Golden Falcon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Posts
- 659
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
US Airways Sues Pilots
- Thread starter Green Banana
- Start date
- Watchers 26
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Raoul Duke
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Posts
- 932
eaglesview
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 5, 2008
- Posts
- 1,350
I have not read the complaint. Educate me. Besides writing airplanes up what is in the complaint. Truth is any of us at any carrier could start writing everything we see up and we would have the FAA on our side since that is how the regs are written. Said airline would then grind to a halt.
TWA Dude
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,666
eaglesview:
I'll post a link as soon as I can find one. The Complaint is 43 pages long with many more attachments documenting all the below allegations. The following is just the "Introduction" of the Complaint. (Sorry about format, it's a cut-and-past from a pdf file and it takes too long to fix.)
1. US Airways files this lawsuit under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et
seq. (the “RLA”), against USAPA and its officers and members to prohibit them from engaging
in an ongoing, unlawful pilot slowdown campaign. The purpose of USAPA’s campaign is to
cause nationwide flight delays and cancellations in order to put pressure on US Airways in its
current collective bargaining negotiations with USAPA. USAPA recently intensified its
campaign, resulting in a significant change in pilot behavior, which in turn is now disrupting US
Airways’ operations and the travel plans of many thousands of members of the public —
primarily at Charlotte and US Airways’ other east coast hubs. These actions are illegal.
2. The status quo obligation in Section 2, First, of the RLA not only prohibits
USAPA from instigating or encouraging a slowdown, it also requires that USAPA make all
reasonable efforts to prevent or stop a slowdown that is occurring. USAPA has utterly failed to
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 43
- 2 -
meet its obligation. The lead Court of Appeals decisions addressing this status quo obligation all
arise in the identical context of a union attempting to put pressure on an airline in contract
negotiations and expressly confirm that, under the facts presented here, an injunction must issue.
3. Indeed, as confirmed by the applicable legal precedent USAPA’s attempt to put
pressure on US Airways in ongoing contract negotiations by disrupting operations is a blatant
violation of its status quo obligations under Section 2, First, of the RLA. USAPA is directly
instigating the illegal slowdown by encouraging pilots to delay flight departures, not complete
certain training requirements, decline to fly on the basis of fatigue, increase maintenance writeups,
and generally slow down in the performance of their duties — and also by threatening to
expose and retaliate against those pilots who do not participate in the slowdown. Although
USAPA is encouraging pilots to change their behavior under the guise of “safety,” USAPA’s
own communications confirm the true purpose of its campaign is illegally to slowdown US
Airways’ operation in order to gain leverage in contract negotiations. For example, USAPA
encourages pilots to “Fly Safe” and “slow it down!” in a publication describing what it will take
for US Airways’ pilots to win their “battle” for a new contract. And USAPA’s Strike
Preparedness Committee — not its Safety Committee — issued a publication stating that “it is
time for us to make a concise and powerful statement that we will no longer tolerate unfair
working conditions” by “MEET[ING] OR EXCEED[ING]” all “safety standards” “in every
single decision that we make” and concluded by stating that “[a] storm approaches.”
4. The applicable case law recognizes that a union’s initiation and repeated emphasis
on safety in the midst of collective bargaining negotiations is code for a slowdown. See, e.g.,
United Air Lines, Inc. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, 243 F.3d 349, 355-57
(7th Cir. 2001) (publications stressing “safety first” and encouraging union members to “work
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 43
- 3 -
safe” are “commonly recognized signals . . . for a work slowdown”). This is an intuitive point,
especially as to pilots. US Airways’ pilots are highly trained professionals and do not need to be
told that they should not fly an unsafe aircraft — they know that. So when USAPA repeatedly
emphasizes safety to its members in the midst of labor negotiations, pilots understand that
USAPA is telling them to slowdown in order to disrupt the operation. This is particularly so
where, as here, USAPA does so while also telling pilots there are “strong implications beyond
just safety” and “flying safe” is necessary to get the contract they deserve. The true purpose of
USAPA’s campaign is further confirmed by the fact that the only participants are the “East”
pilots. The East pilots worked for US Airways prior to its merger with America West Airlines in
2005, and are domiciled in Charlotte, D.C., and Philadelphia, and their allegiance to USAPA is
generally stronger than that of the “West pilots,” who worked for America West prior to the
merger, and are domiciled in Phoenix.
