US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/13- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[nic4us]

Injunction? Who knows? Flip a coin. 50/50 chance, maybe. If the company makes noises about being harmed in any way with any proposed injunction that would prohibit pilots from bidding and accepting new positions, it won't be issued - guaranteed. Parker and his lawyers have more senators on speed-dial than anyone from the west. A lawsuit could proceed with a remedy after the verdict is in. And of course, the big 'if' is if the west prevails, which is highly unlikely, IMHO.
Have a great day.

The company can complain all they want, they are getting named in the suit. As defendants, their complaints would probably cause the entire contract to get blocked, not just section 22.

The company won't mind the injunction at all, it locks status quo, and they seem to have been fine with that for some years now.

 

[snapthis]

Do you understand the difference between unripe and repudiation of the case? Nothing has been defeated, only delayed.

They spend too much time reading that rag called the Iron Crapper.

 

[Pi brat]

Why do you think the west would buy off on DOH and a small raise. But the east will not buy off on a bigger raise and Nic?

Do you somehow think that the west is that much more desperate for reduced work rules or no improvement? The only thing this contract might have for the west is a little money. DOH would offset that by a wide margin.

If what they proposed is the best usapa can do. DFR 2.0 will be easy.

I don't expect the west buy off on it. I expect, and always have expected, the west to fight USAPA until the last man has retired. What I don't understand is why the west can't grasp that the east will also fight to the last man. We can't fully understand the other sides reasoning because we don't have their life experience. The big problem is that most don't even try.

We can all come to this site and vent and whine forever, but we won't change things. It's up to the courts now, so how about getting to where you can file DFR II instead of just delaying. Remember how stupid you all said that was when you accused the east of doing it?

 

[Ames]

I don't expect the west buy off on it. I expect, and always have expected, the west to fight USAPA until the last man has retired. What I don't understand is why the west can't grasp that the east will also fight to the last man. We can't fully understand the other sides reasoning because we don't have their life experience. The big problem is that most don't even try.

We can all come to this site and vent and whine forever, but we won't change things. It's up to the courts now, so how about getting to where you can file DFR II instead of just delaying. Remember how stupid you all said that was when you accused the east of doing it?

True statement. The bottom line is that it is up to the court now. Highly unlikely that the court will, ultimately, allow an arbitration to be overturned by a "union" that was created specifically to do just that. This whole thing has taken time, will take more..... We're in it for the long haul.

When and if Parker decides he needs it done he will state that he has already accepted the Nic and we will move on. Otherwise, it will be years and this "Mexican standoff" will prevail until the court makes a final decision.

 

[PullUp]

The company can complain all they want, they are getting named in the suit. As defendants, their complaints would probably cause the entire contract to get blocked, not just section 22.

The company won't mind the injunction at all, it locks status quo, and they seem to have been fine with that for some years now.

Only one problem - when a new contract is ratified, east and west contracts cease to exist, along with the T/A. So, now the airline has a legitimate gripe: it paid for something that it is not getting - integration of fleets and crews. So, when attrition really starts to kick in, how do you staff the airline?
I would posit that no court in the world would hamstring a corporation over a few disgruntled workers claims of 'fair representation', no matter what.
Injunction? I think not.
Have a great day.

 

[cleardirect]

I don't expect the west buy off on it. I expect, and always have expected, the west to fight USAPA until the last man has retired. What I don't understand is why the west can't grasp that the east will also fight to the last man. We can't fully understand the other sides reasoning because we don't have their life experience. The big problem is that most don't even try.

We can all come to this site and vent and whine forever, but we won't change things. It's up to the courts now, so how about getting to where you can file DFR II instead of just delaying. Remember how stupid you all said that was when you accused the east of doing it?

It is not up to the courts yet. It is up to Parker. Until Parker decides if he is going to accept another list or if he is going to stick with the Nic. We cannot get to a contract. Without a contract we can not get to court.

I agree get on with it. But it is all on usapa now. The west has nothing to do with getting a contract. The east holds the majority of the NAC, the east has the majority of the vote, the east has a majority of the BPR. So if the NAC would ever do their job and get a T/A. Then the BPR (the east) is going to have to decide if they are going to to even allow the pilots to vote on it. Then the east majority will decide if you guys are willing to risk another trial or not.

Nope the west is along for the ride on this one right now. We will just wait for the east to finally get to it. You guys wanted the job time to perform. The west has been told that usapa does not need us.

How are you guys going to get a contract? When are you guys going to get a contract? I don't see one this year. How about next year?

