US Pilots Labor Thread 3/11-3/18 OBSERVE THE RULES

[Piedmont1984]

Yes, thank you.

 

[hp_fa]

I have learned that the Court has issued Document 250, which is an Order denying USAPA 's Motion for Reconsideration of Trial Date.

A quote:

The foreshortened timetable of this case will not result in “actual and substantial
prejudice†to USAPA. Martel v. County of L.A., 56 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1995).
USAPA is the party with direct access to the primary evidence in this case: East Pilot
testimony and documentary evidence concerning USAPA’s formation, actions, and
agenda. Plaintiffs do not protest the trial date even though the bulk of relevant
information presumably exists under USAPA’s control. Counsel for USAPA admits that
the parties have in place a factual stipulation that is “pretty comprehensive.†(Doc.
# 211, at 38.) USAPA points to no affirmative defense subjecting it to a significant
burden of proof; its main defenses have already been rejected at the dismissal stage.
(Doc. # 84.) USAPA complains that it has taken only one deposition dedicated to the
merits of the dispute, though it apparently used its extended (and largely profitless) period
of certification-related discovery to question Plaintiffs on the merits. Regardless, ample
time remains for the completion of additional depositions, and Plaintiffs’ counsel has
represented to the Court that all witnesses currently demanded by USAPA will be
produced in a timely fashion. What USAPA characterizes as a history of discovery abuse
by Plaintiffs amounts to routine disagreements over the scope of discovery and USAPA’s
distrust of Plaintiffs’ representations regarding the non-existence of certain documents.
(See doc. ## 185, 207, 211, 227.) The Court is prepared to address any new discovery
disputes expeditiously under its own established procedures. (Doc. # 203.)
USAPA will not be prejudiced by the Court’s offhand February 20 remark that
trial might take place in June or July. The April date was fixed a mere ten days later, on
Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 250 Filed 03/11/2009 Page 3 of 4

If USAPA elected to pursue unnecessary briefing during that
time, it was on notice that the court was hesitant to delay the case, particularly regarding
ripeness contentions that were already disposed of. (Doc. # 211, at 32, 39-40.) Contrary
to USAPA’s claim, the need to formulate jury instructions poses no obstacle to an April
trial. Mr. Brengle, USAPA’s trial counsel who was admitted pro hac vice in January
2009, attests that his work schedule will not permit him to conduct a trial in April, but the
convenience of counsel cannot outweigh the needs of the litigants and the Court’s trial
calendar. Neither party indicates that settlement is a realistic possibility in this injunction
case, so the asserted danger of a “blackmail settlement†seems nonexistent.

From the beginning, the Court has advised the parties of the great time urgency in
this matter. It holds profound importance for all parties concerned. USAPA has an
interest in removing the cloud of doubt surrounding its bargaining position. The Plaintiffs
and the class members have an interest in the adjudication of their complaints and injuries
arising out of the union’s alleged wrongs. And this four-year-old dispute within the union
obstructs the operations of a major airline in a troubled economy. As much as the
circumstances of this case make it the Court’s responsibility to effect a speedy resolution,
an expedited discovery schedule is both feasible and appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)( C ).

As I happened to allude to earlier, the Court does not appear to be buying what USAPA's legal team is selling.

 

[A320 Driver]

The real trick for the West legal team is going to be to convince a jury that it is OK for pilots with less than half the time in service to be placed senior to their East counterparts. This isn't necessarily airline people. Just regular folks. I'd be willing to guess that more than one of them is going to think that is nuts regardless of the circumstances. I could be wrong (been wrong before) but we shall see.


A320 Driver B)

 

[hp_fa]

That is true if that issue does actually get before the jury. However, if it does, the jury will also know that the issue was put in front of arbitrators in an agreed upon full and final binding arbitration and the arbitration decision was not put into effect. The issue does cut both ways.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

This case isn't about the Nic award. It's about whether USAPA represented the West folks despite their tantrums. I wouldn't be expecting a decision concerning the Nic award for either side.

 

[sharktooth]

That is true if that issue does actually get before the jury. However, if it does, the jury will also know that the issue was put in front of arbitrators in an agreed upon full and final binding arbitration and the arbitration decision was not put into effect. The issue does cut both ways.

If USAPA is on the ball, they will ensure that the truth is that ALPA ran the "merger" program, not bothering to inform any east pilots what they had done, proffering an obviously incorrect list, ceding who/whom bought whom to the A&W folks (true or not) and proceeding as if US had totally ceased operations, any and all points should be easily overturned in court. Even Parker laid out a timeline where A&W would have ceased to exist well before US, sans merger.

