Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
The appellate costs and the fees to attorneys are something that the losing side needs to consider if they choose to appeal. The Judge is was very clear today that he wants this whole action concluded in an appealable form as soon as possible. By that I mean the Judge stated today that he has calendar problems that would prevent him from re-visiting this until probably mid-July. The one problem is that the Company does not have actual notice that the bench trial on damages will commence (now) on Wednesday and that they may wish to be heard on potential remedies that effect them and their ability to operate under the whatever terms he may impose if he does impose an injunction.
As for the Judge being reversed I don't think he fears that. This case arguably is unique compared to existing case law. He appears to be attempting to call them as he sees them and if the 9th Circuit were to reverse and remand he will accept their guidance and go forward from there. I actually do not perceive that he is so concerned about his overturned on appeal scoreboard as opposed to he is concerned about doing what he thinks is right under the circumstances.
The binding arbitration **may** transcend and USAPA may yet have to deal with it. That will be decided, at least temporarily next week.
No, but I get to vote for the guys that pick the officers, nice try. Why are you so angry, if you are right why do you have to resort to such outbursts?
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Trail - Day 8
(Before I start there were a number of motions and I did my best to get the titles or subjects correct. I do not have copies of the filed documents so I suspect my names are not quite correct. Also, the Plaintiff's actually filed one Rule 50 motion with four subparts. For the purpose of reporting here I listed them as separate motions.)
Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Ripeness - Denied
Defendant's Rule 50 (Judgment as a Matter of Law) Motion on Count 3 - Denied
Plaintiffs' Rule 50 Motion That USAPA Seniority Provisions Undercut West Protections - Reserved
Plaintiff's Rule 50 Motion That USAPA Lacks Affirmative Defenses To Liability - (Granted, but may not mean anything)
Plaintiff's Rule 50 Motion Regarding What Autority ALPA (National) Had Regarding Trusteeship - Reserved
Plaintiff's Rule 50 Motion Regarding Legitimate Union Purpose in the Context of a DFR - Reserved
THE COURT STATED THAT IS DOES NOT THINK ANY RATIONALE JURY COULD THINK THAT THE USAPA SENIORITY LIST IS ANYTHING BUT SUBSTANTIALLY LESS FAVORABLE TO WEST AS COMPARED TO NICOLAU (In caps because it was essentially a ruling by the Court on its own authority. I am not trying to shout, but rather to call distinct attention to it.)
Jury Instructions discussed most of the day and there were many breaks so counsel could caucus. At the end of the day there were to be 11 specific jury instructions to be given in addition to the general jury instructions. The defendant objected on the record to all 11 and all 11 objections were denied by the Court.
There will not be a special verdict form or special interrogatories. A general verdict form will be used.
(Before I start there were a number of motions and I did my best to get the titles or subjects correct. I do not have copies of the filed documents so I suspect my names are not quite correct. Also, the Plaintiff's actually filed one Rule 50 motion with four subparts. For the purpose of reporting here I listed them as separate motions.)
Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Ripeness - Denied
Defendant's Rule 50 (Judgment as a Matter of Law) Motion on Count 3 - Denied
Plaintiffs' Rule 50 Motion That USAPA Seniority Provisions Undercut West Protections - Reserved
Plaintiff's Rule 50 Motion That USAPA Lacks Affirmative Defenses To Liability - (Granted, but may not mean anything)
Plaintiff's Rule 50 Motion Regarding What Autority ALPA (National) Had Regarding Trusteeship - Reserved
Plaintiff's Rule 50 Motion Regarding Legitimate Union Purpose in the Context of a DFR - Reserved
THE COURT STATED THAT IS DOES NOT THINK ANY RATIONALE JURY COULD THINK THAT THE USAPA SENIORITY LIST IS ANYTHING BUT SUBSTANTIALLY LESS FAVORABLE TO WEST AS COMPARED TO NICOLAU (In caps because it was essentially a ruling by the Court on its own authority. I am not trying to shout, but rather to call distinct attention to it.)
Jury Instructions discussed most of the day and there were many breaks so counsel could caucus. At the end of the day there were to be 11 specific jury instructions to be given in addition to the general jury instructions. The defendant objected on the record to all 11 and all 11 objections were denied by the Court.
