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

[hp_fa]

I'm disappointed. I answered your question honestly and politely and was hoping for a similar courtesy and honesty.

 

[traderjake]

Did you really expect a serious reply?

 

[hp_fa]

I was hoping for one, yes. I'm trying to see if anyone can give an honest answer to what Granath couldn't or wouldn't answer. He had asked me a question which I believe I answered honestly and politely and was hoping for the same.

 

[machflyer]

Why don't you ask Granath yourself, how on earth would someone on this forum know? Speculation at best.

While I'm at it, lots of brow beating with the NAC for their seemly un-speedy results in contract negotiations.
I'm sure that your all aware that negotiations is a game of chess and must be played out at the correct pace, keeping cards close vested and starting off in the far corners -- close to utopia and then work your way closer. So, what's so confusing?

Take a deep breath, be polite during the NAC's upcoming PHX update/education brief on the 20th, and ask intelligent questions.
Sometimes the bed you make in Sec 6 talks is the bed that you'll have to lie in for a long, long time -- need to get it right.

And this constant bickering back and forth between he said, she said is OLD. It's in the courts hands now, let it play.

Concentrate of being a good union pilot and support your brothers and sisters that are devoting WAY more hours a month than you are flying the line, on critical committees. Support your NAC and Strike Prep Committees, now's when they need it.

And tone down the bickering, you really do sound like a bunch of sallies.

Mike
DOH 1989

 

[CallawayGolf]

Well, then, I guess you are certainly in deep doo-doo, aren't you?

Of course, support like yours is the basis for assuring a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Not in deep at all. The process will work itself out eventually. It's the east pilots on LOA93 who ought to be highly concerned that their representative agent hasn't even remotely put any energy into getting the contract closer to completion rather than choosing to spendi all their time, money and attention on sidestepping binding arbitration. Forget the Addington law suits, if USAPA can't convince the Company negotiators to go with DOH or at to least abandon the NIC after more than two years, you might want to go another way if you want resolution and a contract with higher pay and benefits.

The west doesn't have the numbers to prevent the supposedly unified east pilots and their home grown union from doing anything they want. If USAPA was up to the task getting a contract it should be no problem, and getting ratification on a joint CBA should be well within the capabilities of the east with their majority position. You can't blame the west for not completing section 22 or any other section of the contract for that matter. West pilots are not a factor at the negotiating table or in the ratification process (or so the east pilots keep telling us) so just get the contract done if that's what you want. The West can't fulfill or unfulfill the prophecy that is USAPA. If it fails (or continues to do so) you can't blame a single west pilot for it.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Why don't you ask Granath yourself, how on earth would someone on this forum know? Speculation at best.

While I'm at it, lots of brow beating with the NAC for their seemly un-speedy results in contract negotiations.
I'm sure that your all aware that negotiations is a game of chess and must be played out at the correct pace, keeping cards close vested and starting off in the far corners -- close to utopia and then work your way closer. So, what's so confusing?

Take a deep breath, be polite during the NAC's upcoming PHX update/education brief on the 20th, and ask intelligent questions.
Sometimes the bed you make in Sec 6 talks is the bed that you'll have to lie in for a long, long time -- need to get it right.

And this constant bickering back and forth between he said, she said is OLD. It's in the courts hands now, let it play.

Concentrate of being a good union pilot and support your brothers and sisters that are devoting WAY more hours a month than you are flying the line, on critical committees. Support your NAC and Strike Prep Committees, now's when they need it.

And tone down the bickering, you really do sound like a bunch of sallies.

Mike
DOH 1989

And how many more years will it take east pilots to figure out that USAPA brought a checkers playbook to the chess match and that the cards they are holding close to the vest are jokers from an old maid deck of cards?

All jokes aside, USAPA is no match for the Company negotiators and they never ever will be. What leverage do they have when Management decides to let USAPA twist in the wind with all of their utopia requests. How will the NMB look upon USAPA when all they bring is utopian demands and a desire to defy the results of binding arbitration?

 

[traderjake]

Concentrate of being a good union pilot and support your brothers and sisters that are devoting WAY more hours a month than you are flying the line, on critical committees. Support your NAC and Strike Prep Committees, now's when they need it.


Mike
DOH 1989

We're here to steal your jobs so be good little boys and girls and do what we tell you to.

 

[Al Legheny]

I was hoping for one, yes. I'm trying to see if anyone can give an honest answer to what Granath couldn't or wouldn't answer. He had asked me a question which I believe I answered honestly and politely and was hoping for the same.

Granath didn't answer because the answer was already in the record. On July 17, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, docket # 590. Execerpts are provided below. Nick Granath knows, as does judge Wake, that the items spelled out in docket #590 are very telling and indicate bias. If it comes to a real discussion of bias in what ever procedure the court uses docket #590 will be the main source of contention.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence for lack of bad faith evidence. Bad faith – as defined by controlling law – was not shown for lack of any evidence of intentional misleading conduct, while at the same time the verdict disregarded legally sufficient evidence of special measures taken by Defendant to protect the interests of the class of Plaintiffs.

