US Pilots Labor Discussion

[Res Judicata]

Is is the company you wanted? Gerrold Glass makes his first appearance. Better make sure they follow past practice. I say it backfires on them, and they piss off the boys even more. What a place. They could pay a median wage, and probably get away with it. Instead, they risk the entire operation, and screw everybody. Just so they can jam a few more dollars in their pockets. Looks like some more paid vacations coming.

Sorry but I disagree. This isn't about pilots wanting more money. This is about not getting the DOH cram down as easily as USAPA wanted. Obviously there are more legal issues here than were originally exposed. Remember, this was supposed to be just as easy as negotiation a crew meal. Guess not. If USAPA cranks up the illegal job action the Company can go defcon 5 and open their own slaughterhouse. APA was hit with a penalty in the tens of millions for playing with fire. This is a stupid and unwinable strategy. Parker is clear. There WILL BE NO CONTRACT until seniority grinds through the court system.

You voted for USAPA, this is apparently what you wanted. Fine. Vote how you want. That's your right. I just don't want to keep hearing the pissing, whining, and moaning that you're not getting your way.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Sorry but I disagree. This isn't about pilots wanting more money. This is about not getting the DOH cram down as easily as USAPA wanted.

i.e., the jury reached the wrong result, let's form a lynch mob and extract street justice.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Another review of the legal standard just for you JJ.

Making crap up may work for your(pl) own justifications, but the rest of the world doesn't operate the way you (pl) do.

3. Typicality
“The question of typicality in Rule 23(a)(3) is closely related to the
preceding question of commonality.” Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d
1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992). The difference is that typicality considers
whether, in regard to material issues, “the interest of the named
representative aligns with the interests of the class.” Hannon v.
Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). Typicality does
not apply to all aspects of a plaintiff’s “interest.” Hence, it is not
necessary that all class members share the named plaintiffs’
enthusiasm for the litigation. See Abrams v. Communications Workers
of Am., 59 F.3d 1373, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (typicality is satisfied
regardless that it is not established that all class members favor the
litigation).
Like other West Pilots, the Addington Pilots were on the America
West seniority list in 2005 and 2008. (Doc. 34 at ¶¶ 3-8). Like other
West Pilots, they would be aggrieved if USAPA (in the future) were to
implement a Non-Nicolau CBA. Like other West Pilots, they have an
interest in preventing the implementation of a Non-Nicolau CBA. Like
all West Pilots, they have an interest in seeing USAPA consistently
adhere to its DFR. The Addington Pilots, therefore, are sufficiently
typical of the class they seek to represent.

What's (pl) mean??

 

[Black Swan]

Well, you realized all that RISK you were specifically warned about. ALPA itself did its' part to tell you, it would never come true. So they were correct. You have essentially islanded yourselves, with no chance of integration with the Nicolau. McIlvenna was clearly told what would happen by the ALPA cadre. It came true. Your ALPA leaders essentially handed off all leadership to Leonidas by not listening and removing ALPA from all properties involved. Nicolau means nothing now in this seniority battle. ALPA specifically told McIlvenna that risk. The 9th clearly said that. Harm is now the only constraint.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CiiQYqT72s

"usairways alpa and america west alpa, entered into an agreement " "RIGHT"
"USAPA, did not" "CORRECT"

 

[aquagreen73s]

What's (pl) mean??

You and your are both singular and plural pronouns.

 

[Black Swan]

Wow, a jury mistake WORSE than Addington! Casey Anthony.............

 

[end_of_alpa]

Another review of the legal standard just for you JJ.

Making crap up may work for your(pl) own justifications, but the rest of the world doesn't operate the way you (pl) do.

3. Typicality
“The question of typicality in Rule 23(a)(3) is closely related to the
preceding question of commonality.” Rosario v. Livaditis, 963 F.2d
1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 1992). The difference is that typicality considers
whether, in regard to material issues, “the interest of the named
representative aligns with the interests of the class.” Hannon v.
Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir. 1992). Typicality does
not apply to all aspects of a plaintiff’s “interest.” Hence, it is not
necessary that all class members share the named plaintiffs’
enthusiasm for the litigation. See Abrams v. Communications Workers
of Am., 59 F.3d 1373, 1378 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (typicality is satisfied
regardless that it is not established that all class members favor the
litigation).
Like other West Pilots, the Addington Pilots were on the America
West seniority list in 2005 and 2008. (Doc. 34 at ¶¶ 3-8). Like other
West Pilots, they would be aggrieved if USAPA (in the future) were to
implement a Non-Nicolau CBA. Like other West Pilots, they have an
interest in preventing the implementation of a Non-Nicolau CBA. Like
all West Pilots, they have an interest in seeing USAPA consistently
adhere to its DFR. The Addington Pilots, therefore, are sufficiently
typical of the class they seek to represent.

Typicality in this case is not whether they "favor" the lawsuit either. Maybe they, or a large percentage of them, may PREFER to see what a CBA looks like first BEFORE you can present the lawsuit. Maybe they would be willing to forgo action now to see what happens with negotiations. That is what the ninth in Addington said and that is what the ninth will say here....."the court is NOT an ex-officio" member of the union. Argue class all you want, we're going back into the same muck as before and I can only hope that Seham will file an interloccutory at the appropriate time.


Hey, one thing I DO KNOW, we're going to appeals court, one way or the other......the East is moving on and to the other side, maybe we'll see you there, probably not. Tell Eric and Marty "goodbye from us".

Good Luck.

