ACPA's Preconditions


Recommended Posts

I think the lawsuit was a bad idea and that it has been an impediment but the AC pilots who are being sued are not innocent victums by any means.

And exactly what were the AC pilots attempting to steal from the AO pilots ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

DropZone ----

"Read between the words" ?? Hmmm. Mayhap you mean "lines" but wherein lies the line? Aren't you're the same guy that thinks that both sides agree that the lawsuit is "patently absurd". Have you been getting your "legal advice" from KM or scrounging through the rubbish at your local chinese eatery for discarded cookies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

."  Well, no actually, it wasn't "events", it was the individual pilots at AC deciding to ignore Picher's decision and to de-certify from CALPA. 

Anyone else out there see the striking similiarities with the US/Canada softwood dispute?

Essentially both parties went through a previously agreed upon arbitration process twice and when the result was not in their favour the US said , tough ...we are not going to abide by the ruling. I'm wondering how many mainline guys are out there grinding their teeth saying those ******* Americans. There are some pretty heavy hitters out there like Reisman and Gotlieb , who are extremely political animals , that want to retaliate. Very unlike a politician that traditionally negotiates till the cows come home. It can be no surprise that the connector pilots feel the same way.

It's the same old story. The big dog on the street does what he wants to , because he can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeker, you've lost me entirely. My comment was on the thread. I wasn't trying to answer any questions, perhaps that's why you found my posting vague.

Washing my hands? Believe me, I'd like to wash my hands of the whole sorry bag of snakes that has resulted from this plague of bitterness and self-entitlement. That comment, in case you are wondering, applies to every aspect of ACPA and ALPA's recent adventures - from common employer, through the decertification, including the race to the bottom to deprive the other group of jets, resulting in starvation wages for the junior pilots, epitomised by the signing of two conflicting agreements and the ensuing endless arbitration. This is by no means a complete list.

You haven't asked, but here is my view. It no longer matters what the real issue is. These two groups have so entirely given into their addiction to conflict that, should the lawsuit miraculously disappear, should seniority be solved, other insoluble issues will surely take their places.

And that is why I think, like two warring, spoiled brats, the only solution is to separate them so they can stop hurting themselves, the furniture, and the ears of the grownups.

Vs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeker, you've lost me entirely. My comment was on the thread. I wasn't trying to answer any questions, perhaps that's why you found my posting vague.

Washing my hands? Believe me, I'd like to wash my hands of the whole sorry bag of snakes that has resulted from this plague of bitterness and self-entitlement. That comment, in case you are wondering, applies to every aspect of ACPA and ALPA's recent adventures - from common employer, through the decertification, including the race to the bottom to deprive the other group of jets, resulting in starvation wages for the junior pilots, epitomised by the signing of two conflicting agreements and the ensuing endless arbitration. This is by no means a complete list.

You haven't asked, but here is my view. It no longer matters what the real issue is. These two groups have so entirely given into their addiction to conflict that, should the lawsuit miraculously disappear, should seniority be solved, other insoluble issues will surely take their places.

And that is why I think, like two warring, spoiled brats, the only solution is to separate them so they can stop hurting themselves, the furniture, and the ears of the grownups.

Vs

Vs:

OK, sorry about that, I thought you were replying to my post. I agree that any resolution is far-fetched because the only way it could happen is if all 4 parties were to feel, simultaneously, that it would be to their advantage. Not likely.

Thanks for the discussion..

seeker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Dropzone, but that makes no sense; however, never mind --my post was more directed at your earlier remarks than as a grammatical critique.

What very few of the posters on this thread (or the earlier thread) seem to understand is that a legitimate claim has been advanced by the former Air Ontario pilots. It's not the "wild imaginings of a few fevered minds". Many of you think it should be abandoned in the interests of....what?-----labour harmony? That degree of professional solidarity has never been evidenced in any of your dealings.

So----your daughter is injured in a car accident as a result of the fault or neglect of your neighbour. She suffers damage. Do you so quickly suggest that her claim ought not to be pursued because a lawsuit would infect your relationship with your neighbours?

