US Pilots Labor Discussion

[767one]

Now here is another issue I believe we could ALL benefit our groups, East or West.....QUIT ATTENDING THE ROAD SHOWS!

F/A's. Pilots, G/S instructors and everyone else should just not attend or at least if they've invaded your classroom don't bother to ask questions, especially if your sure you know what the answer will be. Even if you don't it's probably not important enough to be answered by them at any rate.

Now that would send a message no matter WHICH side of the Mississippi you are on.

Maybe attend and when Dougie, or Scooter, or Robert Isom or whoever starts to talk take out the Wall Street Journal, or put on the headsets, or better yet turn your chairs around!


Regards,


Bob

 

[Black Swan]

U
Who would know? The dictatorship has a death grip on free communications. BTW, there has been plenty of progress. You now know with certainty what a neutral jury thinks of USAPA. The company sure as hell didn't miss that either. Oh well. LOA 93 is your choice. I'm happy for you.

Maybe a neutral jury, but an incredibly biased and controlling Judge Wake. The entire process falls apart when you remove Wake, and allow all the evidence in. No wonder he was losing all that sleep! He knew he had carried the favor way to far for his pals, and knew the 9th clerks were going to spank all over him. Which they did.

 

[Black Swan]

Maybe attend and when Dougie, or Scooter, or Robert Isom or whoever starts to talk take out the Wall Street Journal, or put on the headsets, or better yet turn your chairs around!


Regards,


Bob

Good idea. I loved the kids and the raincoat myself.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Maybe a neutral jury, but an incredibly biased and controlling Judge Wake. The entire process falls apart when you remove Wake, and allow all the evidence in. No wonder he was losing all that sleep! He knew he had carried the favor way to far for his pals, and knew the 9th clerks were going to spank all over him. Which they did.

You nailed it SWAN, look at the evidence sheet WAKE allowed in, better yet compare the JURY INSTRUCTIONS, in TWA and ADDINGTON, As WILDER SAID,(HE DID GREAT IN THE TWA CASE) "A HOBBY FOR THE JUDGE(WAKE)! MM!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

http://bapwild.com/blog/?p=454 EASY READING! MM!

 

[Res Judicata]

Maybe a neutral jury, but an incredibly biased and controlling Judge Wake. The entire process falls apart when you remove Wake, and allow all the evidence in. No wonder he was losing all that sleep! He knew he had carried the favor way to far for his pals, and knew the 9th clerks were going to spank all over him. Which they did.

So the Appellate Judge that descended is just as biased as Wake? I don't recall which one he was but it was crystal clear he knew what USAPA was up to and he flatly stated the west was, and would continue to be, harmed. The other two just said it wasn't ripe. I don't know why you guys get so much comfort and solace from the 9th when it is obvious you have no friends there either. Wake and the jury got it. It's not hard to understand intimidation and attempted theft. The next jury will get it too. Dfr is dfr.

 

[Black Swan]

Here it is, in a nutshell........


This decision is wrong, contradicts established law and is dangerous to the state of the law under the Railway Labor Act.

While the judge correctly concluded that USAPA is the successor to ALPA’s collective bargaining agreement, that in no way restricts USAPA from negotiating any and all terms of that agreement, including the Nicolau Award. The judge nowhere considers precedent, such as Association of Flight Attendants v. United Airlines and Association of Flight Attendants v. US Airways, which hold that a predecessor union’s collective bargaining agreement provides only the beginning point for a successor union’s negotiations and the successor is free to negotiate changes to the agreement. To do otherwise would perpetuate the rejected union as representative.

The court also wrongly held that USAPA is bound by the Nicolau Award as the product of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA Merger Policy is only an internal union procedure. It is not part of the collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (even if it was, USAPA could still negotiate changes to it.) USAPA cannot be bound to ALPA Merger Policy since it is not ALPA, and only ALPA’s subordinate bodies, the Master Executive Councils (which, admittedly, are not real labor organizations) are bound to follow the Merger Policy. The Merger Policy has no standing under the Railway Labor Act and since USAPA’s successor obligations only exist under the RLA, they cannot include ALPA Merger Policy.

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

So the Appellate Judge that descended is just as biased as Wake? I don't recall which one he was but it was crystal clear he knew what USAPA was up to and he flatly stated the west was, and would continue to be, harmed. The other two just said it wasn't ripe. I don't know why you guys get so much comfort and solace from the 9th when it is obvious you have no friends there either. Wake and the jury got it. It's not hard to understand intimidation and attempted theft. The next jury will get it too. Dfr is dfr.

Wilder the one from the TWA vs ALPA case! http://bapwild.com/blog/?p=454

 

[prechilill]

BS, how's the temperature this morning on Mars?

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

OH RES keep going to the Q & A's at the bottom of the page, see anybody you know? Now go write that check, they need your money! MM!

