Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion

[EastUS1]

..... the opportunity to move forward.....

....seek consensus and unity....

...assertive rather than aggressive,...

To effect change ...

....leadership that will work in harmony, unity,​

Seriously? The only thing missing here is the "Hope" along with the "Change". Did your bunch work for the obama campaign by any chance?

 

[EastUS1]

Well, fool. First, you define what a LUP is.

That should be good for a few laughs right there.

 

[nic4us]

Well, fool. First, you define what a LUP is.

It's your right to go to court. Waste YOUR money as you wish. Just who do you think the union should represent where there are clearly opposing views?

That's the problem with your argument. There is NO legal obligation to accept the Nic. The courts have told you that three times now.

The C&BLs DO control how the union represents its members. If it didn't, why bother having them? There is no exception for "convenience" or "if the westies agree". And, the
union IS required to negotiate the best possible contract they can get for the MAJORITY of their members. You guys are so stuck on taking something that isn't yours that you aren't even making sense.

You have no case. Waste your money as you wish.

Holy cow, you replied not once, but 3 more times making it 5, 6 & 7!

The courts have never said "there is NO legal obligation to accept the NIC". To be factual, what the courts have said is the NIC is the list for all LCC pilots, as produced by the former union and accepted by the company. Done deal. Now, uscaba is free to "negotiate" a change to that list provided they have a LUP and under threat of the "pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR".

The uscaba C&BLs are exhibit A of the lack of a LUP.

Further, the opposing views in this case were dealt with in a manner concluding with binding arbitration. So, uscaba actually can represent ALL the pilots to whom it owes a DFR by upholding the arbitration results that ALL it pilots entered into. For uscaba to pick the majority view after the fact is not a LUP, is arbitrary, discriminatory and in bad faith.

As to you comment about taking something which is not ours...GFY scab!

 

[EastUS1]

If the MOU is rejected US Airways' pilots will have a risk....

Getting up from one's bed on any given day presents risk.

 

[EastUS1]

The uscaba C&BLs are exhibit A of the lack of a LUP.

For uscaba to pick the majority view after the fact is not a LUP, is arbitrary, discriminatory and in bad faith.

We're all still eagerly awaiting the west's precise and legal definition of an "LUP" that can, without possible doubt, be easilly found within codified law....? Can't it? After all; you're hanging what's left of your entire argument on it, so do be so kind as to enlighten us all here.....?

 

[Res Judicata]

That should be good for a few laughs right there.

No kidding. A Jury shot down every LUP argument you scabs made inside of 90 minutes. What changed? Still hoping everybody forgot AMW bought your failed carrier?

This will be in court in short order. USCABA will be shackled to the floor LLLLOOOOOONNNNNGGGG before any dealings with the APA begin.

 

[EastUS1]

No kidding. A Jury shot down every LUP argument you scabs made inside of 90 minutes.

I'm glad you've found such lasting joy from a dismissed action. Now then; what is the legal definition of an "LUP"....?

 

[Res Judicata]

We're all still eagerly awaiting the west's precise and legal definition of an "LUP" that can, without possible doubt, be easilly found within codified law....? Can't it? After all; you're hanging what's left of your entire argument on it....?

Any decision made that is discriminatory, arbitrary or done in bad faith is the very definition of what is NOT an LUP. A valid LUP will survive judicial review/trial. There is in fact no definition of what IS an LUP. Your scab union has failed in this regard every step of the way. Get ready for the last step.

 

[Res Judicata]

I'm glad you've found such lasting joy from a dismissed action. Now then; what is the legal definition of an "LUP"....?

See above.

 

[EastUS1]

There is in fact no definition of what IS an LUP.

Thank you. I've no further questions for this witness.

 

[BLT]

There isn't a LEGAL definition that I know of, but I would think that supporting you constitution would be one, don't you think? If not, how about protecting the careers of a majority of your members? Both LUPs as far as I'm concerned.

Of course the STUPID westicles will say that neither constitute a LUP, but they can't tell you what does. Just more of their ignorant, nonsensical arguments.

So we can make up anything we want, put it in a constitution, and then its OK?! Also, we can reorder a seniority list as long as it helps the majority?! I was not aware of this. Lets just staple them to the bottom then. Put it in the constitution that AWA pilots must be stapled, since they are the minority, they will just have to live with it. HaHa, we've got you now, you westicles!

 

[nic4us]

We're all still eagerly awaiting the west's precise and legal definition of an "LUP" that can, without possible doubt, be easilly found within codifed law....?

Then perhaps you should ask Robert Siegel, the company's lawyer who represented UAL in the Rakestraw case. In which a carriers liability in a DFR case was established.

His opinions can be found in the DJ with Silver.

Most notable are that the Nic is status quo at LCC per the RLA, and that the company fears liability in the case. It seems he thinks usapa has no LUP for changing the LCC pilot's seniority, whatever the legal definition of a LUP.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Then perhaps you should ask Robert Siegel, the company's lawyer who represented UAL in the Rakestraw case. In which a carriers liability in a DFR case was established.

His opinions can be found in the DJ with Silver.

Most notable are that the Nic is status quo at LCC per the RLA, and that the company fears liability in the case. It seems he thinks usapa has no LUP for changing the LCC pilot's seniority, whatever the legal definition of a LUP.

Nope. Wrong on all counts. And, who cares what a company lawyer says or thinks. It's irrelevant.

And to answer an earlier post, there is no rearranging of seniority lists. There has never been a combined seniority list at LCC, as testified to in court by the company.

You keep losing.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Then perhaps you should ask Robert Siegel, the company's lawyer who represented UAL in the Rakestraw case. In which a carriers liability in a DFR case was established.

His opinions can be found in the DJ with Silver.

Most notable are that the Nic is status quo at LCC per the RLA, and that the company fears liability in the case. It seems he thinks usapa has no LUP for changing the LCC pilot's seniority, whatever the legal definition of a LUP.

You mean the case where the union LOST? Funny how that works. You mean the great and all knowing Siegel who is appealing to the ninth after the Silver brush off?

 

[Bill Brasky]

So we can make up anything we want, put it in a constitution, and then its OK?! Also, we can reorder a seniority list as long as it helps the majority?! I was not aware of this. Lets just staple them to the bottom then. Put it in the constitution that AWA pilots must be stapled, since they are the minority, they will just have to live with it. HaHa, we've got you now, you westicles!

As long as it meets the standards of "a wide range of reasonableness", and works to the advantage of a MAJORITY of the union members. If you weren't aware of this, you need to educate yourself.