US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 12/8-12/15

[BoeingBoy]

Tell me how this is east spin? Please.

Didn't say it was - hence the "?", although neither Mega or boeingplt provided the info you did so I (and presumably you) have no reason to suspect that they knew it. Just wondered why some east posters are spring loaded toward attributing nefarious purposes to west posters (and vice versa for some west posters).

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Didn't say it was - hence the "?", although neither Mega or boeingplt provided the info you did so I (and presumably you) have no reason to suspect that they knew it. Just wondered why some east posters are spring loaded toward attributing nefarious purposes to west posters (and vice versa for some west posters).

Jim

Wow! You can tap dance, too!

 

[BoeingBoy]

BTW, further along in the ultimate decider of all that is the law - Wikkipedia - there is this:

The 7th Amendment does not guarantee or create any right to a jury trial; rather, it preserves the right to jury trial that existed in 1791 at common law. In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England at the time. In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity. Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 says "[t]here is one form of action - the civil action[,]" which abolishes the legal/equity distinction. Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is a right to a jury; in actions that would have been "in equity" in 1791, there is no right to a jury. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39© allows a court to use one at its discretion. To determine whether the action would have been legal or equitable in 1791, one must first look at the type of action and whether such an action was considered "legal" or "equitable" in 1791. Next, the relief being sought must be examined. Monetary damages alone were purely a legal remedy, and thus entitled to a jury. Non-monetary remedies such as injunctions, rescission, and specific performance were all equitable remedies, and thus up to the judge's discretion, not a jury.

So not quite as clearcut, it seems...

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

BTW, further along in the ultimate decider of all that is the law - Wikkipedia - there is this:

The 7th Amendment does not guarantee or create any right to a jury trial; rather, it preserves the right to jury trial that existed in 1791 at common law. In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England at the time. In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity. Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 says "[t]here is one form of action - the civil action[,]" which abolishes the legal/equity distinction. Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is a right to a jury; in actions that would have been "in equity" in 1791, there is no right to a jury. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39© allows a court to use one at its discretion. To determine whether the action would have been legal or equitable in 1791, one must first look at the type of action and whether such an action was considered "legal" or "equitable" in 1791. Next, the relief being sought must be examined. Monetary damages alone were purely a legal remedy, and thus entitled to a jury. Non-monetary remedies such as injunctions, rescission, and specific performance were all equitable remedies, and thus up to the judge's discretion, not a jury.

So not quite as clearcut, it seems...

Jim

The case is not solely an at law case. Since there is injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs (i.e. forcing USAPA to establish the Nic,) the case is also equity, and a jury must be permitted.

From your precious Wikipedia:

"In the United States, parallel systems of law (providing money damages, with cases heard by a jury upon either party's request) and equity (fashioning a remedy to fit the situation, including injunctive relief, heard by a judge) survived well into the 20th century. The United States federal courts procedurally separated law and equity: the same judges could hear either kind of case, but a given case could only pursue causes in law or in equity, and the two kinds of cases proceeded under different procedural rules. This became problematic when a given case required both money damages and injunctive relief. In 1937, the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure combined law and equity into one form of action, the "civil action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 2. The distinction survives to the extent that issues that were "common law" as of 1791 (the date of adoption of the Seventh Amendment) are still subject to the right of either party to request a jury, and "equity" issues are decided by a judge.[28]"

(Maybe that's why the filing made by USAPA on December 1 is called a "jury demand," and not a "request.")

 

[BoeingBoy]

From your precious Wikipedia:

Mine? Your initial quote was verbatim from Wikipedia, so I just read (and quoted) the same source. The "ultimate decider..." was purely sarcasm...

Jim

 

[nycbusdriver]

Mine? Your initial quote was verbatim from Wikipedia, so I just read (and quoted) the same source. The "ultimate decider..." was purely sarcasm...

Jim

No. My initial quote was from the Constitution of the United States. It's called the Seventh Amendment.

 

[nostradamus]

Reading each posters posting, you have to say to yourself what is their motivation. West and East current pilots, obvious. Other posters motivation should be looked at with skepticism. Some are out for the pure entertainment, others have a mission.

