USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread

[nostradamus]

ALPA uses a typical propaganda type strategy which includes sound bite type words, ie:

“You make a common mistake.†(misinformed “old†guys.)

“Angerâ€

“emotionalâ€

My favorite, demonize the group you are attacking to justify the genocide of the pilot group.

“let’s get a contract for all pilots†(they are claiming they are all trying to save pilots and all mankind, only US Airways pilots stand in the way.)

In reality there is a merger in the making and senior pilots would be a cancer for an agreement. Pan Am, Eastern, TWA, Braniff, Frontier and many more airlines that paved the way for the present modern aviation transportation system, learned that they were looked at like expendable refuse of the Ponzi scheme that allows ALPA to survive.

“ALPA is only trying to save the world.†“USAPA = evilâ€

ALPA’s handling of the seniority list for US Airways pilots was handled in a corrupt manner to make the United or Continental pilots keep the Ponzi scheme going, a transaction with one of the above airlines is imminent dependent on the results of this trial.

As far as trying to push this garbage through two years ago, nice attempt.

 

[Phoenix]

My point was that that may constitute a ruling from the Court on that issue as a matter-of-law

How can a court's prejudiced opinion based upon a speculative consideration about an undisclosed jury perspective be considered a "matter-of-law"?

 

[Phoenix]

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?

And after all ALPA learned from their blunder with US/AWA you didn't even say thank you.

 

[hp_fa]

How can a court's prejudiced opinion based upon a speculative consideration about an undisclosed jury perspective be considered a "matter-of-law"?

The Court may do so when it does not believe that under the applicable facts that any contrary decision can be made under those facts. It also went to how the jury instructions were to be fashioned.

 

[Phoenix]

The Court may do so when it does not believe that under the applicable facts that any contrary decision can be made under those facts. It also went to how the jury instructions were to be fashioned.

Sure the court can, but that is not what you quoted. If the court is going to make a ruling they actually have to state the law, and not just an opinion about what the jury opinion should be. Otherwise its all just opinions about opinions. Added to that, if he instructs the jury that they are to effectively decide between two seniority lists then he has mucked up his own trial.

 

[Elevation]

West will win this case. Why? Because if USAPA's argument wins, it will shoot a big fat hole in the binding arbitration process . The judge knows this and realizes its legal effects could send a tidal wave of litigation throughout the country. Wake is not going to let it happen in his courtroom.

 

[cactusboy53]

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?

You know Oscar, when this was announced I thought "Surely the AWA/AAA merger antics couldn't eclipse the NWA/Republic merger."

Wow! Who would have thunk?? $160 per hour to drive da bus......are you sure seniority isn't more important??

How are we doing you ask? Well if the jury decides in favor of the AWA pilot group, and the judge's remedies are implemented ASAP we may actually be able to move forward (if for no other reason than blunt judicial force). If all that happens, we will move to a damage trial sometime in the fall. Then it could get really interesting. Yea...yea, if "if and buts were candy & nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas!!!"

Did you hear that during testimony (day 7; during Mowery's testimony) the "Kirby Proposal" that was proffered also gave a whiff of a possible increase of 7-8% (and that's just for the West)? How much is in your wallet??

 

[EastUS]

West will win this case. Why? Because if USAPA's argument wins, it will shoot a big fat hole in the binding arbitration process . The judge knows this and realizes its legal effects could send a title wave of litigation throughout the country. Wake is not going to let it happen in his courtroom.

I hadn't actually considered that perspective before = "West will win this case" or else, all civilization, as we now know it, must certainly end!!!!

 

[Phoenix]

West will win this case. Why? Because if USAPA's argument wins, it will shoot a big fat hole in the binding arbitration process . The judge knows this and realizes its legal effects could send a title wave of litigation throughout the country. Wake is not going to let it happen in his courtroom.

I can't deny the judge could have a vested interest in the outcome of the trial, but what would a judge have to do in order to ensure a jury chooses in a manner that is agreeable to him?

 

[HPearlyretiree]

West will win this case. Why? Because if USAPA's argument wins, it will shoot a big fat hole in the binding arbitration process . The judge knows this and realizes its legal effects could send a title wave of litigation throughout the country. Wake is not going to let it happen in his courtroom.

Binding arbitration is what its all about. Two sides made an agreement, and were bound to it. If the company made a binding agreement like this and reneged, the howls of protests would be high and wide.

You make a binding agreement, you stick with it, hence the "binding" part.

 

[nostradamus]

Binding arbitration is what its all about. Two sides made an agreement, and were bound to it. If the company made a binding agreement like this and reneged, the howls of protests would be high and wide.

You make a binding agreement, you stick with it, hence the "binding" part.

The transition agreement was signed by both sides, it is the only legal and binding agreement bound by the legal system.

 

[hp_fa]

Sure the court can, but that is not what you quoted. If the court is going to make a ruling they actually have to state the law, and not just an opinion about what the jury opinion should be. Otherwise its all just opinions about opinions. Added to that, if he instructs the jury that they are to effectively decide between two seniority lists then he has mucked up his own trial.

I didn't quote anything. I made notes and then interpreted them as I typed them for this forum.

Also, the Court has not indicated that it is telling the jury what to decide, but perhaps it whittled away part of the questions that were to otherwise be placed before the jury. Based on the information that I do have I cannot say whether that is true or not.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

...if he instructs the jury that they are to effectively decide between two seniority lists then he has mucked up his own trial.

See page 39 line 19 to page 40 line 1 of day 6 transcripts.

 

[Waketurbulence]

See page 39 line 19 to page 40 line 1 of day 6 transcripts.

Do you mean this...The same thing he said 4 or 5 other times during the trial?


"THE COURT: All right.
And members of the jury, I want to remind you of an
instruction that I've given you several times again.
You are being allowed to hear evidence about the
background of this dispute between these two pilot groups about
the process by which it came about and about the nature of
their conflicting interests. However, as I've said before, you
will not be charged with deciding which seniority system is the
preferable one, which is a good one or which is a bad one, and
I have been concerned, and this is why counsel and I had a
rather long discussion, about not leaving the jury confused
about why you're hearing evidence, because you're not going to
be charged with deciding which seniority system or list is preferable
to others.


Did he say this because the seniority system has already been decided by a mutually agreed upon, final and binding arbitration or is he just a senile old man?

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

Do you mean this...The same thing he said 4 or 5 other times during the trial?


"THE COURT: All right.
And members of the jury, I want to remind you of an
instruction that I've given you several times again.
You are being allowed to hear evidence about the
background of this dispute between these two pilot groups about
the process by which it came about and about the nature of
their conflicting interests. However, as I've said before, you
will not be charged with deciding which seniority system is the
preferable one, which is a good one or which is a bad one, and
I have been concerned, and this is why counsel and I had a
rather long discussion, about not leaving the jury confused
about why you're hearing evidence, because you're not going to
be charged with deciding which seniority system or list is preferable
to others.

Exactly and apparently that would be described as not mucking it up.