5. USAPA’s slowdown campaign is having the union’s intended effect: the change
in East pilot behavior has dramatically impacted numerous aspects of US Airways’ operations
leading to flight delays and cancellations, particularly at its Charlotte hub (US Airways’ largest
operation). These changes are all “statistically significant,” meaning that they cannot be
explained by chance. For example, since May 1, 2011, the percentage of the Company’s flights
flown by East pilots that arrive at their scheduled arrival time has dropped by more than 11
percentage points (after controlling for weather and other factors). Based on conventional
statistical analysis, the odds that this drop in on-time arrivals by East pilots is random in nature in
less than 1% (i.e., it is more than 99% certain that this is the result of concerted activity). When
there is an increase in late arriving flights, there is a subsequent increase in the number of
passengers who miss their connecting flights and/or whose bags do not make it to a connecting
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 3 of 43
- 4 -
flight. For example, since May 1, the number of bags that do not make it onto a passenger’s
connecting flight has increased by more than 45% for every 1,000 connecting passengers at
Charlotte — while operations remain normal in Phoenix.
6. East pilots are causing these disruptions by engaging in the specific delay tactics
encouraged by USAPA, such as slowing down when they taxi aircraft. The average historical
“taxi-in” time (when a pilot taxis the aircraft to the gate after landing) and “taxi-out” time (when
a pilot taxis the aircraft from the gate to take off) for East pilots have increased dramatically
since May 1. Also, there has been a similar dramatic increase in flight departure delays
attributed to East pilots — another tactic encouraged by USAPA. Historically, 1.31% of US
Airways’ flights flown by East pilots are delayed for reasons attributable to those pilots. Since
May 1, however, that rate has more than doubled to 2.85%. During this same time, these
operational metrics have been within normal ranges for West pilots.
7. The requirements for issuance of a preliminary injunction are plainly met. As to
the merits, USAPA’s directives to slow down under the guise of safety cannot be seriously
disputed — and those directives are patent violations of USAPA’s obligations under Section 2,
First, which prohibit a union from instigating or encouraging a slowdown, and also require a
union to make all reasonable efforts to prevent or stop a slowdown by its members.
8. The irreparable injury showing that is typically required to obtain injunctive relief
does not apply under the RLA. See Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S.
299, 303-04 (1989). But even if irreparable injury were a requirement, it is satisfied here:
USAPA and the East pilots’ actions have caused, on average, nine to ten flight cancellations a
day since May 1. This means that the travel plans and daily lives of approximately 1,173
passengers a day are being disrupted by USAPA’s campaign — or 105,500 members of the
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 4 of 43
- 5 -
traveling public to date. This harm to the public alone warrants issuance of a preliminary
injunction. Cancellations of this magnitude also directly translate into incalculable irreparable
harm to US Airways’ customer goodwill and business reputation in an industry in which
customers have a choice and make decisions based on reliability and reputation. And there can
be no claim of harm to USAPA or its members in issuing an injunction because it would simply
prohibit them from engaging in illegal activity.
9. US Airways has attempted to resolve this dispute by repeatedly putting USAPA
on notice of its violations of the RLA and demanding that it make all reasonable efforts to stop
the slowdown as required by the RLA. In response, USAPA has only intensified its campaign,
thus requiring US Airways to seek injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, in this
situation, Section 2, First, of the RLA requires the issuance of a preliminary and permanent
injunction
I'll post a link as soon as I can find one. The Complaint is 43 pages long with many more attachments documenting all the below allegations. The following is just the "Introduction" of the Complaint. (Sorry about format, it's a cut-and-past from a pdf file and it takes too long to fix.)
