Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
Hate but burst your bubble, (since this is your only hope at winning) but it will NEVER happen. This thing is 3 weeks from over. Nic. Sticks.
US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 4/21-4/28
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Hate but burst your bubble, (since this is your only hope at winning) but it will NEVER happen. This thing is 3 weeks from over. Nic. Sticks.
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #137
As you can see. The number of cases that even make into court are very small. In 2006, 336 total cases cases out of all the cases in AZ made it to appeal. Of all the cases filed only 18 finished trial. That is total criminal and civil.
Time to being heard 11.8 months. Time to trial in a civil case. 32 months.
This does not include the cost.
So now you must ask yourself. What are the chances of this cases even making it to appeal? What are the chances of it making it to trial. What are the chances of usapa winning an appeal after almost three years? What are the chances that usapa can survive that long without a contract? What are the chances that anyone is willing to allow usapa to delay this for three years?
Time to being heard 11.8 months. Time to trial in a civil case. 32 months.
This does not include the cost.
So now you must ask yourself. What are the chances of this cases even making it to appeal? What are the chances of it making it to trial. What are the chances of usapa winning an appeal after almost three years? What are the chances that usapa can survive that long without a contract? What are the chances that anyone is willing to allow usapa to delay this for three years?
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #138
Oh good a history review. This has what to do with the current situation that we find ourselves in?
Blah, Blah, blah more babble from a group with no credibility. The trial is four days away, I consider that more timely and important then past propaganda.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
That quote I posted was recent history, about 6 months ago , provided by your america west pilot peers.
They have made many attempts at offering their opinions. Your inability to listen or negotiate caused the furloughs of 175 plus america west pilots and their resulting families being collateral damage.
When you accuse a group of no credibility, it requires at least general specifics.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
That U turn "group" is comprised of ONE conspiracy theory loving nut job with an email address. To say U-turn has no credibility is the understatement of the month.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
You have been proved wrong by the theorist, many times.
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
Not germane?
toganoflex
Veteran
- Apr 27, 2008
- 557
- 381
Damn, I wanted to take that one!
usfurloughed
Member
- Mar 2, 2008
- 37
- 10
After reading these posts the last year or so, I think I'll apply all i've read to one conclusion. One that is possibly more of a guarantee than anything I've read...............
" I Want Revenge " will win the Kentucky Derby next saturday......
" I Want Revenge " will win the Kentucky Derby next saturday......
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
As I'm sure you're aware the bifurcation means if the West prevails in this trial another trial will be conducted to determine damages. Damages. Damages. Damages. (Repetition just in case your eye wanders.) Are you SURE the worst Judge Wake can do is tell you to use the Nicolau list? My guess for possible damage is $1 million/day from USAPA to the Class of West pilots until you decide on your own to codify the Nic list. Judge Wake put this trial on the fast-track because he recognized the West was suffering under USAPA. I'm glad you're so confident about the worst he can do to you.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Aloha!
After 12-days cruising to and around Hawaii I am back and, just to prove I have no life
, I have read this and the prior two threads to catch up.
There had been a question back a thread or two about appeals and it also has been discussed in this thread. Here is a link to a quick primer. For the Court of Appeals, or even the Supreme Court, to review factual findings the burden that the appellate must surmount is that the finding(s) is/were "clearly erroneous." That is a huge hurdle to overcome just to have the court consider factual errors. What that leaves is procedural error. This is what an appeals court would be primarilly looking at in a civil appeal. That is why the pre-trial paperwork is flying everywhere. Each side is looking for potential errors on which to base an appeal.
I am frankly wondering what all the bruhaha is with getting Bradford and officers and or principals of USAPA, both past and current, to appear at trial. It makes me wonder why USAPA is trying to apparently keep them from trial when they clearly have personal knowledge of what did and did not occur during the formation and subsequent management of USAPA.
