Monday at 0930. The interesting issue from my perspective is not whether she grants the injunction but what she has to say in her reasoned reply about the behavior of APFA.
I attended the hearing on Thursday. A few interesting sidelights.
1. After repeated denials about the exclusion of STL F/A representatives from union proceedings because the issues being discussed contained information about the seniority integration lawsuit, APFA admitted that information about seniority integration was not being discussed but that it possibly "could" be discussed.
2. From the above and other information it became clear the STL F/As were denied input, but not the right to vote, on the concession package that resulted in the furlough of all TWA F/As.
3. A one point in the proceedings with J. Ward on the stand it was revealed that a concession package could be put together that would negate the requirement for any furloughs. The Judge was quite interested in this line of questioning at one point inquiring of Mr. Ward why he did not attempt to save more jobs. This led to a whole review of salary, benefit and work rule concessions. One of the most interesting was the 50% deadhead credit issue that would save 109 jobs. A collective gasp went out from the TWA F/As when Mr. Ward's response was that the reason we kept this was that we might never get it back. I do not think the Judge was impressed with that answer and kept interjecting herself into the questioning to find out more, the basic premise pointed out by the TWA F/A lawyer being that APFA was not very humanistic towards its members. It was later revealed that changing concessions for those that resulted in no or little headcount reduction and a slightly larger pay cut would have minimal effect on headcount reduction. It appeared to me that Mr. Ward was chief negotiator and that his negotiating committee was a bit of a sideshow secondary and perhaps an ineffectual one, to Mr. Ward?s agenda.
4. Perhaps most embarrassingly was a review of BOD resolutions by Mr. Ward around the tainted vote and the demand for a third vote by Mr. Ward. In effect under questioning Mr. Ward admitted that the vote was tainted and AA had interfered in the voting process. Thus the need for a third vote. The BOD backed his resolution for a third vote. Three or four days later Mr. Ward introduces a resolution to accept the tainted - perhaps even illegal or fraudulent vote - and that is passed by the BOD. Mr. Ward was questioned about his change of mind on the ?tainted Vote? and gave an evasive answer but implied that the threat of Chapter 11 by AA was not the reason. There was questioning about whether all members of APFA including TWA F/As were being represented by a process that denied them their democratic rights. An APFA representative, John Nikides, LAX base chair testified that he strongly felt the APFA constitution had been abridged and that he had introduced resolutions to correct the process but his resolutions were backed neither by Mr. Ward nor the BOD. Mr. Nikides came off as the most forthright and honest witnesses of those from the APFA group. He was genuinely concerned about APFA's failure process the vote in accordance with its constitution. He did not appear to favor the TWA side at all, but his honesty and genuineness were hall-marks in a day where "I don't recall" answers by APFA witnesses appeared to be the standard.
When Mr. Ward was asked if he was aware of the impact of the T/A on the TWA F/A group he implied he was not. When pressed further about the furlough of all TWA F/As, Mr. Ward replied that he was "hoping" that it would not happen. Another collective groan from the assembled TWA F/As who found this statement incredulous. This despite testimony the T/A plus Overage leave takers amounted to an excess of somewhere around 5000.
I have my biases and admit to them, but it was not a good day for APFA by any standard. I would guess that in the future, depositions from BOD members and records of BOD meetings suggest that the veracity of some of Mr. Ward?s testimony will be severely challenged. Mr. Ward was remined by Mr. Gold the TWA F/A lawyer not to lose the records of the BOD meetings. Another subtle way of stating his testimony was felt to be less than truthful.
I attended the hearing on Thursday. A few interesting sidelights.
1. After repeated denials about the exclusion of STL F/A representatives from union proceedings because the issues being discussed contained information about the seniority integration lawsuit, APFA admitted that information about seniority integration was not being discussed but that it possibly "could" be discussed.
2. From the above and other information it became clear the STL F/As were denied input, but not the right to vote, on the concession package that resulted in the furlough of all TWA F/As.
3. A one point in the proceedings with J. Ward on the stand it was revealed that a concession package could be put together that would negate the requirement for any furloughs. The Judge was quite interested in this line of questioning at one point inquiring of Mr. Ward why he did not attempt to save more jobs. This led to a whole review of salary, benefit and work rule concessions. One of the most interesting was the 50% deadhead credit issue that would save 109 jobs. A collective gasp went out from the TWA F/As when Mr. Ward's response was that the reason we kept this was that we might never get it back. I do not think the Judge was impressed with that answer and kept interjecting herself into the questioning to find out more, the basic premise pointed out by the TWA F/A lawyer being that APFA was not very humanistic towards its members. It was later revealed that changing concessions for those that resulted in no or little headcount reduction and a slightly larger pay cut would have minimal effect on headcount reduction. It appeared to me that Mr. Ward was chief negotiator and that his negotiating committee was a bit of a sideshow secondary and perhaps an ineffectual one, to Mr. Ward?s agenda.
4. Perhaps most embarrassingly was a review of BOD resolutions by Mr. Ward around the tainted vote and the demand for a third vote by Mr. Ward. In effect under questioning Mr. Ward admitted that the vote was tainted and AA had interfered in the voting process. Thus the need for a third vote. The BOD backed his resolution for a third vote. Three or four days later Mr. Ward introduces a resolution to accept the tainted - perhaps even illegal or fraudulent vote - and that is passed by the BOD. Mr. Ward was questioned about his change of mind on the ?tainted Vote? and gave an evasive answer but implied that the threat of Chapter 11 by AA was not the reason. There was questioning about whether all members of APFA including TWA F/As were being represented by a process that denied them their democratic rights. An APFA representative, John Nikides, LAX base chair testified that he strongly felt the APFA constitution had been abridged and that he had introduced resolutions to correct the process but his resolutions were backed neither by Mr. Ward nor the BOD. Mr. Nikides came off as the most forthright and honest witnesses of those from the APFA group. He was genuinely concerned about APFA's failure process the vote in accordance with its constitution. He did not appear to favor the TWA side at all, but his honesty and genuineness were hall-marks in a day where "I don't recall" answers by APFA witnesses appeared to be the standard.
When Mr. Ward was asked if he was aware of the impact of the T/A on the TWA F/A group he implied he was not. When pressed further about the furlough of all TWA F/As, Mr. Ward replied that he was "hoping" that it would not happen. Another collective groan from the assembled TWA F/As who found this statement incredulous. This despite testimony the T/A plus Overage leave takers amounted to an excess of somewhere around 5000.
I have my biases and admit to them, but it was not a good day for APFA by any standard. I would guess that in the future, depositions from BOD members and records of BOD meetings suggest that the veracity of some of Mr. Ward?s testimony will be severely challenged. Mr. Ward was remined by Mr. Gold the TWA F/A lawyer not to lose the records of the BOD meetings. Another subtle way of stating his testimony was felt to be less than truthful.
