US Pilots Labor Discussion 1/13- OBSERVE THE RULES OF THE BOARD!

[nic4us]

Wrong on all counts. It's just a proposal until it is included in a ratified contract. And oh, by the way, the company is still free to offer whatever they want. They are not at all bound by the court order. And the fact that the company accepted it as required by a court ruling which is soon to be overturned will void that whole concept.

By the way, filing a lawsuit, no matter how embarrassing it is to the defendants, does not constitute libel. If your lawyer told you that, then you really need a new one. And, better do it soon.

Wrong. The company did not accept it per court order. The company accepted the list prior to any courts involvement. They accepted it per contracual agreement, as spelled out in the TA, and our respective CBAs. Even if the 9th remands Wake's ruling, that does not change the contracts the company has with usapa, which state, seniority integration will be per ALPA merger policy, and support the validity of the most fair and equitable Nic.

I am not one of the Cactus 18. If I were, I would be well on my way to retirement, with a multi-million dollar collection from usapa, and the umbrella policies of its officers who slandered my name, if they were smart enough to insure themselves. If not I would settle for their personal assets.

 

[Flippin43]

Flip,

You guys out west have had all the answers. You told us that we wouldn't even get to the 9th! Well we did get to the 9th, and we will take it all the way to the Supremes if it comes to that. Time is on our side in the east.


B. Wilder thinks like we do back east and says your boy got it wrong! From the Baptiste & Wilder blog.

The court also wrongly held that USAPA is bound by the Nicolau Award as the product of ALPA Merger Policy. ALPA Merger Policy is only an internal union procedure. It is not part of the collective bargaining agreement with US Airways (even if it was, USAPA could still negotiate changes to it.) USAPA cannot be bound to ALPA Merger Policy since it is not ALPA, and only ALPA’s subordinate bodies, the Master Executive Councils (which, admittedly, are not real labor organizations) are bound to follow the Merger Policy. The Merger Policy has no standing under the Railway Labor Act and since USAPA’s successor obligations only exist under the RLA, they cannot include ALPA Merger Policy.

Good luck!

Hate

Mr. Hate,

You told us that we wouldn't even get to the 9th

You got to the 9th because you LOST, congratulations on that fine achievement!!


Your favorite blogger speaks only of Alpa merger policy. Had we settled this in negotiations under Alpa merger policy. I agree that usapa could revise the result. However the Nic was born from Arbitration between east and west. And that is who is bound by it, you and I. Alpa was not at the Arbitration, I went there, didn't see them anywhere. Just your pilots and our pilots and of course the theives (lawyers). The Arbitration was done outside the purview of the union (Alpa) which is why they could not touch the Award. There name wasn't on it.

Just because your Dad gave you the keys to the car and you wrecked it, doesn't mean its his fault, you did it on your own. Things didn't turn out the way you wanted them to..........look in the mirror.


Flip

 

[767intl]

Freund was not "let go". However, his services were not used in the DFR case, as the West hired a law firm with a different strategy of how to move forward.

Freund is still around, and you can see his name on current legal correspondence. He represents the AWAPPA board members in the RICO suit. But, he is not the one usapa has to worry about. The AWAPPA folks might be willing to settle.

Now, any of the individuals usapa has libeled in their malicious suit, thats whose lawyer with which usapa should have concern. Many multi-millions worth of concern.

Just to clear the air a bit, nic4us, Freund's job as AWA MEC merger attorney disappeared the day ALPA disappeared on property. He did walk out at Wye River after your side refused to budge. I can't blame you, though. ALPA was telling you (through some really faulty polling) that ALPA stood a good chance of remaining on property. Was that an ALPA set-up, or just an ALPA pollster who didn't have a clue what 35% refusal of East pilots to respond meant? Anyway, here we are. Yeah, he's representing three AWAPPA officers, but not those who were provoked by your leadership to engage in alleged illegal actions. Irony here, one of those Freund is representing is now a West asst chief pilot.

Wrong. It's called malicious prosecution. Add to that all the bombast that called the RICO defendants criminals, etc., and you have libel, slander, and perhaps even slander per se if the statements can be connected to the defendants' employment. We're talking about a totem pole of tortious liability that the actors in USAPA have created for themselves - personally.