The court has already ruled; if the Plaintiffs "prove" that which is alleged (fairly straight forward) and unless a valid defence is proven, the Air Ontario class will recover whatever damages they have sustained. Period..no debate.

Given that...why would they walk away? That makes no sense whatsoever. If they have suffered no financial loss from the wrongful conduct alleged then a "win" results in no gain but everyone here knows that they did in fact sustain a "loss", like it or not. Why then should they walk away from recovery of that loss?

Your banker takes $10,000. out of your account. You're likely to recover that loss as a result of a court action. Will you simply abandon your legitimate claim because the local branch might close as a result of the successful prosecution of the action?

Go back a second --did the AO people suffer a loss? Answer the question in this fashion ....if the Picher award gave them NOTHING, then the AC pilots would have cared not a whit. Ipso facto..the AO pilots got some benefit from that award which was denied to them because of the "alleged" wrongful conduct of the defendants.

If you want to engage in a meaningful debate then argue about whether engaging in a concerted effort to avoid the consequences of a "submission to arbitration" is or is not legally justified.

Otherwise ---leave the debates to the parties themselves submitted through trained advocates before a properly constituted legal tribunal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I really don't care to flog this dead horse I simply can't resist:

UpperDeck

Only my opinion but the point that many are making is that the lawsuit (right or wrong win or lose) is an obstacle to the Global Solution. ACPA has indicated that it stands in the way of any agreement.

If we have to wait for the lawsuit to run its course, so be it; another ten years shouldn't be too long to wait for justice.

As for your legal analogies, I'm no lawyer and I'm pretty sure you aren't either but, believe it or not, some people do "elect not to sue". Its a choice to sue. What this has to do with the current case is, of course, nothing. My understanding is the case is continuing and will ultimately reach a conclusion. My opinon is that no damages will be proved nor awarded - you feel differently obviously.

To tie it back to the original thought - it (the lawsuit) stands as an impediment to our mutual progress...

Chico

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest long keel
What very few of the posters on this thread (or the earlier thread) seem to understand is that a legitimate claim has been advanced by the former Air Ontario pilots. It's not the "wild imaginings of a few fevered minds".

Actually,

That statement is only your opinion. When the judge rules as such, and no appeals are granted it is fact. Many have an opinion that is much different. The final verdict will likely never be able to convince the losing side that they were in the wrong in any case. Opinions are to deeply entrenched.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Longkeel....

Sorry but you're incorrect. That statement you quoted is not "just my opinion". It is a statement of law.

When a Plaintiff commences an action, "he" must do so by pleadings that disclose a "reasonable cause of action". There is an implicit question; "Presuming the facts alleged to be proven, would the Plaintiff be entitled at law to recover damages?"

In the AO case, the defense in fact moved to "strike the claim" and the above question was asked by the court and answered. The claim in contract was dismissed and the claims based in tort were certified and permitted to proceed.

It is now the obligation of the Plaintiff class to adduce evidence to establish the probability of the facts alleged. If they do so and the defences pleaded are not sustained, then the Plaintiffs will win subject to proof of damages. Period.

Chico ---

Resolution of the action won't be delayed 10 years, the efforts of the defence notwithstanding.

You (and others) assert that the lawsuit obstructs GS. What you are saying is, in essence, that you are using GS as a weapon to inhibit the lawful exercise of rights. You (referring to a class rather than you personally) are simply engaging in tactics which are ancillary to the lawsuit just as are the efforts by counsel to delay or obstruct the due prosecution of the claim. It is assumed that by painting the members of the Plaintiff class as "blackguards", you will incite other Jazz pilots to bring pressure (in mutable forms) to bear seeking to have the lawsuit withdrawn.

These are all just tactics suggesting an actual reluctance to pass through the courthouse portals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you come up with these notions? If the claim in tort could not be established without proof of the existence of a contract, then the action would have been dismissed long ago.

Imagine two roads side by side. One is an expressway and the other meanders through local towns. The AO action was formulated both in contract and in tort. The court dismissed that portion of the claim which "sounded" (was based ) in contract. That was the express route.

