US Pilots Labor Discussion 9/9- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[Black Swan]

First of all, please learn to use more paragraphs for easier viewing.

Second, if you'll recall from the oral arguments last December Jacobs inquired how a case could be both not ripe and stale, that is, past the statutory time limit. I'm sure he had in mind the DFR suit the TWA pilots filed in 2002. In that case the APA revealed their wet-dream list in October, 2001, however, the list wasn't put into effect until April, 2002. The APA was dismissed as a defendant on statutory grounds since more than six months had passed since October. Our appeal argued the statutory date should've been from April. We lost. So you see, there's some uncertainty on this issue and AOL essentially took the safer route by ensuring we didn't wait too long to file. Costly, yes, but no mistake.

What don't you understand about the word 'irrelevant'? They can reveal any opinion they like and it has no bearing. A jury decided USAPA was guilty of violating its DFR and the 9th did not and cannot change that.

Johnny Mac and Vasin aren't part of the AOL. But in any case, my choice to support the AOL is an educated one.
Really? Where's your wet-dream DOH list? Seriously, where is it? Has the company accepted it and if not, why?

I like the one about "A jury decided USAPA was guilty of violating its DFR and the 9th did not and cannot change that" 717. Don't you know this is the Wake trial that was dismissed? As in means nothing. Are you really forgetting this or just throwing anything and all things on the wall to see what sticks?

 

[BLT]

Delta 767 FO - $135
Delta DC9 FO - $103

USAir 767 FO - $98

I can see why you are so excited about USAPA! I can smell the awesomeness from here!

 

[luvthe9]

Delta 767 FO - $135
Delta DC9 FO - $103

USAir 767 FO - $98

I can see why you are so excited about USAPA! I can smell the awesomeness from here!

These were rates negotiated while represented by ALPA . Another reason ALPA was, shall we say, removed from the premises. USAPA has nothing to do with these rates except the campaign ongoing to eradicate. Stand by for the Kasher decision.
Leonidas= putting the Jacobs kids through Harvard, with a legacy trust for the grandkids.......

 

[luvthe9]

Waiting for your Supreme Victory. Or Was it a Burrito Supreme?

Usapa = We run from the truth... :blink:

Going to have a tall Dos Equis with the Kasher decision. When the clarification comes and the Nic is flushed down the toilet, I'll have a Burrito Supreme. Appreciate the suggestion. Cheers!
Leonidas= Jacobs Law Firm Slush Fund For Strippers

 

[BLT]

I like the one about "A jury decided USAPA was guilty of violating its DFR and the 9th did not and cannot change that" 717. Don't you know this is the Wake trial that was dismissed? As in means nothing. Are you really forgetting this or just throwing anything and all things on the wall to see what sticks?

The 9th ruled that USAPA was not guilty based on ripeness alone. They did not rule on the merits of DOH or the Nicolau. If you think otherwise you have been misled.

As the 9th said:
"By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified."

 

[767jetz]

These were rates negotiated while represented by ALPA .

Correction/clarification: These were rates negotiated by East pilots while they were part of ALPA. ALPA had nothing to do with the negotiating part. Your negotiating committee did. (ie: East pilots)

Additionally, these are rates perpetuated by East pilots once again (now represented by USAPA) in pursuit of the Holly Grail, when higher rates could have been had YEARS ago.

 

[luvthe9]

Correction/clarification: These were rates negotiated by East pilots while they were part of ALPA. ALPA had nothing to do with the negotiating part. Your negotiating committee did. (ie: East pilots)

Additionally, these are rates perpetuated by East pilots once again (now represented by USAPA) in pursuit of the Holly Grail, when higher rates could have been had YEARS ago.

Hi Jetzz. Appears you are flying for pretty much the same rates. Didn't do so much better did you?
Leonidas= Life support for desperate lawyers who used to be doctors.
Leonidas= Lawyers in Love, with pilots money

 

[Hate2fly]

Correction/clarification: These were rates negotiated by East pilots while they were part of ALPA. ALPA had nothing to do with the negotiating part. Your negotiating committee did. (ie: East pilots)

Additionally, these are rates perpetuated by East pilots once again (now represented by USAPA) in pursuit of the Holly Grail, when higher rates could have been had YEARS ago.

Jetz,

Had lunch with college buddy today...................showed him the DPA info...........he is ready for the UPA!
January 1, 2010 pay rates per Restructuring Agreement:
12th year Captain Rate 12th year F/O rate

I also showed him the pay restoration rates as per LOA 84.............


A330--------$222.26 A330------$152.22
Group 1----$201.35 Group 1---$137.52
Group 2----$174.85 Group 2---$119.42

Don't forget to add 3% per year every May 1st. It will be game over! USAPA is the best money I ever spent.[/b

Hate

 

[767jetz]

The 9th ruled that USAPA was not guilty based on ripeness alone. They did not rule on the merits of DOH or the Nicolau.

Slight correction here. The ninth did not say they were not guilty. They only remanded the case back to Wake to be dismissed on the grounds of not being ripe.

I like the one about "A jury decided USAPA was guilty of violating its DFR and the 9th did not and cannot change that" 717. Don't you know this is the Wake trial that was dismissed? As in means nothing.

