US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/26- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[cleardirect]

Because the judge wouldn't let them hear the whole truth. That will be Wake's embarrassment at the hands of the 9th.

That would be just your opinion. the ninth did not seem to have an issue with what the judge did or did not let in the trial.

Listen to the audio. Not a single question from the judges' about that.

 

[hp_fa]

You must have missed the Plaintiff's entire case in chief, where all kinds of exhibits were admitted into evidence which demonstrated that USAPA was formed as a mechanism to avoid the arbitration. When something is admitted into evidence in our court system, they become legal facts and arguably there isn't anyting in existence more factual than legal facts as nowhere else I can think of is there such an intense distillation and filtering process as with the Rules of Evidence.

Actually, let me clarify that. Just because something is admitted into evidence does not make it a fact. It just means that it qualifies under the applicable rules of evidence to be presented to the jury for their determination of what the facts are. The judge admitted the evidence you refer to into evidence, along with exhibits from the defense, and the jury determined that the plaintiffs won the case in trial court.

To turn it around, just because the defendants had things admitted into evidence didn't make them factually true or relevant to the final determination of trial court case. Now, if you are speaking of stipulated facts, then the jury is (and was) instructed by the judge to accept those items as facts and they are not to be considered otherwise.

Does that clarify it?

 

[hp_fa]

Because the judge wouldn't let them hear the whole truth. That will be Wake's embarrassment at the hands of the 9th.

The Nicolau award was not on trial. Arbitration results are not normally subject to judicial review absent extreme abuse which the Court, as a matter of law (not fact), decided was not germane to the case. To be honest, and I could be wrong, I don't recall the defendants arguing anything on appeal that questioned the actual validity of the Nicolau award.

 

[LSS]

Sorry but didn't see this until someone else quoted part of it.

As you say, I'm sure it was the final straw for many individual pilots when they cast their NMB ballot. But that is still why USAPA was elected, not why it was formed.

I'd love to hear your list of facts to support why USAPA was formed for any reason than to evade the NIC award. I think you'll have a hard time coming up with any. Even the "ALPA would have implemented the NIC" isn't a reason since it 1 - says USAPA was formed out of fear that the NIC award would be implemented (which is another way of saying to avoid NIC), and 2 - gives ALPA more unilateral power than they had. Unless you can provide any letters from lawyers to Bradford while USAPA was being formed containing advice on something other than evading NIC, there aren't any facts out there to make your point.

Jim

The motivation of the few people who decided to mount an effort to form a new union is irrelevant. Those few who got the ball rolling only had a hand full of votes. It was the “evil majority†of US Airway pilots who voted to kick ALPA to the curb. We were fed up with ALPA, (including those East pilots on the MEC who were supposed to be serving the will of their constituents, but didn’t… those who were so power hungry, who bellied up to the ALPA trough, FPL, perks, and bennies). We were done with all the ALPA politics, and lies. Does this mean I’m in sync with everything USAPA has done?... No… but it is a damn sight better than the former… and that’s my OPINION, whether you like it or not!!

 

[Flippin43]

The motivation of the few people who decided to mount an effort to form a new union is irrelevant. Those few who got the ball rolling only had a hand full of votes. It was the “evil majority†of US Airway pilots who voted to kick ALPA to the curb. We were fed up with ALPA, (including those East pilots on the MEC who were supposed to be serving the will of their constituents, but didn’t… those who were so power hungry, who bellied up to the ALPA trough, FPL, perks, and bennies). We were done with all the ALPA politics, and lies. Does this mean I’m in sync with everything USAPA has done?... No… but it is a damn sight better than the former… and that’s my OPINION, whether you like it or not!!

Could you clarify for me how usapa is different?

cleary and crew get a stipend on top of their guarantee right. Did Jack Stephan get one???

cleary outright changes the UOM policy, buys cars or seeks admendmants to suit his liking. Did Alpa allow this as well.

 

[Hate2fly]

Wow, I missed alot these last few days! As far as Black Swan not knowing anything about the Suzie stuff and T/A 9.........who cares.......most of us back here knew she was going to have to pay up or be launched!

Separate operations under ALPA.......we have John Prater's letter to all of us stating that there is no timeline to merge. Of course the desert judge would not allow it in his court room. The NMB is officially on the property now for the negotiating process. I wonder what the judge thinks about that? Section 6 should be interesting. The ripeness issue for the 9th will be a brutal blow for the westies. LOA 93 pay restoration will be another devistating blow to the west.

As far as the furloughs....if the company furloughs any east pilots there will be an expedited grievance filed, because they have documented in numerous cbs messages that these furloughs would be from selling the 190's to Republic........and that is a no go item in our contract.

