April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[FL430]

As I said...pay attention...we are discussing a court ordered 3 way, fully independent East/West MB process. It's most likely illegal for a variety of reasons. It's something Silver has asked for briefs on. I am in no way suggesting it will/should/can happen. It's just curious to me how much fervor the idea of a truly fair and neutral integration that concept has caused. The idea of being barred from dictating a thing to the West seems to have some of you in a panic. I'd suggest you start wrapping your mind around the fact that one way or another, USAPA is getting control of any of this stripped out of their hands.

Nobody is in a panic here, except maybe you. Have you tallied your recent post activity? And none of your predictions have been true so far; why should we believe you now?

 

[Claxon]

You just posted quotes from the transcripts. Find them yourself.

Oh that's right you don't know the truth so you can't distinguish from lies.

Post evidence, you accused an attorney of lying to the court, you lie in many of your posts, you can not back it up.

No more playing patty cake.

 

[FL430]

No. Certified West class, certified East class, neutral USAPA...I know it's impossible to fathom, but the law requires the union to be neutral...(who are Symanskis true clients again)
You want to make it sound impossibly complicated. It isn't. Just fair and neutral. That's where you're having a problem with the idea. Don't worry. It won't happen. I still stick with preliminary injunction. USAPA is incapable of fair representation. I think that's being made obvious.

Pi notice how he completely ignored your LUP comment? He has sure been crowing about it for the last few months - why has his focus turned elsewhere?

 

[Claxon]

Patty Cake again, with america west pilot manager.

"the airline's acknowledgement that
its management personnel aided in unauthorized distribution of the highly
confidential personal data of thousands of pilots."

http://www.bloomberg...id=artlVgXckpgY

 

[Metroyet]

Pi notice how he completely ignored your LUP comment? He has sure been crowing about it for the last few months - why has his focus turned elsewhere?

Sorry? Must have missed it. What's the LUP comment? How is the need for an LUP changed any? Where do you think my focus is?

 

[Phoenix]

I was not there, but now understand Pat's deer in the headlights response. The honorable Silver blew it, she did not even remember her previous rulngs. Yikes. But we all follow her demands. Will we all follow her rulings?

Greeter

Yeah, she simply did not previously order Marty's or Pat's clients to do jack with respect to each other... until the 14th But of course who is going to take the judge up on the challenge "DO I NEED TO READ MY ORDER TO YOU AGAIN?" It really doesn't matter because it is what she is ordering now... And we might notice she lit a fire under both sides and put them both on notice they have significant risk if they don't figure out a settlement... For USAPA she seemed to hint at finding them in DFR if they continue to fail to do what she said since her last order (I would point out her supposed order doesn't a DFR criteria make, but again who can risk that)... for AOL she chides them for being stiff legged and reminds them over and over that USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic and they have an LUP (stay on Nic or nothing and it will be ripe, dismissed).

Neither side can be certain how she will rule... and seeing how they were lectured for failing to do something that isn't even in the record, who will risk disobeying what is clearly in the record? SYIC .

 

[end_of_alpa]

Yeah, she simply did not previously order Marty's or Pat's clients to do jack with respect to each other... until the 14th But of course who is going to take the judge up on the challenge "DO I NEED TO READ MY ORDER TO YOU AGAIN?" It really doesn't matter because it is what she is ordering now... And we might notice she lit a fire under both sides and put them both on notice they have significant risk if they don't figure out a settlement... For USAPA she seemed to hint at finding them in DFR if they continue to fail to do what she said since her last order (I would point out her supposed order doesn't a DFR criteria make, but again who can risk that)... for AOL she chides them for being stiff legged and reminds them over and over that USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic and they have an LUP (stay on Nic or nothing and it will be ripe, dismissed).

Neither side can be certain how she will rule... and seeing how they were lectured for failing to do something that isn't even in the record, who will risk disobeying what is clearly in the record? SYIC .

Punishment for a judgment she already issued. Activist Judge or what!

 

[prechilill]

As I said...pay attention...we are discussing a court ordered 3 way, fully independent East/West MB process. It's most likely illegal for a variety of reasons. It's something Silver has asked for briefs on. I am in no way suggesting it will/should/can happen. It's just curious to me how much fervor the idea of a truly fair and neutral integration that concept has caused. The idea of being barred from dictating a thing to the West seems to have some of you in a panic. I'd suggest you start wrapping your mind around the fact that one way or another, USAPA is getting control of any of this stripped out of their hands.

Very well stated. It appears we have a recalcitrant side (no surprise) that wants unilateral control over a SLI that's already been arbitrated. It's not surprising PIB, EofA, 320Driver et al are so averse to having a neutral third party determine fairness. These guys just don't get it.

 

[prechilill]

I was not there, but now understand Pat's deer in the headlights response. The honorable Silver blew it, she did not even remember her previous rulngs. Yikes. But we all follow her demands. Will we all follow her rulings?

Greeter

Silver took a turn into The Twilight Zone.
Regardless, it's her court and her case (for now).

 

[prechilill]

Yeah, she simply did not previously order Marty's or Pat's clients to do jack with respect to each other... until the 14th But of course who is going to take the judge up on the challenge "DO I NEED TO READ MY ORDER TO YOU AGAIN?" It really doesn't matter because it is what she is ordering now... And we might notice she lit a fire under both sides and put them both on notice they have significant risk if they don't figure out a settlement... For USAPA she seemed to hint at finding them in DFR if they continue to fail to do what she said since her last order (I would point out her supposed order doesn't a DFR criteria make, but again who can risk that)... for AOL she chides them for being stiff legged and reminds them over and over that USAPA doesn't have to use the Nic and they have an LUP (stay on Nic or nothing and it will be ripe, dismissed).

Neither side can be certain how she will rule... and seeing how they were lectured for failing to do something that isn't even in the record, who will risk disobeying what is clearly in the record? SYIC .

Very good post.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Silver took a turn into The Twilight Zone.

It was nice of you to be there to greet her.

 

[prechilill]

It was nice of you to be there to greet her.

I wasn't at court on the 14th.
You have a hard time understanding things. Back to your stinky caccoon oldie...

 

[EastUS1]

Back to your stinky caccoon oldie...

So then; the 330 you so desperately covet is naught but a "stinky caccoon" now?

 

[EastUS1]

prechilill, on 20 May 2013 - 06:21 AM, said: Silver took a turn into The Twilight Zone.

It was nice of you to be there to greet her.

Perfect.

 

[Zone5]

If USAPA is under a court ordered injunction to use the unaltered nic award, you can raise the dues to 100%. Nothing will change. USAPA's MERGER COMMITTEE may have some standing but USAPA itself will be buried. The East will have to form their own group and start over. Will USAPA fund the new group out of the collective dues money? I know they'll try. What does that say about the neutrality of the union AKA Symanskis "clients". The Union is forbidden to choose sides. Bradford missed that part and after 5 years of blatant abuse it's impossible to hide.


Will be interesting to hear Siegles report to Silver next week. I wonder who complied to the spirit and intent of her order more completely.

The only thing Judge Silver "ordered" was for both sides to "attempt" to reach a compromise. She did not order one. " Would you like coffee with that newspaper Mr. Harper?" Due consideration of both initial proposals is underway and may or may not reach agreement prior to the next hearing, mission accomplished.

Judge Silver will not be "ordering" anything, anytime soon and "soon" she and the NIC will be rendered moot by the POR and "activation" of the MOU.


seajay