US Pilots Labor Thread 2/16-2/23

[EastUS]

Why would you assume Clue is a pilot??

Perhaps he works in another industry and is one of one of the brighter crayons in the box of 72?

Perhaps smart enough....

1) He's/she's previously claimed twin engined private time on these boards....apparently to further dazzle the ignorant masses of lumpen proletariat hereabouts
2) Indeed..and it must be a wondrously "creative" industry at that...possibly even allowing for the use of said crayons, and perhaps even a sharpener, In any case..any details would be welcome, as I'm certainly willing to be mightilly impressed
3) Perhaps, although little posted hereabouts has thus far proved the least bit conclusive on that score.....although, in full fairness; a highly developed and truly "creative" person might well be able to cloak their radiant intellect from the casual observer/reader.....

And..yes..I've done my time in business schools, and I understand the usage per "creative/non-creative" work positions. I jess' cain't fahnd it my po' little blue collar heart to brook much BS from any who'd patronizingly fantasize that an essentially sedentary/office existence renders anyone magically "superior" to any with abit more interest in directly interfacing with the world around them.

 

[cleardirect]

Whatever, Clear. One thing I noticed with you, the further from the truth you are, the longer your posts defending your misstatements, or you just ignore that you were wrong. You said Vasin wasnt being sued. You were wrong. Just admit it instead of trying to convince us that a yes is a no.

Mitch is not one of the 18 individuals. You still need to be concerned about USAPA’s agenda.

How can we take you seriously when you deliberately distort? Unless Mitch has already capitulated, he IS one of the 17. Read below. Im not sure if board rules allow me to mention names, so like PiBrat, Ill edit them out, except for Vasin, since that the point of my reply to you.

You call me a liar then distort the truth? I never said the Vasin was not being sued. I said he was not one of the 18 there are 25 defendants. I explained the difference. You chose to ignore the facts. That’s fine.

Your accusations that USAPA leadership is the same failed ALPO leadership fell flat under the truth. I note you havent commented on being exposed on that.

I have not commented because I do not have a list of former ALPA people to compare current leaders. So I took you at your word. If you are correct there is no need for further discussion.

But if there are no former ALPA leaders where did all of the experience that the safety teams talked about come from? Committee chairs are leaders of this new union.

No Clear, your posts dont track with the truth. Not that any of us ever thought they did. BTW, you really think the BK judge was going to let us go under? BS (big smile)
https://[email protected]

Again you chose not to believe me that’s fine. The judge is the only one that really needs to believe anything. Sometime soon when this is over we can compare our versions of the truth and see which one is closer.

You are entitled to your opinion. Just something to think about. The three auto manufactures are way more important to this countries economy then some east coast mid level airline. They had to go to the government to get bailed out. That may not even do it. We may see one of the three go away. Do you think that a BK judge will somehow stop that from happening? Do you think that a judge can somehow require creditors to inject more money into a company? To allow any company to operate indefinitely. There is not a company in this country that is so vital that when the creditors pull the plug it can be saved.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Because I can

And that sums up an entire intellectual foundation.

 

[ClueByFour]

3) Perhaps, although little posted hereabouts has thus far proved the least bit conclusive on that score.....although, in full fairness; a highly developed and truly "creative" person might well be able to cloak their radiant intellect from the casual observer/reader.....

East, honestly, I defer to your body of work for functional examples of how to cloak intellect from a reader--any reader.

And..yes..I've done my time in business schools, and I understand the usage per "creative/non-creative" work positions.

Given your defense of USAPA's DOH position, it's really difficult to imagine that business school sunk in. Or, alternatively, you are putting your personal gain ahead of the obviously correct (intellectually and morally).

I jess' cain't fahnd it my po' little blue collar heart to brook much BS from any who'd patronizingly fantasize that an essentially sedentary/office existence renders anyone magically "superior" to any with abit more interest in directly interfacing with the world around them.

You (incorrectly) assume that having a job that entails time in an office is isolating. Why don't you try reading the body of work by the author I referenced?

They did teach one how to "read" in business school, yes?

Tell you what--I'll give you (and nos, since he, like you, likes to bluster about insulting the messenger rather than attempt to engage in any kind of intellectual debate which would inevitably lead to his/yours obvious demise) another chance--why would one pilot using Richard Florida as a citation against another pilot be pretty funny/bad/not advisable? Don't break a finger trying to google it....

