August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

......F.U.!! You'll sit there in the corner with your mouth shut until you hear otherwise.

Hmm...Perhaps a bit of insight into some upbringing and lasting anger issues there.

 

[snapthis]

A clean slate on seniority?

The bottom line on 10 h.......Day 2 of the trial. Dean Colello Cross

Okay. Let's get to the bottom line here, Dean, then. On​

that discussion of that $87 million, US Airways never came up​

and said, "Guys, you can go ahead and use that money provided​

you put 10H into the Collective Bargaining Agreement"?

A. No.​

Q. So there was no economic benefit of any type, as far as​

you know, that was given by US Airways to have USAPA include​

10H into the MOU?​

A. I have a -- you keep saying USAPA included. Remember this​

was a joint agreement. Basically, a lot of parties had input​

into this. So was there any economic benefit for the parties​

to agree to include 10H? I would say the answer was no.

No.​

Q. So there was no economic benefit of any type, as far as​

you know, that was given by US Airways to have USAPA include​

10H into the MOU?​

A. I have a -- you keep saying USAPA included. Remember this​

was a joint agreement. Basically, a lot of parties had input​

into this. So was there any economic benefit for the parties

to agree to include 10H? I would say the answer was no.​

Q. And you understood that when 10H came in, even though the​

TA was still in effect, you thought the effect of 10H was to​

provide a clean slate for seniority; right?

A. It was basically belts and suspenders language that would​

help make it --​

Q. You actually said it was a clean slate, didn't you?​

A. I was getting to that in the rest of my sentence.​

Q. You said it was a clean slate; correct?​

A. To help provide a clean slate for seniority.

Q. Right. And you never, as the chairman of the NAC, ever​

told any pilots, especially the West Pilots, that including 10H​

into the MOU provided a clean slate for seniority; right?​

A. Nobody ever asked me about 10H.

Q. I didn't ask you if anybody ever asked you. You didn't​

stand up and say, "Folks, 10H, in my opinion, provides for a​

clean slate on the issue of seniority"?​

A. No.

 

[EastUS1]

A. Nobody ever asked me about 10H.

Now, how could that possibly be? Did NO one, including the west reps involved, ever even think to read, consider and reasonably evaluate the instrument prior to almost unanimously voting to accept it? Why not? Heck! I was against accepting the MOU, but at least read the furshlugginer thing before forming any opinion of it. Was even reading it just too much to ask of all the keen legal minds out west, or for those who so cheerfully told all "spartans" to vote in favor of it, or for all the individuals themselves that voted it in? Can "you'se" even possibly be at all serious here?

Whenever handed a flight plan; you DO at least read the thing, don't you?

I'm now considering opening up a guaranteed-low-mileage/just-like-new/all-pristine-perfect-beauties/just-trust-me used car lot in PHX.

 

[Phoenix]

A clean slate on seniority?

The bottom line on 10 h.......Day 2 of the trial. Dean Colello Cross

Okay. Let's get to the bottom line here, Dean, then. On​

that discussion of that $87 million, US Airways never came up​

and said, "Guys, you can go ahead and use that money provided​

you put 10H into the Collective Bargaining Agreement"?

A. No.​

Q. So there was no economic benefit of any type, as far as​

you know, that was given by US Airways to have USAPA include​

10H into the MOU?​

A. I have a -- you keep saying USAPA included. Remember this​

was a joint agreement. Basically, a lot of parties had input​

into this. So was there any economic benefit for the parties​

to agree to include 10H? I would say the answer was no.

No.​

Q. So there was no economic benefit of any type, as far as​

you know, that was given by US Airways to have USAPA include​

10H into the MOU?​

A. I have a -- you keep saying USAPA included. Remember this​

was a joint agreement. Basically, a lot of parties had input​

into this. So was there any economic benefit for the parties

to agree to include 10H? I would say the answer was no.​

Q. And you understood that when 10H came in, even though the​

TA was still in effect, you thought the effect of 10H was to​

provide a clean slate for seniority; right?

A. It was basically belts and suspenders language that would​

help make it --​

Q. You actually said it was a clean slate, didn't you?​

A. I was getting to that in the rest of my sentence.​

Q. You said it was a clean slate; correct?​

A. To help provide a clean slate for seniority.

Q. Right. And you never, as the chairman of the NAC, ever​

told any pilots, especially the West Pilots, that including 10H​

into the MOU provided a clean slate for seniority; right?​

A. Nobody ever asked me about 10H.

Q. I didn't ask you if anybody ever asked you. You didn't​

stand up and say, "Folks, 10H, in my opinion, provides for a​

clean slate on the issue of seniority"?​

A. No.

You appear to be competing for the title of "Supreme Chief and King Cutter and Paster of Non-relevant Info". This may upset Chip.

 

[snapthis]

Roadshows.......