Second, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence because there is no evidence of a causal connection between the alleged wrongdoing and any possible injury;

Third, the Court committed prejudicial errors of law in instructing the Jury and these errors were individually and cumulatively prejudicial, tainted the deliberation process, and are sufficiently serious to warrant a new trial.
(Items listed A- V)

Fourth, the Court committed prejudicial legal error in numerous evidentiary rulings as listed below:
(Items listed A –K)

Fifth, the Court committed prejudicial error in several procedural rulings as listed below:
(Items A – C)

Sixth, overall, the conduct of the Court demonstrated such a lack of impartiality that it unfairly and improperly prejudiced the result of the trial.

Seventh, Counsel for Plaintiffs committed prejudicial error at trial in the instance and manner listed below:
(Items A – B)

Eighth, even before trial, Counsel for Plaintiffs committed error unfairly prejudicial to Defendant by withholding evidence from Defendant that Defendant had sought in discovery and that Plaintiffs were under a duty to disclose before trial, and by unfairly exploiting this violation in Plaintiffs’ Closing argument, misconduct or error that makes the Jury’s verdict erroneous.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Granath didn't answer because the answer was already in the record. On July 17, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, docket # 590. Execerpts are provided below. Nick Granath knows, as does judge Wake, that the items spelled out in docket #590 are very telling and indicate bias. If it comes to a real discussion of bias in what ever procedure the court uses docket #590 will be the main source of contention.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence for lack of bad faith evidence. Bad faith – as defined by controlling law – was not shown for lack of any evidence of intentional misleading conduct, while at the same time the verdict disregarded legally sufficient evidence of special measures taken by Defendant to protect the interests of the class of Plaintiffs.

Second, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence because there is no evidence of a causal connection between the alleged wrongdoing and any possible injury;

Third, the Court committed prejudicial errors of law in instructing the Jury and these errors were individually and cumulatively prejudicial, tainted the deliberation process, and are sufficiently serious to warrant a new trial.
(Items listed A- V)

Fourth, the Court committed prejudicial legal error in numerous evidentiary rulings as listed below:
(Items listed A –K)

Fifth, the Court committed prejudicial error in several procedural rulings as listed below:
(Items A – C)

Sixth, overall, the conduct of the Court demonstrated such a lack of impartiality that it unfairly and improperly prejudiced the result of the trial.

Seventh, Counsel for Plaintiffs committed prejudicial error at trial in the instance and manner listed below:
(Items A – B)

Eighth, even before trial, Counsel for Plaintiffs committed error unfairly prejudicial to Defendant by withholding evidence from Defendant that Defendant had sought in discovery and that Plaintiffs were under a duty to disclose before trial, and by unfairly exploiting this violation in Plaintiffs’ Closing argument, misconduct or error that makes the Jury’s verdict erroneous.

LOL - how much did $eham charge USAPA to file this whining and irrelevant document? Why is it that East pilots and USAPA find it so difficult to hear and accept that they were wrong? USAPA was found guilty of DFR because that’s exactly what they did, are doing, and plan to continue if they can get away with it. Accusing the judge of bias doesn’t make it so, and it doesn’t change the fact that USAPA is guilty of breaking the law – as determined by an impartial judge and jury – in addition to violating the terms of final and binding arbitration. This just shows, once again, that USAPA and its supporters can’t handle the truth and are willing to pay $eham to tickle their ears.

 

[RSVP767]

Granath didn't answer because the answer was already in the record. On July 17, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, docket # 590. Execerpts are provided below. Nick Granath knows, as does judge Wake, that the items spelled out in docket #590 are very telling and indicate bias. If it comes to a real discussion of bias in what ever procedure the court uses docket #590 will be the main source of contention.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence for lack of bad faith evidence. Bad faith – as defined by controlling law – was not shown for lack of any evidence of intentional misleading conduct, while at the same time the verdict disregarded legally sufficient evidence of special measures taken by Defendant to protect the interests of the class of Plaintiffs.

Second, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence because there is no evidence of a causal connection between the alleged wrongdoing and any possible injury;

Third, the Court committed prejudicial errors of law in instructing the Jury and these errors were individually and cumulatively prejudicial, tainted the deliberation process, and are sufficiently serious to warrant a new trial.
(Items listed A- V)

Fourth, the Court committed prejudicial legal error in numerous evidentiary rulings as listed below:
(Items listed A –K)

Fifth, the Court committed prejudicial error in several procedural rulings as listed below:
(Items A – C)

Sixth, overall, the conduct of the Court demonstrated such a lack of impartiality that it unfairly and improperly prejudiced the result of the trial.

Seventh, Counsel for Plaintiffs committed prejudicial error at trial in the instance and manner listed below:
(Items A – B)

Eighth, even before trial, Counsel for Plaintiffs committed error unfairly prejudicial to Defendant by withholding evidence from Defendant that Defendant had sought in discovery and that Plaintiffs were under a duty to disclose before trial, and by unfairly exploiting this violation in Plaintiffs’ Closing argument, misconduct or error that makes the Jury’s verdict erroneous.