This all could have been done years ago if the east had just lived up to your bargain. Instead you guys have cost all of us mostly yourselves. It was the east that walked out of JNC. It was the east the formed usapa. It was the east that voted in usapa. It is the east that is running usapa.

 

[cleardirect]

Only one problem - when a new contract is ratified, east and west contracts cease to exist, along with the T/A. So, now the airline has a legitimate gripe: it paid for something that it is not getting - integration of fleets and crews. So, when attrition really starts to kick in, how do you staff the airline?
I would posit that no court in the world would hamstring a corporation over a few disgruntled workers claims of 'fair representation', no matter what.
Injunction? I think not.
Have a great day.

That’s OK. No injunction but usapa can put up about $100 million bond for damages for a couple years of improper seniority.

 

[PullUp]

That’s OK. No injunction but usapa can put up about $100 million bond for damages for a couple years of improper seniority.

Keep dreaming. So now you've dropped your argument of a sure-thing injunction, and replacing it with a bond order against the defendant?
OK.
Judges are reasonable men. The law is supposed to reflect what a reasonable man would do in any given situation.
Is it reasonable to impose a penalty prior to the outcome of a trial?
You are basing your assumption on the emotional stance that the west would prevail, which is at best a 50/50 shot. Maybe less.
Who knows, maybe you'll get a bond, but I really think that is grasping at straws.
DFR after ratification? Try it....I think it is a waste of money and time.
But during the trial I think it'll be business as usual until a decision is reached, much like the MDA guys are going through now.
Have a great day.

 

[luvn737s]

luvn737s, on 13 July 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:

Do you understand the difference between unripe and repudiation of the case? Nothing has been defeated, only delayed.

They spend too much time reading that rag called the Iron Crapper.

Nope, that's a little coarse for me.

 

[cleardirect]

Keep dreaming. So now you've dropped your argument of a sure-thing injunction, and replacing it with a bond order against the defendant?
OK.
Judges are reasonable men. The law is supposed to reflect what a reasonable man would do in any given situation.
Is it reasonable to impose a penalty prior to the outcome of a trial?
You are basing your assumption on the emotional stance that the west would prevail, which is at best a 50/50 shot. Maybe less.
Who knows, maybe you'll get a bond, but I really think that is grasping at straws.
DFR after ratification? Try it....I think it is a waste of money and time.
But during the trial I think it'll be business as usual until a decision is reached, much like the MDA guys are going through now.
Have a great day.

Injunctions are never sure things.What we offer are options.

Now maybe you missed this little request to the ninth.

CONCLUSION.
For the foregoing reasons, USAPA respectfully requests that the Court deny
plaintiffs’ motion to stay the mandate and direct the Clerk to issue the mandate
forthwith.

If, however, the Court does grant the motion, then it should also require
security pursuant to FRAP 41(d)(2)(c) in the form of a bond in the amount of
$30,000,000.00 (to reflect differential pay for the pilot group for a period of 90
days). (DiOrio Decl. ¶ 7).

Was there a trial for the 30 mill bond? Is it reasonable to ask for a bond when we are nowhere close to a contract? But if the east ratifies a contract with DOH there is reasonable harm that starts from day one.

Do you also consider usapa asking the court for a bond to be a waste of time and money

 

[Ames]

Judges are reasonable men. The law is supposed to reflect what a reasonable man would do in any given situation.
Is it reasonable to impose a penalty prior to the outcome of a trial?

This is not what the east said about Judge Wake. Not what they said about the judge in NC who threw out the C18 suit with prejiduce. Not what they said about Nicolau. Good to see that you guys are coming around.

 

[snapthis]

Remember the juries in the south convicting all those innocent people with those Jim Crow laws? Because the judges controlled the information allowed in? Wake was so obstructionist and blocked so much testimony that the outcome was pre ordained.

Jim Crow laws disenfranchised a minority when the majority felt threatened by their participation in the political process. Laws were created to effectively silence the minority.

Interesting that a Usapa supporter would use the analogy of Jim Crow laws to point out a perceived injustice concerning Judge Wake.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Hey quick question for you folks and then back to the war of words.

Has anyone compared the new Spirit Pilots contract to either of yours? I can't help but think after all this rancor, venom and bickering you now find your income below that of a 40 plane airline.

 

[Crzipilot]

Anyone see the latest filing by the company? Interesting they are asking for clarification on the nic issue even though the 9 th said they weren't ruling in that.

I think the answer will be vague in the sense. They will say. Once a contract is ratified. Then they can rule whether it not there has been a lack of dfr. In the same time the company looks as though it's ready to get this thing done. It's blocking their parachutes attached to a merger

 

[N924PS]

Any of you boys seen a "Declaratory Judgment" around here anywhere?