The fact that the arbitrator operated on false information should dissemble most any ruling. The fact that he never commented on the conditional MDA possibility of being mainline is a giant red-flag to me how things went down, ALPA wanted to avoid another major lawsuit loss.

Fact of the matter is, should the "nic" be implemented, ALPA would lose a RICO lawsuit and operations in a merged operation would cease. I can state with quite a bit of certitude that Parker has no intention of implementing the "nic", the downsides would be devastating for Tempe.

and to hp_fa, jurors are, generally, much smarter than you characterize them, I hope you don't mind that I have copied your comments and will ensure they get full exposure before any jury. Thanks.

 

[luvn737s]

I would guess that the judges (jury's) remedy for an unfairly represented class would be separate east/west ratification of any joint contract thus compelling cooperation and perhaps the requirement that Nicolau be presented with support from USAPA. Loggerheads ad infinitum.

 

[tazz]

1) Let me summarize in more simplistic terms: Alpa was a corrupt and worthless disaster, and is GONE..
2) It's been nearly two years now, and I don't see any west pilots based out east.
3) The nic's not the working seniority list, hasn't ever been, and I very much doubt will ever see any actual implementation. I'm not concerned with west notions to the contrary.

I think we're done for now. Call me if/when any westie takes an east seat.

As for "This is fun EastUS, I look forward to meeting you.." Does that mean you did get the Valentines flowers? Seriously; I've offered up plentiful wagers in the past for any westie that'd require meeting. Evidently..you weren't/aren't interested in actually backing up any of the standardly arrogant west BS?

Takes time, eastus, justice is slow. Rest assured I will be Boston based when the time is right. No, I didn't get the flowers and I don't recall any wager. I don't gamble, by the way. I have always backed up my arguments with facts and have real credibility, having been on the west merger committee and actually having read pertinent documents. Try arguing with reason and levity rather than emotion and a fake pseudo intellectual tone. I did mean it when I said I look forward to meeting you. I would like to see how you conduct yourself when not hiding behind a keyboard. I will be in PHL several times this month on ron's if you are interested. And please, as I warned you before, do not send me any more nasty pm's.

 

[Elevation]

"USAPA points to no affirmative defense subjecting it to a significant burden of proof; its main defenses have already been rejected at the dismissal stage."

Love
Judge Wake

 

[toganoflex]

The real trick for the West legal team is going to be to convince a jury that it is OK for pilots with less than half the time in service to be placed senior to their East counterparts. This isn't necessarily airline people. Just regular folks. I'd be willing to guess that more than one of them is going to think that is nuts regardless of the circumstances. I could be wrong (been wrong before) but we shall see.


A320 Driver B)

Ummm ya, not even close.

Read up a little before posting. What you just wrote shows a fundamental lack of knowledge about this case.

 

[nycbusdriver]

That is true if that issue does actually get before the jury. However, if it does, the jury will also know that the issue was put in front of arbitrators in an agreed upon full and final binding arbitration and the arbitration decision was not put into effect. The issue does cut both ways.

Yes, but this jury gets to second-guess Nicolau and decide the old man was indeed bonkers.

 

[hp_fa]

Yes, but this jury gets to second-guess Nicolau and decide the old man was indeed bonkers.

Questionable. A lot of whether the jury hears about the actual award provisions will be decided by the judge due to the limited scope of the issue being tried. There is no way the jury will re-write Nicolau. This bifurcated trial is about liability only, not remedies.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Yes, but this jury gets to second-guess Nicolau and decide the old man was indeed bonkers.

:blink:

 

[nic4us]

Yes, but this jury gets to second-guess Nicolau and decide the old man was indeed bonkers.

Perhaps, but what the jury has to decide is not wether or not Nic is fair, rather wether it is legal to disregard a contractually arbitrated decision at the expense of the minority West group.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

The real trick for the West legal team is going to be to convince a jury that it is OK for pilots with less than half the time in service to be placed senior to their East counterparts. This isn't necessarily airline people. Just regular folks. I'd be willing to guess that more than one of them is going to think that is nuts regardless of the circumstances. I could be wrong (been wrong before) but we shall see.


A320 Driver B)

A320 Driver,
What will the jury think when they hear Sully and Skiles story from the witness stand? It will be interesting having a jury. After all, the majority of juries are composed of retirees and middle-aged worker bees. I am sure many of them put time in at some company somewhere and probably wouldn't like to be displaced by junior colleagues.

Later,
Eye