US Pilots Labor Thread 2/16-2/23

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

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

Since this seems to be members only, what does the link have to say?

 

[V1cut]

It say the Judge doesn't buy their story for discovery. It say the Judge doesn't buy the claim of some dastardly program under the radar. It says he begins to question where the west is going with their lawsuit against USAPA. That some west pilots may not know how to access the website says it all.
I note none have responded since.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

Since this seems to be members only, what does the link have to say?

It says the east doesn't have to reveal, as evidence, private attorney-client communications - that is all.

No biggie - Seaham's previously displayed actions and public proclamations will most likely have the desired effect .........

"We, the members of the jury, find usapa _ _ _ _ _ _ !!!"

Can't wait for the blank to get filled...........

 

[Metroyet]

It says the east doesn't have to reveal, as evidence, private attorney-client communications - that is all.

No biggie - Seaham's previously displayed actions and public proclamations will most likely have the desired effect .........

"We, the members of the jury, find usapa _ _ _ _ _ _ !!!"

Can't wait for the blank to get filled...........

The Judge also remarked that this discovery wasn't necessary as:

"USAPA has made no secret of it's Agenda"

Gee, what could the "Agenda" be?

hint: it ain't the fair representation of ALL us airways pilots.

 

[Mr. Big]

lets not forget the previous ruling by your esteemed Judge....JURY TRIAL

yep, this should be really good. I just can't wait to see the plaintiffs on the stand in front of the jury wiggling around HISTORY over the last 3 years....may have to pop some corn for this.

When asked directly by the judge: they can't elaborate on their own case....seemingly for lack of knowledge (according to Wake)

When asked where they intend to take this case as plaintiffs: Not sure, leaving options open for the future (Wake really didn't care for that one)

When queried by Wake about the crux of the complaint changing by the minute: Wake not happy at all, and called it as such...

Yep, Judge Wake is now getting the REAL picture here...

USAPA: no hidden agenda...new legal union voted on by ALL LCC pilots...DOH agenda.

Addington? a fishing expedition about to run aground.

* For those unfamiliar, the west (Addington) case requested a jury trial initially...then, upon reflection, they changed their mind. USAPA agreed to a jury trial. Addington (west) then refused the jury trial. USAPA then demanded a jury trial based on the stated core issue from Addington (west). Then Addington (west) objected to the jury trial. USAPA again demanded a jury trial under the pretenses of the plaintiffs' suit.

Judge Wake agreed...and was displeased with the west flip-flop land grab...again.

 

[Elevation]

Did somebody get a new username?

 

[Mr. Big]

Did somebody get a new username?

what...you no like?

Do you suggest something illegal? How can that be?

If you don't like the news, blame somebody else. just reporting the facts here.

 

[cleardirect]

lets not forget the previous ruling by your esteemed Judge....JURY TRIAL

yep, this should be really good. I just can't wait to see the plaintiffs on the stand in front of the jury wiggling around HISTORY over the last 3 years....may have to pop some corn for this.

When asked directly by the judge: they can't elaborate on their own case....seemingly for lack of knowledge (according to Wake)

When asked where they intend to take this case as plaintiffs: Not sure, leaving options open for the future (Wake really didn't care for that one)

When queried by Wake about the crux of the complaint changing by the minute: Wake not happy at all, and called it as such...

Mr. Big,

What document did these quotes come from?

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

Mr. Big,

What document did these quotes come from?

CD -

Don't scare him off by asking tough questions. I was looking forward to having some fun with ____ MR. BIG____ our apparent, most recent board rookie.

So, Mr. Big, how is it that basing your union upon DOH principals represents fair representation of the West? Especially considering that not one single West pilot was permitted to make any input what-so-ever into that policy. I'd really like to hear how this DOH principal is representing my interests.

Thank you for stepping up to the plate here.

 

[Mr. Big]

Mr. Big,

What document did these quotes come from?

Well, I'll start by asking this question: do you see "quotation marks" around those words?