DEAN COLELLO - Cross​

Okay. And during the road shows, just so I make it clear,
you participated in all of them?
A. Yes.
Q. And you helped prepare all of the materials that the NAC
sent out to the West Pilots during the ratification period?
A. All of the NAC members participated in the materials that
were sent to all of the pilots, not just to the West Pilots.

Q. And it included that information about the Nic, a vote in​

favor should not and a vote against should not be concerned​

over the Nic; right?

A. I'm not sure if that is in information we sent out or if​

it was just in updates.​

Q. But it was discussed in the road shows?

United States District Court​

A. Yes.​

Q. And when that was discussed, the MOU has no effect on the​

Nic, you didn't stand up and say, as you just told me, "But,​

guys, understand I believe that this provides a clean slate on​

seniority"? You didn't say that?​

A. No.​

Q. And you didn't tell anybody else to say that on your​

behalf?​

A. No.​

MR. HARPER: No further questions, Your Honor.

 

[snapthis]

You appear to be competing for the title of "Supreme Chief and King Cutter and Paster of Non-relevant Info". This may upset Chip.

I don't see Chip complaining.

I'm 98% sure that you're upset. Why is that?

Duh

 

[EastUS1]

A. All of the NAC members participated in the materials that
were sent to all of the pilots, not just to the West Pilots.

Umm....Wouldn't "All of the NAC members participated" be inclusive of at least one "spartan"? Is it your current contention that even your own reps are completely clueless illiterates and drooling village idiots? Just askin' here, because I can't logically see how you could be advancing your courtroom contention of universal ignorance without first making such assumptions...?

 

[Res Judicata]

Now, how could that possibly be? Did NO one, including the west reps involved, ever even think to read, consider and reasonably evaluate the instrument prior to almost unanimously voting to accept it? Why not? Heck! I was against accepting the MOU, but at least read the furshlugginer thing before forming any opinion of it. Was even reading it just too much to ask of all the keen legal minds out west, or for those who so cheerfully told all "spartans" to vote in favor of it, or for all the individuals themselves that voted it in? Can "you'se" even possibly be at all serious here?

I'm now considering opening up a guaranteed-low-mileage/just-like-new/all-pristine-perfect-beauties/just-trust-me used car lot in PHX.

He's lying under oath. Of course he was asked about it. It's patently absurd to say otherwise...unless you're a lying POS trying to dupe a Federal Judge.

 

[EastUS1]

He's lying under oath. Of course he was asked about it. It's patently absurd to say otherwise...unless you're a lying POS trying to dupe a Federal Judge.

And yet; your very own reps somehow came away completely "confused"?...Even any who actively participated in the instrument's structuring and verbage? I won't even again address the implied failure of your entire 98% to actually read the thing themselves.

I see only two ways to go, if one seeks to accept your current position at face value. We must necessarily assume that:

1) The evil easties are suddenly and magically just-oh-so-clever....Not the case here, as I'm sure you'll happily agree, or:
2) Your reps and all those 98% make a proverbial box-of-rocks seem MENSA material by comparison.

 

[Black Swan]

October 24, 2013

Leonidas Update

Yesterday, October 23, the trial portion of the Addington II case concluded after two days of proceedings in front of Judge Roslyn O. Silver. The crux of the matter centered around two questions:

1. Did USAPA violate its Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) to the West pilot Class by agreeing to an MOU that it now asserts “wiped the slate clean” with respect to East/West seniority integration in the pending merger with American Airlines and gives USAPA the right to proceed by majority rule, without regard to the 2005 Transition Agreement or the Nicolau Award?

2. Is USAPA capable of fairly representing the West pilot Class during the seniority list integration process with the APA? And if not, are the West Pilots entitled to their own representation in the seniority integration process with APA?

The West Pilots presented testimony of six live witnesses: Jeff Koontz, Ken Holmes, John Scherff, Brian Stockdell, Johan Devicq and AC Iranpour. Plaintiffs also presented additional testimony by USAPA Vice-President Bradford through video-taped testimony taken in September.

Four live witnesses testified on behalf of USAPA: Dean Colello, John Owens, Jess Pauley and Bob Davison. Due to his medical condition, USAPA President Hummel was not able to participate as a witness, either in person or by video/phone. Judge Silver ordered the two parties to discuss the possibility of submitting any testimony by President Hummel, beyond what is already in his September deposition and submit any such mutually agreed upon evidence to the Court by Friday. US Airways did not provide any witnesses or examine any of the witnesses offered by the West Pilots or USAPA.

After the evidence had been presented, Judge Silver indicated that she would order an expedited briefing schedule with respect to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by US Airways, Doc. 212, and perhaps also with respect to USAPA’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 211. We expect her to issue an official order on this matter very shortly.