 

[Black Swan]

You and your are both singular and plural pronouns.

What about the video Aqua?

 

[aquagreen73s]

What did you think guys? "usairways a alpa and america west alpa, entered into an agreement " "RIGHT"
"USAPA, did not" "CORRECT"

If there were no legal distinction between Nicolau and non-Nicolau, then:

USAPA would have prevailed on:
(1) Motion to dismiss Addington
(2)Summary judgment in Addington
(3) Motion to vacate notwithstanding the verdict
(4) The 9th Circuit would have vacated and dismissed with prejudice that as a matter of law, the new union can do whatever it wants with regards to seniority and not be in violation of its DFR.

None of that happened.

Further, if there was no legal distinction between Nicolau and non-Nicolau, then the company:
(1) would have lost on USAPA's motion to dismiss
(2) lost on USAPA's motion to drop the West.

Again, none of that happened.

So, either Bradford and Seham are correct and FIVE FEDERAL JUDGES ARE WRONG, or the reverse is true. Judging from the above, I'd say it's Bradford and Seham who are all wet.

 

[end_of_alpa]

Sorry but I disagree. This isn't about pilots wanting more money. This is about not getting the DOH cram down as easily as USAPA wanted. Obviously there are more legal issues here than were originally exposed. Remember, this was supposed to be just as easy as negotiation a crew meal. Guess not. If USAPA cranks up the illegal job action the Company can go defcon 5 and open their own slaughterhouse. APA was hit with a penalty in the tens of millions for playing with fire. This is a stupid and unwinable strategy. Parker is clear. There WILL BE NO CONTRACT until seniority grinds through the court system.

You voted for USAPA, this is apparently what you wanted. Fine. Vote how you want. That's your right. I just don't want to keep hearing the pissing, whining, and moaning that you're not getting your way.

So, you'll be the first to testify that the East pilots are engagaed in an illegal job action. Looking forward to that.

Here is what I believe a possible result of all this lawsuit stuff comes about:

There is such animosity and vile between the two pilot groups and the company that the FAA gets involved and puts our operating certificate in trust, or something to that effect. They don't want to see US Airways fail, at least not because of this stuff so I see them intervening and attempting to solve the issue through the powers of congressional/statutory intervention powers. Just my 2, so we'll see.


Good luck.

 

[Black Swan]

i.e., the jury reached the wrong result, let's form a lynch mob and extract street justice.

Exactly, Casey Anthony meets Judge Wake. Maybe they should do lunch.................

 

[aquagreen73s]

Exactly, Casey Anthony meets Judge Wake. Maybe they should do lunch.................

Such a twisted ideal that you embrace; one that springs from the darkest crevices of American history.

 

[Black Swan]

If there were no legal distinction between Nicolau and non-Nicolau, then:

USAPA would have prevailed on:
(1) Motion to dismiss Addington
(2)Summary judgment in Addington
(3) Motion to vacate notwithstanding the verdict
(4) The 9th Circuit would have vacated and dismissed with prejudice that as a matter of law, the new union can do whatever it wants with regards to seniority and not be in violation of its DFR.

None of that happened.

Further, if there was no legal distinction between Nicolau and non-Nicolau, then the company:
(1) would have lost on USAPA's motion to dismiss
(2) lost on USAPA's motion to drop the West.

Again, none of that happened.

So, either Bradford and Seham are correct and FIVE FEDERAL JUDGES ARE WRONG, or the reverse is true. Judging from the above, I'd say it's Bradford and Seham who are all wet.

Name the five judges please.

 

[Black Swan]

Such a twisted ideal that you embrace; one that springs from the darkest crevices of American history.

Maybe you guys can get Casey Anthony to donate, or at least help pick the jury next time.

 

[end_of_alpa]

If there were no legal distinction between Nicolau and non-Nicolau, then:

USAPA would have prevailed on:
(1) Motion to dismiss Addington
(2)Summary judgment in Addington
(3) Motion to vacate notwithstanding the verdict
(4) The 9th Circuit would have vacated and dismissed with prejudice that as a matter of law, the new union can do whatever it wants with regards to seniority and not be in violation of its DFR.

None of that happened.

Further, if there was no legal distinction between Nicolau and non-Nicolau, then the company:
(1) would have lost on USAPA's motion to dismiss
(2) lost on USAPA's motion to drop the West.

Again, none of that happened.

So, either Bradford and Seham are correct and FIVE FEDERAL JUDGES ARE WRONG, or the reverse is true. Judging from the above, I'd say it's Bradford and Seham who are all wet.

Wrong. One through three we DID! JUDICIAL NULLIDITY!

On Four, the Ninth explained it, your just not smart enough to grasp it so here it is:

Procedural due process of law must be met first BEFORE substative due process can attach....for those of you in Rio Linda that means that its ripeness FIRST then the Merits. They actually admonished the dissent on this very point, but you obviously didn't get the memo.

Remember, procedural BEFORE the merits. Oh, Wake, DISMISSED, Bybee, Dissent, Tashima and Graber, LEGAL OPINION (you know, the one's who matter) who's the other, Silver? The "jury's" still out on that. Are THOSE the FIVE judges you refer to?

Bradford's out of this. And Bradford wasn't footing the legal opinions....I was. Don't believe me, I have a hard drive full of Westlaw/legal treatises/opinions, etc. I'm not trying to diminish what Steve did but he did the job before USAPA was certified but after it is difficult to grasp Roberts rules and the political minuitie, no offence. It takes a thick skin to do the President's job. That's why Cleary's so good.