US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 4/21-4/28

[nic4us]

How about if they are asked if they feel their vote for USAPA was due to the years of ineptitude by ALPA, not a knee jerk reaction. Maybe they may be asked about their encounters with the west, including jump seat requests.

You can not represent those who do not want to be represented.

How about we ask them if they have ever signed a contract or been part of an arbitration, and what their opinion is on not fulfilling an obligation.

Fortunately for the West you are correct. You cannot represent those who do not want to be represented with an intentionally disciminitory practice designed to harm a minority group.

 

[cleardirect]

How about if they are asked if they feel their vote for USAPA was due to the years of ineptitude by ALPA, not a knee jerk reaction. Maybe they may be asked about their encounters with the west, including jump seat requests.

You can not represent those who do not want to be represented.

There has been no reorder of any list as of yet. The transition agreement calls for separate operations, including separate furloughing. Has the west been cooperative in negotiations concerning all pilots? Did the attempted sabotage of USAPA,s daily chores, cause a delay in representing pilots? This delay was not caused by only a few west pilots, there were many.

This will all be eventually decided by legal means. Regardless of the result there will be appeals.

Those who are selling their crops in April before the fall harvest, will be disappointed.

I therefore render the discussions on this board moot due to Paradigm Paralysis by both sides.

ALPA is not part of this trial. Irrelevant. Not allowed,
All of those issues are irrelevant. They will not see the inside of the court room.

Motion in limine. Denied. “Bad acts†by west pilots have no bearing on this case.

6. Evidence & Argument that West Pilot “Bad Acts†Excuse USAPA’s Unfair Representation

This motion is granted. USAPA concedes that this evidence is not relevant to its duty of fair representation, but still argues that it is relevant to USAPA’s ability to discharge that duty. This argument is rejected. Evidence that a small group of West Pilots engaged in “bad acts†is inflammatory, confusing, and of little if any probative value. It is therefore excluded under Rule 403. Consistent with this ruling, if Plaintiffs offer admissible evidence that West Pilots were excluded from union decisionmaking, USAPA may offer evidence to show that West Pilots rejected USAPA’s invitations to participate.

Got a debreifing of how the pre trial went today.

Plaintiffs
USAPA :unsure:

Not once or twice. No less then 5 times did the judge say.†We are not going to relitigate the Nicolau award.â€

The judge gave usapa 30 hours of trial time. Seham can use it any way he wants. But rehashing the Nicolau will not be allowed or blaming ALPA. Any ideas for a defense now?

 

[nostradamus]

""QUOTE (nostradamus @ Apr 22 2009, 12:17 AM) *
How about if they are asked if they feel their vote for USAPA was due to the years of ineptitude by ALPA, not a knee jerk reaction. Maybe they may be asked about their encounters with the west, including jump seat requests.""


Cluebyfour quote:
""Not at all relevant to the DFR.""

The reason why USAPA was formed, is not relevant sir?

 

[nostradamus]

ALPA is not part of this trial. Irrelevant. Not allowed,
All of those issues are irrelevant. They will not see the inside of the court room.

Motion in limine. Denied. “Bad actsâ€￾ by west pilots have no bearing on this case.



Got a debreifing of how the pre trial went today.

Plaintiffs
USAPA :unsure:

Not once or twice. No less then 5 times did the judge say.â€￾ We are not going to relitigate the Nicolau award.â€￾

The judge gave usapa 30 hours of trial time. Seham can use it any way he wants. But rehashing the Nicolau will not be allowed or blaming ALPA. Any ideas for a defense now?

The bad acts by west pilots have a great bearing. The nic is not on trial, that would be your strong point, but it is not admissible.

You say alpa is not relevant, the nic is not relevant, the bad acts of the america west pilots are not relevent and the attorney Seeham is not relevant. Sulley and Skiles are not relevant.

Is the attorney and USAPA allowed to show up in court that day, or are you going to trial without them?

 

[toganoflex]

The bad acts by west pilots have a great bearing.

Actually, per Wake , they don't. Why don't you dl some of the rulings and read them.

From Wake:


6. Evidence & Argument that West Pilot “Bad Actsâ€￾ Excuse USAPA’s Unfair
Representation

USAPA concedes that this evidence is not relevant to its duty
of fair representation, but still argues that it is relevant to USAPA’s ability to discharge that
duty. This argument is rejected. Evidence that a small group of West Pilots engaged in “bad
actsâ€￾ is inflammatory, confusing, and of little if any probative value. It is therefore excluded
under Rule 403.

 

[Metroyet]

The reason why USAPA was formed, is not relevant sir?

What if Sully voted for ALPA? He was a big supporter you know. Also, he is under oath, and as we saw with Hemenway, perspective oddly changes when one is under oath. Whatever. Sully is totally Irrelevant anyway.

 

[Metroyet]

The bad acts by west pilots have a great bearing. The nic is not on trial, that would be your strong point, but it is not admissible.

You say alpa is not relevant, the nic is not relevant, the bad acts of the america west pilots are not relevent and the attorney Seeham is not relevant. Sulley and Skiles are not relevant.

Is the attorney and USAPA allowed to show up in court that day, or are you going to trial without them?

I think the light of Reality might be slowly illuminating on some Easties...

You have NO CASE...Never did. Welcome to the real world.

 

[nostradamus]

What is Sully voted for ALPA? He was a big supporter you know. Also, he is under oath, and as we saw with Hemenway, perspective oddly changes when one is under oath. Whatever. Sully is totally Irrelevant anyway.