First, only prosecutors engage in malicious prosecution. At worst, this is more like a slap suit. Seldom any damages there. At best a good faith effort to put a stop to the harassament. As far as who libeled who, don't expect a trial/award on that any time soon. The negotiations going on right now are intended to clear this mess up once and for all. No further RICO, but in return those claiming libel give up all claims, bogus or not. Honestly, I'd offer the non-AWAPPA officers some, maybe all their legal expenses. But then, I'm a forgiving kind of guy. For both sides, this is not a win/win. It's more like a lose/lose, but at least it will be over. If one of your heroes really thinks he has a case and won't sign off on whatever the final solution is, there's probably no way USAPA will sign off either. And OBTW, unless the a libel suit has already been filed, forget about it. It's been 18 months since the alleged libel. Except under extraordinary situations, there's a one-year statute of limitations on libel suits in almost every jurisdiction in the US. Over to you, HP_FA on that, since you're the designated legal genious. Speaking of HP_FA,

Hi Snooper. I believe that Cleary lacks the intestinal fortitude to do such a thing. Get "Kirby", or the company's better revised offer, add Nicolau and then negotiate the remained and put it to a vote. I would just hope the NC actually tries for the best it can get (rather than tank it) so the pilot's would have a meaningful decision when they would vote.

We all know the Snoop shoots a bit from the hip. He is better on the loop forum than here. Looks like loop is becoming a one-man show. Back east we all know who he is and evidently even your side is getting tired of his monotonous, inaccurate posts.

HP_FA, Not being a member or anywhere close to USAPA, you misunderstand what is going on. Cleary doesn't make the calls on this. The BPRs do. So far none of your BPRs have pressed for a quick TA. Unless they want to risk recall, ours won't either, not until we can sort out our options after the LOA93/84 arbitration and hear from the 9th. A TA now, with Kirby/NIC would go down big time. No one is going to risk furlough, down-grade, reduction to reserve or smaller equipment for Kirby/NIC. Without DOH, the risk of dropping to 250 a/c hulls is too great.

As far as damages on Addington go, first you got to win in the 9th. Then you got to get to court. Golf says no damages yet and that if the 9th finds Addington not ripe, then damages will lay in waiting until there is a DOH-like contract. Now you got one of your own saying,

As for the ripeness argument you do not have to be actually "harmed" for a case to be ripe. If you find a ticking time bomb does it have to go off for a case to be ripe? Here the USAPA timebomb was ticking, harm was imminent to the west (and has occured as the damages case will show) and thus is ripe.

Whatever, mach. I’ll let the 9th rule on ripeness. Then we’ll see if Wake can pull off damages. Best of luck on the latter. It will take some major luck.

I wonder if maybe slappen Jack had ulterior motives?? He might have to possibly return to the line and fly. Then Chris Beebe, I guess he was happy to leave that 300k ALPA deal and have to actually fly a jet! How do you think that salary sat with us, or should have sat with you?? Stephan would have cut any deal to get himself into the ALPA feeding trough, including dumping the pension, selling out the MDA guys, or whatever else took to make sure the cash flow was ALPA positive. We all know this, had ALPA remained, we would have heard the same line we heard for years. Take it guys, sorry, but our lawyers say it is the best thing. Live to fight another day..... And you guys think dumping ALPA was all about the NIC? Dumping ALPA was the surest way to get rid of these leeches. They had laid one deal too many on us, and had they remained, the east pilots would absolutely have gotten up one day, and the NIC would be in full effect. We didn't trust them anymore, and we made them a SMOKING HOLE. And that, USAPA members, is the Rest Of the Story.......Good Day!

Exactly, BS (as in Black Swan). For all the ALPA-phyles, it was and always was all about the ALPA perks and not flying. Jack was on the edge btween being recalled by the Reps or being removed by ALPA. We all know how Herndon manipulates. Look at how they kept us from removing our CLT Reps. They dragged that out for six. And compare with how quickly they removed DC and ER in PHL, putting in their ALPA national shills. GOOD RIDDANCE, GOOD RIDDANCE, GOOD RIDDANCE. 767Intl

 

[aquagreen73s]

First, only prosecutors engage in malicious prosecution. At worst, this is more like a slap suit. Seldom any damages there. At best a good faith effort to put a stop to the harassament. As far as who libeled who, don't expect a trial/award on that any time soon. The negotiations going on right now are intended to clear this mess up once and for all. No further RICO, but in return those claiming libel give up all claims, bogus or not. Honestly, I'd offer the non-AWAPPA officers some, maybe all their legal expenses. But then, I'm a forgiving kind of guy. For both sides, this is not a win/win. It's more like a lose/lose, but at least it will be over. If one of your heroes really thinks he has a case and won't sign off on whatever the final solution is, there's probably no way USAPA will sign off either. And OBTW, unless the a libel suit has already been filed, forget about it. It's been 18 months since the alleged libel.