There will not be a special verdict form or special interrogatories. A general verdict form will be used.
E
EastUS
Guest
QUOTE (oldiebutgoody @ May 8 2009, 06:45 PM) *
Oh, so at YOUR airline the line pilot gets to vote for the MEC officers?
Didn't think so. Now, go back under your ALPA rock"
I'm striving to find some kinder terms...but....Oscar; You're either very new to the industry, and frankly, still extremely naive, or...you're just intentionally baiting/trolling people here for perverse purposes unknown. I'd seriously suggest an honest and in-depth study of the archives here prior to your proceeding further down this particular, pointless path you're taking. kindly understand that Alpa amounts to litle more than an epithet among many or most pilots on both sides of the current distress hereabouts.
What IS your actual point to be made here?...if any?
Oh, so at YOUR airline the line pilot gets to vote for the MEC officers?
Didn't think so. Now, go back under your ALPA rock"
I'm striving to find some kinder terms...but....Oscar; You're either very new to the industry, and frankly, still extremely naive, or...you're just intentionally baiting/trolling people here for perverse purposes unknown. I'd seriously suggest an honest and in-depth study of the archives here prior to your proceeding further down this particular, pointless path you're taking. kindly understand that Alpa amounts to litle more than an epithet among many or most pilots on both sides of the current distress hereabouts.
What IS your actual point to be made here?...if any?
You make a common mistake. Allegheny-Mohawk refers to the process that is required to get to a solution, it says nothing about the solution. As I said before, I don't care if you are ALPA or not, so you can just take your anger and stick it back in your sack.
I just think it is funny that you still have a bunch of pilots representing you, just like you did before. From the looks of it, USAPA seems like a clown show, they can't even run an election without botching it up.
The central tenet of the USAPA push is that they can negate the Nicolau award and then negotiate a new list with the company. I think this is ridiculous. I hope that the East pilots can just move on and forget the seniority list and get some more money for their pilots. So go ahead, be USAPA, just quit tilting at windmills and do something right for a change.
E
EastUS
Guest
What would you better suggest? = Cetaceans?
Hmmm..From how well pilots get along; I suppose that an argument could be made in favor of dolphins..but..Dang!...they do have some issues with both phones and keyboards.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Impressions from Day 8.
First, I apologize for not providing more detail in my preceding post, but the day did not lend too well to the same form of notes that I took in the preceding days. What essentially happened was that counsel was talking back and forth with the Court and I can't take notes fast enough to keep up with taking detailed notes, especially when I lack a copy of the motions, jury instructions, etc. I had all I could handle just listening to the discussion and sorting through what was being said and why.
As far as the day went, this was clearly a Plaintiffs' day. The defense won perhaps a handful of arguments and concessions over the course of the day. The Plaintiffs were far more successful as far as the day's proceedings went.
Mr. Grannath began discussing the Defendant's position on various motions that I posted previously. However, not far into the various discussions Mr. Seham, who seemed to be micro-managing Mr. Grannath quite a bit, took over the duty of addressing the Court and Seham was the primary speaker for the rest of the day, with only relatively short comments from Mr. Bringle and Mr. Grannath, who later lodged all of the Defendant's objections to the jury instructions and the general form of verdict.
During the discussion on the various motions, the Court showed a very good memory of the evidence, the totality of all motions that had been filed in the case and what the witnesses had said during trial. I was very impressed at the amount of data the Judge could recall without reminders or re-reading transcripts.
Also, if someone was keeping time on the persons actually speaking I would estimate that Seham personally probably spoke 70-80% of the total time that court was in session. The Plaintiffs probably spoke a total of 5% of the total time of the proceedings, with Mr. Jacob handling the majority of that time. I don't quite fully know why that large a discrepancy, but it definitely seemed like Plaintiffs' counsel was getting more accomplished with less speaking. I admit that I have perceived the Court generally siding with Plaintiffs, but much of Seham's talking was being done while counsel was not needing to preserve their objections for any appeal. Those formal objections did not begin until approximately 4:15pm.
