AOL update
06-20-2014 | 03:38 PM
#3111
On Reserve
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Your Leonidas leaders disagree:
Leonidas Update June 18, 2014
The APA has tepidly committed to nothing more than a few vague references found in the DC litigation documents such as, “[After APA is certified as the single bargaining representative]...'it would assume responsibility for the structure of the pre-merger groups' merger committees consistent with its legal obligations, including the discretion to provide for the separate participation of the West Pilots in the seniority integration process if APA so chooses.'”
Leonidas Update June 18, 2014
The APA has tepidly committed to nothing more than a few vague references found in the DC litigation documents such as, “[After APA is certified as the single bargaining representative]...'it would assume responsibility for the structure of the pre-merger groups' merger committees consistent with its legal obligations, including the discretion to provide for the separate participation of the West Pilots in the seniority integration process if APA so chooses.'”
Recall the first protocol meeting in DC all parties were invited. Leonidas funded the West Merger committee the West reps were there. USAPA MC was at the hotel the night (funded in part by West dues) before but no-showed the meeting. Once again USAPA choosing to run rather than represent. Nothing new.
I ask again where does Leonidas disagree with my post?
SMD
06-20-2014 | 05:01 PM
#3112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,299
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
Some initials you have there. Remind me of something else.
Supposedly posted on APA website as of May 31, 2014
Fellow Washington Pilots,
First, we must be careful in talking about this issue publicly because anything we say can and will be used against us (you) in negotiations, in arbitration and any subsequent legal activity.
We’ve had meetings with USAPA to reach an agreement on protocols.
Why protocols?
We need an orderly plan how we are going to reach an agreement.
Once the NMB has made the single carrier determination, only one union will represent the pilots of the new AAL.
What protocols?
Date and location of meetings
What parties will attend
What legal rights each party may have before and after single carrier status
What legal rights each party may have during and after the seniority integration process ends
How to fund any negotiations or arbitrations should we arbitrate
Funding, if any, for negotiations or legal actions after a single seniority list is achieved and how to fund
Who provides any funding
One speed bump was that new AAL management invited a group of former America West to the first protocol meeting. USAPA represents all pilots at USAir. USAPA refused to attend any meeting that included parties that had no legal standing.
Additionally, we’ve asked AAL to provide important seniority info on the USAir pilots. The data they provided has errors which prevent us from moving forward.
The APA has subsequently met with USAPA to discuss the protocols. There are attorneys and advisors present. They are trying their best to protect your (and USAPA pilots’) interests. They are being very careful. This slows the process. We believe we’ll have an agreement soon.
The NMB could rule on our application for single carrier status within weeks or a couple of months. That should ignite direct seniority integration talks.
Both the APA and USAPA seniority integration committees are ready to meet.
We will have a discussion with our SI committee at the June Special BOD meeting to review the various integration methods that might be used.
We have an excellent group of pilots on your seniority integration committee.
They have a wide range of seniority. We have great confidence in them.
Until our committees actually meet, there will be very little info to pass on.
Bill and Carl
Posted in: Washington D.C.
I don't recall a line on the proposed protocol agreement for Leonoidas LLC to sign.
Supposedly posted on APA website as of May 31, 2014
Fellow Washington Pilots,
First, we must be careful in talking about this issue publicly because anything we say can and will be used against us (you) in negotiations, in arbitration and any subsequent legal activity.
We’ve had meetings with USAPA to reach an agreement on protocols.
Why protocols?
We need an orderly plan how we are going to reach an agreement.
Once the NMB has made the single carrier determination, only one union will represent the pilots of the new AAL.
What protocols?
Date and location of meetings
What parties will attend
What legal rights each party may have before and after single carrier status
What legal rights each party may have during and after the seniority integration process ends
How to fund any negotiations or arbitrations should we arbitrate
Funding, if any, for negotiations or legal actions after a single seniority list is achieved and how to fund
Who provides any funding
One speed bump was that new AAL management invited a group of former America West to the first protocol meeting. USAPA represents all pilots at USAir. USAPA refused to attend any meeting that included parties that had no legal standing.
Additionally, we’ve asked AAL to provide important seniority info on the USAir pilots. The data they provided has errors which prevent us from moving forward.