I think what 717 is saying is that before the case was dismissed due to ripeness, when the facts were presented and a jury was deciding based solely on merit, USAPA was found to be guilty. That certainly is a factual statement and cannot be changed. This was the only time anyone judged anything about merit. The 9th did not say anything about merit, remember? Hence, with testimony already on record in the Addington case (which definitely means something, since it can and certainly will be used in the future), and the previous unanimous jury decision, there is a pretty good chance a jury would come to the same conclusion if a ripe case is once again argued. Either way, the west spent $2M to ensure timeliness and avoid loss on a technicality like a statute of limitation. Money well spent for that insurance policy.

 

[767jetz]

Hi Jetzz. Appears you are flying for pretty much the same rates. Didn't do so much better did you?
Leonidas= Life support for desperate lawyers who used to be doctors.
Leonidas= Lawyers in Love, with pilots money

I agree that our rates are way too low, and that will be rectified very shortly.

But $110 is still a good 12% above $98.

 

[luvthe9]

Slight correction here. The ninth did not say they were not guilty. They only remanded the case back to Wake to be dismissed on the grounds of not being ripe.



I think what 717 is saying is that before the case was dismissed due to ripeness, when the facts were presented and a jury was deciding based solely on merit, USAPA was found to be guilty. That certainly is a factual statement and cannot be changed. This was the only time anyone judged anything about merit. The 9th did not say anything about merit, remember? Hence, with testimony already on record in the Addington case (which definitely means something, since it can and certainly will be used in the future), and the previous unanimous jury decision, there is a pretty good chance a jury would come to the same conclusion if a ripe case is once again argued. Either way, the west spent $2M to ensure timeliness and avoid loss on a technicality like a statute of limitation. Money well spent for that insurance policy.

This is really funny Jetzz. Pretty much an outright lie. "That certainly is a factual statement and cannot be changed...." You are out there on this. How can you throw this out when you know this was totally remanded to DISMISSAL? You lose credibility with every post. USAPA found guilty? Lets' get this straight. You put a post out there that USAPA was found guilty in a trial that was REMANDED, and act like it has any standing? It has NO standing, and you know it. The testimony on record in the Addington Case means nothing. You absolutely know NOTHING about the legal process and it shows every day! "There is a pretty good chance a jury would come to the same conclusion...." yes, if you are sticking up for your Amwest buddies. There is no legal basis for anything you say. This is ridiculous.
Leonidas= backed by delusional college buddies

 

[luvthe9]

Slight correction here. The ninth did not say they were not guilty. They only remanded the case back to Wake to be dismissed on the grounds of not being ripe.



I think what 717 is saying is that before the case was dismissed due to ripeness, when the facts were presented and a jury was deciding based solely on merit, USAPA was found to be guilty. That certainly is a factual statement and cannot be changed. This was the only time anyone judged anything about merit. The 9th did not say anything about merit, remember? Hence, with testimony already on record in the Addington case (which definitely means something, since it can and certainly will be used in the future), and the previous unanimous jury decision, there is a pretty good chance a jury would come to the same conclusion if a ripe case is once again argued. Either way, the west spent $2M to ensure timeliness and avoid loss on a technicality like a statute of limitation. Money well spent for that insurance policy.

Are you honestly telling the board that spending 2 million on a case that had no merit was money well spent? I don't get anything about the insurance policy. They paid 2 million. They got nothing, it has nothing to do with insurance. The only one that got insured was Jacobs. Insured that he was assured of 2 million cash flow.
Leonidas=an insurance policy for Jacobs, and retirement too!

 

[exB717Flyer]

I like the one about "A jury decided USAPA was guilty of violating its DFR and the 9th did not and cannot change that" 717. Don't you know this is the Wake trial that was dismissed? As in means nothing. Are you really forgetting this or just throwing anything and all things on the wall to see what sticks?

Is this really so hard to understand? I'll use very short sentences to make it easier.

DFR trial won on merits of case.

Case dismissed on appeal due to ripeness.

In other words, the merits of the case were not dealt with on appeal. What does that mean? It means a DFR II trial is highly likely to have the same outcome as DFR I. Don't believe that? Fine, we'll see y'all in court.

 

[BLT]

Are you honestly telling the board that spending 2 million on a case that had no merit was money well spent? I don't get anything about the insurance policy. They paid 2 million. They got nothing, it has nothing to do with insurance. The only one that got insured was Jacobs. Insured that he was assured of 2 million cash flow.
Leonidas=an insurance policy for Jacobs, and retirement too!

I don't think anyone on the west thinks it was a bad decision, and I don't think they will have trouble raising money for future litigation.

 

[luvthe9]

Is this really so hard to understand? I'll use very short sentences to make it easier.

DFR trial won on merits of case.

Case dismissed on appeal due to ripeness.

In other words, the merits of the case were not dealt with on appeal. What does that mean? It means a DFR II trial is highly likely to have the same outcome as DFR I. Don't believe that? Fine, we'll see y'all in court.

Sorry to inform you, in the legal world, Addington has NO standing, no reference for quotation, it does not exist. So if you want to build your foundation on a case that is not a case, be my guest. See you in court!
Leonidas=In Wake we trust. In Wake we lost, in Wake we spent 2 million.........