USAPA Comments on ALPA's Loss to the TWA Pilots

[toganoflex]

No. They like to point out ANY negative regarding ALPA.

Yet I hear nothing on this.

And, BTW, I'm ecstatic ALPA lost.

They deserved this loss after what they did to both the TWA and AWA pilots.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Are the moderators on vacation? It sure seems like the insane are running the asylum to me 🙄

You're obviously not paying attention. The moderators have been on permanent "vacation" since November, 2010, when the owners of this forum decided on a complete overhaul of their rules and operating philosophy.

That's why your complaint about only one pilot thread is falling on deaf ears.

Welcome to 2011, Rip.

 

[toganoflex]

What's the matter? Do you need the mods to stick up for you?

Give us a cry, will you. I need a good laugh.

 

[Al Legheny]

Sorry, my bad.

USAPA hasn't said a thing about ALPA's loss.

Not a peep.

Any eastie know why?

I haven’t the foggiest notion but there is an interesting parallel between the TWA case and the Addington litigation. USAPA contends that there was no showing of bad faith as defined by applicable case law. That case law from Humphrey v. Moore in the Supreme Court requires a showing of “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action of dishonest conduct.”

Google that phrase in quotes and you will see many hits all relating to the DFR context. I have seen the instructions to the jury in the TWA case, and those instructions did not contain that specific phrase. If I were an ALPA lawyer I would jump all over that. The standard of bad faith is clear and the jury should have been instructed that the included phrase from Humphrey v. Moore was they standard they were to hold ALPA to. It didn’t happen, at least in the jury instructions. The judge didn’t cover that.

So, it may be that ALPA will use this lack of definition of bad faith as the basis of an appeal. Interestingly enough if they succeed it vindicates USAPA on a merit basis. There was no finding in Addington of “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct.”

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

I'm not a pilot but I am intrigued by this discussion and thought I'd try to become a little more informed...
I'm not sure how accurate this blog posting is...but I thought the author had two salient remarks/observations regarding the court decision and history of the case:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2011/07/20/pilots-versus-pilots-years-of-waiting-in-twa-lawsuit/
Pilots versus Pilots – Years of Waiting in TWA Lawsuit

[1] "Nope, it is not a pretty picture this view of a union more obsessed with its own coffers than the survival of two thousand of its members - not a flattering look at APA either with its its take-it-or-leave-it intransigence."

[2] "But there is no reason for other airlines, with mergers in the wings, not to pay attention to what a jury has unanimously determined to be unfair and keep that firmly in mind when its time to integrate their own pilot groups."

 

[toganoflex]

I'm not a pilot but I am intrigued by this discussion and thought I'd try to become a little more informed...
I'm not sure how accurate this blog posting is...but I thought the author had two salient remarks/observations regarding the court decision and history of the case:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/flyinglessons/2011/07/20/pilots-versus-pilots-years-of-waiting-in-twa-lawsuit/
Pilots versus Pilots – Years of Waiting in TWA Lawsuit

[1] "Nope, it is not a pretty picture this view of a union more obsessed with its own coffers than the survival of two thousand of its members - not a flattering look at APA either with its its take-it-or-leave-it intransigence."

[2] "But there is no reason for other airlines, with mergers in the wings, not to pay attention to what a jury has unanimously determined to be unfair and keep that firmly in mind when its time to integrate their own pilot groups."

Spot on.

That's why USAPA doesn't like to bring it up.

 

[toganoflex]

I haven’t the foggiest notion but there is an interesting parallel between the TWA case and the Addington litigation. USAPA contends that there was no showing of bad faith as defined by applicable case law. That case law from Humphrey v. Moore in the Supreme Court requires a showing of “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action of dishonest conduct.”

Google that phrase in quotes and you will see many hits all relating to the DFR context. I have seen the instructions to the jury in the TWA case, and those instructions did not contain that specific phrase. If I were an ALPA lawyer I would jump all over that. The standard of bad faith is clear and the jury should have been instructed that the included phrase from Humphrey v. Moore was they standard they were to hold ALPA to. It didn’t happen, at least in the jury instructions. The judge didn’t cover that.

So, it may be that ALPA will use this lack of definition of bad faith as the basis of an appeal. Interestingly enough if they succeed it vindicates USAPA on a merit basis. There was no finding in Addington of “substantial evidence of fraud, deceitful action, or dishonest conduct.”

What's great about the case is that Seham completely contradicts himself. He says one thing for TWA, one thing for USAPA, and now with the SWA mechanics, he's once again on the opposite side of the same argument.

I guess DOH as the gold standard only applies on a client by client basis.

 

[SparrowHawk]

What's great about the case is that Seham completely contradicts himself. He says one thing for TWA, one thing for USAPA, and now with the SWA mechanics, he's once again on the opposite side of the same argument.

I guess DOH as the gold standard only applies on a client by client basis.

Lee Seham is paid to represent his client zealously! He's not paid to be consistent or even truthful, not the way lawyers work. Ergo, no contradiction.

Lawyers are required by their canon of ethics to be that way. They are hired guns, pure & simple. USAPA thinks they have good representation, I, OTOH remain unimpressed with Mr Seeham. Jerry Glass still totes the Big Iron.

 

[Reed Richards]

What's great about the case is that Seham completely contradicts himself. He says one thing for TWA, one thing for USAPA, and now with the SWA mechanics, he's once again on the opposite side of the same argument.

I guess DOH as the gold standard only applies on a client by client basis.

You will actually never know anything about Seham. Consults require payment. Your little General seemed to think legal services were free. "I guess" is the only correct thing you said.

But we have it easier because you are picking up a third of our tab.

RR

(hope your bender is over soon, you are wearing us all out.)

 

[toganoflex]

You will actually never know anything about Seham. Consults require payment. Your little General seemed to think legal services were free. "I guess" is the only correct thing you said.

But we have it easier because you are picking up a third of our tab.

RR

(hope your bender is over soon, you are wearing us all out.)

Dick, Dick, dick.

You glorious assshole.

Your idiocy is surpassed only by the stupidity of your screen name.

We've managed to shut your majority ass down for these past few years to the point where you can't even pass a list across the table.

And that third is the best investment I made. It's allowed USAPA to screw itself over and over and make our litigation that much easier.

Addington won on merits and still hangs over USAPs head.

Money continues to flow and our attorneys have committed to see this to the end.

We're in it to win it. Actually, we've already won.