The APA has subsequently met with USAPA to discuss the protocols. There are attorneys and advisors present. They are trying their best to protect your (and USAPA pilots’) interests. They are being very careful. This slows the process. We believe we’ll have an agreement soon.
The NMB could rule on our application for single carrier status within weeks or a couple of months. That should ignite direct seniority integration talks.
Both the APA and USAPA seniority integration committees are ready to meet.
We will have a discussion with our SI committee at the June Special BOD meeting to review the various integration methods that might be used.
We have an excellent group of pilots on your seniority integration committee.
They have a wide range of seniority. We have great confidence in them.
Until our committees actually meet, there will be very little info to pass on.
Bill and Carl
Posted in: Washington D.C.
I don't recall a line on the proposed protocol agreement for Leonoidas LLC to sign.
06-20-2014 | 05:03 PM
#3113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
I don't see any disagreement. APA has consistently included West and East pilots as has management. ONLY USAPA have protested West involvement.
Recall the first protocol meeting in DC all parties were invited. Leonidas funded the West Merger committee the West reps were there. USAPA MC was at the hotel the night (funded in part by West dues) before but no-showed the meeting. Once again USAPA choosing to run rather than represent. Nothing new.
I ask again where does Leonidas disagree with my post?
SMD
Recall the first protocol meeting in DC all parties were invited. Leonidas funded the West Merger committee the West reps were there. USAPA MC was at the hotel the night (funded in part by West dues) before but no-showed the meeting. Once again USAPA choosing to run rather than represent. Nothing new.
I ask again where does Leonidas disagree with my post?
SMD
06-20-2014 | 05:18 PM
#3114
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
Stupid bastards, gosh how can these beasties be this stupid, $4 million down the drain and these jackassses want more.
USAPA Pension Investigation Committee Update: June 20, 2014
Today, June 20, 2014, 16 months after the February 2013 trial, Judge Frederic Scullin issued a decision in favor of the PBGC, and dismissed our claim that the PBGC breached its fiduciary duties as the statutory trustee of our failed pension plan. A copy of the Decision and Order can be found here and in the Legal Library under USAPA v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
Judge Scullin based his decision on a finding that the PBGC “made all reasonable attempts to investigate the financial affairs of the Plan to identify any possible fiduciary breaches and thoroughly investigated any claims that were brought to its attention.” (Decision, page 17). We disagree with the Judge’s conclusions, and with the BPR's approval, intend to appeal his decision.
Judge Scullin’s decision is remarkably short given the size of the factual record, and fails to address a number of legal issues that were raised during the case. That said, we are pleased the judge largely adopted our position concerning the legal duties the PBGC undertakes when it volunteers to serve as trustee of a terminated pension plan, including the duty to investigate potential claims on behalf of the plan and, “if in the best interests of the plan participants, to bring suit.” (Decision, pages 4-5).
Despite having largely adopted our formulation of the legal standards that apply, the judge held that the PBGC satisfied its fiduciary duties under the facts of our case. Specifically, the judge held that through the original PBGC’s initial plan asset audit, and then through a subsequent investigation conducted by a staff attorney at PBGC, and finally through a second plan asset audit conducted by an outside accounting firm, the PBGC had fulfilled its statutory duty to investigate the financial affairs of the failed Pilots Plan. In reaching that conclusion, the judge ignored the PBGC Inspector General’s findings regarding the inadequacies of the agency’s plan asset audit process, and the PBGC’s subsequent steps to address those inadequacies, and didn’t even reference those significant facts in the decision. The opinion also fails to address the findings of the PBGC’s own experts in the US Airways bankruptcy proceeding, which identified some of the reasons for the plan’s failure, and the potential claims arising from those failures. These were all part of the evidence we presented at trial.
Again, with the BPR's approval, we intend to appeal the decision. Our appeal will likely focus on the significant portions of the trial record that are ignored in the decision, including key admissions by the PBGC, the PBGC’s Inspector General, and PBGC experts in the US Airways bankruptcy proceeding, as well as a challenge to the Court’s dismissal of several factual issues without adequate support in the record.
The briefing schedule for the appeal will be established by the Court of Appeals, but the opening brief is not likely to be due for several months.
The Pension Investigation Committee.
