US Pilots Labor Discussion 10/13-- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[hp_fa]

B) I know, its a hard concept. You say they are false.. USAPA says they are true. Neither you or Wake are free of equities in the matter. That's why the question of Wake's alleged partiality belongs at the 9th, in due time, and its why Wake's line of questioning regarding his ability to be impartial (while an accusation of such is already open) was out of line.

He's smarter than that but couldn't resist the temptation. He's human and shouldn't try to hide it.

Yet USAPA's counsel couldn't or wouldn't substantiate any factual basis for the bias claim, unless you consider losing some rulings as a basis for claiming bias.

 

[Phoenix]

Yet USAPA's counsel couldn't or wouldn't substantiate any factual basis for the bias claim, unless you consider losing some rulings as a basis for claiming bias.

Does Wake think folks are so gullible as to believe he doesn't remember the accusations were already written down? Or that it is not his place to rule on them?

 

[hp_fa]

Does Wake think folks are so gullible as to believe he doesn't remember the accusations were already written down? Or that it is not his place to rule on them?

The accusations amount to the fact that Wake ruled against USAPA a few times, or am I missing something here?

BTW, accusing a judge of bias and not proving it sufficiently doesn't make that judge biased in the future. But it could be a case of stupid tactics by the attorneys making the unsubstantiated claim.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Okay. The Ninth did indeed only RULE that the Addington case was not ripe.

But along with that ruling they issued a lot of OPINION that is probably a very good barometer as to how they would RULE on those matters for which they have only issued OPINION.

Yes, of course, opinions are like rear ends (edited by mod). Everyone has one. But when you are a judge of the federal appeals court, your opinions should not be totally ignored when making legal decisions regarding those matters. Unless you have money to flush down the crapper.

 

[nycbusdriver]

If you like spending money with no return.

Might as will flush it.

Flush it???? Never! We wouldn't get the entertainment value of driving the west pilots up the wall.

 

[A320 Driver]

The accusations amount to the fact that Wake ruled against USAPA a few times, or am I missing something here?

BTW, accusing a judge of bias and not proving it sufficiently doesn't make that judge biased in the future. But it could be a case of stupid tactics by the attorneys making the unsubstantiated claim.

And if the judge takes any action against them, he proves their point. Nothing more he could do but complain about it to them...pound his chest a little.

 

[hp_fa]

And if the judge takes any action against them, he proves their point. Nothing more he could do but complain about it to them...pound his chest a little.

Not necessarily.

Judge Wake repeatedly asked Granath to substantiate the claim. Grantah basically said it would take to long. He told him "I have all day." Granth didn't do a thing. In the meantime a record was being made of the proceedings. Clearly USAPA is now in a no-win scenario regarding this because if Wake keeps the case and $eham and pals appeal it they will likely lose because of the record of that hearing. If Judge Wake passes it to Judge Silver you can be certain that she will know about it and read that part of the transcript. Either way the credibility of USAPA's counsel is further damaged.

If USAPA Legal makes the transcript available go read it for yourself.

 

[BoeingBoy]

And if the judge takes any action against them, he proves their point.

Gotta love how you set up a no lose proposition for USAPA - if they win they are right, if they lose they are right and win on appeal. I could just as easily say that if USAPA accepts the Nic the West is right, if USAPA rejects the Nic it proves bias against the West and West wins a DFR suit.

Leaving out one possibility makes a big difference doesn't it?

Jim

 

[exB717Flyer]

Okay. The Ninth did indeed only RULE that the Addington case was not ripe.

But along with that ruling they issued a lot of OPINION that is probably a very good barometer as to how they would RULE on those matters for which they have only issued OPINION.

I'm sure you're aware that appellate courts don't retry cases. They rule on points of law during the conduction of the case. Regardless of how one interprets the Ninth's stated opinions I don't see how they'd have any effect on another DFR trial OR inevitable appeal. The ruling is all that's relevant.

Do you think you know better than the company's lawyers? You know, the one's who don't think the Addington case never happened?

 

[aquagreen73s]

Do you think you know better than the company's lawyers? You know, the one's who don't think the Addington case never happened?

Yes, they do. All of them save traderjake and PS. $eham said so and therefore they know more than the company's attorneys, the West's attorneys, and any federal judge. DOH is a done deal, we're just going on year 3 implementing the "done deal." Any day now. Hold it. . . .hold it . . . it's coming . . . hold it . . .

 

[nycbusdriver]

I'm sure you're aware that appellate courts don't retry cases. They rule on points of law during the conduction of the case. Regardless of how one interprets the Ninth's stated opinions I don't see how they'd have any effect on another DFR trial OR inevitable appeal. The ruling is all that's relevant.

Do you think you know better than the company's lawyers? You know, the one's who don't think the Addington case never happened?

Yes, of course, I understand that appeals courts don't try cases.