700 and Piney have also weighed in on the issue of attorneys working either one or both sides of a given area of law, in this case labor law. My experience was mostly in firms that represented plaintiffs/petitioners. However we also occasionally did some private defense work for businesses that were not being covered under insurance policies and therefore had insurance company selected law firms representing the insured person or business. Frankly I agree with Piney that having actual knowledge of both sides of the case is useful to clients. In our case, when we were defending a claim, we were very aware of what the plaintiffs were doing and why. Not so much the actual legal work, but more the psychology of what was really going on. While it is nice to have a firm that appears loyal to one side of the argument in the end what any client wants is to win.
Another poster posted the following:
In all fairness that is a question that I asked on these boards a long time ago when East ALPA members were blaming ALPA and/or their MEC for what happened with the Nicolau decision. I have read on these forums that it appears that the East MEC/LEC members (who gave instructions to the Negotiating Committee and later the arbitration lawyer) were reacting to pressure from their members in seeking no acceptable alternative other than DOH for the merger list. I don't know if this is right or wrong, but I suspect that it is a bit of both, pressure from the members and re-election material for if a DOH-based list had been arrived at either through negotiation or arbitration.
I still contend that USAPA's attorneys, with the possible exception of Mr. Brengle, have, either by design or ineptitude, thoroughly been aggravating Judge Wake. Maybe they are trying to get an emotional reaction from him as a grounds for appeal, but I think if that is the case it is a bad plan.
The potential Sully issue intrigues me. He has been listed as a witness and therefore will be excluded from the courtroom except for when he is actively testifying and/or released from witness obligations. If he were to released from witness obligations would his presence in court potentially affect the jurors? Judge Wake could potentially deal with the issue by not making his anticipated "history" testimony moot and then assessing whether or not his non-witness presence in the courtroom would be a distraction to the jury. Frankly I think Seham has made a tactical mistake by naming Sully as a potential witness because as such he is allowed to be excluded from the courtroom. Had he not been listed it would have been far more difficult to exclude him from the courtroom.
As I have said before I think the merits of the case, as I currently understand them, favor the plaintiffs. However experience tells me that whenever you put any decision in the hands of a third-party you never know what you are going to get as a result.
After 12-days cruising to and around Hawaii I am back and, just to prove I have no life
, I have read this and the prior two threads to catch up.There had been a question back a thread or two about appeals and it also has been discussed in this thread. Here is a link to a quick primer. For the Court of Appeals, or even the Supreme Court, to review factual findings the burden that the appellate must surmount is that the finding(s) is/were "clearly erroneous." That is a huge hurdle to overcome just to have the court consider factual errors. What that leaves is procedural error. This is what an appeals court would be primarilly looking at in a civil appeal. That is why the pre-trial paperwork is flying everywhere. Each side is looking for potential errors on which to base an appeal.
I am frankly wondering what all the bruhaha is with getting Bradford and officers and or principals of USAPA, both past and current, to appear at trial. It makes me wonder why USAPA is trying to apparently keep them from trial when they clearly have personal knowledge of what did and did not occur during the formation and subsequent management of USAPA.
700 and Piney have also weighed in on the issue of attorneys working either one or both sides of a given area of law, in this case labor law. My experience was mostly in firms that represented plaintiffs/petitioners. However we also occasionally did some private defense work for businesses that were not being covered under insurance policies and therefore had insurance company selected law firms representing the insured person or business. Frankly I agree with Piney that having actual knowledge of both sides of the case is useful to clients. In our case, when we were defending a claim, we were very aware of what the plaintiffs were doing and why. Not so much the actual legal work, but more the psychology of what was really going on. While it is nice to have a firm that appears loyal to one side of the argument in the end what any client wants is to win.