That route was open when the action was commenced based upon existing law but the SCC erected the barrier based upon social policies.

If you are my builder/designer and the edifice collapses, I sue you in contract and in tort. In contract, I need only establish that you breached our contract and I sustained damages as a result. In tort, I must establish that you failed to exercise reasonable care and fell below an expected level of competence. I do not have to prove that we had a contract; only that I fell within that ambit of care. My action is similar to that of the pedestrian who was injured by the falling debris.

If two or more people "conspire" (agree) to engage in "wrongful" conduct which they knew or ought to have known will cause me injury or, if they engage in lawful conduct but for the primary purpose of causing me injury, they are liable for my damages whether or not we have a "contractual" relationship.

Further, if someone intends to cause me injury and, to achieve that purpose, does something they should not be doing and causes me economic harm, they are liable to me for my loss.

Those are not the same "torts" and neither requires proof of a contractual relationship. Both are pleaded by the AO plaintiffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homerun says; "The claim in tort depends on the exsistence of a contract. There was no contract. Without implementation of Picher by AC, there is still nothing. AC is on record with a nyet to implementation. "

Apart from being factually flawed your statment re "nyet" is presented as a conclusion which is yet to be supported by ALL the evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Longkeel....

Sorry but you're incorrect. That statement you quoted is not "just my opinion". It is a statement of law.

When a Plaintiff commences an action, "he" must do so by pleadings that disclose a "reasonable cause of action". There is an implicit question; "Presuming the facts alleged to be proven, would the Plaintiff be entitled at law to recover damages?"

In the AO case, the defense in fact moved to "strike the claim" and the above question was asked by the court and answered. The claim in contract was dismissed and the claims based in tort were certified and permitted to proceed.

It is now the obligation of the Plaintiff class to adduce evidence to establish the probability of the facts alleged. If they do so and the defences pleaded are not sustained, then the Plaintiffs will win subject to proof of damages. Period.

Chico ---

Resolution of the action won't be delayed 10 years, the efforts of the defence notwithstanding.

You (and others) assert that the lawsuit obstructs GS. What you are saying is, in essence, that you are using GS as a weapon to inhibit the lawful exercise of rights. You (referring to a class rather than you personally) are simply engaging in tactics which are ancillary to the lawsuit just as are the efforts by counsel to delay or obstruct the due prosecution of the claim. It is assumed that by painting the members of the Plaintiff class as "blackguards", you will incite other Jazz pilots to bring pressure (in mutable forms) to bear seeking to have the lawsuit withdrawn.

These are all just tactics suggesting an actual reluctance to pass through the courthouse portals.

UpperDeck:

Whether you win a big settlement, a small settlement or don't win at all, the lawsuit is an impediment to GS. Far be it from me to stand in the way of your legal rights to seek redress and I have never tried to pressure the group into withdrawing the suit but you cannot deny the negative impact that the lawsuit has had.

You feel that you were injured by the actions of ACPA and you are exercising your legal rights. Fine. I feel that the lawsuit has actually magnified the harm felt by the regional pilots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeker....

First let me emphasize that I am NOT a member of the Plaintiff class.

Second....I suggest that the lawsuit is not an impediment to Global Solution. Instead, it is the insistence of the defendants that the lawsuit be withdrawn that constitutes an impediment. Many want to point fingers at a VERY small percentage of Jazz pilots as the "stumbling block" but in fact, ACPA is held hostage by its members who are defendants to the lawsuit. Remember--ACPA is NOT a defendant nor are all members of ACPA defendants yet ACPA is saying that it won't consider GS unless the lawsuit is withdrawn.

Turn it all around ---PLEASE!! Is ALPA saying; "You want a Global Solution? Then settle up with the AO pilots." Of course they aren't. Most Jazz pilots don't have anything to do with the lawsuit and ALPA is representing the interests of ALL of its members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UpperDeck:

That's an interesting angle and it's goes along quite nicely with what I was saying earlier; that ACPA must acknowledge their own part in creating this situation, lawsuit et al. The demand that the lawsuit be withdrawn as a precondition totally denies any responsibilty for the actions which begat the whole mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too enjoyed the angle UD put forward above.

