What's new

US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

Status
Not open for further replies.
We don't need this kind of language. It solves nothing.

The conclusion to this seniority dispute is just about over. We're gong to need to move on - together.

when the rico lawsuit is dropped and lee seham, cleary, mowery and most of the bpr are fired, we can move on.

alpa, usapa, aol, awapa or a mickey mouse union.....I have FEDERAL legal rights!
 
Losing 16-1/2 years....

Is that pilot at TOS for the equip/seat being flown? There's that "missing" 16.5 years.

Is that pilot getting max vacation (such as it is)? There's that "missing" 16.5 years.

Is that pilot ahead of a 16 year employee in the same boarding priority when competing for non-rev seats? There's that "missing" 16.5 years.

In other words, that 16.5 year pilot gets what he/she has always gotten for time put in.

Jim


I have seen more reasoned posts from you in the past.

16 ½ years going forward. Retiring at the top of the list as opposed to closer to 1000 -before the next merger.
 
16 ½ years going forward. Retiring at the top of the list as opposed to closer to 1000 -before the next merger.
If you care, Nicolau addressed this issue quite well in the arbitration. In there is your answer.
 
Just read the USAPA update. Apparently the fact that the AOL attorney paused to collect his thoughts before answering a judge's question is highly significant. Spin, exactly as expected. Me, I always take a pause before answering a tough question. Makes for a more concise answer.

The USAPA update didn't explicitly express confidence yet by it clearly implied the judges liked Seham's argument. Can't wait to listen myself.

Item One: Today, December 8, 2009, oral argument was heard in San Francisco before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Lee Seham, lead trial counsel for the Association, presented the argument. The Judges were the Honorable Tashima, Graber and Bybee. Lead trial counsel for plaintiffs was present but did not argue his clients’ case.

All three judges asked several questions of both counsel. The questions, however, focused almost exclusively on the issue of whether the plaintiffs’ claim was ripe. Ripeness was made an issue in the Association’s appeal, because the trial court ignored longstanding precedent allowing the lawsuit to go forward based on a mere intention or announcement of a bargaining position before any contract was negotiated and ratified. This was clearly a concern shared by the panel. Not only were all three judges’ questions focused largely on ripeness, but the tenor of these questions exhibited skepticism as to whether the claim was ripe.

For example, Judge Graber pressed plaintiffs’ counsel to identify what action the Association took that would make the claim ripe. Counsel for plaintiffs eventually responded that the act was that Association announced its bargaining position.

Plaintiffs’ counsel pointed the panel to the Second Circuit’s Ramey decision in an effort to support their ripeness argument. However, this prompted an interruption from Judge Tashima who read language from the Ramey decision, and asked plaintiffs’ counsel to reconcile the Second Circuit’s language that they did not require, or even permit, union members to bring a suit against their union simply because the union has announced its future intention to breach its duty. Judge Tashima’s question was met with stony silence before plaintiffs’ counsel attempted his answer.

The panel’s focus on ripeness and the Court’s patient hearing of counsel for the Association indicate that the appeal was well received.

Pilots may listen to the entire hearing, including plaintiffs’ counsel’s long pause following Judge Tashima’s question. The audio recording will be posted on the Ninth Circuit’s website by noon PST tomorrow, and can be accessed by following this link: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/

As a reminder, USAPA has published a three part video series explaining, in more accessible terms, the various legal issues and precedents in the Addington appeal. Pilots are encouraged to watch these short videos (each approximately ten minutes in length), to gain a greater understanding of those issues. A link to the videos can be found both in the USAPA Links section on the Members homepage, and in the Legal Library.
 
Perhaps, but I can certainly tell you what "injustice" is, and it's called the tyranny of the majority.


Good Point.

If it is tyranny.

That’s the nature of democracy is it not? The losing side is always the minority by definition.

I don’t expect to convert you, only maybe to agree to disagree if I’m lucky.


Is it tyranny if the majority is correcting a horrible injustice? -I know, I don’t expect to sell you on that one.
 
It's deja vu all over again. Just like the DFR case had no merit. Just like the Plaintiff's attorneys had no experience in labor law; just like USAPA was supremely confident; all of which are just like "there are no Americans in Baghdad!"
 