Another poster posted the following:
In all fairness that is a question that I asked on these boards a long time ago when East ALPA members were blaming ALPA and/or their MEC for what happened with the Nicolau decision. I have read on these forums that it appears that the East MEC/LEC members (who gave instructions to the Negotiating Committee and later the arbitration lawyer) were reacting to pressure from their members in seeking no acceptable alternative other than DOH for the merger list. I don't know if this is right or wrong, but I suspect that it is a bit of both, pressure from the members and re-election material for if a DOH-based list had been arrived at either through negotiation or arbitration.
I still contend that USAPA's attorneys, with the possible exception of Mr. Brengle, have, either by design or ineptitude, thoroughly been aggravating Judge Wake. Maybe they are trying to get an emotional reaction from him as a grounds for appeal, but I think if that is the case it is a bad plan.
The potential Sully issue intrigues me. He has been listed as a witness and therefore will be excluded from the courtroom except for when he is actively testifying and/or released from witness obligations. If he were to released from witness obligations would his presence in court potentially affect the jurors? Judge Wake could potentially deal with the issue by not making his anticipated "history" testimony moot and then assessing whether or not his non-witness presence in the courtroom would be a distraction to the jury. Frankly I think Seham has made a tactical mistake by naming Sully as a potential witness because as such he is allowed to be excluded from the courtroom. Had he not been listed it would have been far more difficult to exclude him from the courtroom.
As I have said before I think the merits of the case, as I currently understand them, favor the plaintiffs. However experience tells me that whenever you put any decision in the hands of a third-party you never know what you are going to get as a result.
Waketurbulence
Advanced
It's because they would be the BEST witness's for the PLAINTIFF! How do you defend the un-defenable?
The video's tell the story, the campaign material tell the story, and under oath they would have to tell the story of WHY usapa was really born. The fact is the only purpose of usapa is to avoid the Final and Binding arbitration result.
If usapa feels this case has no merit, and they feel everything they have done is in the best interest of ALL USAirways pilots, then why wouldn't the people that founded it and were the officers until a week ago want to defend it?
They are scared! And they should be.
exB717Flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,106
- 599
article:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles...pilots0426.html
US Airways pilots' seniority fight in court
US Airways merger led to 2 years of infighting
by Dawn Gilbertson - Apr. 26, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
When a group of America West pilots decided to take on their counterparts at merger partner US Airways over seniority in 2007, they named themselves the Army of Leonidas.
The name choice underscored the battle they saw ahead and the sanctity of seniority in the cockpit: Leonidas was a Greek war hero who died helping his underdog troops hold off the advancing Persians in ancient Greece.
This week, after two years of head-spinning union politics, legal wrangling and almost-daily rhetoric, the feuding pilots of the "new" US Airways will face off on the ultimate battlefield: federal court.
The airline's 5,000 pilots hope it decides the sticky issue of seniority - key to a pilot's schedule, promotions, pay and job security - once and for all.
EDITED BY MODERATOR--POSTING OF ENTIRE ARTICLES FROM OTHER SOURCES IS PROHIBITED...USE THE LINK ABOVE IF YOU WANT TO READ THE STORY.
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles...pilots0426.html
US Airways pilots' seniority fight in court
US Airways merger led to 2 years of infighting
by Dawn Gilbertson - Apr. 26, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
When a group of America West pilots decided to take on their counterparts at merger partner US Airways over seniority in 2007, they named themselves the Army of Leonidas.
The name choice underscored the battle they saw ahead and the sanctity of seniority in the cockpit: Leonidas was a Greek war hero who died helping his underdog troops hold off the advancing Persians in ancient Greece.
This week, after two years of head-spinning union politics, legal wrangling and almost-daily rhetoric, the feuding pilots of the "new" US Airways will face off on the ultimate battlefield: federal court.
The airline's 5,000 pilots hope it decides the sticky issue of seniority - key to a pilot's schedule, promotions, pay and job security - once and for all.
EDITED BY MODERATOR--POSTING OF ENTIRE ARTICLES FROM OTHER SOURCES IS PROHIBITED...USE THE LINK ABOVE IF YOU WANT TO READ THE STORY.
- Status
Similar threads
