US Pilots' Labor Discussion 10/27-11/?

[Richard]

Time for a new thread regarding the pilots' issue at US.

Please remember to read the rules of the board at the top of the forum and please observe them.

 

[hp_fa]

The Appellees Brief has been filed. It is what I expected and I believe it is both a better brief and a better statement of existing law. They also seemed to use their word allotment better and didn't have a rushed feeling at the end of it. I had mentioned previously that the Appellant's Brief had a rushed feeling at the end and that I had believed that they didn't use their word allotment as wisely as they may have.

While the appellees didn't take too many shots at the appellant and its counsel, there were two that I saw in my first review of the Brief.

1. The West Pilots had no option but to institute litigation to defend the Nicolau Award. (1ER16:6-11.) USAPA selected the law firm that devised the scheme to abrogate the Nicolau Award to handle the defense of that scheme. Ex. 315 (5ER880.) In essence, therefore, this law firm was put in the position of defending itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and defending USAPA for following that advice.

2. Revisiting a seniority integration arbitration is no different than insisting on a “do-overâ€￾ in the schoolyard. This could be a legitimate union objective only if, for some unusual reason, the Airline offered a better bargain in exchange for revisiting the arbitration. There is no evidence that any such offer was made or expected. USAPA had no reason to expect that revisiting the arbitration would do anything more than reorder advantages within the bargaining unit. The
district court, therefore, properly instructed the jury that this was not, by itself, a legitimate union objective. Because USAPA offers no authority or explanation that justifies a different analysis, this Court should affirm.

 

[Al Legheny]

The Appellees Brief has been filed. It is what I expected and I believe it is both a better brief and a better statement of existing law. They also seemed to use their word allotment better and didn't have a rushed feeling at the end of it. I had mentioned previously that the Appellant's Brief had a rushed feeling at the end and that I had believed that they didn't use their word allotment as wisely as they may have.

While the appellees didn't take too many shots at the appellant and its counsel, there were two that I saw in my first review of the Brief.

1. The West Pilots had no option but to institute litigation to defend the Nicolau Award. (1ER16:6-11.) USAPA selected the law firm that devised the scheme to abrogate the Nicolau Award to handle the defense of that scheme. Ex. 315 (5ER880.) In essence, therefore, this law firm was put in the position of defending itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and defending USAPA for following that advice.

2. Revisiting a seniority integration arbitration is no different than insisting on a “do-overâ€￾ in the schoolyard. This could be a legitimate union objective only if, for some unusual reason, the Airline offered a better bargain in exchange for revisiting the arbitration. There is no evidence that any such offer was made or expected. USAPA had no reason to expect that revisiting the arbitration would do anything more than reorder advantages within the bargaining unit. The
district court, therefore, properly instructed the jury that this was not, by itself, a legitimate union objective. Because USAPA offers no authority or explanation that justifies a different analysis, this Court should affirm.

Has this brief been made public yet? I is not posted on PilotLoop or USAPA.

 

[hp_fa]

It is public, otherwise I wouldn't have it. There is no way I would blow either parties attorney-client privilege.

I tried to see if I could PM it to you, but it is 292k and the limit here is 200k.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Aren't all court filings public unless filed under seal?

Jim

 

[HPDriver]

The time of reckoning for the east begins tomorrow.

 

[hp_fa]

Aren't all court filings public unless filed under seal?

Jim

Essentially yes, but I also took Al's question to ask if what I had read had been a pre-release copy or not and that is why my answer. I had read a completed document that contained the Proof of Service certification.

 

[Pi brat]

The time of reckoning for the east begins tomorrow.

Is that the "big announcement at noon"?

 

[Tiger 1050]

Is that the "big announcement at noon"?

This is the second forum I have read this. Where did you hear there is to be an announcement?

 

[HPDriver]

Is that the "big announcement at noon"?

Announcements - plural.

And the news is not good - for the easties.

 

[ManDachine]

And the news is not good - for the easties.
[/quote]


The "news" has never been good for us....I mean east.

 

[ROACLT]

And the news is not good - for the easties.



The "news" has never been good for us....I mean east.

Isn't tomorrow when they are supposed to announce closing the LAS, BOS, and LGA flight crew bases and consolidating the flying into the larger bases?

 

[Elevation]

160 furloughs

 

[Tiger 1050]

160 furloughs

As a current furloughee I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I hope this is not true.

 

[Dorf]

As a current furloughee I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I hope this is not true.

I respect that statement, HPDriver on the other hand seems to thouroughly enjoy any bad news for fellow(east) employees.

Dorf