot please think “Addington Litigation”.

A customer enters a pet shop.​

Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting

The Army of Leonidas, (shop owner) would have you believe that the Dead Parrot is merely resting, and pining for the fjords. In fact their litigation is stone cold dead.

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! (Beautiful Plumage = “but the jury found for us in the Addington Litigation.”

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead. (this is a true statement)

Owner: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting! (No the jury found for us and the case is still alive……)

Consider the Following:​

· The Addington Litigation was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals In published precedential decision.
· The Addington Plaintiffs appealed for an en-banc hearing and were denied.
· The Addington Plaintiffs appealed via a writ of certiorari to the Unites States Supreme court and were denied.
· When the company filed for a Declaratory judgment the Addington plaintiffs filed a cross claim, suggesting that their case was now somehow ripe.
· The Addington Plaintiffs appealed to judge Neil Wake to assume jurisdiction over their cross claim and implement the Nicolau award.
· Judge Wake declined to do so and allowed the entire case to be transferred to Judge Roslyn Silver.
· Judge Roslyn Silver dismissed the Addington plaintiffs claim.

Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.) (this is what judge Roslyn Siver has just done to the Addington Litigation)

Mr. Praline: Now that's what I call a dead parrot.

Owner: No, no.....No, 'e's stunned

Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords. (Somehow Judge Wake will rescue us…)

http://www.kyj.biz/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/02918.jpg

Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home? (The litigation has fallen flat on it’s back in front of Wake, the Ninth, the Supreme Court and now judge Silver.)

Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage! (We won in a now defunct jury trial….so there you big bugggers.)

THERE IS NO LEGAL CLAIM WHATSOEVER IN THE ORIGIONAL ADDIINGTON CASE. IT IS DEAD, LIKE THE PARROT IN THE DEAD PARROT SKETCH.​

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!






FOR THE LAST TIME: The Addington litigation is done, finished, kaput, terminated, “ceased to be”, concluded, “reached a finality” and “JOINED THE CHIOR INVISIBLE.” It will never rise again in its original form. It cannot be referenced. It cannot even be mentioned in a future case, it will be objected to as prejudicial. Some of the elements of the litigation may again be used such as, testimony, deposition and other forms of evidence. None of the rulings of the court, uncontested findings of fact or bench decisions on procedure, evidence or other court actions can be used. It will be a new trial.


http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Monty_Python_Parrot-01.jpg

ADDINGTON THE PARROT…..R.I.P.​

 

[charlie2]

Thanks for that!

Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

 

[TWA Dude]

We don't see it as screwing anyone but as not screwing us.

Then your vision is severely myopic. A federal court jury agreed.

...but you want that young man to be my captain...right?

wrong. All I want is for binding arbitration to be binding. I didn't think that was asking for too much.

 

[cactusboy53]

We don't see it as screwing anyone but as not screwing us. I want the "save Dave" guy, who was hired many many years after me to be a PHX 757 captain way before I could hold it, but you want that young man to be my captain...right?

Oh, I get it now. This is just like USAPA's response to the Leonidas Brochure series....This is about AGE DISCRIMINATION. That's all. USAPA's argument was all about Ferguson's age and seat he could hold under the Nicolau

Based on these arguments, it sounds like you would be in favor of a DATE OF BIRTH seniority list. Right?

Sorry Charlie, but the court system will finish this. I'm gonna take a wild stab and guess that you won't like the results from that entity either. The difference is that this will be final and binding....really final and binding.

 

[TWA Dude]

It cannot even be mentioned in a future case, it will be objected to as prejudicial. Some of the elements of the litigation may again be used such as, testimony, deposition and other forms of evidence.

Those two sentences contradict. In any case, Judge Silver referenced the Addington case numerous times in her rulings and you can bet she and the company will reference it again and again in coming motions and pleadings. I guess neither of them agree with $eham's view on how Addington never happened.