US Pilots labor Discussion 12/4-

[BoeingBoy]

Of course, our side not opposing the motion had nothing to do with the court's decision.

As I recall, it wasn't just not opposing but rather agreeing with the request for an expedited hearing.

Jim

 

[nic4us]

You can stop sputtering now. ......................................................................
.............................................................. This is indeed USAPA's "quest," and quite frankly you bring up an important point..what USAPA seeks does not necessarily have to be in your personal "best interest." Don't confuse your day to day representation with the goals of the majority of the Union members here. But you know that. The issues are clear, and all your hate and logic contortions will not change what is happening.

RR

Bbbbuuuttt, yyyyooouu areee cooorrrect. okay I will stop sputtering.



What usapa seeks does not have to be in my best interest, however, if the goals of the majority union members are to inflict harm to me and a minority group as the result of their bad faith negotiations, they have commited a failure of DFR. Yes, I do know that, and the issues are clear. My statements will not change what is happening, and what is happening is that usapa is guilty of DFR and trying to get a reversal on appeal, but for the present time they are guilty.

My bet is that the 9th will uphold Wake, but write something in their decision that Seeham will try and talk the east into latching on to and attempt to disregarding Wake's injunction, and the saga will continue.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Donn did not author LOA93. That was a company generated document! We didn't put the dates on that document, the company did!

IF, as you say, the union had no role in negotiating the language would that not indicate that the company would know the intent of that language better than the union? With no negotiated language there would be no negotiating note to reflect the union's intent, would there?

Jim

 

[Metroyet]

Yes, you most certainly have it! Thank god, it is not contagious.

Unfortunately it IS contagious. Ask PSA pilots. AAA is a drug resistant infection.

 

[hp_fa]

I am continually amazed those like you continue to attack the professionalism of the East lawyers. With a few exceptions, I have seen very little of that going the other direction. I just don't get that behavior. The closer we get to the last hearing, the more you guys ramp up the personal slams.

I am glad you are amazed by me. IMO the worst mistake Mr. Bradford made was hiring SSM&P. He had no idea how to seek quality representation and now look at the mess you are all in. Seham as the counsel who drew up the USAPA constitution, acts as general counsel, trial counsel and now appellate counsel. His record, except for finding ways to siphon money from USAPA, is at best worthy of negative reviews.

 

[cleardirect]

Best get used to it. As long as Seham keeps telling you what you want to hear instead of the reality the criticism is well-deserved. Seriously, how many more court cases does Seham have to lose before you fire him?

I would say two more. Both on appeal that Seham lost.

 

[OTTER574]

I am glad you are amazed by me. IMO the worst mistake Mr. Bradford made was hiring SSM&P. He had no idea how to seek quality representation and now look at the mess you are all in. Seham as the counsel who drew up the USAPA constitution, acts as general counsel, trial counsel and now appellate counsel. His record, except for finding ways to siphon money from USAPA, is at best worthy of negative reviews.

answer is........seham/ssm&p/usapa, ====== you can't fix stupid...................damages added daily and counting.........

 

[luvn737s]

I am amazed that the west pilots hope that we lose this grievance!

I can't speak for the west, but my personal hope is that USAPA loses EVERY grievance (there are none that do not hinge on harming the west either as requisite or result) and further I hope that there are 3 choices for the upcoming representation election and that the vote is split such that there is NO union representation. While there are some naive folks who believe that USAPA simply needs the right people, I disagree. It needs to be dismantled and parted out. A new union begun with bipartisan roots needs to replace it.

There is nothing to salvage from USAPA.

 

[ClueByFour]

I am continually amazed those like you continue to attack the professionalism of the East lawyers. With a few exceptions, I have seen very little of that going the other direction. I just don't get that behavior. The closer we get to the last hearing, the more you guys ramp up the personal slams.

The west pilot group has a pretty enviable record of picking winning counsel. The East has bet the house on Seeham and ignored it's merger counsel. The village idiot has it coming--not quite sure what your point is.

I suppose you could mock the West's attorneys, but thus far they've been cleaning clock. That would appear foolish, no?

 

[traderjake]

No, his ideals represent what the majority of pilots here believe.
RR

At one time the majority believed the earth was flat.

Thank you for pointing out that the majority of USAPA supporters are unethical and incompetent.

 

[hp_fa]

By the way, I was just thinking about previous claims that USAPA was going to have amicus curie briefs filed in support of them in the Addington case. Was that you Snooper?

Has anyone seen any amicus briefs?

 

[flybynite]

By the way, I was just thinking about previous claims that USAPA was going to have amicus curie briefs filed in support of them in the Addington case. Was that you Snooper?

Has anyone seen any amicus briefs?

What is an amicus(sp) brief?

 

[flybynite]

The new rules won't be out that soon.

First comes the Notice of Proposed Rulemeaking followed by a comment period. Then comes the rule. It won't be as soon as March 2010.

Check out this video on Pilot Fatigue/Flight Time/Duty Time :

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/290343-1&start=2

Pay close attention to the committee's interest in pilots that commute.

Thanks for posting the video. I've been very interested in this subject.

 

[BoeingBoy]

What is an amicus(sp) brief?

Literally translated from Latin, it is a brief filed by "a friend of the court". In practice, it is a brief supporting one side or the other that is filed with the court by a person/entity that is not a party to the case being decided.

In this specific case involving USAPA, there were claims by some East posters that various other unions would file amicus briefs with the appeals court supporting USAPA's legal arguments.

Jim

 

[hp_fa]

Thanks for posting the video. I've been very interested in this subject.

Jim's response is correct.