You absoluely have no idea what you're talking about:


http://law.jrank.org/pages/8407/Malicious-Prosecution.html

You folks on the East should have thought this through before you starting slinging unfounded lawsuits around. There are civil remedies and damages for what you've done.

 

[OTTER574]

Just to clear the air a bit, nic4us, Freund's job as AWA MEC merger attorney disappeared the day ALPA disappeared on property. He did walk out at Wye River after your side refused to budge. I can't blame you, though. ALPA was telling you (through some really faulty polling) that ALPA stood a good chance of remaining on property. Was that an ALPA set-up, or just an ALPA pollster who didn't have a clue what 35% refusal of East pilots to respond meant? Anyway, here we are. Yeah, he's representing three AWAPPA officers, but not those who were provoked by your leadership to engage in alleged illegal actions. Irony here, one of those Freund is representing is now a West asst chief pilot.



First, only prosecutors engage in malicious prosecution. At worst, this is more like a slap suit. Seldom any damages there. At best a good faith effort to put a stop to the harassament. As far as who libeled who, don't expect a trial/award on that any time soon. The negotiations going on right now are intended to clear this mess up once and for all. No further RICO, but in return those claiming libel give up all claims, bogus or not. Honestly, I'd offer the non-AWAPPA officers some, maybe all their legal expenses. But then, I'm a forgiving kind of guy. For both sides, this is not a win/win. It's more like a lose/lose, but at least it will be over. If one of your heroes really thinks he has a case and won't sign off on whatever the final solution is, there's probably no way USAPA will sign off either. And OBTW, unless the a libel suit has already been filed, forget about it. It's been 18 months since the alleged libel. Except under extraordinary situations, there's a one-year statute of limitations on libel suits in almost every jurisdiction in the US. Over to you, HP_FA on that, since you're the designated legal genious. Speaking of HP_FA,



We all know the Snoop shoots a bit from the hip. He is better on the loop forum than here. Looks like loop is becoming a one-man show. Back east we all know who he is and evidently even your side is getting tired of his monotonous, inaccurate posts.

HP_FA, Not being a member or anywhere close to USAPA, you misunderstand what is going on. Cleary doesn't make the calls on this. The BPRs do. So far none of your BPRs have pressed for a quick TA. Unless they want to risk recall, ours won't either, not until we can sort out our options after the LOA93/84 arbitration and hear from the 9th. A TA now, with Kirby/NIC would go down big time. No one is going to risk furlough, down-grade, reduction to reserve or smaller equipment for Kirby/NIC. Without DOH, the risk of dropping to 250 a/c hulls is too great.

As far as damages on Addington go, first you got to win in the 9th. Then you got to get to court. Golf says no damages yet and that if the 9th finds Addington not ripe, then damages will lay in waiting until there is a DOH-like contract. Now you got one of your own saying,



Whatever, mach. I’ll let the 9th rule on ripeness. Then we’ll see if Wake can pull off damages. Best of luck on the latter. It will take some major luck.




Exactly, BS (as in Black Swan). For all the ALPA-phyles, it was and always was all about the ALPA perks and not flying. Jack was on the edge btween being recalled by the Reps or being removed by ALPA. We all know how Herndon manipulates. Look at how they kept us from removing our CLT Reps. They dragged that out for six. And compare with how quickly they removed DC and ER in PHL, putting in their ALPA national shills. GOOD RIDDANCE, GOOD RIDDANCE, GOOD RIDDANCE. 767Intl

One union and one vote thanks to usapa and will include the nic because of a federal permanent injunction against usapa's DFR.


Damages will follow and will grow thanks to current usapa officers.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Here's the applicable statue in AZ and before anyone gets the bright idea that the time to file has passed, think carefully about when a cause of action for malicious prosecution might accrue. Think about it. It's not that hard:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?in...amp;DocType=ARS

 

[cleardirect]

Here's the applicable statue in AZ and before anyone gets the bright idea that the time to file has passed, think carefully about when a cause of action for malicious prosecution might accrue. Think about it. It's not that hard:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?in...amp;DocType=ARS

I know, I know.

But people don't learn if you give just them knowledge, they have to earn it.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Or learn it the hard way. Seems like that's the route they always take. So be it.

 

[CallawayGolf]

... Golf says no damages yet and that if the 9th finds Addington not ripe, then damages will lay in waiting until there is a DOH-like contract. Now you got one of your own saying ...

767Intl

You failed to comprehend the polemic of my statements. I never claimed Addington wasn't ripe. I was simply giving space for the 9th to rule as they see fit. My point was that in the unlikely event that the 9th concludes the matter isn't ripe, that decision doesn't abolish the NIC and it doesn't imply damages will not be paid by USAPA at a future date.