KM should take note. UD's angle + KM's bs attempt to initiate discord within Jazz should rightfully be considered by all members of ACPA. Being as the ACPA position is now in writing perhaps the ACPA should be sued by its non lawsuit affected members for not representing their interests. It kind of looks like a slam dunk eh KM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeker....

First let me emphasize that I am NOT a member of the Plaintiff class.

Second....I suggest that the lawsuit is not an impediment to Global Solution. Instead, it is the insistence of the defendants that the lawsuit be withdrawn that constitutes an impediment. Many want to point fingers at a VERY small percentage of Jazz pilots as the "stumbling block" but in fact, ACPA is held hostage by its members who are defendants to the lawsuit. Remember--ACPA is NOT a defendant nor are all members of ACPA defendants yet ACPA is saying that it won't consider GS unless the lawsuit is withdrawn.

Turn it all around ---PLEASE!!  Is ALPA saying; "You want a Global Solution? Then settle up with the AO pilots." Of course they aren't. Most Jazz pilots don't have anything to do with the lawsuit and ALPA is representing the interests of ALL of its members.

I thought that's what I was saying way back at the beginning of this thread:

Wouldn't those ACPA members not named in the lawsuit have some recourse when there careers are harmed the next time ACE plays one side off against the other because ACPA won't even sit down with ALPA?

I guess it sounds better coming from a pilot. biggrin.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
I too enjoyed the angle UD put forward above.

KM should take note. UD's angle + KM's bs attempt to initiate discord within Jazz should rightfully be considered by all members of ACPA. Being as the ACPA position is now in writing perhaps the ACPA should be sued by its non lawsuit affected members for not representing their interests. It kind of looks like a slam dunk eh KM?

And what interests are those ???

What benefit is there to the GS for an ACPA member, Oh yeah the vaunted end of all whipsaw. Newsflash, Mr. Milton is a little smarter than most give him credit for.

Not interested.

I think you might find this sentiment in more than just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The demand that the lawsuit be withdrawn as a precondition totally denies any responsibilty for the actions which begat the whole mess.

Your attempt to marginalize the lawsuit as an impediment to GS ignores the basic fact that anyone in their right mind would ever negotiate anything with a gun to their head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your attempt to marginalize the lawsuit as an impediment to GS ignores the basic fact that anyone in their right mind would ever negotiate anything with a gun to their head.

Dropzone:

Did you read the sentence of mine that you quoted back to me? I don't think I've marginalized the lawsuit at all. The point I've been trying to make is that many of the AC pilots named in the suit apparently consider themselves to be innocent victims. I'll ask you directly; do you feel that the AC pilots should bear no responsibility for the decisions they made? I'll tell you what I think; I think the attitude at the time was very much, "We're bigger and stronger and we'll do whatever we please." No one considered that they might be somehow held accountable. The lawsuit was totally unexpected and now you're indignant that you're being challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropzone---

Whenever confronted by a reasonable but opposing position, you become silent. Why? In another thread, the posters write of the philosophical distinctions between truth and reality.

Your universe seems to permit of no reality other than that consistent with the truth you define without apparent regard to objective fact.

Of course no one should negotiate with a gun at his head. No reasoning individual would suggest otherwise. So-----who is holding the gun and demanding submission to negotiation?

Let's recapitulate, shall we? This thread is about "preconditions". ACPA has clearly stated --we will not even deign to discuss GS unless and until you, ALPA, force a small contingent of your group to abandon their lawsuit against some of our members.

Do you care about this reality, Dropzone or is there some other truth that is indiscernible to those reading your posts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

AIP: "What benefit is there to the GS for an ACPA member, Oh yeah the vaunted end of all whipsaw. Newsflash, Mr. Milton is a little smarter than most give him credit for."

The vaunted end of all whipsaw?

Beyond that question; was not one of the ACPA's preconditions a requirement for Jazz to go on the bottom of the list? If Jazz met all three of ACPA's (two of which are ridiculous) conditions wouldn't 1500 or so individuals added below not be of great benefit to ACPA juniors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.