Today, both the West Pilots and USAPA filed notices with the Court indicating which deposition transcripts and the portions of those transcripts should be considered as part of the record. In their notice, Plaintiffs also indicated that all of the exhibits marked should be considered part of the formal record. These documents can be found here: Doc. 247, 248.

Finally, Judge Silver has also ordered the parties to submit a summary of the evidence to establish their positions, no later than October 31, 2013 with the response to those briefs due no later than November 6, 2013. The summaries are limited to fifteen pages in length and the responses are limited to 10 pages. This order can be found here: Doc. 244.

Once these additional briefings are filed, Judge Silver can issue her decision in this matter at any time. Unfortunately, there is no set time frame for her to reach a decision.

All documents in regard to this case, including the Court Transcripts and Depositions not marked confidential are available on the cactuspilot.com website.

It has been a long 6 years since Arbitrator Nicolau issued his Arbitration Award. Now that this case is in its final stages, we are hopeful that it will provide for a final resolution so that all US Airways can look forward to the end of years of litigation and set their sights on creating a better future for all of us at the New American Airlines.

As always, thank you for your support.

Leonidas, LLC

Does anyone really believe this case will provide resolution? It will not. Only until there is a JCBA between the East and West will there be a BEGINNING point for a possible DFR.
We are talking at least 2 more years.

 

[Keroseneuser]

Roadshows.......

DEAN COLELLO - Cross​

Okay. And during the road shows, just so I make it clear,
you participated in all of them?
A. Yes.
Q. And you helped prepare all of the materials that the NAC
sent out to the West Pilots during the ratification period?
A. All of the NAC members participated in the materials that
were sent to all of the pilots, not just to the West Pilots.

Q. And it included that information about the Nic, a vote in​

favor should not and a vote against should not be concerned​

over the Nic; right?

A. I'm not sure if that is in information we sent out or if​

it was just in updates.​

Q. But it was discussed in the road shows?

United States District Court​

A. Yes.​

Q. And when that was discussed, the MOU has no effect on the​

Nic, you didn't stand up and say, as you just told me, "But,​

guys, understand I believe that this provides a clean slate on​

seniority"? You didn't say that?​

A. No.​

Q. And you didn't tell anybody else to say that on your​

behalf?​

A. No.​

MR. HARPER: No further questions, Your Honor.

Snap, I know where you stand on the obamacare thing and the mess with that website. It has hidden anti privacy clauses stashed away where it is not easy for a user to see. Paraphrasing "the government can use the info provided for any reason and the individual has no expectation of privacy in using this website" I am sure you are aware of what I am talking about. Now considering that, how can you say that 98% of the west group had zero knowledge of how the MOU agreement was written? it is in plain English and very prominent in the first section of the agreement. ANYBODY that bothered to read the document especially college educated pilots should have had no issue seeing what the intent of that section was. How anybody could read the MOU "All past agreements, positions, and status quo is null and void" and think anything other than what it says, is to imply that 98% of the west pilot group is completely illiterate. I see the angle that the AOL lawyers are trying, but to be honest it looks like a desperation attempt to try to claim ignorance where none exists. No matter what Silver does you have to know that there is very little chance of this "ignorance" argument standing up when it goes to the 9th. You have a better chance of holding the US Govt. liable for the hidden statements in the healthcare website involving privacy than you do this in my opinion. And we know how that is going to work out for people once they dump their health info in there.

 

[EastUS1]

How anybody could read the MOU "All past agreements, positions, and status quo is null and void" and think anything other than what it says, is to imply that 98% of the west pilot group is completely illiterate.

Exactly....But it's an admittedly novel approach to litigation.

 

[CallawayGolf]

Exactly....But it's an admittedly novel approach to litigation.

But the 98% west vote has always been irrelevant to the DFR anyway. USAPA could have shouted at every roadshow and in every publication that the MOU vacates the NIC award and put the entire SLI on a clean slate to be controlled by USAPA going forward and it wouldn't change the DFR question. If exiting terms and conditions of the TA were violated by USAPA in the pursuit of the MOU, and one or more pilots exercise their right to sue for a DFR, then that is the question the courts will have to answer. The percentage of west pilots that voted for it cannot change the union's DFR. Protecting the minority members, no matter how small that minority may be, is precisely why the DFR provisions were established in the first place. The fact that USAPA offered no commentary on the most contentious issue in their history as an organization as it related to the MOU, is telling I'm sure to judge Silver, but that is not the legal question that sits before her.

 

[Freighterguynow]

I don't see Chip complaining.

I'm 98% sure that you're upset. Why is that?

Because that is what you think?

 

[Res Judicata]

Does anyone really believe this case will provide resolution? It will not. Only until there is a JCBA between the East and West will there be a BEGINNING point for a possible DFR.
We are talking at least 2 more years.

If the merger tanks, you'll never see an improved pay rate or contract. Ever. Congratulations USAPA, you obliterated thousands of careers. Where 2 BK's tried and failed, you succeeded.