When Wake smugly stated "we have all day", Granath should have just read Docket #590 in it's entirety. Priceless! I wonder how far he would have gotten before Wake shut him down?

 

[luvthe9]

And USAPA is more than happy to give it to them.

Sorry REMOVED BY MODERATOR that was YOUR ALPA boys that brought us the worst contract in airline history.!!!

 

[CallawayGolf]

When Wake smugly stated "we have all day", Granath should have just read Docket #590 in it's entirety. Priceless! I wonder how far he would have gotten before Wake shut him down?

You mean embarrassed and humiliated him, $eham and USAPA on a point-by-point basis. My guess is that Wake was looking forward to Granath citing this document so that he could counter these false claims of bias with the truth. The fact that Granath didn't bring it up is a clear indication that he knew better and that it was best to put his tail between his legs and run before getting humiliated any further.

I'm torn between wanting Wake to accept the case transfer to his docket – as it would lead to more teeth gnashing and wailing from the USAPA legal billing machine – and having Judge Silver take the case so as to let another judge brow beat and frustrate USAPA as they try to pull their underhanded tricks in another court room. Either way it ought to be a riot to see what crackerjack surprises $eham comes up with this time to try and skirt the law and shame himself before a federal judge.

 

[cleardirect]

Granath didn't answer because the answer was already in the record. On July 17, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, docket # 590. Execerpts are provided below. Nick Granath knows, as does judge Wake, that the items spelled out in docket #590 are very telling and indicate bias. If it comes to a real discussion of bias in what ever procedure the court uses docket #590 will be the main source of contention.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence for lack of bad faith evidence. Bad faith – as defined by controlling law – was not shown for lack of any evidence of intentional misleading conduct, while at the same time the verdict disregarded legally sufficient evidence of special measures taken by Defendant to protect the interests of the class of Plaintiffs.

Second, the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence because there is no evidence of a causal connection between the alleged wrongdoing and any possible injury;

Third, the Court committed prejudicial errors of law in instructing the Jury and these errors were individually and cumulatively prejudicial, tainted the deliberation process, and are sufficiently serious to warrant a new trial.
(Items listed A- V)

Fourth, the Court committed prejudicial legal error in numerous evidentiary rulings as listed below:
(Items listed A –K)

Fifth, the Court committed prejudicial error in several procedural rulings as listed below:
(Items A – C)

Sixth, overall, the conduct of the Court demonstrated such a lack of impartiality that it unfairly and improperly prejudiced the result of the trial.

Seventh, Counsel for Plaintiffs committed prejudicial error at trial in the instance and manner listed below:
(Items A – B)

Eighth, even before trial, Counsel for Plaintiffs committed error unfairly prejudicial to Defendant by withholding evidence from Defendant that Defendant had sought in discovery and that Plaintiffs were under a duty to disclose before trial, and by unfairly exploiting this violation in Plaintiffs’ Closing argument, misconduct or error that makes the Jury’s verdict erroneous.

Just accusations. You guys do know that accusations do not mean that it is real.

When judge Wake gave Granath a chance to explain or expand or prove his charges. Nothing.

I for one hope that Wake takes this case and usapa makes the same false charges. Because this time I think Wake will not be so kind and demand sanctions. There can be a full hearing and usapa can have a chance to tell another judge why they think losing is grounds for biased.

But if it does go to judge Silver. Don't you think it is going to look like whining when they go to the same play book and accuse another judge of being bias and unfair.

 

[cleardirect]

When Wake smugly stated "we have all day", Granath should have just read Docket #590 in it's entirety. Priceless! I wonder how far he would have gotten before Wake shut him down?

You did read document 648 right? The one where usapa accused Wake of all the biased. I understand that Granath did point to that document. But when questioned he folded. He could answer none of the accusations.

 

[nic4us]

Just accusations. You guys do know that accusations do not mean that it is real.

When judge Wake gave Granath a chance to explain or expand or prove his charges. Nothing.

I for one hope that Wake takes this case and usapa makes the same false charges. Because this time I think Wake will not be so kind and demand sanctions. There can be a full hearing and usapa can have a chance to tell another judge why they think losing is grounds for biased.

But if it does go to judge Silver. Don't you think it is going to look like whining when they go to the same play book and accuse another judge of being bias and unfair.

I do not care which judge hears the usapa whinning. I want whichever judge can complete the action in the least amount of time, with the least amount of opportunities for usapa to keep writing side complaints to the 9th.

As told to Bradford in the infamous letter from a prospective attorney, any federal judge is going to see the arbitration as binding on the east pilots. The sooner the company is told the Addington class has a valid claim, the better. Then the company can tell usapa to pound sand at the negotiating table, the majority of east pilots will acquiesce to the fairness of the Nic, and our big decision will be whether to keep usapa or have a time consuming representation election.