However, the most likely outcome IMO is that the 9th finds no fault with Wake's procedures and interpretation of facts, and USAPA is once again reeling from their emotional blindness towards an impending collapse. They can’t win; they can’t break-even; so they will get out of the game in order to stop the hemorrhaging. Feel free to quote or paraphrase me on that, just do it accurately this time.

 

[cleardirect]

Wrong on all counts. It's just a proposal until it is included in a ratified contract. And oh, by the way, the company is still free to offer whatever they want. They are not at all bound by the court order. And the fact that the company accepted it as required by a court ruling which is soon to be overturned will void that whole concept.

I ask again. Where is the legal language that supports what you are saying? The only answer so far is an unsubstantiated quote taken out of context from an attorney that has nothing to do with the DFR case.

The company is bound by the T/A or are you saying the company can ignore that? The company agreed to accept a list if it met certain parameters. The Nicolau did that and they accepted the list. Yes they are bound by the T/A and the federal injunction. If you have a document that says different please post it otherwise it is your opinion and your opinion is wrong.

By the way, filing a lawsuit, no matter how embarrassing it is to the defendants, does not constitute libel. If your lawyer told you that, then you really need a new one. And, better do it soon.

Are you trying to say that in the history of this country no one has ever filed a false law suit? That the malicious prosecution, SLAP suit and libel laws are only on the books for fun? No the only embarrassment is going to be from usapa and the leadership for falsely accusing people and publishing libelous statements about pilots.

Just where did you get your information that this does not constitute libel? From the same attorney that lost the DFR?

 

[aquagreen73s]

Just where did you get your information that this does not constitute libel? From the same attorney that lost the DFR?

Perhaps here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BZi2r_it3U

 

[hp_fa]

First, only prosecutors engage in malicious prosecution. At worst, this is more like a slap suit. Seldom any damages there. At best a good faith effort to put a stop to the harassament. As far as who libeled who, don't expect a trial/award on that any time soon. The negotiations going on right now are intended to clear this mess up once and for all. No further RICO, but in return those claiming libel give up all claims, bogus or not. Honestly, I'd offer the non-AWAPPA officers some, maybe all their legal expenses. But then, I'm a forgiving kind of guy. For both sides, this is not a win/win. It's more like a lose/lose, but at least it will be over. If one of your heroes really thinks he has a case and won't sign off on whatever the final solution is, there's probably no way USAPA will sign off either. And OBTW, unless the a libel suit has already been filed, forget about it. It's been 18 months since the alleged libel. Except under extraordinary situations, there's a one-year statute of limitations on libel suits in almost every jurisdiction in the US. Over to you, HP_FA on that, since you're the designated legal genious. Speaking of HP_FA,

Normally, in my experience, an officer of the court (Attorney or Judge), will refer a malicious action allegation to the applicable bar association for their consideration as to whether or not the attorney(s) were acting outside their professional boundaries. Rather than suing for malicious prosecution (in the context of wrongfully bringing a civil case), most courts would consider awarding attorneys fees and costs, if the defending party requested it in their applicable Answer to the Complaint. (See Rules 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the New York State Bar Association. Link)

HP_FA, Not being a member or anywhere close to USAPA, you misunderstand what is going on. Cleary doesn't make the calls on this. The BPRs do. So far none of your BPRs have pressed for a quick TA. Unless they want to risk recall, ours won't either, not until we can sort out our options after the LOA93/84 arbitration and hear from the 9th. A TA now, with Kirby/NIC would go down big time. No one is going to risk furlough, down-grade, reduction to reserve or smaller equipment for Kirby/NIC. Without DOH, the risk of dropping to 250 a/c hulls is too great.

Perhaps I do misunderstand because it appears to me that Cleary seemingly wields more power than having one vote on the BPR. Of course my information is limited to what I read here or otherwise learn.

 

[EastUS]

One can never have too much coffee in the morning. Got the second pot of SB bold Espresso Blend brewing now!

Agreed. Imo; No even slight semblance of western civilization could be maintained in the absence of an adequate supply of coffee.

 

[767intl]

You absoluely have no idea what you're talking about:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8407/Malicious-Prosecution.html
You folks on the East should have thought this through before you starting slinging unfounded lawsuits around. There are civil remedies and damages for what you've done.

