Litigation news
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 224
For those following the cases some really good filings by Kelly Flood.
Short, to the point, addressing the core issue, east pilot's attempts to evade results they don't like by renaming themselves. There is a nice parallel to the ALPA / USAPA renaming.
Reading the briefs I found this much more to the point then the earlier West briefs (I have no idea if drafters were different or not). Only compliant was the language is a bit strident, but I guess if you hang out with west pilots that's not too surprising.
If I had to handicap it I give this battle to the west.
Short, to the point, addressing the core issue, east pilot's attempts to evade results they don't like by renaming themselves. There is a nice parallel to the ALPA / USAPA renaming.
Reading the briefs I found this much more to the point then the earlier West briefs (I have no idea if drafters were different or not). Only compliant was the language is a bit strident, but I guess if you hang out with west pilots that's not too surprising.
If I had to handicap it I give this battle to the west.
#63
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
For those following the cases some really good filings by Kelly Flood.
Short, to the point, addressing the core issue, east pilot's attempts to evade results they don't like by renaming themselves. There is a nice parallel to the ALPA / USAPA renaming.
Reading the briefs I found this much more to the point then the earlier West briefs (I have no idea if drafters were different or not). Only compliant was the language is a bit strident, but I guess if you hang out with west pilots that's not too surprising.
If I had to handicap it I give this battle to the west.
Short, to the point, addressing the core issue, east pilot's attempts to evade results they don't like by renaming themselves. There is a nice parallel to the ALPA / USAPA renaming.
Reading the briefs I found this much more to the point then the earlier West briefs (I have no idea if drafters were different or not). Only compliant was the language is a bit strident, but I guess if you hang out with west pilots that's not too surprising.
If I had to handicap it I give this battle to the west.
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 224
In fairness Seehams makes basically a good point. Given west participation the east reps should be free to focus on east stuff only. From that standpoint USAPA was an odd situation and an east committee makes lots of sense to me at least.
Now does that mean east pilots can duck an order directed at them by changing reps? We'll see, but I'm giving that question to the west.
Now does that mean east pilots can duck an order directed at them by changing reps? We'll see, but I'm giving that question to the west.
#65
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
I think this really gets to the heart of the issue
US Airways goes to great lengths to remind the Court that neither it, nor APA,
were party to USAPA’s breach and that they should therefore be unaffected by its
wrongdoing. In so doing, US Airways ignores that USAPA did not insert the improper
paragraph 10(h) into the MOU without the agreement of US Airways, APA and
American’s agreement to the offending provision, on which USAPA capitalized in its
breach of the duty of fair representation to the West Pilots. Having agreed to the improper
language that codified USAPA’s breach, US Airways (and APA) would nevertheless like
to remain unaffected by the harm that resulted therefrom, leaving the West Pilots to
continue to fight for their rightful seniority positions on multiple fronts. Surely, this is
not equitable.
US Airways goes to great lengths to remind the Court that neither it, nor APA,
were party to USAPA’s breach and that they should therefore be unaffected by its
wrongdoing. In so doing, US Airways ignores that USAPA did not insert the improper
paragraph 10(h) into the MOU without the agreement of US Airways, APA and
American’s agreement to the offending provision, on which USAPA capitalized in its
breach of the duty of fair representation to the West Pilots. Having agreed to the improper
language that codified USAPA’s breach, US Airways (and APA) would nevertheless like
to remain unaffected by the harm that resulted therefrom, leaving the West Pilots to
continue to fight for their rightful seniority positions on multiple fronts. Surely, this is
not equitable.
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Position: Captain B-737
Posts: 290
#67
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
"Bankrupt Steaks" = something like 6-7 Billion sirloin's after C11 exit (cash on hand).
"Furloughed Steaks" = something like 800 T-Bone's for furloughees to have some reasonable expectation of return to (fleet options/order's).
Of course, there's a respectable blanket to spread out on (the LAA domestic/International network), the inclusion of a lot of crappers (the multiple domiciles LAA brings to offer pilots more flexibility considering 50% are commuters) and enough beverages to quench everyone's thirst (the pay rates that merging with LAA provided LUS pilots that they would not have had just like the Nic for the West, absent this merger).
Yes, all in all, I think when examined in whole the majority valuation in this merger/SLI, LAA brought most of the party favors (unlike UAL/CAL). Again, I don't think anyone is claiming superiority for bringing this, just expectations of appropriately fair distribution of what was brought.
Last edited by eaglefly; 09-17-2015 at 07:14 AM.
#68
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Possible. I have not read that integration. Remember, the West's own Buddha of integration mantra proclaims that "each case turns on its own facts" and so shall this one if done equitably.
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Reading the exchanges between Eaglefly (LAA) and Eskimojoe (West)
I see Eaglefly doesn't want the West group to be advantaged beyond what they came to THIS merger with, a separate list (non-Nic), because of the impact a first step integrated Nic list would have on him. Eskimojoe wants the Nic list and it appears everyone wants to see the East pilots pay for this integration because of their previous actions.
Solution?
Step 1: Integrate the LAA and West groups based on longevity and status/category.
Step 2: Integrate the East pilots based on the Nic list (East placed adjacent to West pilot according to Nic award).
Step 3: East pilots bare the brunt of this merger and the harms of the past are rectified (In West view).
So West gets the Nic, LAA pilots aren't harmed due to award of previous (pre-MB) merger and everyone can take joy in East pilots having to finally face the ramifications of their actions.
What do you say Eaglefly and Eskimojoe, does this address what you are arguing for?
I see Eaglefly doesn't want the West group to be advantaged beyond what they came to THIS merger with, a separate list (non-Nic), because of the impact a first step integrated Nic list would have on him. Eskimojoe wants the Nic list and it appears everyone wants to see the East pilots pay for this integration because of their previous actions.
Solution?
Step 1: Integrate the LAA and West groups based on longevity and status/category.
Step 2: Integrate the East pilots based on the Nic list (East placed adjacent to West pilot according to Nic award).
Step 3: East pilots bare the brunt of this merger and the harms of the past are rectified (In West view).
So West gets the Nic, LAA pilots aren't harmed due to award of previous (pre-MB) merger and everyone can take joy in East pilots having to finally face the ramifications of their actions.
What do you say Eaglefly and Eskimojoe, does this address what you are arguing for?
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Mess? Ha! $eham and West lawsuits have given us DOH for a decade and might now give it to LAA too for quite some time. Who knows.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post