US Pilots Labor Discussion 3/26- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Ames]

The APA, CALALPA, and UALALPA are all in contract negotiations. Should they take the first low ball offer and present it to their pilots groups? APA has been in mediated talks with American for 2 years. Why should USAPA do something, that none of the airline labor unions are doing just to satisfy you?

BoeingBoy said it best in his post above. My point is, quit expressing this false resolve to vote down anything with the Nic and put your money where your mouth is.

 

[ROACLT]

There is a fundamental difference - no pilot at those airlines is claiming that "a contract containing the Nic will never pass." It's easy to make claims when one argues that the claim shouldn't be tested, no matter how outlandish the claims. If those on the East side are so confident that a contract containing the Nic won't pass, what's the harm of putting one out for a vote? It'll be rejected, right? A rejection of a tentative agreement could even strengthen USAPA's hand by letting the company see without a doubt that the Kirby proposal isn't close to good enough.

On the other hand, the only valid reason not to put a contract out for a vote is fear that despite all the bluster and chest thumping, it might pass...

Jim

So in order to test theories, and make those sniping at each other on web forums feel better, USAPA ought to wildly deviate from the negotiation Norm and let the company directly negotiate with its members? With that thinking it isn't hard to understand why ALPA and pilots in general have been such losers in the union world. I guess that is why you are enjoying such a generous pension in retirement, eh?

 

[hp_fa]

So in order to test theories, and make those sniping at each other on web forums feel better, USAPA ought to wildly deviate from the negotiation Norm and let the company directly negotiate with its members?

According to some posters that will happen anyway if the 9th rules in favor of the Addington plaintiffs, damages and attorneys fees are assessed against USAPA and USAPA instead chooses to fold its tent so no East money ever flows West. You know, all those East folks who (wrongly) keep bringing up that being anti-USAPA is akin to being in favor of at will employment.

 

[Mtnman928]

According to some posters that will happen anyway if the 9th rules in favor of the Addington plaintiffs, damages and attorneys fees are assessed against USAPA and USAPA instead chooses to fold its tent so no East money ever flows West. You know, all those East folks who (wrongly) keep bringing up that being anti-USAPA is akin to being in favor of at will employment.

So let's play devils advocate here for just a bit. What happens if just the opposite happens. 9th sends it back to Wake or totally thows it out.

Where then o' great sage?

 

[hp_fa]

So let's play devils advocate here for just a bit. What happens if just the opposite happens. 9th sends it back to Wake or totally thows it out.

It depends on the reason it would be sent back. For example the 9th could send it back saying there was a flaw in a jury instruction and order a new trial. That would not be a loss in the same way that the 9th ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, that ripeness precluded the plaintiffs case or a few other flaws that could fatally wound the plaintiffs case.

If the 9th affirms the lower court that is different because they would have bought in on everything that occurred in the trial court including law, facts and procedure. If that were to happen USAPA's three choices are request an en banc hearing, file a writ of certiorari or throw in the towel.

So to answer your question, as I said, it depends on what rationale the 9th would use to send it back to Judge Wake or throw in out.

 

[BoeingBoy]

So in order to test theories

That is the key - some do not present the "vote no on Nic" as a theory but rather as fact. Possibly if those forwarding such a theory would just admit it was nothing more than that, the sniping would end...at least on that subject. If it is presented as fact, be prepared to prove it. Otherwise it's just so much web chatter.

Jim

 

[Reed Richards]

Oh yes. The smoking gun. It boggles the mind to know that a group of adults, focused enough to fly a jet, can hold up this statement from Wake and MISUNDERSTAND it so badly. All he, (the Honorable Judge Neil. M. Wake) is saying is best paraphrased as follows:

"Hey Seham!! Don't you think if 9th had any inkling to rule in your favor they would have at least RESPONDED somehow to your request to stay? I mean, I know if I was on the 9th, and I was going to rule in your favor I most certainly would have issued a stay...they haven't. What the hell does that tell you Seham?!!!"

(hint) Wake is saying he doesn't see the 9th going the East's way as evidenced by their radio silence on the stay issue.

Yet here is the East, claiming once again that this is somehow a sign of impending glory when in fact it's 180 degrees away from that. Isn't reading comprehension something we all have to take in grade school?

You simply did not read my post. I said "There is no doubt in my mind a clear signal was given by the Ninth to Judge Wake that a stay was necessary, and I don’t pretend it was necessarily because the Addington judgment was going to be overturned. "

Shouting out to Seham , that is rich indeed. Again, why the attacks on the legal folks that work for both sides? Is that necessary?

Happy Easter everyone.

RR

 

[hp_fa]

Hi Reed.

Let me at least try and take a crack at that.

Back in the August/September time frame, when the 9th had set an expedited hearing into the matter and the damages phase was now a necessity since liability had been found to exist, it is very possible that Judge Wake was expecting either an Order, Memorandum Opinion or a faster Opinion to be issued by the 9th than what has now been pending. He did, at some point thereafter, subsequently slow down the damages phase, saying that the Addington case was now more like a normal civil case and no longer entitled to expedited handling since the injunction had been issued, thereby removing the priority from the case.

Does that help at all?

 

[nic4us]

The guy immediately one number my senior had five years on nic list.

And that's just me, quite a few guys on the East list above me maybe don't have quite that much disparity, but it's enough to back MY position, excepting the former East ALPA fear mongerers like CM and JS.

Have a nice day.

