August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Claxon]

Let us not overlook nic4's equally shiny knee pads: "Fuel School.......Permanent Injunction....."

Much debate still exists as to the quantifiable intelligence required for ancestral primates to first walk upright. It's not entirely impossible that we're now privileged to directly observe and record the minimal amount needed.

Oh yes indeed; if just given the nic gift and free reign, such people would so terrify management that massive gains would necessarily appear....for management, at least. 😉

Nic4us is very much like the other knee pad wearer, Cleardirect.
That one literally made Scott Kirby nervous with that creepy demeanor.

 

[Phoenix]

What's the LUP for altering the agreement? Why hasn't the company ever agreed to change it?

Why did MARTY claim the company agreed to change it in your DFR complaint? Did they change it or not?

YOU GUYS ARE THE PLAINTIFFS claiming DFR. Figure out YOUR responsibility and get back to us. 🙂

 

[EastUS1]

mrbreeze, on 02 September 2013 - 09:19 PM, said: Ah, there's that adolescent attitude that you are so well known for, along with your comment about my Mom calling you back. No matter how hard you try, you just can't hide your stupidity.

Ouch Denver. You in a bad mood............?

Most anyone would eventually become completely disgusted with you pathetic, spineless and hopelessly infantile "spartans". 😉

Per your "I am an east pilot"? What you are is just a pathological liar.

 

[snapthis]

What part of "between the company and an employee group" do you not understand?

Nic had nothing to do with the company, it was between two pilot groups, in house, arbitration. Performed by an arbitrator, for the union. With no more legal "Binding" than a handshake....

If you do a handshake agreement, you had better make sure each side gets equally harmed or helped, not so one-sided as nic. Otherwise, the handshake gets voided....

Weak

If you would have gotten DOH and we were the majority who formed a union to screw you, I'll bet you'd have a much different argument.

 

[snapthis]

And who cares what the Delta ALPA pilots think, they suck....
They threw there retired pilots under the bus with threr retirement agreement to save there workin pilots cash....
Very dishonorable group there... Almost as selfserving as Usairways west.....

And who cares what the Delta ALPA pilots think, they suck....
They threw there retired pilots under the bus with threr retirement agreement to save there workin pilots cash....
Very dishonorable group there... Almost as selfserving as Usairways west.....

And who cares what the Delta ALPA pilots think, they suck....
They threw there retired pilots under the bus with threr retirement agreement to save there workin pilots cash....
Very dishonorable group there... Almost as selfserving as Usairways west.....

Delta pilots suck? Dishonorable group?

Dishonest assessment of the situation which is a given when the source is a Usapian.

 

[Phoenix]

Weak

If you would have gotten DOH and we were the majority who formed a union to screw you, I'll bet you'd have a much different argument.

If you were the majority? Read that again, "If you were the majority"... I think you are getting close to understanding and enlightenment... real close. 🙂

 

[Metroyet]

Why did MARTY claim the company agreed to change it in your DFR complaint? Did they change it or not?

YOU GUYS ARE THE PLAINTIFFS claiming DFR. Figure out YOUR responsibility and get back to us. 🙂

Well, Silver says its ripe...SYIC!!

 

[Phoenix]

Well, Silver says its ripe...SYIC!!

Since they are spending your money, you better hope Marty has a better plan than the one he had the last time he spoke to Judge Silver, when he begged for Silver to make Pat bare the burden of a plaintiff. 🙂 Do you have a link so I can give him a donation!

 

[snapthis]

If you were the majority? Read that again, "If you were the majority"... I think you are getting close to understanding and enlightenment... real close. 🙂

Ah, the same argument rejected by a jury in a federal courthouse.

We'll hear it again and hear the same rejection by a federal judge.

 

[Black Swan]

Ah, the same argument rejected by a jury in a federal courthouse.

We'll hear it again and hear the same rejection by a federal judge.

Snap, can you give me the trial number for that jury decision. I try to pull it, and it keeps saying REMANDED. I would like to read that decision again. Thx.

 

[Phoenix]

What's the LUP for altering the agreement? Why hasn't the company ever agreed to change it?