Then, I'll tell you that they are paraphrases from Judge Wake himself found in some of the documents contained in the litigation library on your union website. Find it yourself.

 

[Phoenix]

... ____ MR. BIG____ our apparent, most recent board rookie.

I see... DOH (Date on Hereboards) has a direct impact as to one's position. Good argument! I see you really had it in you all along. Welcome back!

 

[Mr. Big]

So, Mr. Big, how is it that basing your union upon DOH principals represents fair representation of the West? Especially considering that not one single West pilot was permitted to make any input what-so-ever into that policy. I'd really like to hear how this DOH principal is representing my interests. [/quote]


In the identically same fair manner as your AFA flight attendants.

In the identically same manner as every other workgroup between the two companies.

It has been made crystal clear by the west that nothing short of the flawed Nicoloau award will make the west pilots happy...that somehow you are to be handled differently than EVERY other workgroup at USAirways.

Two words for you to meditate on today:

JURY TRIAL.

Your esteemed lawyer decided early-on that this was a bad idea for you...he was right about that.

 

[NiceLandingCaptain]

So, Mr. Big, how is it that basing your union upon DOH principals represents fair representation of the West? Especially considering that not one single West pilot was permitted to make any input what-so-ever into that policy. I'd really like to hear how this DOH principal is representing my interests.


In the identically same fair manner as your AFA flight attendants.

In the identically same manner as every other workgroup between the two companies.

It has been made crystal clear by the west that nothing short of the flawed Nicoloau award will make the west pilots happy...that somehow you are to be handled differently than EVERY other workgroup at USAirways.

Two words for you to meditate on today:

JURY TRIAL.

Your esteemed lawyer decided early-on that this was a bad idea for you...he was right about that.

Mere drivel, balderdash and puffery.

Everything you've written has no bearing on the matter at hand. Furthermore, most of those points were negated long ago on this board. Your rookie status is showing again.

We Westyz have no problem with a jury trial. It opens the door for monetary liability and gives stronger credence to the final outcome. Only difference is our lawyers may need to use smaller words when convincing a jury of usapa's failure to represent the West.

Two words might be a stretch for you to handle this fine day, so here's an easier challenge for you to brood over:

GUILTY

 

[cleardirect]

Well, I'll start by asking this question: do you see "quotation marks" around those words?

Then, I'll tell you that they are paraphrases from Judge Wake himself found in some of the documents contained in the litigation library on your union website. Find it yourself.

Thanks Big I thought so, but wanted to confirm that I did not miss something.

So you paraphrased your interpretation of what was said.

First, most important point. The judge did not say these things. The judge does not depose people. This judge has only questioned one person so far. Randy Mowery on the stand.

The paraphrase that you put so much stock in were the questions by Seham at a deposition. The answers were by either the plaintiffs or the lawyer. So go ahead a paraphrase Seham all you want.
But it holds no value.

Keep swinging rook. Someday you may play in the big leagues. But not yet.

 

[Mr. Big]

Thanks Big I thought so, but wanted to confirm that I did not miss something.

So you paraphrased your interpretation of what was said.

First, most important point. The judge did not say these things. The judge does not depose people. This judge has only questioned one person so far. Randy Mowery on the stand.

The paraphrase that you put so much stock in were the questions by Seham at a deposition. The answers were by either the plaintiffs or the lawyer. So go ahead a paraphrase Seham all you want.
But it holds no value.

Keep swinging rook. Someday you may play in the big leagues. But not yet.

I stand corrected...I read through all the documents and attributed Seeham's comments to Wake. They were indeed Seehams comments. I'll remind you that they were sufficient to move Judge Wake to order a jury trial. Doesn't really change my day much, but it sure does change the case for those 6 guys going on the stand for all to see. In fact, putting these guys on the stand without their little AOL to speak for them should prove quite entertaining for everyone involved.

As to your "rook" comment...

I'll debate you anyday, Mr. Veteran web-poster.