Today, June 20, 2014, 16 months after the February 2013 trial, Judge Frederic Scullin issued a decision in favor of the PBGC, and dismissed our claim that the PBGC breached its fiduciary duties as the statutory trustee of our failed pension plan. A copy of the Decision and Order can be found here and in the Legal Library under USAPA v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
Judge Scullin based his decision on a finding that the PBGC “made all reasonable attempts to investigate the financial affairs of the Plan to identify any possible fiduciary breaches and thoroughly investigated any claims that were brought to its attention.” (Decision, page 17). We disagree with the Judge’s conclusions, and with the BPR's approval, intend to appeal his decision.
Judge Scullin’s decision is remarkably short given the size of the factual record, and fails to address a number of legal issues that were raised during the case. That said, we are pleased the judge largely adopted our position concerning the legal duties the PBGC undertakes when it volunteers to serve as trustee of a terminated pension plan, including the duty to investigate potential claims on behalf of the plan and, “if in the best interests of the plan participants, to bring suit.” (Decision, pages 4-5).
Despite having largely adopted our formulation of the legal standards that apply, the judge held that the PBGC satisfied its fiduciary duties under the facts of our case. Specifically, the judge held that through the original PBGC’s initial plan asset audit, and then through a subsequent investigation conducted by a staff attorney at PBGC, and finally through a second plan asset audit conducted by an outside accounting firm, the PBGC had fulfilled its statutory duty to investigate the financial affairs of the failed Pilots Plan. In reaching that conclusion, the judge ignored the PBGC Inspector General’s findings regarding the inadequacies of the agency’s plan asset audit process, and the PBGC’s subsequent steps to address those inadequacies, and didn’t even reference those significant facts in the decision. The opinion also fails to address the findings of the PBGC’s own experts in the US Airways bankruptcy proceeding, which identified some of the reasons for the plan’s failure, and the potential claims arising from those failures. These were all part of the evidence we presented at trial.
Again, with the BPR's approval, we intend to appeal the decision. Our appeal will likely focus on the significant portions of the trial record that are ignored in the decision, including key admissions by the PBGC, the PBGC’s Inspector General, and PBGC experts in the US Airways bankruptcy proceeding, as well as a challenge to the Court’s dismissal of several factual issues without adequate support in the record.
The briefing schedule for the appeal will be established by the Court of Appeals, but the opening brief is not likely to be due for several months.
The Pension Investigation Committee.
06-20-2014 | 05:27 PM
#3115
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Given that, one has to SERIOUSLY question just who really wants a fair and equitable SLI.
06-20-2014 | 05:31 PM
#3116
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
I guess for some, perception is 9/10 of reality.
06-20-2014 | 07:08 PM
#3117
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
Except they just lost last week when they sued an arbitrator for ruling against them (who would have guessed?) and they just also lost their attempt at lifting a job action injunction against them. Highest dues of any union with no results, zilch, zero, nada.
06-21-2014 | 03:38 AM
#3118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
That comment is in the Protocol thread discussing seniority not your inference of global victory in every venue all the time every time.
06-21-2014 | 05:47 AM
#3119
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
As another example of the proof of how hopelessly muddy the waters of Lake USAPA really are, especially on this forum, one fervent duck of USAPA repeatedly and steadfastly quacks that "DOH" is NOT USAPA seniority integration doctrine, yet he then posts an opinion regarding SLI's from Jones Day (a noted entity who is in business to represent the interests of management AGIANST labor) as a foundation for his understandings and concerns. Interestingly, on page 4 of that opinion in the footnote section, the author (a supposed expert on the subject) confirms exactly that regarding the SLI interests in USAPA's manifesto.
It's no wonder so many people have become hysterical in taking everything USAPA says as gospel. The manufacture of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) bombs is their specialty. It's what entities do when they seek to maintain power as their PRIMARY goal. The fact is that with the proper understanding and agreement, both the MOU can be followed and the protections of McCaskill-Bond can be met both in spirit and reality WITHOUT the existence of USAPA as a recognized bargaining agent, but it is THAT that USAPA will not accept............their dissolution as per the MOU that THEY agreed to and which is clear regarding the tenure of their existence.
06-21-2014 | 07:01 AM
#3120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
As long as EF is prevaricating and squealing then there is no need to worry, your DOH is still in full force. EF will make the Energizer bunny look lazy, for a long time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