Three major hurdles for the west going forward...........the 9th......LOA93 pay restoration.......MDA

I'm feeling like the east is going to be 3 for 3...........just like I have said before the east only has to go 1 for 3 and it will be game over!

Hate

 

[HPDriver]

I'm feeling like the east is going to be 3 for 3...........just like I have said before the east only has to go 1 for 3 and it will be game over!

Hate

1 for 3 is a stretch.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Explain how damages are germane to the CBA?

A DFR benefits all union members. That's why the West as well as the East are on the hook to pay atty fees for both sides. The same sort of analysis applies for damages resulting from a DFR.

 

[snapthis]

I have a better idea - the Catus 18 admit guilt and pay all the damages.

Yes, now THEN we can move on and pull together.

A countersuit is more likely than false confessions.

 

[Phoenix]

No, because the judge would not let them rule on the fairness of the Nicolau award.

The issue never was the fairness of the Nicolau award. You're building a strawman.

The issue is the authority vs. responsibility of a lawfully elected CBA. The scope of authority and responsibility are different depending on what laws take precedence. No court has yet honestly admitted or dealt with the issue.

 

[Metroyet]

Because the judge wouldn't let them hear the whole truth. That will be Wake's embarrassment at the hands of the 9th.

Please. Judge Wake bent over backwards to accommodate your side. He said this trial would not be about "fairness" of the Nic. and then let Seham and his JV team WHINE incessantly for nearly two weeks how UNFAIR they thought the Nic was. What germane fact did the Jury not get to hear and how would it have changed a damn thing?

 

[BoeingBoy]

The motivation of the few people who decided to mount an effort to form a new union is irrelevant.

Unless one is talking about the reasons for forming the new union. If that is the topic, the motivation of those who formed the new union is all that matters since no one else had a vote at that point.

Those few who got the ball rolling only had a hand full of votes.

I don't recall a vote on forming a new union, only a vote electing the new union as CBA. For the latter you are correct - those who formed the new union only had a handful of votes when the time came to decide whether ALPA or USAPA would be the CBA. For the former - forming the new union - those few had all the "votes" there were to be counted at that point.

It was the “evil majorityâ€￾ of US Airway pilots who voted to kick ALPA to the curb.

I wouldn't call voting one's self interest "evil", whether it is a majority or a minority, but that's beside the point. When the time came to elect either ALPA or USAPA every pilot on both seniority lists (East and West) voted however they individually thought was best.

So, as I said before, one needs to distinguish "form a new union" from "elect a new union." The motivation of those who form a new union is all that matters if one is discussing why the union was formed, but may matter little or not at all when one is discussing why the union was elected.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

No court has yet honestly admitted or dealt with the issue.

There have been DFR suits, some the union won and some the plantiffs won. So can one assume your "honestly admitted or dealt with" merely means you disagree with most/all those previous rulings"

Jim

 

[700UW]

A DFR benefits all union members. That's why the West as well as the East are on the hook to pay atty fees for both sides. The same sort of analysis applies for damages resulting from a DFR.

You still havent explained it. Germane expenses are only to enforce and negotiate the CBA, not other expenses that are not relevant to the CBA.

And there isnt usapa/east and usapa/west, its one union.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Actually, let me clarify that. Just because something is admitted into evidence does not make it a fact. It just means that it qualifies under the applicable rules of evidence to be presented to the jury for their determination of what the facts are. The judge admitted the evidence you refer to into evidence, along with exhibits from the defense, and the jury determined that the plaintiffs won the case in trial court.

To turn it around, just because the defendants had things admitted into evidence didn't make them factually true or relevant to the final determination of trial court case. Now, if you are speaking of stipulated facts, then the jury is (and was) instructed by the judge to accept those items as facts and they are not to be considered otherwise.

Does that clarify it?

You are correct and I apologize for being so loose, but many trial advocacy textbooks are loose with the term "fact." What they really mean are "details" presented to the factfinder; some like to say that facts are presented to the jury and the jury decides whether those facts were proven, but that's misleading and your summation is almost entirely correct with one trivial exception: we really don't know what the facts are from just a jury verdict as all they do is check a box and hand the paper to the court room clerk. In this case, it was Judge Wake's Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law that enunciated what the facts are/were and even then there isn't a differentiation between plaintiff/defendant facts. Not all facts had citations. The Bradford memo is an interesting situation because the only controversy that I recall over it was its admission into evidence. USAPA argued it was an attorney-client communication, but Judge Wake ruled against USAPA as a matter of law. I don't recall Seham cross examining anyone on the content of that memo, but uncontroverted evidence does not rise to the level of a stipulated fact.