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

[Freebird]

You Westies have had to have read the USA Today article on USAirways. Nice job! We have returned to the AWA position in the JD Power standings right where AWA was all these years ago. You cannot paint USAir on the side of it and continue to operate the way AWA did. Right back in the cellar. Good for Doug and Scooter though. It is on time and the bonuses keep coming. That is fabulous. "You work for a dirtbag outfit " is totally correct.

Bro,

That article is spot on about this dirt bag operation.

It failed to mention the Lack of Integrity from the East pilots for not being able to abide by BINDING ARBITRATION.

Check this out;

CODE OF CONDUCT

Play the game for the games sake.
Be generous when you win.
Be graceful when you lose.
Be fair always no matter what the cost.
Obey the laws of the game.
Work for the good of your team.
Accept the decisions of the officials with good grace.
Believe in the honesty of your opponents.
Conduct yourself with honor and dignity.

This Code of Conduct is published by FIFA US Soccer Association, maybe Usapa can hang a copy of it in their office.


Usapa = We are stealing from the West.

 

[Freebird]

luvthe9,

The west will never be able to cash the nic lottery ticket. MDA will blow this thing out of the water. Kasher will be coming in soon and it will be ugly for the west. Every new hire coming to the east will always vote with the east pilots so they can get the quick upgrades. Separate operations will be here for a very long time. This is what happens when you are greedy like the west pilot group. Too bad! Wake should have gone to University of Pennsylvania.............big mistake.....this is what happens when you do something for a best friend.

January 1, 2010 pay rates per Restructuring Agreement:
12th year Captain Rate 12th year F/O rate

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

Hate

Thanks for the laugh. Your Desperation is pathetic.


Usapa = Enjoy LOA93, the wheels are falling off usapa....

 

[luvthe9]

POST DELETED BY MODERATOR-I SUGGEST YOU ALL REVIEW THE RULES REGARDING PERSONAL ATTACKS

 

[nycbusdriver]

Keep quoting the 9th. Your creative interpretation of their statements is amusing but more importantly your misunderstanding of their significance is very amusing. The appellate court made one ruling and one ruling only: the case wasn't ripe. Everything else they wrote is interesting but irrelevant because it has no legal bearing. Appellate courts don't retry cases, they only rule on points of law during the conduction of the case. But for the ripeness issue the case was won by the Addington plaintiffs. If you feel lucky about your chances in another DFR trial then we shall both find out.

So then, you think all that verbiage from the 9th really was a homework assignment for their clerks.

If all they did was dismiss the case over ripeness, why did they not just say:

"We find that Addington vs. USAPA is not ripe, and direct the district court to dismiss."

 

[nycbusdriver]

Do you admit this to your junior co-workers in person? I would think they'd take offense to hear this whole exercise is just for your own purposes and you really don't care what happens to them when you're gone.

Most of my junior co-workers are nearly my age, many older. I will be here long enough to use my vote to thwart the west crap.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Interestingly, your 17 year, junior, furloughed pilots who USAPA are using as a "call to arms" to rally support for your "cause" are exactly the ones who you say you don't care about. How telling is that?

I care very deeply about my co-workers. That's why I support, and will continue to support until retirement, the suppression and elimination of the Nicolau shame. Once I'm gone though, they are no longer my co-workers, I will no longer have a dog in the fight and will be stripped of my one power: to vote.

You won't find me here in retirement stirring the pot. I've got plans, and they don't include USAviation.com.

 

[Black Swan]

Bro,

That article is spot on about this dirt bag operation.

It failed to mention the Lack of Integrity from the East pilots for not being able to abide by BINDING ARBITRATION.

Check this out;

CODE OF CONDUCT

Play the game for the games sake.
Be generous when you win.
Be graceful when you lose.
Be fair always no matter what the cost.
Obey the laws of the game.
Work for the good of your team.
Accept the decisions of the officials with good grace.
Believe in the honesty of your opponents.
Conduct yourself with honor and dignity.

This Code of Conduct is published by FIFA US Soccer Association, maybe Usapa can hang a copy of it in their office.


Usapa = We are stealing from the West.

Dude, this had nothing to do with integrity. It is all about doing the right thing. You should have brought us up on the pay. All I can say is, paybacks are hell. Tight corner shot to the upper right. Game over.

 

[Black Swan]

It made sense to me. Read it again, this time with the intended sarcasm.

No, this is why they lose. They are very enthusiastic about something that has no merit. And their counsel takes advantage of it. Pretty sad. If that makes sense, then it speaks volumes.

 

[luvthe9]

Dude, this had nothing to do with integrity. It is all about doing the right thing. You should have brought us up on the pay. All I can say is, paybacks are hell. Tight corner shot to the upper right. Game over.

Yeah, and one of their former pilots played a mean game. Jim Thames
Leonidas=we don't hustle, we talk the shot, we miss more than we hit....
Leonidas=we assign integrity to an attempt to take advantage and use something we never earned. Therefore, we do not even begin to understand the meaning of the term....

 

[luvthe9]

Yeah, and one of their former pilots played a mean game. Jim Thames
Leonidas=we don't hustle, we talk the shot, we miss more than we hit....
[Leonidas=we assign integrity to a failed attempt to take advantage of another. Therefore, we do not even begin to understand what the word means..../quote]

 

[Hate2fly]

Thanks for the laugh. Your Desperation is pathetic.