1. US Airways files this lawsuit under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et
seq. (the “RLA”), against USAPA and its officers and members to prohibit them from engaging
in an ongoing, unlawful pilot slowdown campaign. The purpose of USAPA’s campaign is to
cause nationwide flight delays and cancellations in order to put pressure on US Airways in its
current collective bargaining negotiations with USAPA. USAPA recently intensified its
campaign, resulting in a significant change in pilot behavior, which in turn is now disrupting US
Airways’ operations and the travel plans of many thousands of members of the public —
primarily at Charlotte and US Airways’ other east coast hubs. These actions are illegal.
2. The status quo obligation in Section 2, First, of the RLA not only prohibits
USAPA from instigating or encouraging a slowdown, it also requires that USAPA make all
reasonable efforts to prevent or stop a slowdown that is occurring. USAPA has utterly failed to
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 43
- 2 -
meet its obligation. The lead Court of Appeals decisions addressing this status quo obligation all
arise in the identical context of a union attempting to put pressure on an airline in contract
negotiations and expressly confirm that, under the facts presented here, an injunction must issue.
3. Indeed, as confirmed by the applicable legal precedent USAPA’s attempt to put
pressure on US Airways in ongoing contract negotiations by disrupting operations is a blatant
violation of its status quo obligations under Section 2, First, of the RLA. USAPA is directly
instigating the illegal slowdown by encouraging pilots to delay flight departures, not complete
certain training requirements, decline to fly on the basis of fatigue, increase maintenance writeups,
and generally slow down in the performance of their duties — and also by threatening to
expose and retaliate against those pilots who do not participate in the slowdown. Although
USAPA is encouraging pilots to change their behavior under the guise of “safety,” USAPA’s
own communications confirm the true purpose of its campaign is illegally to slowdown US
Airways’ operation in order to gain leverage in contract negotiations. For example, USAPA
encourages pilots to “Fly Safe” and “slow it down!” in a publication describing what it will take
for US Airways’ pilots to win their “battle” for a new contract. And USAPA’s Strike
Preparedness Committee — not its Safety Committee — issued a publication stating that “it is
time for us to make a concise and powerful statement that we will no longer tolerate unfair
working conditions” by “MEET[ING] OR EXCEED[ING]” all “safety standards” “in every
single decision that we make” and concluded by stating that “[a] storm approaches.”
4. The applicable case law recognizes that a union’s initiation and repeated emphasis
on safety in the midst of collective bargaining negotiations is code for a slowdown. See, e.g.,
United Air Lines, Inc. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, 243 F.3d 349, 355-57
(7th Cir. 2001) (publications stressing “safety first” and encouraging union members to “work
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 2 of 43
- 3 -
safe” are “commonly recognized signals . . . for a work slowdown”). This is an intuitive point,
especially as to pilots. US Airways’ pilots are highly trained professionals and do not need to be
told that they should not fly an unsafe aircraft — they know that. So when USAPA repeatedly
emphasizes safety to its members in the midst of labor negotiations, pilots understand that
USAPA is telling them to slowdown in order to disrupt the operation. This is particularly so
where, as here, USAPA does so while also telling pilots there are “strong implications beyond
just safety” and “flying safe” is necessary to get the contract they deserve. The true purpose of
USAPA’s campaign is further confirmed by the fact that the only participants are the “East”
pilots. The East pilots worked for US Airways prior to its merger with America West Airlines in
2005, and are domiciled in Charlotte, D.C., and Philadelphia, and their allegiance to USAPA is
generally stronger than that of the “West pilots,” who worked for America West prior to the
merger, and are domiciled in Phoenix.
5. USAPA’s slowdown campaign is having the union’s intended effect: the change
in East pilot behavior has dramatically impacted numerous aspects of US Airways’ operations
leading to flight delays and cancellations, particularly at its Charlotte hub (US Airways’ largest
operation). These changes are all “statistically significant,” meaning that they cannot be
explained by chance. For example, since May 1, 2011, the percentage of the Company’s flights
flown by East pilots that arrive at their scheduled arrival time has dropped by more than 11
percentage points (after controlling for weather and other factors). Based on conventional
statistical analysis, the odds that this drop in on-time arrivals by East pilots is random in nature in
less than 1% (i.e., it is more than 99% certain that this is the result of concerted activity). When
there is an increase in late arriving flights, there is a subsequent increase in the number of
passengers who miss their connecting flights and/or whose bags do not make it to a connecting
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 3 of 43
- 4 -
flight. For example, since May 1, the number of bags that do not make it onto a passenger’s
connecting flight has increased by more than 45% for every 1,000 connecting passengers at
Charlotte — while operations remain normal in Phoenix.
