August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[dca319]

Sorry, but she sure sounds a lot like my bi-polar ex-wife.

DEN is divorced!?! Shocking. And, of course, it's her and not him. Again, shocking.

 

[Claxon]

Yeah, that's it,....OR....everybody is sick to death of your scab antics and the z9th spanked the #### out of you. Any of those names on the order look familiar?

The needles practically come off the machine when you call USAPA and east pilots scabs.
DCA319 is next up for the multiple personas.

 

[nycbusdriver]

She is unpredictable, and the 9th's willingness to allow her to continue without Article III jurisdiction is very strange (unpredictable too).

It's called: Giving her enough rope to hang herself.

If, as some say, Judge Silver is indeed a loose cannon, the 9th needs to let her make mistakes so she can learn from them. Stopping her from leaping fully into a cesspool of appealable decisions would prevent the 9th from actually doing its own job: hearing appeals and ruling on them.

Perhaps the 9th sees this case, when decided by Silver, as an important opportunity to inveigh on something new and unique. If they "nip it in the bud," they will lose that opportunity to really make important case law. Silver is admittedly in somewhat uncharted territory, and the 9th needs to let her exploration play out before it can draw the map to its own liking.

 

[Phoenix]

It's called: Giving her enough rope to hang herself.

If, as some say, Judge Silver is indeed a loose cannon, the 9th needs to let her make mistakes so she can learn from them. Stopping her from leaping fully into a cesspool of appealable decisions would prevent the 9th from actually doing its own job: hearing appeals and ruling on them.

Perhaps the 9th sees this case, when decided by Silver, as an important opportunity to inveigh on something new and unique. If they "nip it in the bud," they will lose that opportunity to really make important case law. Silver is admittedly in somewhat uncharted territory, and the 9th needs to let her exploration play out before it can draw the map to its own liking.

I am not sure I can agree Article III jurisdiction is new territory.

 

[traderjake]

The needles practically come off the machine when you call USAPA and east pilots scabs.
DCA319 is next up for the multiple personas.

Claxon

 

[mrbreeze]

DEN is divorced!?! Shocking. And, of course, it's her and not him. Again, shocking.

I guess you would know, going through life trying to convince everyone that you're an East pilot. 😀 breeze

 

[Phoenix]

Claxon

Really? How old are you again.

 

[traderjake]

Really? How old are you again.

 

[traderjake]

Really? How old are you again.

Younger than you and taller than Claxon.

 

[Pi brat]

Yeah, that's it,....OR....everybody is sick to death of your scab antics and the z9th spanked the #### out of you. Any of those names on the order look familiar?

Yeah, that it's. It has nothing to do with the law, they are just tired of it. That's a brain surgeon statement right there.

Yeah, he wrote the opinion in Addington I.

So what's your remedy for this spanking? What do you get, except the chance to spend more money?

 

[snapthis]

September 25, 2013

Leonidas Update

As we predicted, earlier today, Judges Tashima, Ikuna and Smith of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying USAPA’s Writ of Mandamus petition, as well as USAPA’s Motion to Stay the trial before Judge Silver, stating that USAPA “has not demonstrated that this cases warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.” You can read the order here:

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/9th_Circuit_Silver_Appeal/Mandamus_Denied.pdf

With today’s order from the Ninth, there is nothing standing in between USAPA and DFR trial number two.

Sincerely, ,

Leonidas, LLC

 

[cynic]

Agreed; Silver is hard-nosed on the bench, but she twists and turns unpredictably and seems to contradict to her own words as she goes along. On one hand she says USAPA is on dangerous ground for seeking to overturn an arbitration award, and then she says USAPA doesn't have to adopt the NIC.

That is not a contradiction at all. USAPA is free to change the results of the arbitration award. However, if they choose to create a new list, they must do so in a way that is not a failure of their DFR considerations. Not presenting an option that is "fair" to everyone on the list, does put USAPA on dangerous ground in regards to legal liability.

Way too many people here want to pretend that the legal ability to make a change to the seniority list automatically implies that they can do whatever they damn well please. That ability does not eliminate the DFR requirement.

 

[Pi brat]

That is not a contradiction at all. USAPA is free to change the results of the arbitration award. However, if they choose to create a new list, they must do so in a way that is not a failure of their DFR considerations. Not presenting an option that is "fair" to everyone on the list, does put USAPA on dangerous ground in regards to legal liability.

Way too many people here want to pretend that the legal ability to make a change to the seniority list automatically implies that they can do whatever they damn well please. That ability does not eliminate the DFR requirement.

How about this for contradiction-She says that she cannot force the adoption of the Nicolau award but she says the only issue in the case is "did USAPA fail it's DFR by not including the Nicolau award in the MOU?" If she can't order that as a remedy, how can she find them guilty for not doing the same thing?

 

[traderjake]

USAPA is free to change the results of the arbitration award. However, if they choose to create a new list, they must do so in a way that is not a failure of their DFR considerations.

They also must do in a negotiated contract., until then the Nicolau Award stands.

 

[CallawayGolf]

That is not a contradiction at all. USAPA is free to change the results of the arbitration award. However, if they choose to create a new list, they must do so in a way that is not a failure of their DFR considerations. Not presenting an option that is "fair" to everyone on the list, does put USAPA on dangerous ground in regards to legal liability.

Way too many people here want to pretend that the legal ability to make a change to the seniority list automatically implies that they can do whatever they damn well please. That ability does not eliminate the DFR requirement.

I understand your point. However, it is contradictory with the context of the full scope of the matter she was asked to rule on. In the broadest of terms USAPA doesn't have to use the NIC except for two insurmountable issues. First the Company won't accept a non-NIC list so long as a legal liability exists for doing so. They have reviewed the Addington I DFR case and know that, based on the merits of a fully ripe JCBA, there is substantial risk of the west pilots filing a DFR lawsuit against USAPA and a collusion lawsuit against the Company. So, USAPA is free to present any list they like, but the Company is also free to reject that list if it violates the CBA/TA. Silver acknowedged that this is a genuine and legitimate threat under the Company's Hobson's Choice doctrine.

The second insurmountable issue, one which the majority ruling from the Ninth wildly speculated on, was that USAPA might present a list which does not harm the west as their litigation documents suggested, thus resulting in no DFR challenge to USAPA's negotiations under S22. It should be clear that the west pilots will challenge USAPA for any list that is not the NIC, unless it somehow affords the west more seniority status than the NIC did. That would of course be ridiculous and absurd to the highest order for USAPA to do. But even if they did, just as the Ninth speculated beyond all reason, then USAPA would be wide open for a DFR challenge from east pilots who by definition would have a reduced seniority status under such a scenario when compared to the NIC. Therefore, setting aside the NIC and giving any east or west pilot less seniority status than the NIC places USAPA on dangerous DFR ground just as she said.

So, if it doesn't have to be the NIC, but using the NIC is the only way to avoid the dangerous ground of a DFR, then what are USAPA's options? Is it not a contradiction to affirm that the Company's Hobson's Choice is a legitimate concern vis-a-vis the DFR of a Non-Nic list and then turn around and say that the NIC doesn't have to be used for USAPA to avoid a DFR? IMO, it's one thing for the Ninth or Silver to rule on the merits of the west claim and truly free USAPA from the constraint of the NIC and let them implement a seniority regime of their own choosing, but for either of them to say that USAPA can do whatever they like until they get sued under a painfully ripe DFR claim belies a level of ignorance of the facts that just cannot be rationally explained. A DFR lawsuit is imminent from either east or west pilots if the NIC is not used in a ratified JCBA. Does anyone disagree with that?