US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/2- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[oldiebutgoody]

Make that "something well south of 60% of the pilot force". USAPA is running 3 shifts to put out their quota of line crossers. (Of course we all know there will never be a line, but oldy doesn't).

You do know the history of AWA pilots negotiating with Parker, don't you?

I guess "line crossing" is part of the AWA culture. There is a certain "stigma" attached to those that do, and it follows throughout your career and life. I still see lists of Eastern line crossers from time-to-time. Really something to be proud of.

Your numbers are way off, by the way. I've NEVER seen the East group as unified as they are right now, EVER! That's well over your number right there, even excluding the "I've got mine" ALPA shills.

 

[Phoenix]

It appears to me ...

and if I was a USAPA supporter, I could not be more upset with Cleary' actions.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Lucky for you, you aren't. And lucky for me, I don't live vicariously through your perspectives. 😀

 

[Barrister]

Just read the opinion. Very interesting. Here is what I got out of it.

1. Yea, so USAPA was formed to defeat NIC...seemed to get a yawn out of the 9th if that much.
2. .Was made clear in footnotes that Plaintiff's themselves admit that USAPA was NOT dragging their feet on a new contract, by their (West) own admission.
3. Very unlikely a CBA would pass if NIC were in it.
4. Seemed to make several references that the NIC is N/A and what is important is that a CBA be negotiated THEN AND ONLY THEN will a DFR suit
make sense.
5. The court did not even get close to saying that there is NIC and only NIC.

I believe that the only way BB and his like minded fellows will get what NIC means is TO READ THE OPINION.

BUT, whatever gets sent to the members and gets voted in needs to be fair.

TIME TO COME TO THE TABLE

I hereby officialy retire VNIIMN and keep

NPJB

 

[cleardirect]

Its really quite simple.
USAPA puts out the newly negotiated contract WITH nic for a vote.
The new contract is voted down.
Then, USAPA puts out the IDENTICAL contract, LESS Nic for a vote and voila! it passes easily.
Guess what the rank and file have spoken. Not USAPA.
NO dfr violation.

We will all be living together under one contract. Whatever that winds up looking like.

I guess you really must be a newbie because of the lack of union understanding.

In order for a contract to be sent to the pilots the governing body of the union must approve it first. In this case the BPR. Therefore the union spoke and does cause the DFR.

Just because the rank and file speak does not exempt the union from violating laws.

 

[hp_fa]

Wake has not yet pulled out his pen to take action to dismiss the case, but if you intend to imply that his next use of the pen regarding Addington will be anything other than to dismiss, then you are smokin crack.

You are missing what I am saying.

As of right now Judge Wake doesn't have the jurisdiction to sign a dismissal. The jurisdiction is still with the Ninth Circuit until it rules on any request for an en banc hearing as long as one is timely filed by the Addington plaintiffs. If the Ninth Circuit denies an en banc request there would still be time then allowed for a writ of certiorari to be filed and decided by the SCOTUS.

As for Oldie's thoughts on whether or not the Ninth will grant an en banc review, I place the odds that they will at over 50%. If the decision had been unanimously then I would have cut those odds to under 25%.

 

[RSVP767]

It appears to me after reading some comments that Mike Cleary's President's letter published yesterday appears to lack vision and could not have been reviewed by his legal team before it was distributed. From USAPA's perspective his ill-advised injudicious letter he has given advanced "in-your-face" testimony to the Full 11-Member Ninth Circuit Court illustrating USAPA is going to continue on their "unquestionably ripe (for) DFR" self-destructive negotiating path.

Cleary said, "This decision allows USAPA, which represents all US Airways pilots, to freely bargain for the terms of its seniority integration."

However, Judge Bybee's dissenting opinion states, "One does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventative relief. If the injury is certainly impending, that is enough."”

Cleary' comment leaves little room for the Full 9th to doubt that injury to the West pilots is certainly impending and supports Bybee's opinion that injury is certainly pending when Cleary states in his letter that, "The decision allows USAPA to freely bargain for the terms of its seniority integration."

All of which could lead to a reversal of the majority opinion and upholding of the decision of the District court, when the Plaintiffs petition the 9th Circuit to hear the case en banc. Then when the Full 9th Circuit rules we may find out that Cleary couldn' have been more wrong when he said, "with the Company's recent demonstration of renewed motivation and cooperation, coupled with a resolution of this case, many of the significant impediments we faced in gaining a contract have been removed."

The Addington case is not resolved nor will it be any time soon. Therefore, it appears that the impediments to a contract have not been removed and Cleary just supported Judge Bybee' opinion, which will obviously be noted by the Full Ninth Circuit Court, and again, could cause a reversal of the majority opinion and upholding of the decision of the District Court. I'm sure Marty Harper has already taken note of this, and if I was a USAPA supporter, I could not be more upset with Cleary' actions.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

"It appears to me........"

LOL! You can stop right there........We're all well aware here on the East of your track record when it comes to your insights, analysis and predictions. PLEASE find something else to do with your time!

As for the rest of your post (or shall I say, waste of bandwidth),........GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

Addington case not resolved??? What Addington case?.......the one that just got DISMISSED?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

You are missing what I am saying.

As of right now Judge Wake doesn't have the jurisdiction to sign a dismissal. The jurisdiction is still with the Ninth Circuit until it rules on any request for an en banc hearing as long as one is timely filed by the Addington plaintiffs. If the Ninth Circuit denies an en banc request there would still be time then allowed for a writ of certiorari to be filed and decided by the SCOTUS.