Your question has already been answered by one of the greatest minds in the 20th century, Ayn Rand:

"Rights are a moral principle defining proper social relationships. Just as a man needs a moral code in order to survive (in order to act, to choose the right goals and to achieve them), so a society (a group of men) needs moral principles in order to organize a social system consonant with man's nature and with the requirements of his survival.

Just as a man can evade reality and act on the blind whim of any given moment, but can achieve nothing save progressive self- destruction,”so a society can evade reality and establish a system ruled by the blind whims of its members or its leader, by the majority gang of any given moment, by the current demagogue or by a permanent dictator. But such a society can achieve nothing save the rule of brute force and a state of progressive self-destruction.

What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that "Anything I do is right because I chose to do it," is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality - so the notion that "Anything society does is right because society chose to do it," is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues."
 
To be fair, I’d have to say that if the court finds in USAPA’s favor, that makes USAPA the winner, but that in itself does not give them the moral high ground, or make you wrong.

That is not how it works. If the case is reversed and remanded to the lower court it will be with instructions to Judge Wake. Judge Wake will then proceed with the case in line with what instructions were given by the 9th Circuit. The odds of the 9th ordering a dismissal of the case is extremely unlikely, like less than 1%.

Other than my comment to your statement I am waiting to hear the recording before I say more.
 
If you care, Nicolau addressed this issue quite well in the arbitration. In there is your answer.


???????????

Must have been the part where any pilot losing more than 15 years will get a new Mercedes and Super-seniority when bidding any trip that doesn’t leave the state on AZ.


WOW….Sudden flashback to “On the Waterfrontâ€￾ in the hold of a cargo ship…
 
That is not how it works. If the case is reversed and remanded to the lower court it will be with instructions to Judge Wake. Judge Wake will then proceed with the case in line with what instructions were given by the 9th Circuit. The odds of the 9th ordering a dismissal of the case is extremely unlikely, like less than 1%.

Other than my comment to your statement I am waiting to hear the recording before I say more.




I think you missed the point.

I was not speaking procedurally, but that courts render decisions that do not define justice.
 
Where's Uncle Ed when you need him?

He's at the palace making sure you get all the flying.
 
If USAPA prevails on the ripeness ground, it simply means this all happens again when (if?) a DOH list is negotiated into the contract. Is that really a "win?"

I really wish these guys showed up at poker games in western NC. I could retire....
 
If USAPA prevails on the ripeness ground, it simply means this all happens again when (if?) a DOH list is negotiated into the contract. Is that really a "win?"

I really wish these guys showed up at poker games in western NC. I could retire....


I don’t think the “ripenessâ€￾ ground was there first choice per se. I think it was the one with the highest probability of success.
 
If USAPA prevails on the ripeness ground, it simply means this all happens again when (if?) a DOH list is negotiated into the contract. Is that really a "win?"

I really wish these guys showed up at poker games in western NC. I could retire....


Judge Sullivan in DC said it wasn't ripe..........Judge Cayer in the Breeger case said it wasn't ripe.

Freund said all the risk is on your side. It is just a bargaining proposal!

How much money have you guys spent on legal fees?

Even if you pull out a victory here in the 9th we would never ratify the Nicolau any way.

Looks like you guys really have us in a bad spot! LOL

Hate
 
Judge Sullivan in DC said it wasn't ripe..........Judge Cayer in the Breeger case said it wasn't ripe.
Neither of them were trying the Addington case. Different cases are very much open to different interpretation.
Freund said all the risk is on your side.
No risk, just money.
It is just a bargaining proposal!
Yes, a proposal that violates the West's DFR. In case you hadn't noticed the Addington case is about DFR not the Nicolau list.
How much money have you guys spent on legal fees?
A lot. So?
Even if you pull out a victory here in the 9th we would never ratify the Nicolau any way.
I don't believe you. You're going to have to prove it.
Looks like you guys really have us in a bad spot! LOL
Sarcasm aside, you're essentially right. We've already lost in the sense that since the merger was announced the West has suffered furloughs and downgrades while the East has enjoyed recalls and upgrades (overall). And amazingly you've proven your willingness to shoot off your nose to spite your face by proudly hanging on to LOA93. There are simply some things the West can't do anything about. Fighting a DFR case is something we can do. Keep laughing. If justice prevails the damages trial might wipe that smug smile off your face.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top