Then you did not have 24 years when the merger happened. Possibly 19 and now 24, but then the 5 year guy now has 10. Either way no 24 year pilot was put next to a 5 year pilot.

And you have yet to offer any valid fact to this discussion!

 

[veritasaequitas]

Hi Reed.

Let me at least try and take a crack at that.

Back in the August/September time frame, when the 9th had set an expedited hearing into the matter and the damages phase was now a necessity since liability had been found to exist, it is very possible that Judge Wake was expecting either an Order, Memorandum Opinion or a faster Opinion to be issued by the 9th than what has now been pending. He did, at some point thereafter, subsequently slow down the damages phase, saying that the Addington case was now more like a normal civil case and no longer entitled to expedited handling since the injunction had been issued, thereby removing the priority from the case.

Does that help at all?

Maybe facts may help;

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;Steve Wargocki,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

US Airline Pilots Association; US Airways, Inc.,

Defendants.



ORDER
CV08-1728-PHX-NVW

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620). On February 9, 2010, the counsel for all parties participated in a status conference with the Court regarding whether to stay proceedings in this Court pending the current appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The Court took the issue under advisement, set oral argument on pending motions on attorneys’ fees and dismissal tentatively for February 24, 2010, and indicated it would issue its ruling on a stay shortly. (Doc. # 634.) This is that ruling.

On July 23, 2009, USAPA filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the Partial Judgment and Permanent Injunction (doc. # 594) filed July 17, 2009, and sought an expeditious hearing. (Doc. # 595.) The Ninth Circuit processed USAPA’s appeal expeditiously and heard oral argument on December 8, 2009. The Ninth Circuit likely will also render its rulings on the appeal expeditiously.

The parties agree that if the Ninth Circuit reverses the July 17, 2009 partial judgment and permanent injunction, the pending motions will be moot, and staying proceedings will have had no adverse effect on Plaintiffs. If the Ninth Circuit affirms the partial judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, a stay will have delayed resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees and individual damages for the length of the stay. Defendants seek a stay of one to three months. However, the Ninth Circuit may make rulings on the appeal that should be considered in deciding the pending motions to ensure that the Court’s rulings are consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s rulings. Weighing these competing legitimate interests, the Court concludes that it is likely that a decision on appeal will be made expeditiously and that the net balance of fairness and economy to all parties favors a stay of the pending motions and of the case until then.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620), the proceedings in this Court are stayed pending decision of the appeal of the July 17, 2009 partial judgment and permanent injunction in the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 09-16564, or until further order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees (doc. # 600) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (doc. # 620) set for February 24, 2010.



DATED this 11th day of February, 2010.

Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge

 

[hp_fa]

What was he thinking and saying in the August/September time frame? I was attending the court sessions of the motion hearings occuring then and hearing what he said on the record.

The February, 2010 Order you posted was put out because the 9th had not entered any Order, issued a Memorandum Opinion or a published Opinion.

So what is the point you are trying to make?

 

[Metroyet]

What was he thinking and saying in the August/September time frame? I was attending the court sessions of the motion hearings occuring then and hearing what he said on the record.

The February, 2010 Order you posted was put out because the 9th had not entered any Order, issued a Memorandum Opinion or a published Opinion.

So what is the point you are trying to make?

That's easy. He is either ignorantly, or willfully trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. With the slightest bit of effort, one can surmise the truth in Wake's actions regarding the stay. He refuses, (as is a common east trait) to see what is plainly staring him in the face, and now is "severing facts from their environment" as The Honorable Neil M. Wake so eloquently stated.

Perhaps he's guessing we're all too stupid to know what the truth really is....another common Eastie trait.

 

[veritasaequitas]

What was he thinking and saying in the August/September time frame? I was attending the court sessions of the motion hearings occuring then and hearing what he said on the record.

The February, 2010 Order you posted was put out because the 9th had not entered any Order, issued a Memorandum Opinion or a published Opinion.

So what is the point you are trying to make?

Reed Post;
"You simply did not read my post. I said "There is no doubt in my mind a clear signal was given by the Ninth to Judge Wake that a stay was necessary, and I don’t pretend it was necessarily because the Addington judgment was going to be overturned. "

Your post replying to Reed post started out with;

Hi Reed.

"Let me at least try and take a crack at that." And you tried to answer Reeds Question about the stay. I posted the stay. You posted your opinion on it.
There are a lot of opinions on this board

 

[CallawayGolf]

There are a lot of opinions on this board

Is that like observing - "gee this water seems wet"?

 

[fr8tmastr]

Right. Far better to wait for an incompetent fake union with zero credibility and zero negotiating power to finally waste enough money chasing a futile legal pursuit and come to their senses. Years from now they will produce the same contract you could have had now. Yep, illogical course of action will feed the family far better that moving forward with a reasonable contract with at least an incremental increase in pay. Sounds like you may be listening to the same caliber of financial advice as USAPA does at legal advice. Brilliant!

You must be correct, as you seem to have everything, unbiased at all, in order. why dont you give Doug a call and tell him how brilliant you are and that you are ready to sign anything he want's.
Can't you guys take one minute to quite hating USAPA, and actually look at what our benevolent management wants to cram down our collective throats.
What will you be willing to sign when the inevitable threats come from management?
By the way, my opinion of the top leadership at USAPA is probably not that far from your own. However, I would not sign a contract, any contract" just to rid myself of you.
Try separating your personal hate from contract negotiations, and besides who in their right minds would choose to sign a contract, in this economic environment?. Brilliant?