The Court never got to any bench trial today. It has been scheduled for Wednesday, but there is an issue regarding providing actual notice (legal term) to the Company in order for it to be represented at that phase to protect any interests it may have in any remedies that the Court may impose if it so decides and if it is appropriate.
Also, in closing, my personal opinion was that the Court was becoming upset with Seham. That said I think the Court then went out of its way to not let any ill fellings toward Seham affect the rulings and discussions it had with counsel. I think it was bending over so much that it actually may have been unfair to the Plaintiffs.
First, I apologize for not providing more detail in my preceding post, but the day did not lend too well to the same form of notes that I took in the preceding days. What essentially happened was that counsel was talking back and forth with the Court and I can't take notes fast enough to keep up with taking detailed notes, especially when I lack a copy of the motions, jury instructions, etc. I had all I could handle just listening to the discussion and sorting through what was being said and why.
As far as the day went, this was clearly a Plaintiffs' day. The defense won perhaps a handful of arguments and concessions over the course of the day. The Plaintiffs were far more successful as far as the day's proceedings went.
Mr. Grannath began discussing the Defendant's position on various motions that I posted previously. However, not far into the various discussions Mr. Seham, who seemed to be micro-managing Mr. Grannath quite a bit, took over the duty of addressing the Court and Seham was the primary speaker for the rest of the day, with only relatively short comments from Mr. Bringle and Mr. Grannath, who later lodged all of the Defendant's objections to the jury instructions and the general form of verdict.
During the discussion on the various motions, the Court showed a very good memory of the evidence, the totality of all motions that had been filed in the case and what the witnesses had said during trial. I was very impressed at the amount of data the Judge could recall without reminders or re-reading transcripts.
Also, if someone was keeping time on the persons actually speaking I would estimate that Seham personally probably spoke 70-80% of the total time that court was in session. The Plaintiffs probably spoke a total of 5% of the total time of the proceedings, with Mr. Jacob handling the majority of that time. I don't quite fully know why that large a discrepancy, but it definitely seemed like Plaintiffs' counsel was getting more accomplished with less speaking. I admit that I have perceived the Court generally siding with Plaintiffs, but much of Seham's talking was being done while counsel was not needing to preserve their objections for any appeal. Those formal objections did not begin until approximately 4:15pm.
The Court never got to any bench trial today. It has been scheduled for Wednesday, but there is an issue regarding providing actual notice (legal term) to the Company in order for it to be represented at that phase to protect any interests it may have in any remedies that the Court may impose if it so decides and if it is appropriate.
Also, in closing, my personal opinion was that the Court was becoming upset with Seham. That said I think the Court then went out of its way to not let any ill fellings toward Seham affect the rulings and discussions it had with counsel. I think it was bending over so much that it actually may have been unfair to the Plaintiffs.
Wow! I never thought of that, having other than pilots represent pilots. Good thinking out of the box. Who would you suggest for representational elements? Hedge fund managers?
I think you are busted, mr. west pilot.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Having sat on a jury a few times, I always cherished the judge's opinion of how he thought I should vote as we went to deliberations. But unfortunately the judge never did offer his advice for free but instead charged us a consulting fee. (Sarcasm).
Well duh.
Let us re-phrase that.
THE COURT STATED THAT IS DOES NOT THINK ANY RATIONALE JURY COULD THINK THAT THE "nic" SENIORITY LIST IS ANYTHING BUT SUBSTANTIALLY LESS FAVORABLE TO EAST AS COMPARED TO DOH.
See how that works?
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Your failure, to recognize or acknowledge that a constitution is above the pilots who take an oath to represent, is exactly the malady that was endemic to the dubious "stewards" of the last constitution. Perhaps you consider yourself in good company.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
My point was that that may constitute a ruling from the Court on that issue as a matter-of-law
Sorry, I work for the biggest airline in the world, and it's not LCC. Oh yeah, we already did our list, got stock, and have a pay raise. A DAL A-320 Captain makes about $160 an hour. We have a single MEC and are now moving forward as a single group. How are you guys doing?
Okay, then the opposite, what I said, would be a corollary?
- Status
Similar threads
