cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #181
Really! When are you guy going to learn, we actually read the documents not just listen to crew room rumor. Where is the damage? How is this ripe?Clear, This statement above shows us what little knowledge of the MDA case you have. Good luck!
Hate
Thanks USAPA/Seham for bringing up the ripeness issue. That is ironic.
Document 73 from the MDA case. Are we done here? Perhaps you should understand before you speak.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING ALLEGED DAMAGES
Plaintiffs have also failed to produce documents in support of their claim that they have
been harmed by the arbitration award. (To the best of defendants’ knowledge, the Award has not
yet been implemented, so none of plaintiffs’ claims are yet ripe.) Specifically, defendants
requested documents related to plaintiffs’ claim that there is or has been a “practical effect†to
the arbitration award, see Exh. A (Request No. 10), and that their “career expectations are [or
have been] significantly thwarted,†see id. (Request No. 8); see also id. (Request No. 3) (request
for documents related to allegation of Supplemental Complaint that there has been a “pragmatic
affect [sic] of the seniority integrationâ€); (Request No. 18) (request for documents regarding
allegation that ALPA’s alleged contention that MDA was a separate carrier from US Airways
harmed MDA pilots); (Request No. 19) (request for documents regarding allegation that listing
MDA pilots as furloughed on the allegedly erroneous seniority list harmed MDA pilots). In
response, plaintiffs state, in part, that “t is beyond cavil†that the award had a practical effect.
See Exh. A (Response to Request No. 8). But if ALPA is correct that the Award has not been
implemented, then the opposite is actually true; it is “beyond cavil†that there are no damages at
all presently flowing from the Award because it has not yet been implemented. So plaintiffs
should be required to support any claims of harm by producing relevant documents.