 

[EastUS]

East, honestly, I defer to your body of work for functional examples of how to cloak intellect from a reader--any reader.

Given your defense of USAPA's DOH position, it's really difficult to imagine that business school sunk in. Or, alternatively, you are putting your personal gain ahead of the obviously correct (intellectually and morally).

--------------------

Saving the world, one clue at a time.

1) Then it seems we do see eye-to-eye on at least the issue of mutual appreciation
2) Not ALL of my time in business schools left a lasting scar. in that I forsook the inherent teachings regarding "Lie Cheat and Steal 101"..after all "It's ALL about MEEE!"...and I completely failed the popular course"How to Screw Everyone Else to the Maximum Extent Possible for MY Beneft". This complete personal failure of intellectual process within the educational system left me permanently tarnished with vestiges of actual morality and respect for the service and work of others...PS as to that = You don't/can't achieve such a "deficiency" from any amount of reading. Such ridiculous notions as the belief that people other than one's self have actual worth's not to be discovered in business schools of this era...
3) As for what's "obviously correct"?...Anyone who'd fantasize that they are "Saving the world"...whether by way of "one clue at a time" or any means.....seriously needs some degree of reality/humility check, if not a full pyschiatric evaluation in depth. When/if you become comfortable in explaining yourself as the Savior of the world..."one clue at a time"...well..suffice it to say that what's "obviously correct" within your perceptions "might" be perceived otherwise by many. A shocking notion I'll grant..but you may wish to at least briefly contemplate it. Seriously; even within my worst periods of overly pompous arrogance...I always leave some room for the troublesome notion that I just might not be "right" in all aspects...unless I know, without doubt, that it's not merely some issue of my opinion. You may wish to consider even so very loathesome a concept for your own positions and notions.

 

[Leonidas]

USAPA a Honest bunch?

From federal court in North Carolina

"The Defendant USAPA is presenting to this court blatant errors in an exorbitant manner to bolster their position. The predicament of USAPA is that it is arguing in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in
Addington v. U S Airline Pilots Association, NO. 2:08-cv-1633-NVW (D. Ariz. Filed Sept. 04, 2008) for a date of hire seniority list for its members but arguing in this court against a date of hire seniority list for its members.
A glaring example of this is USAPA’s fast shuffle of submitting to the Courts two different Constitution and Bylaws (hereinafter C&BL) of the U S Airline Pilots Association in an effort to bolster their argument in two separate complaints that have similar dates of occurrence. "

 

[nycbusdriver]

From federal court in North Carolina

Was this really from THE court, i.e. the judge?

Or was it simply uttered IN court by the attorney, or a witness, for the defense?

Just because something is said in a court, does not make it factual or true. But it is certainly easy to post deceptively to bolster a weak argument on a message board.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

USAPA a Honest bunch?

That should be "an honest bunch" Dear.

 

[KTM300]

USAPA a Honest bunch?

From federal court in North Carolina

"The Defendant USAPA is presenting to this court blatant errors in an exorbitant manner to bolster their position. The predicament of USAPA is that it is arguing in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in
Addington v. U S Airline Pilots Association, NO. 2:08-cv-1633-NVW (D. Ariz. Filed Sept. 04, 2008) for a date of hire seniority list for its members but arguing in this court against a date of hire seniority list for its members.
A glaring example of this is USAPA’s fast shuffle of submitting to the Courts two different Constitution and Bylaws (hereinafter C&BL) of the U S Airline Pilots Association in an effort to bolster their argument in two separate complaints that have similar dates of occurrence. "

Is that what the 7(?) attorneys that USAPA has hired have done...changed the constitution and By-Laws to bolster its defense against the Breeger lawsuit?

 

[EastUS]

USAPA a Honest bunch?

"Three large issues came out of the December 15th hearing:

1) Plaintiffs' attempt to invade the attorney-client privilege – this was denied last week (we drafted a proposed update summarizing this Order)

2) Plaintiffs' attempt to deny USAPA the right to a trial by jury, which was denied this morning;..."

