US pilot labor thread 7/13-7/20

[ableoneable]

When did the accused become members? When did members send special gifts in the mail?

Let me clarify.

ALPA tended not to sue the pilots employed under its contracts.

All is now well.

 

[sharktooth]

ALPA tended not to sue the pilots employed under its contracts.

Can you give examples?

 

[nycbusdriver]

You guys keep blaming "ALPA" for the pension giveback but it was your LEC/MEC reps who did this not ALPA. This is an important distinction because you continue to cite the pension give away as a reason for decertifying ALPA yet at the same time it was not reason enough to recall these same LEC/MEC reps. Notice the logic disconnect?

The agreement had to be signed by Duane Woerth. He did. ALPA national is as much to blame as the ALPA MEC.

 

[hp_fa]

Can you give examples?

How do you prove something that didn't happen? You can't prove a negative.

 

[prechilill]

What could have been... If only the east was capable of honoring their own word:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalys...E&cm_ite=NA

The DAL/NWApilots are going to decide the open issues unsettled in their negotiations through arbitration. I really think history will not treat you easties too kindly, given the path of self destruction and futile unreasonableness you have chosen. Your actions since May, 2007 certainly have been fitting for a collection of individuals which could probably be described with words like radical, irrational and dysfunctional. These three descriptors are why the west was so successful in our seniority arbitration, why your MDA suit and more recently your falsified RICO claims were thrown out in court. It is time for some self reflection of yourselves. You guys are blind to your own reality.

 

[nycbusdriver]

"Motion to Dismiss Filed by AWAPPA Defendants [Doc. 77] are GRANTED
to the extent that Counts One and Two of the Amended Complaint are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rules 12 B(1) and 12 B (6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Directly lifted from the court documents.

This is what happens when you listen to USAPPA spin instead of reading the source material yourself.

Took a while to respond (have to actually go fly airplanes now and then.)

This ALSO lifted directly from the court documents...in fact, it is the paragraph that follows the one you quoted:

"Because the federal claims asserted by the Plaintiff have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state-law claims (Counts Three through Eleven) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [para.] 1367(c )(3), and accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE."

And now you have....the rest of the story.

State claims Three through Eleven, dismissed WITHOUT prejudice and therefore able to be refiled in NC courts.

Stevie B....just tell me where to send my $20.

 

[ableoneable]

Took a while to respond (have to actually go fly airplanes now and then.)

This ALSO lifted directly from the court documents...in fact, it is the paragraph that follows the one you quoted:

"Because the federal claims asserted by the Plaintiff have been dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's state-law claims (Counts Three through Eleven) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [para.] 1367(c )(3), and accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE."

And now you have....the rest of the story.

State claims Three through Eleven, dismissed WITHOUT prejudice and therefore able to be refiled in NC courts.

Stevie B....just tell me where to send my $20.

If you go back and read my original post you will see that I said;

Though the USCABA release did not mention it two of the three complaints were dismissed with prejudice. There will be no re-filing of those charges.

The third charge was untenable and the only reason to re-file would be to try and cost the defendants more in legal fees. This may or may not lead to "success" as USAPA would define it, but is also a dangerous game.

I addressed all three charges.

BTW. There will be no re-filing of the third charge in N.C.

The court was clear on this matter. The defendants have no N.C. contacts. It USAPA wants to re-file in state court they will have to file in AZ or a state where the pilot(s) have business or residences.

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

These three descriptors are why the west was so successful in our seniority arbitration, why your MDA suit and more recently your falsified RICO claims were thrown out in court.

The DFR claims on lack of contract enforcement were accepted as fact by the judge in the MDA case but were dismissed on a statute of limitation technicality. The amendment on the point of ALPA's responsibility and failure of representation during the arbitration was filed within the statute and is moving forward. That is one little gem a lot of people forget about and knowing ALPA, they will settle, and will likely admit error in the arbitration as it costs them nothing at this point and Nicalou won't even be a memory not that in means much now.

