Federal Court Grants US Airways' Request For an Expedited Hearing On A Preliminary Injunction Agains
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Isn't that for a judge to decide? Not being a pilot I've wondered what impact the construction at CLT has had on operations? Maybe none?
I'm just not sure it's so simple to show cause and effect
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
Geez my Crystal ball is on the fritz. Was May 1st the day construction started?
I haven't plowed through the 100 plus pages of court documents so I have no earthly idea of the particulars. Also I prefer to wait for the Judge to rule.
Right now it looks like USAPA has it's pecker caught in a wringer, however courts are a bit of a fun house mirror and down can be up, fat can be skinny and I've read cases I thought were dead bang victories go the other way.
I gave up predicting judicial outcomes long ago. Friday isn't a lifetime away I can wait. Besides what I find far more interesting is what real impact will the ruling have on USAPA IF they prevail?
Move2CLT
Veteran
- Banned
- #110
Reading is good if you want to participate constructively in a discussion. You seem to throw out things with no real knowledge of the subject you speak. There was nothing that caused the deviation other than USAPAs action. A bit of common sense here would lend itself to directing ones attention to the other operators at the airport. West ops starting May 1 - no change. Express - no change. There were no environmental or external circumstances that caused the operation to deteriorate beginning on the first of the month. It doesn't take much effort to figure that out. You could have very easily briefed yourself via the charts and tables alone.
And USAPA won't prevail. When the judge wrote decision in the denial, it was plain to read that the injunction is going to happen. If you're truly interested in this stuff then you should have a look.
And USAPA won't prevail. When the judge wrote decision in the denial, it was plain to read that the injunction is going to happen. If you're truly interested in this stuff then you should have a look.
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
So you say! Are you the judge? NO, you're not, so have a seat and wait like everyone else. I have another bit of news for you as well. I'm in charge of how I spend my time, not you! If it interests me, I'll read 1,000 pages. I don't have to read a thing because from where I sit this isn't a unique or novel legal issue being decided, These types of proceedings happen regularly in courts across the land. Frankly it's not a heck of a lot different than going for an Order of Protection or other type of restraining order. World Hunger isn't being solved here.
Why would I slog through 100 plus pages of legal jargon when all I have to do is sit on my ass and wait for a decision? Makes no sense. The injunction likely will happen. I didn't read any of it other than what was posted here as there's no meat on the bones. This is a boring everyday legal maneuvering and posturing that goes along with it during a labor/management dispute.
Want to read something interesting, read about the Black Hills Case that went on for decades and the attorney who fought the government on behalf of the Sioux Nation, He fought his heart out and ended up losing on the basic legal principle of Red Judicata.
HOWEVER, what is of interest is what happens after the ruling, no matter which way it goes. Now that I'm anxious to see. Just curious but I haven't seen any obvious grounds for appeal should the company prevail.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
Actually, that is about the third or fourth such communication from USAPA. I'd go back and look, but I'm not THAT interested. I know for sure I've read at least two EMAILS that said USAPA did not support job actions and to knock them off.
Driver B)
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
I seem to recall 2 or 3 posted on the boards, but I could be wrong.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
My point is, this is not the first time. There is no smoking gun in that respect.
Driver B)
SparrowHawk
Veteran
- Nov 30, 2009
- 7,824
- 2,707
True, however some have stated that the "Knock it off boys" e-mails may not be enough to insulate USAPA from culpability. Guess we'll find out Friday. :unsure:
If the union wins it will be bad for Glass and gang they will not get a feather in there hat and hurt future client recruitments. If the company wins chalk one up for airline management shutting the door and showing the way for future safety campaigns “work to rule”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule
One has to remember why unions started and exist in the commercial airline business
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #117
Here is an interesting comment in US Airways' Opposition to USAPA's motion to dismiss filed after last Friday's hearing:
Indeed, almost immediately upon completion of the August 12 hearing, USAPA issued a bulletin to its membership inaccurately proclaiming “District Court Denies US Airways’ Request for Temporary Restraining Order.” Furthermore, in what can only be described as cues to encourage further slowdown activity, the bulletin further stated “we are confident that the court will allow us to continue to advocate for our safety initiative.” Similarly, Captain James Ray, a USAPA representative, told the Wall Street Journal that “[t]he Union does . . . support a change in the company’s safety culture” and Cleary told the Charlotte Observer that “[t]he pilot group has an obligation in the public interest to continue to operate aircraft as safely as possible.” (McGuinness Decl. Exhs. 9-11.) Absent a court order this behavior will not cease."
Judge Conrad made the following statement in his Order denying USAPA's motion to transfer and dismiss:
This conclusion is especially true in light of the fact that there is no evidence before this Court that US Airways has violated the status quo or failed to make every effort to resolve this dispute.
Indeed, almost immediately upon completion of the August 12 hearing, USAPA issued a bulletin to its membership inaccurately proclaiming “District Court Denies US Airways’ Request for Temporary Restraining Order.” Furthermore, in what can only be described as cues to encourage further slowdown activity, the bulletin further stated “we are confident that the court will allow us to continue to advocate for our safety initiative.” Similarly, Captain James Ray, a USAPA representative, told the Wall Street Journal that “[t]he Union does . . . support a change in the company’s safety culture” and Cleary told the Charlotte Observer that “[t]he pilot group has an obligation in the public interest to continue to operate aircraft as safely as possible.” (McGuinness Decl. Exhs. 9-11.) Absent a court order this behavior will not cease."
Judge Conrad made the following statement in his Order denying USAPA's motion to transfer and dismiss:
This conclusion is especially true in light of the fact that there is no evidence before this Court that US Airways has violated the status quo or failed to make every effort to resolve this dispute.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #120
Don't take too much from the judge's remark. USAPA sued the company in the NYC court so that's where any claims or evidence of company violations of the status quo would be, not in the CLT court. USAPA is the defendant in CLT so naturally is defending it's actions - saying "but they broke the law too" isn't much of a defense when you're being charged with breaking the law.
Jim
