US Pilots labor thread 11/5-

[ableoneable]

It was actually a figure of speech...but now that you bring it up: (and again, boy oh boy are we getting touchy lately..anything cooking?)

Not a figure of speech just an incorrect characterization.

I am always touchy.

I saw a lot of this discussion going on around Y2K, when many felt the celebration was off by a year. The best I heard it explained was with a question, "was someone born on January 1, 1900 a citizen of the 19th Century or 20th Century? Same logic, take it or leave it.

I don't know if said individual was a citizen of the 20th but he/she was certainly born in the latter part of the 19th century.

Your genius,

RR

Incorrect is incorrect no matter what kind of paint you slap on the sucker.

 

[Reed Richards]

The Addington reps would just get sued by other West members as there was only ONE legally agreed to process to arrive at seniority integration. ALPA merger policy. Done.

And I always wondered why it took so long to get pilots to step up as "reps" for USAPA. Who knew the good ones were already "Addington Reps," held legally responsible for the acts of their own, internal union.

This is really too much fun,

RR

 

[luvn737s]

The West contract has A330 rates but no section 18 East contract equivalent International operations section to allow for augmented crews. PHX-Tokyo would have to be flown by deadheading East crews or postponed. Just another self-inflicted negative consequence of holding out for Nic.
underpants

USAPA can just go in and negotiate a change to the west contract, as they did with the Age 58 bypass provision. They've set the precedent.

Dontcha just love that brain trust?

 

[nic4us]

It was actually a figure of speech...but now that you bring it up: (and again, boy oh boy are we getting touchy lately..anything cooking?)

I saw a lot of this discussion going on around Y2K, when many felt the celebration was off by a year. The best I heard it explained was with a question, "was someone born on January 1, 1900 a citizen of the 19th Century or 20th Century? Same logic, take it or leave it.

Your genius,

RR

Just because this is more fun than poking holes in Underpants logic, well I might get back to that anyway, I would have to side with RR on this one and say 2010 is the next decade.

If you were born in 1958, you are born in the fifties, 1963 the sixties, 1970 the seventies. See where I am going with 2010? , but would you say a person born 2010 was born in the teenies?

 

[nycbusdriver]

USAPA can just go in and negotiate a change to the west contract, as they did with the Age 58 bypass provision. They've set the precedent.

Dontcha just love that brain trust?

Yes, they absolutely COULD.

And they could deem it significant enough to warrant a plebescite of the membership in good standing, as the CBL allows. Good luck with that vote. Got enough money for yet another lawsuit?

 

[nycbusdriver]

It doesn't surprise me that the Ninth Circuit accepted the appeal...

That doesn't sound much like the tune you were singing a few months back when USAPA said they would appeal.

So we will just have to see what happens.

That's a new tune, also.

 

[nic4us]

The East pilots, the BPR, Judge Wake, the 9th circuit appeals court, SCOTUS, the Addington class representitives, the West pilots by vote, the company, the next merger partner, bankruptcy court, Congress, a federal arbitrator, the current contract, a ratified new contract, the system board, other court decisions, the NMB, Nicolau, President Obama through a Presidential emergency board

...... just to name a few.

underpants

well, you named a bunch not a few, but only few of your bunch are on the West, and there is no mechanism to vote on this issue. West usapa migs could not legally vote away the Nic. The Addington class has no method for input, the Addington named plaintifs might be able to drop the suit, but not the Nic. The company? they already accepted the Nic.( was that a Freudian slip, and did you unintentionally let out that you believe the company is the West?)

 

[nic4us]

Got enough money for yet another lawsuit?

We will in December. Even more where that came from next fall in the damages trial.

usapa's should not worry if the West can afford to sue them, usapa should fear the countersuit that the Cactus 18 could throw at them if they get financing.

 

[hp_fa]

That doesn't sound much like the tune you were singing a few months back when USAPA said they would appeal.



That's a new tune, also.

Actually, neither are new tunes.

 

[ClueByFour]

Yes, they absolutely COULD.

And they could deem it significant enough to warrant a plebescite of the membership in good standing, as the CBL allows. Good luck with that vote. Got enough money for yet another lawsuit?

I'd tell you to go ahead and poke that bear, but the East folks just don't get it--that money is a loan. They'll (West guys) get it back (with lawyer's fees and potentially interest) in damages, which will come out of your pocket.

You guys just don't seem to understand that the USAPA fairy does not allow the use of the majority to kick the West guys. A reasonable person might think that the Addington example would have sunk in.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Switching gears here for a minute...

What do the USAPA supporters on this site have to say regarding Seham's firm filing an OPTIONAL reply brief with the 9th Circuit an ENTIRE WEEK LATE? Am I missing something here. Do you guys understand yet that Seham is using USAPA as a cash cow? How long are you gonna let this go on?

hp_fa it is written that the optional reply brief would be due one week after AOL's reply. That would make it Nov 2... USAPA's reply came on the 9th of Nov. Will the Court accept this? What say you sir...?

 

[Metroyet]

Got enough money for yet another lawsuit?

Yep. You can't stop us. Since you guys have failed to at every turn, I would think that was obvious by now.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Got enough money for yet another lawsuit?

Yes.

But why go there? Now would be a good time to start thinking strategically instead of letting emotions guide decisionmaking.

 

[hp_fa]

hp_fa it is written that the optional reply brief would be due one week after AOL's reply. That would make it Nov 2... USAPA's reply came on the 9th of Nov. Will the Court accept this? What say you sir...?

I had a scheduling question about an Appellant's Reply about the time that the Appellees' Response was filed. The person that I had this conversation with told me that the Court of Appeals had, by written Order, shortened the time for filing any Reply. It appears that the Appellant failed to comply with that Order.

The next question is the one you asked, what does a court generally do with a late filing? In my experience the Court reads the filing. After reading the filing it decides whether or not to bar the filing due to being late or not. However, this is a US Court of Appeals and they do things differently. The staff counsel are likely to be reviewing this issue before it gets to the panel. I expect that staff counsel will then forward the Reply along with a memorandum regarding any late filing issues and any recommendation they have whether or not any late filed document should be reviewed.

So, the answer I give you now is "I don't know." It certainly would have been far easier for counsel to simply have filed on time and not raised any timeliness issue(s).

 

[jimntx]

I saw a lot of this discussion going on around Y2K, when many felt the celebration was off by a year. The best I heard it explained was with a question, "was someone born on January 1, 1900 a citizen of the 19th Century or 20th Century? Same logic, take it or leave it.

Your genius,

RR

The easiest way to 'splain it is to go back to the 1st Century AD. If the year 100 (and by extension all the following "00" years) had been the 1st year of the 2nd century AD, the first century would have only had 99 years in it. There was no year zero. The same can be said about the first decade of the first year. If year 10 (and by extension, 2010) were not the last year of the first decade, the first decade would have only had 9 years.

The year number is actually the number of years completed. We are not now in the 2009th year AD. We have completed 2009 years. We are in the 2010th year.