US Pilots Labor Thread 4/7 to 4/14- ALL US Pilots Labor Issues Here

[Tiger 1050]

The West lawyers have already conceded that USAPA's actions were not arbitrary. They are trying desperately to exclude the evidence as to why USAPA took action. They don't want the jury to hear USAPA prove their actions were not arbitrary because that means the Nic list itself goes on trial. Read the 4/7 court documents....very interesting.

underpants

I'm not sure I would characterize it as "trying desperately" to exclude evidence as though it would be damaging to our case. I would characterize it as trying to get through and exclude all the fluff so the jury can decide the real issue.

As far as the arbitrary comment I made earlier I should point out that was my own opinion. Having said that and having read the documents you suggested I would ask you to reread Page 2 lines 1-20 in Doc. # 312. Maybe not arbitrary but certainly one of those three. Tell you what. I'll let you choose...

Regardless of what you or I think it's a moot point now as it seems the Court has ruled... And no it's not in favor of Seham/USAPA. At least that's what I have been told... I'm gonna go read some more.

** Okay now others are disputing this fact... I better go read.**

 

[Tiger 1050]

Dangit! I read Doc 320 too!!! No court ruling yet...

 

[Elevation]

I corrected my wording for clarity, the proposal is out not the ruling.

 

[EastUS]

I'm not sure I would characterize it as "trying desperately" to exclude evidence as though it would be damaging to our case. I would characterize it as trying to get through and exclude all the fluff so the jury can decide the real issue.

No side ever seeks exclusion of any evidence unless they DO fear it'd be damaging to their presented case....period.

"all the fluff", as you mention's the whole reason any of this strife's even going on at all, and it speaks volumes that NONE out west want to provide ANY true picture of the entire situation to the jury...and instead, seem to be very uncomfortable with even, just the idea....

The whole west mantra's but variations on "Umm...any/all of THAT ("Fairness thing") just doesn't matter!!...We sure hope not, anyway!" as if you're all dead set against the jury even at ALL hearing all about what's truly been and is going on...and WHY. Just an observation..but; It's scarcely the behavior I'd expect from any actually seeking to put forth even the lamest of excuses for any "Righteous Position" Anyone with so much an ounce of "Righteousness" would naturally and honestly want the entire "purity" of their cause presented in the fullest detail.

However it goes...it'll be "interesting"

 

[hp_fa]

I have been doing some reading. We will start with the Plaintiff's.

Plaintiff's Motions in Liminine ("MIL") are fairly standard and expected until we get to MIL #7. They seek to exclude evidence that is not relevant to the limited bifurcated trial scheduled to take place starting on April 28. They want to keep from evidence things like the alleged actions that were taken by West folks against USAPA. The reason is that none of that is relevant to the limited questions for trial. Had this been a trial to the judge these motions would not likely be made because the judge would decide admissibility of evidence as a bench trial occurred or even after he heard it. With a jury they have to fight out ahead of time what the jury can actually hear.

The first one that really caught my attention was Plaintiff MIL #7. This one may well be very important. According to the MIL, Defendant has done two huge data dumps of information to the plaintiffs of random data that was sometimes relevant to the case and discovery requests, and sometime outside of the discovery requests. The problem with a date dump of the type alleged to have happened is that it potentially wastes a party's resources going through totally irrelevant data while searching for relevant data. This is potentially a discovery abuse, but not as large as what I describe in the next paragraph.

Also, according to MIL #7, Defendant has supposedly designated expert witnesses well after the discovery cut-off and denied the plaintiffs time to review any reports and to conduct depositions of these people. One of the proposed expert witnesses was apparently deposed prior to him being mentioned as a proposed expert witness and the Plaintiffs claim that they were denied proper opportunities to conduct the deposition as if the person were to be an expert witness. (Unlike normal witnesses, expert's that are qualified by the court are allowed to render opinions in their testimony compared to normal witnesses who discuss observations and person observations. However they are not allowed to give opinions based on a set of facts presented to them. The preparation of witnesses and expert witnesses are two entirely different things.) The Plaintiffs are basically calling this entire matter a fundamental discovery abuse that cannot be rectified before an April 28th trial date.

Skipping to Defendants Combined MIL the first thing I noticed was that it was a combined document that contained 33 different MIL's/Motions to Exclude. I have previously opined that I thought the defendant's counsel were aggravating the judge with various behavior and arguments. The combined 33 issues in a single motion is likely to not endear counsel to the Court. It is confusing and hard to ready compared to doing separate motions for each that can be reviewed, considered and then set aside.

Item #12 caught my eye because it seeks to prevent the Plaintiffs from discussing the Empire Shuttle issue. If I remember all the various history correctly, and someone can feel free to correct me, USAPA is taking a totally contrary seniority position in that case from this case. So they want to be able to argue one position in that court and an entirely different position in this court, despite attorneys having a duty of truth to all judicial proceedings.