As for Oldie's thoughts on whether or not the Ninth will grant an en banc review, I place the odds that they will at over 50%. If the decision had been unanimously then I would have cut those odds to under 25%.

Just for a ripeness case that clearly wasn't ripe? Good luck! They won't waste any more time on this. Wake wasted enough already.

If it was for something other than ripeness, maybe. Under these circumstances, ain't gonna happen. I do expect Harper to take another pull or two at the teat before he calls it a day. It's what lawyers do.

 

[Phoenix]

You are missing what I am saying.

As of right now Judge Wake doesn't have the jurisdiction to sign a dismissal. The jurisdiction is still with the Ninth Circuit until it rules on any request for an en banc hearing as long as one is timely filed by the Addington plaintiffs. If the Ninth Circuit denies an en banc request there would still be time then allowed for a writ of certiorari to be filed and decided by the SCOTUS.

As for Oldie's thoughts on whether or not the Ninth will grant an en banc review, I place the odds that they will at over 50%. If the decision had been unanimously then I would have cut those odds to under 25%.

Yeah, you are right, USAPA is living in absolute fear that Wake is going to enforce his injunction, and that Elena Kagan Will soon be throwing them in the slammer for thought crimes against Nic.

 

[nic4us]

Wow did this thread light up.

I think I will wait another day or so for the usual suspects to quit slapping each others backs to point out all the wholes in their improper assumptions of what this ruling means. Cleary certainly does not understand what just happened, otherwise he may not have just stated the unions intent to violate the still in force injunction against the fake union.

But for now I will concede, you have temporarily dodged the damages trial in the short term, and will not have to pay the AOL attorney fees. Actually quite the victory for your side, congratulations, don't spend it just yet.

(By the way, did someone actually post account numbers and phone numbers on an invoice? Where did you get that? and how do you know it is not just the invoice they had ready for usapa to pay? kind of the full y fare vs the buddy pass invoice.)

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Wow did this thread light up...

...(By the way, did someone actually post account numbers and phone numbers on an invoice? Where did you get that? and how do you know it is not just the invoice they had ready for usapa to pay? kind of the full y fare vs the buddy pass invoice.)

Are you implying that Mr. Harper's law firm would perjure themselves by submitting an invoice in the damages trial which is inflated? WOW. Mr. Harper himself may want a word with you on that one.

 

[Phoenix]

....

(By the way, did someone actually post account numbers and phone numbers on an invoice? Where did you get that? and how do you know it is not just the invoice they had ready for usapa to pay? kind of the full y fare vs the buddy pass invoice.)

You are saying "They were padding the damages"?

 

[cleardirect]

Now that you all have done your end zone dance I have a question. Seham brought 5 issues to the court of appeals of why USAPA was wronged.

What happened to the other four issues? The court did not address them at all. It is not like the court found one reason and stopped. No Seham was wrong on 4 out of 5 arguments. Not a very good record.

Now as for ripeness. The first Addington case might be over. But no where in there did the court say that usapa did nothing wrong. All it said was that it was brought to soon. This was a test run. Since by definition arbitration is considered fair. Anything other than the Nicolau could be considered unfair. Anything other than the Nicolau usapa will have to explain to a court why it is fair.

You all need to be careful here and read what this opinion says.

By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members — both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.

For those that don’t know. The ninth circuit said that what you proposed in court, the DOH with your lovely C&R would be unquestionably found to be a DFR case. DOH without this weak C&R would be even further over the line.

Now anyone here still think that usapa is going to at any time turn over a DOH list to the company?

 

[nic4us]

I guess "line crossing" is part of the AWA culture. There is a certain "stigma" attached to those that do, and it follows throughout your career and life. I still see lists of Eastern line crossers from time-to-time. Really something to be proud of.

This, however, cannot wait a day for a response.

It is with great dismay that I must point out, after all your self proclaimed false rehtoric about the east not having such amongst their ranks, that 2600 and some odd east pilots did not have the intestinal fortitude or integrity to live by their convictions and obligations, and "crossed the line".

 

[Phoenix]

This, however, cannot wait a day for a response.

It is with great dismay that I must point out, after all your self proclaimed false rehtoric about the east not having such amongst their ranks, that 2600 and some odd east pilots did not have the intestinal fortitude or integrity to live by their convictions and obligations, and "crossed the line".

Yeah, Wake drew a line in the sand.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Now that you all have done your end zone dance I have a question. Seham brought 5 issues to the court of appeals of why USAPA was wronged.

What happened to the other four issues? The court did not address them at all. It is not like the court found one reason and stopped. No Seham was wrong on 4 out of 5 arguments. Not a very good record.

Now as for ripeness. The first Addington case might be over. But no where in there did the court say that usapa did nothing wrong. All it said was that it was brought to soon. This was a test run. Since by definition arbitration is considered fair. Anything other than the Nicolau could be considered unfair. Anything other than the Nicolau usapa will have to explain to a court why it is fair.

You all need to be careful here and read what this opinion says.

By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members — both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.

For those that don’t know. The ninth circuit said that what you proposed in court, the DOH with your lovely C&R would be unquestionably found to be a DFR case. DOH without this weak C&R would be even further over the line.

Now anyone here still think that usapa is going to at any time turn over a DOH list to the company?

actually, they already have turned over the new list I believe.

I think some public schools west of the mississippi need to teach better reading comprehension. The 9th ruled on ripeness ONLY. They did respond to the dissenting opinion concerning reasons for and against DFR actions, but a new trial will be required once the case becomes ripe. They even discussed the doctrine of "a wide range of reasonableness" as the latitude given unions to negotiate.

All it took was an unbiased court that understands labor law.