What is relevant? How do you feel you were denied fair representation? Give one example please, just one for briefness sake.

 

[Megasnoop]

were not RIK? I take that to mean... we are not Reciprocating In Kind...correct?

Well all I can say is we have had some really lousy MEC chairmen, So I would not be surprised if it is true, but hey, we have also recalled or attempted recall of just about every one of them.

If you want his name, send me an email thru this medium. Ill reply. Our identities remain anonymous. Those I fly with try extremely hard to be cordial. Since merger announced, Ive never seen a former AWA pilot turned down. Always remember them being offered Envoy-class. I remember one asked to put his West lanyard in his pocket. I dont think that was unreasonable request. On one full flight back from Europe last year, we let the West FO rotate thru our Envoy-class crew rest seat as well. He was a friendly young guy. We talked frankly about NIC. Disagreement without a harsh word. Was he on his best behavior? No, I think he was on his normal behavior.

You recalled about every one of your former MEC Chairmen? We havent done that. Maybe our Reps just chose better. But what can I say? I quit ALPA over Beebes LOA93 giveaway.

As far as the other direction this weeks thread is going (plunging), why all the gottchas from either side? This is going to be decided eventually by an appeals court, not on this chat. After the trial is over, are we going into the "neener-neener-neener" mode? If we do, if we continue these attacks, I think we all know who wins. Hint: parker & co. Snoop

 

[Megasnoop]

I think the light of Reality might be slowly illuminating on some Easties...

You have NO CASE...Never did. Welcome to the real world.

No one back here ever doubted youd sue. But we dont need a case. We only need to stop yours, either in trial or on appeal. Statements like "Welcome to the real world" only serve to further divide.

Noster sums it up well, how can you claim unfair representation when you refuse to be represented and refuse to participate?

To the Togonoflex, you quote:

6. Evidence & Argument that West Pilot “Bad Actsâ€￾ Excuse USAPA’s Unfair
Representation

USAPA concedes that this evidence is not relevant to its duty
of fair representation, but still argues that it is relevant to USAPA’s ability to discharge that
duty. This argument is rejected. Evidence that a small group of West Pilots engaged in “bad
actsâ€￾ is inflammatory, confusing, and of little if any probative value. It is therefore excluded
under Rule 403

Any reason you cant quote the whole ruling:

Consistent with this ruling, if Plaintiffs offer admissible evidence that West Pilots were excluded from union decisionmaking, USAPA may offer evidence to show that West Pilots rejected USAPA’s invitations to participate.

Rhetorical question, not really expecting an answer. Snoop

 

[toganoflex]

This is going to be decided eventually by an appeals court...

Keep dreaming.

 

[toganoflex]

Rhetorical question, not really expecting an answer. Snoop

Not rhetorical, but irrelevant.

And there is that "if" word that makes what you posted even more irrelevant.

 

[Metroyet]

What is relevant? How do you feel you were denied fair representation? Give one example please, just one for briefness sake.

,

The only relevant issue to this proceeding is the answering of this question:, (according to Judge Wake, who will be instructing the Jury)

Did the East use their majority to oust ALPA in hopes to evade the implementation of the Nic. award? Because if they did, that would not be an action that benefits the aggregate group. Quite the opposite. remember the phrase "tyranny of the majority"? Turns out it's illegal.

To evade the Nic and staple 85% of the west IS NOT FAIR REPRESENTATION, NEITHER IS HIDING BEHIND SOME BOGUS "CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS".

Honestly, I gather you're a smart guy. You know in your heart of hearts that this isn't going to work. If you don't get it by now, nothing I can tell you is going to help.

 

[nostradamus]

,

The only relevant issue to this proceeding is the answering of this question:, (according to Judge Wake, who will be instructing the Jury)

Did the East use their majority to oust ALPA in hopes to evade the implementation of the Nic. award? Because if they did, that would not be an action that benefits the aggregate group. Quite the opposite. remember the phrase "tyranny of the majority"? Turns out it's illegal.

To evade the Nic and staple 85% of the west IS NOT FAIR REPRESENTATION, NEITHER IS HIDING BEHIND SOME BOGUS "CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS".

Honestly, I gather you're a smart guy. You know in your heart of hearts that this isn't going to work. If you don't get it by now, nothing I can tell you is going to help.

ALPA equals USAPA. No the East pilots removed alpa after their denial of our recall efforts and their receivership strategy.

Is the Nic evaded?

Show me the wounds from your staple marks, sir. There are none.

Are you a member of the union you are accusing of unfair representation sir and if not why? (provide your own shovel)

 

[Metroyet]

No one back here ever doubted youd sue. But we dont need a case.

In other words, you know full well what this DFR is about...and you knew from the beginning. If the only case you have is to block the nic, which is what you just said then, well, thanks. You'll make our attorney's jobs that much easier.

Sorry dude, Usapa is too far over the line. They crossed that line well before the election when they promised to keep "nic on the shelf" if you all would just vote for them. The injury was self inflicted well before any ALLEGED illegal activity was conducted. Grasp on to the little fantasy that you're side had every right to waltz into the homes of each AMW pilot and demand your tribute. Didn't work that way did it Caligula? Bullies never win. You'll learn that schoolyard lesson again here shortly.


BTW, that whole thing was tossed straight out of court with prejudice. Y'all forget that part.