They ruled on one point of law. But their ruling didn't just state that Addington wasn't ripe. They said a lot more which was peripheral to the actual ruling on that one point.

They didn't have to do that. Did you ever consider why

 

[CallawayGolf]

Okay. The Ninth did indeed only RULE that the Addington case was not ripe.

But along with that ruling they issued a lot of OPINION that is probably a very good barometer as to how they would RULE on those matters for which they have only issued OPINION.

Yes, of course, opinions are like rear ends (edited by mod). Everyone has one. But when you are a judge of the federal appeals court, your opinions should not be totally ignored when making legal decisions regarding those matters. Unless you have money to flush down the crapper.

Yes, the 9th only ruled on the basis of jurisdiction (ripeness) not on merit. Glad to see some on the East are willing to finally admit that.

The problem with analyzing the majority opinion issued from the 9th was that their opinion had nothing to do with the Addington case. Tashima and Graber never revealed that they had any more knowledge of this matter other than the cliff notes version. Their published majority opinion was replete with unsubstantiated guesses of the future - such as membership ratification would be impossible using the NIC. Where exactly was this “fact” established? They only thing anyone knows for sure regarding US pilots voting record was that USAPA won enough votes to replace ALPA by a small margin in 2007. It is not the place or proper conduct of the court to guess or pre-judge the outcome of a ratification vote and doing so does not represent an authoritative legal opinion or precedence-setting ruling. Also, it is 2010 and no one can possibly say with certainty how the pilots will vote on a JCBA until it is sent to the membership.

Likewise, their guess that USAPA may be able to develop and implement a seniority system which does not bring the harm the west pilots’ fear shows a total lack of understanding of this case. This statement assumes that 1) USAPA is capable of being fair to the west (unsubstantiated to this point), 2) that the company would be willing to go along with USAPA’s modifications to the accepted and arbitrated list (so far this has been a failed assumption), and 3) that the West pilot class would be willing to accept a modification to the NIC without filing DFR II (snowballs chance in Gahenna). Therefore, the published majority opinions belong in realm of prognostication or unfounded aspirations of clairvoyance. As such, they should not be given any level of legal credibility.

The majority opinion strongly suggests that Tashima and Graber failed to look at this case with an open, unbiased mindset. They gave a “win” the their labor supporters by ruling “not ripe” and then had their staffers cite generic labor case law regarding DFRs so that it looked like they did something to earn their taxpayer funded salaries. Compare Bybee’s dissenting opinion, written in the first person with a deep and profound understanding of the case and explaining the intricacies of the ripeness doctrine as it relates to THIS CASE and with the passion of someone who actually reviewed the documents presented to the court, with the published majority opinion. The latter doesn’t have the same style as having been personally authored by one or both of the majority justices and it rarely even mentions any of the specific facts in the Addington case. They just cite pure ripeness doctrine and related, generic case matters without even explaining exactly how Wake or Bybee misinterpreted the rule of law. They (staffers) then delve into pure speculation without a legal or rational basis for making their bizarre prognostications. There is nothing for the west to fear from the 9th’s majority opinion – not ripe (yet) and that’s it.

 

[exB717Flyer]

They said a lot more which was peripheral to the actual ruling on that one point.

They didn't have to do that. Did you ever consider why?

No need to. Irrelevant. Do you consider why the dissenting judge dissented and does it matter to you? Should we appear again before the Ninth it would (in all likelihood) be a different three judges.

 

[luvthe9]

Wow, still pages and pages of the same old crap, if you westies want your DFR suit that won't happen till there is a joint comtract, you have alll been lead down the road by your Rev Jim Jones (aka Ferguson) how much more money will you guys waste. The NIC is not going to happen your best shot is to get a contract then do your DFR. In the mean time keep those donations coming!!!!

 

[CallawayGolf]

Wow, still pages and pages of the same old crap, if you westies want your DFR suit that won't happen till there is a joint comtract, you have alll been lead down the road by your Rev Jim Jones (aka Ferguson) how much more money will you guys waste. The NIC is not going to happen your best shot is to get a contract then do your DFR. In the mean time keep those donations coming!!!!

You actually think USAPA is capable of negotiating and implementing a contract? That's really funny.

Seriously, how many sections have they come to an agreement on? What is the latest "win" for USAPA at the negotiating table? What's stopping USAPA from advancing negotiatings and showing all of us just how sharp and productive they are at representing the pilots of US Airways? I think we all know the answer to these questions - USAPA hasn't done anything.

So why is it that they haven't completed a single section via the negotiating process? There really are only two answers: either they are incompetent or they are intentionally failing the pilots US Airways, electing to pursue their own personal agenda rather than complying with their statutorily defined role of being the bargaining agent. It doesn’t really matter which one it is, because for USAPA all roads lead to failure.