Just to be clear, your complaint alleges that USAPA, the company, APA, and AMR did in fact alter the agreement (technically they just replaced it because it is an entirely new situation). There is no question that is exactly what they all did. The complain against the company (LCC) was dismissed because the complaint is a contractual issue and outside the jurisdiction of Judge Silver.

The issue isn't wether or not they did it. The issue is wether or not the plaintiff can prove it falls far outside a wide range of reasonableness, the SCOTUS standard for a plaintiff to prove DFR.


From Doc 134 the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.. the thingy Marty will try to prove..

34. The US Airways reorganization plan called for it to merge with
America West to form a new airline that would also be known as US
Airways, pursuant to a contract referred to as the “Transition
Agreement.”



42. The Transition Agreement provided, among other things, that
the pilot groups would create a single integrated seniority list according
to defined procedures set out in detail in the ALPA constitution and
called “ALPA Merger Policy.”



78. On or about February 14, 2013, the two Defendants, APA and
AMR entered into the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Contingent Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “MOU&rdquo😉 that set the stage
for a merger between US Airways and AMR.


81. The MOU provides that seniority integration between pilots of
US Airways and American will be done according to the McCaskill-Bond
Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act. [i.e. not by ALAP merger policy stipulated in the Transition Agreement.]

 

[Phoenix]

Ah, the same argument rejected by a jury in a federal courthouse.

We'll hear it again and hear the same rejection by a federal judge.

What the former, remanded, and vacated jury heard is irrelevant... just as irrelevant as the former complaint articulated by the plaintiff. This is a new trial and will be heard on the merits of the CURRENT CLAIM and the new circumstances.... You do realize you have amended your complaint, and it is this complaint you must prove?

Marty has made the same mistake that the dissent made at the 9th.. He is implicitly assuming that USAPA is bound by the Nic. He is implicitly assuming that USAPA can never under any circumstances negotiate something other than the Nic. He is assuming that negotiating anything else is a violation of its DFR. That is a BIG MISTAKE. It is circular reasoning, unless he first proves that USAPA is bound to only and forever use the Nic exclusively.

If Marty fails to first prove USAPA is not allowed to negotiate then he has no case. None. Zip. Zilch.

From the amended complaint, Doc 134..

98. USAPA does not have a legitimate union purpose to use
anything other than the Nicolau Award list to integrate East Pilots and
West Pilots.
99. USAPA, therefore, breached the duty of fair representation by
entering into the MOU because the MOU abandons a duty to treat the
Nicolau Award as final and binding.

Marty implicitly assumes this so called duty. BIG MISTAKE. He must prove this duty exists, other wise he is merely engaged in sophistry.

 

[snapthis]

Snap, can you give me the trial number for that jury decision. I try to pull it, and it keeps saying REMANDED. I would like to read that decision again. Thx.

Dial 1-800-9th-ripe. Please hold for Judge Silver.

 

[Phoenix]

This is a classic circular argument. And Marty is a lawyer.... Where is my link so I can send him a donation?!!

"The circular argument uses its own (implicitly assumed) conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."​

97. Pursuant to the duty of fair representation, USAPA must have a
legitimate union purpose....


98. USAPA does not have a legitimate union purpose.....


99. USAPA, therefore, breached the duty of fair representation...

 

[Phoenix]

Below is a free template for Marty (that he should have used) that will guarantee success before Judge Silver (and won't be dismissed by the 9th).

Just plug in the evidence and he wins! So easy a cave man can do it. 🙂

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]97. Pursuant to the duty of fair representation, as per SCOTUS, USAPA is not guilty of DFR unless "T[/background]he final product of the bargaining process can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]98. The final product of the bargaining process is so far outside a wide range of reasonableness that it is wholl[/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]y irrational and arbitrary, for the following reasons....[/background]

1. evidence of a wide range of reasonableness is.... (not implicit assumption)​

2. evidence of what is outside of said range of reasonableness..... (not implicit assumption)​

3. evidence the final product is outside...(not implicit assumption)​

4. Therefore the final product is irrational and arbitrary​

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]99. USAPA, therefore, breached the duty of fair representation. Period. End of story. [/background]