 

[nic4us]

I heard Leonidas launched their own satellite, damn the mailers! No pain a the CP office, Way to go! Look to the heavens to see it shine.........Tune it in and hear it say, counting down to damage day! This is for you Nic4!







http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i1B8Kq9G5E

Thanks for thinking of me Swan.

I do not know that I can say I remember that being released or not, seems familiar but that could be because it is fundamentally just another song based on the folk song "hush little baby".

While it replaces mockingbird with satellite, I think it was nothing more than a follow on to the success various artist had doing "mockingbird"......

If you are James Taylor and Carly Simon, you cover something and make it popular.

If you are lucky enough to have God give you a truely unique gift, it comes out sounding like this.

Mockingbird

edited by me to fix link

 

[end_of_alpa]

Maybe attend and when Dougie, or Scooter, or Robert Isom or whoever starts to talk take out the Wall Street Journal, or put on the headsets, or better yet turn your chairs around!


Regards,


Bob

Yeah! Like in the movie Mystery Alaska when the NY Rangers came on the ice and everyone else read the papers.

Now that's funny right thar!

Grow up, bob....

 

[cleardirect]

Maybe a neutral jury, but an incredibly biased and controlling Judge Wake. The entire process falls apart when you remove Wake, and allow all the evidence in. No wonder he was losing all that sleep! He knew he had carried the favor way to far for his pals, and knew the 9th clerks were going to spank all over him. Which they did.

You need to go back and read the transcripts in context. Once again your view is 180 degrees from reality. Judge Wake was not worried that he was not letting in enough evidence. He was losing sleep that he had let in too much evidence. This is the instructions to the jury right after the sidebar where he made that statement.

Where is your evidence of a biased judge? If so why did Seham not filed charges against Wake?

THE COURT: And therefore, I am -- I've lost sleep over the weekend and as the trial has progressed as to whether my limitations and my instructions are effective.

May 5, 2009 - Jury Trial - Day 6 - Testimony of Jack Stephan
1115

THE COURT: All right. And members of the jury, I want to remind you of an instruction that I've given you several times again. You are being allowed to hear evidence about the background of this dispute between these two pilot groups about the process by which it came about and about the nature of their conflicting interests. However, as I've said before, you will not be charged with deciding which seniority system is the preferable one, which is a good one or which is a bad one, and I have been concerned, and this is why counsel and I had a rather long discussion, about not leaving the jury confused about why you're hearing evidence, because you're not going to be charged with deciding which seniority system or list is preferable to others. You don't have to know all the things that one would want to know if you had that responsibility to make that decision. Now, the fact of the matter is that if a person were charged with making that decision you'd be hearing all the evidence you've heard and you'd hear a whole lot more that I've previously decided you will not be burdened with, and I have been concerned that you keep that focus. And to the extent that evidence is asked of witnesses about what they like or dislike, why they like it or dislike it, I've allowed evidence in of that character not because you get to agree with the witness about what they like or dislike but only for the limited purpose I've described to help you understand those things that I've described, including what the differing interests are at stake.

All right. Now, I have complete confidence in our juries and in this jury that you will understand and follow those instructions that I give. However, I have been concerned also that -- and this came -- this is not to criticize one side or the other at all. I have been concerned that perhaps I've been letting too much of this kind of evidence in, more than you need, so counsel and I have been talking about the idea of narrowing down this evidence that shows what the interests like or don't like or why or why not. It's okay to get it in but I'm charged with setting practical limits on the amount that you listen to, and I have so far done that in a way that favored letting evidence in and I'm going to continue to try my best to do that in an even-handed way that allows both sides to present that, but I have -- again, I've asked -- we've had a good discussion and I think counsel understand the concern I'm articulating.

And so we will proceed, and it might turn out as the evidence develops that I exclude some evidence of this character, and if I do you're not to take anytime that I exclude or permit evidence as suggesting in any way what I think of the case or what your verdict should be. It's just a matter of managing the evidence so that you are not exposed to unnecessarily repetitive evidence or evidence that goes beyond its useful value for the tasks that I have identified that you have.
All right. Now, with that, Mr. Brengle, please
continue.

 

[Black Swan]

You need to go back and read the transcripts in context. Once again your view is 180 degrees from reality. Judge Wake was not worried that he was not letting in enough evidence. He was losing sleep that he had let in too much evidence. This is the instructions to the jury right after the sidebar where he made that statement.

Where is your evidence of a biased judge? If so why did Seham not filed charges against Wake?

Exactly, he let in too much of the Addington information, and not enough of USAPA s . He was even struggling about actually attempting to impose Nicolau! Unbelievable. This judge had NO idea what he was in to. He had dug himself into a swamp with regard to the RLA and his interference was telling. Bill Wilder was right on Wake. Then the 9th crushed him.

 

[Black Swan]

BS, how's the temperature this morning on Mars?

Give me a second, I'll dial up the Leonidas Bird and we'll have a look..........