The MDA pilots attorney just recently forced ALPA into a settlement with the RJDC(Comair/ASA pilots) which creates another layer of bureaucracy with ALPA via a national scope committee which can insert itself into contract negotiations regarding scope when mainline and code share regional partners are both within ALPA family and no consensus on scope can be reached by the respective MECs.

It is reasonable to assume a settlement will be forced on the MDA suit which will directly affect Nicalou and it will be a shame that no participation in the union was offered by a segment of the airline and the only thing they were trying to hang their hat was stripped out from under them and with ALPA participation to boot.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If you go back and read my original post you will see that I said;



I addressed all three charges.

BTW. There will be no re-filing of the third charge in N.C.

The court was clear on this matter. The defendants have no N.C. contacts. It USAPA wants to re-file in state court they will have to file in AZ or a state where the pilot(s) have business or residences.

And charges four through eleven?

 

[hp_fa]

The court was clear on this matter. The defendants have no N.C. contacts. It USAPA wants to re-file in state court they will have to file in AZ or a state where the pilot(s) have business or residences.

What the Court actually said was that it would have had trouble with the question of in personam jurisdiction. A NC judge may see it differently in a state court. However, that said, I don't think filing in NC is a good idea based on what already has occurred.

 

[ableoneable]

What the Court actually said was that it would have had trouble with the question of in personam jurisdiction. A NC judge may see it differently in a state court. However, that said, I don't think filing in NC is a good idea based on what already has occurred.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Phoenix]

How do you prove something that didn't happen? You can't prove a negative.

Well then you agree that ALPA had no cause for a law suit against its members. I think that was the point to the question, "Which members have sent "special packages" (like stuffed envelopes).

But of course ALPA did "sue" its members of sorts.. without cause. The most recent example of such absence of cause was highlighted by the kangaroo court that ALPA used to toss out the legitimate elected reps without charges according to the ALPA constitution and bylaws.

ALPA National's manipulation of the elected representatives at USAir was the zenith of their blunders.

But perhaps the more relevant question is: Why would it enter into anyone's mind to use ALPA as an exemplar in contrast to USAPA when the election demonstrated that argument has already failed? :huh:

 

[hp_fa]

I was speaking more in legal evidentiary theory than anything else, and that is that you cannot prove a negative. How do you prove that something did not happen? At best you can establish that no one you know or have contacted knows of a certain act happening, but that is as far as that goes in that it does no mean that something did not happen.

I personally have no knowledge of whether ALPA has, or has not, ever sued a member.

Sorry, this is probably too much theory for this setting.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I suspected my suggestion would be a lead balloon.

I think that posters who hide behind their anonymity often express themselves quite differently than they would if they attached their names to their posts.

Some accountability or concern of reputation may actually raise the level of discourse.

This is the appropriate section of the latest version of the company ethics policy on the Hub - it may be out of date but I suspect any newer version says basically the same thing (emphasis mine):

You are prohibited from identifying yourself as a Company employee when posting comments on the Internet or on other on-line services. This rule applies even if a statement is included that clearly states that the user is expressing his or her own ideas and not necessarily those of the Company. This rule also applies where such posting is done from your personal equipment.

So feel free to post using your name, base, and position - just makes it easier for the company if they decide to take action. Personally, I never worried about the ethics policy before I retired since I sign every post with my first name and have given enough information to make it pretty easy for the company to identify me (just permanent bid committee work and living in NC would do it without looking at my picture/avatar). I just wouldn't expect many others to follow your example if you want to start identifying yourself, however.

Jim

 

[Harry Callahan]

I suspected my suggestion would be a lead balloon.

I think that posters who hide behind their anonymity often express themselves quite differently than they would if they attached their names to their posts.

Some accountability or concern of reputation may actually raise the level of discourse.

Thanks HP.

Heck I use a real name on here.