Looks like all the West Clarence Darrows are out in force today. I guess I could have been clearer. I'll even admit to a mis-speak. Why no comments on the rest of my post? Please name a case of civil malicious prosecution that paid off to the tune of millions of $$ in either Federal Court, AZ or NC court. Look at the outrageous behavior of the DA in the Duke La Crosse case. That's a malicious prosecution that paid millions, because everyone watching TV in the US know about the case. This is nothing, even if, as aquagreen posted, it only had a one year statute. Check out http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/malicious_prosecution.html for some guidelines. For every Google you can throw out, I can throw one back. "Malicious prosecution applies specifically to the criminal proceedings brought against you without probable cause, rather than the arrest and/or incarceration you have suffered." Meanwhile, don't confuse "malicious prosecution" with "malicious use of process." The latter is used in both NC and most (although a quick check suggested not all) Federal Jurisdiction. And I thought all U.S. Federal Law was the same. Darn, maybe that's why the 9th Circuit may rule differently than the 7th or 2nd circuit. I need to go back to correspondence school.

I'm not saying you can't sue if someone files a frivolous civil RICO case against you. I'm just saying it's malicious use of process and you only have one year to file. But name one, with the million $$ payout. That one year is long gone. That's AZ law. Even your own AOL guys knew they had to file within 6 months of USAPA NMB certification or lose timeliness. Too bad Wake didn't say you were timely, but the case wasn't quite ripe. Then we'd be in an entirely different situation. USAPA would still have that gun to our heads. Let's say the 9th rules only that the case is not yet ripe. You will have lost all Wake's previous injunctions and still owe your attorneys a whole lot of money before round two.

Here's the applicable statue in AZ and before anyone gets the bright idea that the time to file has passed, think carefully about when a cause of action for malicious prosecution might accrue. Think about it. It's not that hard:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?in...amp;DocType=ARS

Might accrue? Looks like a one year statute of limitations to me. You can't exactly pick and choose when that one year starts. So thanks for making my case. Timeliness is key. One year is one year and that time limit started with your 18 being "served." Please make your case otherwise. Case law is better than some fre legal Google site.

My point was that in the unlikely event that the 9th concludes the matter isn't ripe, that decision doesn't abolish the NIC and it doesn't imply damages will not be paid by USAPA at a future date.

If it's not ripe, you can't have aother trial until it is ripe. Pay your attorneys (if you can) and have patience. Maybe you'll get a second round before Parker sells the West to Republic and splits up the East between CAL and AMR.

However, the most likely outcome IMO is that the 9th finds no fault with Wake's procedures and interpretation of facts, and USAPA is once again reeling from their emotional blindness towards an impending collapse. They can’t win; they can’t break-even; so they will get out of the game in order to stop the hemorrhaging. Feel free to quote or paraphrase me on that, just do it accurately this time.

If the 9th rules not ripe, I doubt if they'll say too much more. Emotionally, we're holding up quite well. Even with a loss in the 9th, we still have the LOA93 pay issue ahead of us. If we lose both, don't expect the bottom 3/4 of our list to vote for a contract that could put 1,000 of us on the streets. Kirby (as amended) + NIC just won't fly. Again, I'd love to put it out for a vote, this week, next week, or next month. Fact is, you don't have the votes (less than 700 West MIGS), even with our few self ALPA-Phyles. I agree with you guys. Vote now! Bring it on!

 

[aquagreen73s]

Normally, in my experience, an officer of the court (Attorney or Judge), will refer a malicious action allegation to the applicable bar association for their consideration as to whether or not the attorney(s) were acting outside their professional boundaries. Rather than suing for malicious prosecution (in the context of wrongfully bringing a civil case), most courts would consider awarding attorneys fees and costs, if the defending party requested it in their applicable Answer to the Complaint. (See Rules 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the New York State Bar Association. Link)

It's exceedingly rare to see actions by a party through an attorney that actually result in vexatious litigation. Almost every time an attorney tells the not so smart client to get lost or he waters down the complaint somewhat. There's a lot of dumb attorneys out there, but very few who are that dumb. Hence, I think your experience is accurate. On the same token, rarely are complaints dismissed with prejudce on a 12( B )6. That alone isn't cause for a malicious prosecution, but the totality of the statements by USAPA officers coupled with the vigorous pursuit of an impossible legal claim (again emanating from the USAPA officers) is, shall we say, quite unusual and indicative of a pursuit which runs afould of the law, ie "let's just litigate just to litigate and run the defendants into the ground . . ." I don't doubt that somewhere Seham is going to have to answer to the MN and NY state bars, but the malicious prosecution, the libel and the slander all go to the USAPA officers behind the RICO.

One more note: there was never an answer as the case was dismissed on the motion to dismiss. Yet USAPA pursues? Not too smart IMO.