Usapa = Enjoy LOA93, the wheels are falling off usapa....

Freebird,

No desperation in the east ranks unless you are one of the ALPA faithful. Even most of them have come over to the USAPA side of the world. You know planet USAPA? We have waited patiently for our east attrition......we don't believe in cutting the line! The old man St. Nic didn't do you any favors............he put you in limbo for the long haul. Some day you will realize your mistakes! Your desert judge took you as far as he could.

Keep the donations coming!

Hate

 

[hp_fa]

I have been waiting for someone, anyone, to recognize something. Specifically that all of the testimony and discovery exchanged in Addington is still testimony or records obtained under oath. So if people's stories magically change in the new trial they will be called on it and impeached right there in court.

Here's how it works.

Attorney A asks witness Z a question and gets an answer.

During cross-examination Attorney B asks witness Z, "Isn't it true that on April XX, 2009 you testified that (blah, blah blah). (Yes or No response)

(If the answer was yes, then the attorney asks if the witnesses recollection in dispute is better in 2011 than 2009?)

(If yes, how can that be?) (Watch out for answers implying lawyer preparation reminded me because then the question of what exactly did the lawyer say to you during prep becomes relevant.)

If the answer to the question about the original question is no, then you merely look the part of the fool and your credibility is shot anyway.

The moral here is that testimony was obtained under oath and the fact that Addington was dismissed on ripeness does not nullify the various evidence and testimony obtained under oath. Computers make it so easy to find who said exactly what in transcripts and then an official paper copy of the transcript is opened to the correct page and then.......

It wasn't all a waste. It was just premature.

 

[Barrister]

I have been waiting for someone, anyone, to recognize something. Specifically that all of the testimony and discovery exchanged in Addington is still testimony or records obtained under oath. So if people's stories magically change in the new trial they will be called on it and impeached right there in court.

Here's how it works.

Attorney A asks witness Z a question and gets an answer.

During cross-examination Attorney B asks witness Z, "Isn't it true that on April XX, 2009 you testified that (blah, blah blah). (Yes or No response)

(If the answer was yes, then the attorney asks if the witnesses recollection in dispute is better in 2011 than 2009?)

(If yes, how can that be?) (Watch out for answers implying lawyer preparation reminded me because then the question of what exactly did the lawyer say to you during prep becomes relevant.)

If the answer to the question about the original question is no, then you merely look the part of the fool and your credibility is shot anyway.

The moral here is that testimony was obtained under oath and the fact that Addington was dismissed on ripeness does not nullify the various evidence and testimony obtained under oath. Computers make it so easy to find who said exactly what in transcripts and then an official paper copy of the transcript is opened to the correct page and then.......

It wasn't all a waste. It was just premature.

I see you are back in your usual style!!!
It took awhile for you to get over the 9ths ruling
...we totally understand!!!i

NICDOA
NPJB

 

[Phoenix]

I have been waiting for someone, anyone, to recognize something. Specifically that all of the testimony and discovery exchanged in Addington is still testimony or records obtained under oath. ......

It wasn't all a waste. It was just premature.

The 9th only ruled on the first of five issues claimed in the appeal (abbreviated below) and did not rule on the rest because it was not ripe. To assume that a new trial will result in the same outcome as Wake's court is to ignore the other issues explained in over 100 pages of the appeal (and to assume they would have been ruled in Addington's favor) and to assume that a new trial will occur remaining willfully obstinate to the amplifying notes of the 9th that they did publish.

= First, the case was never ripe.
= Second, plaintiffs failed to state a claim.
= Third, the trial was unfair.
= Fourth, there was insufficient evidence to support a judgment of a bad faith DFR violation.
= Fifth, the scope of the injunction is excessive and beyond the district court’s jurisdiction.

All the same evidence can be repeated, but the next time will include evidence that Wake excluded. Wake excluded key testimony and he excluded the threshold that must be broken to find a union guilty of breaching their DFR, a threshold the 9th cited from the SCOTUS. Their is no rational basis to conclude that a "Wake result" will repeat, aside from hopeful assumptions and willful delusions.

Carry on.

 

[767jetz]

It had no merit from the start.

Well a couple of judges, an unbiased jury, and countless others on this side of the issue disagree.

How do you use a jury decision that was nullified, remanded?

Ummm... you do realize that remand does not mean nullified, right? A current volume of the Webster's dictionary might help here.

Then the case goes to the 9th, and the merit issue is completely addressed.

Again with the merit -vs- ripeness confusion. (hrmphhh. sigh.) Yet someone has yet to produce the exact words from the ninth saying the case had no merit. (Interpretations and reading between the lines don't count here.)

This is honestly getting old.

I agree wholeheartedly.

If Addington was remanded... Then it means nothing, therefore, it has no merit.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. Opinions around here are not in short supply.

This is some really strange logic you are floating to the west masses, and I really am starting to figure out why they keep going in for more punishment.

???? Wow! I didn't realize I had that much power on this forum to influence the legal strategy of the west. Must be all those extra "z's" I've earned on my screen name.

Can I somehow get it through to you that if it was not ripe, it had no merit?

No you can't. Can I somehow get it through to you that merit and ripeness have nothing to do with each other? I didn't think so. Which is why I suggested about 10 pages ago that we all stop debating something so entrenched. Can we move on now? I'm tired.