Item #30 seeks to keep Plaintiffs from arguing in opening statements that the Court has already ruled that the Nicolau Award is contractually enforceable on Defendant. It seems to me if the Court has already ruled as such that the jury should not be precluded from hearing of it.

It will be interesting to see what the Court does with these motions over the next few days. I would expect rulings by April 17th, and would not be surprised if they came earlier.

 

[Elevation]

"Mr. Al Hemenway the negotiator for US Airways was recently deposed and confirmed that the seniority list as far as US Airways was concerned, was the seniority list that would be incorporated into any single collective bargaining agreement."

 

[Tiger 1050]

No side ever seeks exclusion of any evidence unless they DO fear it'd be damaging to their presented case....period.

Surely you understand there is evidence that is pertinent and evidence that is not. For USAPA's legal team to throw this much at the court so late in the game I can only conclude that they wish only to cloud the situation for the jury.

"all the fluff", as you mention's the whole reason any of this strife's even going on at all, and it speaks volumes that NONE out west want to provide ANY true picture of the entire situation to the jury...and instead, seem to be very uncomfortable with even, just the idea....

Again the fluff is not what will be tried in this trial. You may be right that these things brought to where we are today but it does not relieve USAPA of it's duty to fairly represent.

The whole west mantra's but variations on "Umm...any/all of THAT doesn't matter!!...We sure hope not, anyway!" as if you're all dead set against the jury even at ALL hearing all about what's truly been and is going on...and WHY. Just an observation..but; It's scarcely the behavior I'd expect from any actually seeking to put forth even the lamest of excuses for any "Righteous Position"

However it goes...it'll be "interesting"

I have no problem with a jury trial personally. In fact if you had kept up with events you'd realize that the only complaint regarding a jury trial by the Plaintiff was in the interest of a speedy trial. USAPA on the other hand seems intent on delay or obfuscation. One must wonder why? I just want a fair trial on the merits of this particular case. Hell you could claim you were an abused child and therefore you should get DOH but honestly do you think that is relevant? What will you say EastUS if the jury finds USAPA violated it's DFR?

 

[nic4us]

"Mr. Al Hemenway the negotiator for US Airways was recently deposed and confirmed that the seniority list as far as US Airways was concerned, was the seniority list that would be incorporated into any single collective bargaining agreement."

Which seniority list is Hemenway refering to as the list?

 

[ussnark]

**If** Judge Wake rules in favor of West and issues an injunction and/or a jury finding against USAPA there will be immediate effects.

May a judge, then, bypass the transition agreement? I mean, there is still the unfinished business of two merger agreements, one east and one west. Would he then try to negotiate on behalf of the parties?

 

[Metroyet]

Which seniority list is Hemenway refering to as the list?

Nicalau...

 

[hp_fa]

May a judge, then, bypass the transition agreement? I mean, there is still the unfinished business of two merger agreements, one east and one west. Would he then try to negotiate on behalf of the parties?

That sir is a very good question.

Because of the nature of this being an injunctive case I **believe** that if he feels the evidence warrants he can do so. If it is proven that the injuction should issue the judge then steps in and makes whatever orders he feels necessary to restore the aggrieved party to where it belongs. That said, he doesn't need to do everything it once, he could issue a temporary injunction while considering the scope of the permanent injunction, which could be after more court proceedings.

Tell you what, I will try to go do a bit more research on your excellent question.

 

[ussnark]

No side ever seeks exclusion of any evidence unless they DO fear it'd be damaging to their presented case....period.

I think if the judge "excludes any evidence", then this might well be a giant polarizing event for the east and there will be no mixed cockpit possible, except for a few of the slower east pilots.

 

[BoeingBoy]

May a judge, then, bypass the transition agreement?

In theory. At a fundamental level the TA is nothing more than a contract, between 4 parties initially (US, HP, East MEC, & West MEC) and between 2 parties now (US & USAPA). A judge can certainly modify or void a contract.

Jim

 

[Metroyet]

No side ever seeks exclusion of any evidence unless they DO fear it'd be damaging to their presented case....period.

Ahh yes, God Forbid the Jury focus on the facts of Law. How dare Leonidas insist on keeping out totally irrelevant, opinionated, emotionally charged chaff.

The "it's not fair" argument will be shut out. Sorry.

 

[ussnark]

A judge can certainly modify or void a contract.

Thanks for your thoughts.

In my experience, there are only very special cases where a judge can do so and there must be very good reasons. Our shared experience would include the issue of the termination of our retirement and the bankruptcy judge indicating that he could not modify that particular item, subsequently sending it back to be "re-negotiated".