If you are foolish enough to believe that they are here for the betterment of truth and society at large, well listen to your elders wisdom on this one.

Alpa has a lot on the table with this matter, they have their fodder, but you should listen to your father. (or the guardian you are entrusted with.)

 

[BoeingBoy]

No. My initial quote was from the Constitution of the United States. It's called the Seventh Amendment.

My mistake - Wikipedia does quote the 7th amendment, hence the exact same language in your quote and Wikipedia.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Wikepedia:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Jim

 

[pilotn79]

I have no idea what your point was in your response.. and neither you mine since you never addressed it in your response. But thinks for dispatching me to move on.

I asked a simple question that required a yes or no answer. You answer the question with a history lesson from the Civil War. The obvious answer was yes and you know it. Does this clear it up a bit for you? How you make it through a FAA oral is beyond me.

 

[hp_fa]

Then why did you pronounce it would be a bench trial? More west spin disguised as truth? Since Wake has already telegraphed his opinion, if usapa wants a jury trial to get an unbiased result, it will be a jury trial. Thats the way the system works, Flyer, even in PHX. snoop-dog

True and not true.

The text of his scheduling order can be found in this post. Trial is to be bifurcated and the issue of liability of damages will be to the Court. If liability is found then another proceeding will be scheduled and that trial will be solely on the issue of the amount of damages.

 

[Tiger 1050]

True and not true.

The text of his scheduling order can be found in this post. Trial is to be bifurcated and the issue of liability of damages will be to the Court. If liability is found then another proceeding will be scheduled and that trial will be solely on the issue of the amount of damages.

Okay, so does that mean Judge Wake will decide the case (guilty vs. not guilty) and a jury will decide an appropriate remedy?

 

[traderjake]

You can say you live on the North Pole or South Pole. If you say you reside in both locations that would make you bi-polar.

I see that the truth hits a nerve with you. Thank you again for taking the time to read what I wrote years ago.

I keep thinking that one of these time you'll learn something from your research, but it looks like I'll have to spell it out to you and the rest of the USAPA supporters.

The majority in a union can not throw the minority, whether they be new hires or merger partners, under the bus and expect to be successful. The minority will not forget being stabbed in the back.

USAPA has learned nothing from ALPA's mistakes.

 

[hp_fa]

Okay, so does that mean Judge Wake will decide the case (guilty vs. not guilty) and a jury will decide an appropriate remedy?

Bad termanology, but the thought is correct.

Guilty and not guilty are terms used in criminal proceedings. Liable and not liable are terms used in civil proceedings. This matter is a civil proceeding.

Judge Wake appears to intend to decide the issue of liability himself at a trial to be held on that issue. If he finds USAPA liable to any plaintiffs he will then set a proceeding on the issue of the amount of damages to be paid based on the liability. So a jury would potentially determine the amount of damages.

** If ** USAPA is determined by the Judge to be liable for damages, USAPA might want to at least consider whether or not they want the Court or a jury to determine damages. Why do I say that? Because a Judge is far less likely to go overboard then a jury. It is true that if a jury determined damages that were potentially on the high end that USAPA could ask for a remittitur of the award amount, but that by itself will incur even more legal fees and potential problems.

Edited to add the following.

I read your one sentence to fast without thinking of all the ramifications. Judge Wake can apply some remedies on his own anyway, such as amending the terms of the TA and conceivably the Nicolau award itself. Monetary damages would be the subject of further proceedings.

(One of the first lessons one is taught in reading legal stuff is not to speed read. Legal terminaology has specific meanings and your use of the phrase "appropriate remedy" (which is a phrase with a specific legal definition) escaped me. So I added this to address that one two-word phrase.)

 

[nycbusdriver]

My mistake - Wikipedia does quote the 7th amendment, hence the exact same language in your quote and Wikipedia.

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Wikepedia:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

Jim

Jim

Nope.

My mistake. I got it backwards. The jury decides the damages, and Wake decides the liability.

I guess there really will be an appeal, because it certainly appears that Judge Wake has already made up him mind.

 

[nostradamus]

I see that the truth hits a nerve with you. Thank you again for taking the time to read what I wrote years ago.

I accused you of hypocrisy. It was not years ago, it was a few years ago.