6. East pilots are causing these disruptions by engaging in the specific delay tactics
encouraged by USAPA, such as slowing down when they taxi aircraft. The average historical
“taxi-in” time (when a pilot taxis the aircraft to the gate after landing) and “taxi-out” time (when
a pilot taxis the aircraft from the gate to take off) for East pilots have increased dramatically
since May 1. Also, there has been a similar dramatic increase in flight departure delays
attributed to East pilots — another tactic encouraged by USAPA. Historically, 1.31% of US
Airways’ flights flown by East pilots are delayed for reasons attributable to those pilots. Since
May 1, however, that rate has more than doubled to 2.85%. During this same time, these
operational metrics have been within normal ranges for West pilots.
7. The requirements for issuance of a preliminary injunction are plainly met. As to
the merits, USAPA’s directives to slow down under the guise of safety cannot be seriously
disputed — and those directives are patent violations of USAPA’s obligations under Section 2,
First, which prohibit a union from instigating or encouraging a slowdown, and also require a
union to make all reasonable efforts to prevent or stop a slowdown by its members.
8. The irreparable injury showing that is typically required to obtain injunctive relief
does not apply under the RLA. See Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S.
299, 303-04 (1989). But even if irreparable injury were a requirement, it is satisfied here:
USAPA and the East pilots’ actions have caused, on average, nine to ten flight cancellations a
day since May 1. This means that the travel plans and daily lives of approximately 1,173
passengers a day are being disrupted by USAPA’s campaign — or 105,500 members of the
Case 3:11-cv-00371-RJC -DCK Document 1 Filed 07/29/11 Page 4 of 43
- 5 -
traveling public to date. This harm to the public alone warrants issuance of a preliminary
injunction. Cancellations of this magnitude also directly translate into incalculable irreparable
harm to US Airways’ customer goodwill and business reputation in an industry in which
customers have a choice and make decisions based on reliability and reputation. And there can
be no claim of harm to USAPA or its members in issuing an injunction because it would simply
prohibit them from engaging in illegal activity.
9. US Airways has attempted to resolve this dispute by repeatedly putting USAPA
on notice of its violations of the RLA and demanding that it make all reasonable efforts to stop
the slowdown as required by the RLA. In response, USAPA has only intensified its campaign,
thus requiring US Airways to seek injunctive relief. For the reasons set forth below, in this
situation, Section 2, First, of the RLA requires the issuance of a preliminary and permanent
injunction
I agree that the company will probably get this. Kind of an intimidation factor there if they do. Will some pilots now feel reluctant to writeup legitimate mx issues in fear of the company coming after them with the threat of termination? Thats even more un-safe now...
Also, maybe if the company gets the injunction, when something is broken, maybe instead of calling MX, we should first call the Chief Pilot to explain what is broke and ask if it's ok to put it in the FDML... "Hey Skip, something is broke, gonna put it in the book, just wanted to let you know beforehand so you will understand it's real and not a slowdown..." 
If USAPA has knowledge of pilots making a concerted effort to disrupt the operation, and they don't take affirmative action to stop it, then the courts have ruled that the union is engaged in an illegal job action. They don't have to initiate it.
Wrong, unfortunately. The FAA won't get involved in what they consider to be "industrial actions" (labor issues). We had pilots discharged from AirTran during contract negotiations over this issue. Some of them were able to get settlements that brought them back after months without pay checks, but one fought it rather than taking a settlement. The FAA wouldn't get involved, the arbitrator ruled against him, and OSHA has sat on the whistle blower complaint for nearly 4 years. You're fighting a losing battle on this one.
St. Nic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2008
- Posts
- 658
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