For your consideration "Leonidas": One "might" think that any "honest bunch", if sincerely advancing any "Integrity" ridden, "Righteous Position" wouldn't, and certainly shouldn't be so deathly afraid of any jury's opinion on said "Righteousness" Just an observation. No matter really. This will all have to be played out in court...before an actual jury....

PS: I earlier neglected to reference this as being an extraction from an update on the west's DFR suit.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

Just as a reminder, here's a quote from Judge Wake, taken from the October hearings on the DFR matter:

"The Plaintiff West Pilots allege that the East Pilots have manipulated union procedures for their sole benefit. They formed a union whose constituted purpose was to impose a date-of-hire scheme on the minority membership in disregard of an arbitrated compromise both sides agreed to and deemed fair in advance. The Plaintiff West Pilots allege that USAPA has followed through on that aim without any corresponding benefit to the pilots as a whole. In light of these principles and the cases cited above, the Plaintiff West Pilots have stated a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation."

These very words are likely to be echoed in the courtroom as an opening statement - certainly by the plaintiffs' attorney and most likely also by the judge himself. Seems as though the judge already has a rather strong feel for the true nature of usapa's initial concept and subsequent inception.

Question is, what does the preponderance of the evidence show? One simple glance at the usapa constitution, compared to the ALPA constitution would be enough to convince most anyone.

 

[nostradamus]

Court findings;

""USAPA has made no secret of its agenda.

There is no suggestion that criminal or otherwise illegal behavior lurks within the unions alleged
breach.

Finally, the West Pilots demonstrate no specific sense of what they hope to find
through this discovery; they appear to be blindly "fishing."

"The absence of trade secrets, Because the scope of the West Pilots discovery request is so overly broad, it is not even possible to say whether it seeks communications relating to litigation or past or future action.""

LINK DELETED BY MODERATOR

 

[cleardirect]

Court findings;

""USAPA has made no secret of its agenda.

There is no suggestion that criminal or otherwise illegal behavior lurks within the unions alleged
breach.

Finally, the West Pilots demonstrate no specific sense of what they hope to find
through this discovery; they appear to be blindly "fishing."

"The absence of trade secrets, Because the scope of the West Pilots discovery request is so overly broad, it is not even possible to say whether it seeks communications relating to litigation or past or future action.""

LINK DELETED BY MODERATOR

Nos,

You may want to review NYCbusdrivers post. Was this said by the court or was it by usapa? It looks like the mod deleted the link. Trying to deceive using a false label? What document are you quoting? Did you really mean to say court filing? Big difference.

Was this really from THE court, i.e. the judge?

Or was it simply uttered IN court by the attorney, or a witness, for the defense?

Just because something is said in a court, does not make it factual or true. But it is certainly easy to post deceptively to bolster a weak argument on a message board.

 

[V1cut]

Nos,

You may want to review NYCbusdrivers post. Was this said by the court or was it by usapa? It looks like the mod deleted the link. Trying to deceive using a false label? What document are you quoting? Did you really mean to say court filing? Big difference.

If you are asking about your hero Judge Wake's description of the "fishing expedition" (land grab) by the west on the attorney/client issue: you'll enjoy reading Judge Wakes ORDER

http://1.usairlinepilots.org/members-only/...-DenyingMTC.pdf

 

[V1cut]

Just as a reminder, here's a quote from Judge Wake, taken from the October hearings on the DFR matter:

"The Plaintiff West Pilots allege that the East Pilots have manipulated union procedures for their sole benefit. They formed a union whose constituted purpose was to impose a date-of-hire scheme on the minority membership in disregard of an arbitrated compromise both sides agreed to and deemed fair in advance. The Plaintiff West Pilots allege that USAPA has followed through on that aim without any corresponding benefit to the pilots as a whole. In light of these principles and the cases cited above, the Plaintiff West Pilots have stated a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation."

These very words are likely to be echoed in the courtroom as an opening statement - certainly by the plaintiffs' attorney and most likely also by the judge himself. Seems as though the judge already has a rather strong feel for the true nature of usapa's initial concept and subsequent inception.

Question is, what does the preponderance of the evidence show? One simple glance at the usapa constitution, compared to the ALPA constitution would be enough to convince most anyone.

You surely are aware what "allege" means, right?