US Airways Pilots Labor Thread 4/21-4/28

[BajaBabe]

I do not think that's the key word that most of the posts on USAviation add up to yesterdays dreams. Most of you are not really out for the group so if you are east or west your pants are chinched way to high and definitely way too tight. The day that this group will play fair is gone all of you are greedy and gross. I cheer anyone who can still smile and does not get a rise out of screwing a fellow employee.

 

[wopr21]

As someone on the outside who does not understand this:
Some one please explain to me what binding arbitration is & if it was agreed to what's the problem?

Does no windfall ( an unexpected piece of good fortune) for either side ring a bell. Alpa wouldn't even acknowledge there was a windfall which goes against the very parameters they were supposed to defend.

Again I ask , Is it ok for the number one pilot at X airline that has one year seniority go ahead of another pilot at Y airline with 15-20 years seniority just because their relative position is the same?

I don't think so

We will see what will happen soon.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Again I ask , Is it ok for the number one pilot at X airline that has one year seniority go ahead of another pilot at Y airline with 15-20 years seniority just because their relative position is the same?

I don't think so

We will see what will happen soon.

I understand . But unless I'm not getting something here did you or did you not agree to the binding arbitration ?

 

[EastUS]

There is no pilot that could not potentially end up being a dead pilot, for whatever reason. But for the grace of God.....

Amen.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I understand . But unless I'm not getting something here did you or did you not agree to the binding arbitration ?

The issue is that the conditions of the arbitration WERE NOT met.

Also, it's interesting to notice that there are NO comments regarding the subpoenas which were incorrectly served by the West lawyers. Looks like a lot of witnesses won't be there. Hmmm...I thought it was Seham and group that made those mistakes....

I agree with HP on this one. It's anybody's game starting tomorrow....

 

[Harry Callahan]

The issue is that the conditions of the arbitration WERE NOT met.

May I ask what those conditions were ?

 

[Waketurbulence]

May I ask what those conditions were ?

It is his OPINION that the award was a winfall for the West pilots.

However, the arbitrator AND TWO neutral pilots (one United, one Continental) on the arbitration panel, and ALPA National disagree.

The award met all the tenents outlined by the company as well, was passed to and accepted by the company.

 

[wopr21]

I understand . But unless I'm not getting something here did you or did you not agree to the binding arbitration ?

Yes and the previous representation failed to uphold there own covenants.

Mr Nicolau failed to honor the part where it says " no windfall " for either side.

Just because two parties agree on binding arbitration doesn't make the final decision the correct moral one.

We are trying to make this right and just for all pilots on both sides.

Respectfully

 

[cactusboy53]

The issue is that the conditions of the arbitration WERE NOT met.

Also, it's interesting to notice that there are NO comments regarding the subpoenas which were incorrectly served by the West lawyers. Looks like a lot of witnesses won't be there. Hmmm...I thought it was Seham and group that made those mistakes....

I agree with HP on this one. It's any body's game starting tomorrow....

Oldie;
If you are insinuating that there was a windfall for Save Dave and north of Dave, then we could insinuate that it was a windfall for the pilots on the Nicolau list numbering 1-517. The conditions were met according to the arbitrator selected. PERIOD.

Lots of last minute motions flying through the system, so who knows who will have to testify. It all starts tomorrow........

 

[hp_fa]

Also, it's interesting to notice that there are NO comments regarding the subpoenas which were incorrectly served by the West lawyers. Looks like a lot of witnesses won't be there. Hmmm...I thought it was Seham and group that made those mistakes....

Long post warning...............

There is something unusual going on even considering that it is happening in an already unusual case. I am going to be specific about what I know vs. what I suspect vs. what I think may be the result.

What I know

There is a problem with a subpoena for Mr. Bradford and according to what I have read the $80.00 witness fee was not included when the subpoena was served. Defendants filed a Motion to Quash, which was initially granted and then the Court rescinded that granting of the Motion to Quash and, last that I knew, was relooking at the circumstances regarding the trial attendance of Mr. Bradford.

I also know from court filings that USAPA is not incorporated entity, but an unincorporated entity.

I know that there has been a tremendous fight going on about the so-called Bradford Letter regarding its admissibility, specifically the portion that deals with an attorney telling Mr. Bradford that the formation of USAPA as an entity to avoid the Nicolau award must never be made public.

From a plaintiffs' filing I know that on April 14, 2009, “counsel for USAPA advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that USAPA would accept trial subpoenas for current officers of USAPA,â€￾ and Mr. Bradford was USAPA’s President. From that same document I know that on April 18th Mr. Cleary (the incoming President) replaced Mr. Bradford as President. (I am not clear on when Mr. Cleary was scheduled to take office, either July 1st (according to plaintiffs' motion) or May 1st (from what I had thought I had once read but don't know if it was true or I was mistaken)).

What I suspect

I suspect that at some point plaintiffs served defendant with interrogatories (legal questions to be answered in writing and under oath) regarding the legal status of USAPA as an entity and who were it's officers. It's a standard question to be asked just to formalize what the parties know about one another. Defendant likely did the same to the plaintiffs. If these interrogatories were exchanged then the parties would have had a duty to timely amend those interrogatories and ten days before trial is likely not considered timely when a trial is pending in ten days and plaintiffs have no reason to suspect that an early transfer of office may be occurring.

What I think happened

USAPA, probably on Seham's advice, decided to pull a fast trick before trial in order to keep Mr. Bradford from testifying. I also suspect that the plaintiffs were thrown into a tizz when they found out on 4/18 that Mr. Bradford was no longer President and that they quickly (probably too quickly) arranged for a trial subpoena to be sent to a process server in Pennsylvania so that Mr. Bradford could be personally served since he was no longer under the acceptance of a trial subpoena for officers by USAPA's counsel. Somehow a check for one day's attendance at the trial was not provided to Mr. Bradford at the time of service, either by plaintiff's counsel making a clerical error in not enclosing it to the process server or the process server forgot to also leave the check with the subpoena. Regardless, USAPA's counsel jumped all over this as a way to potentially keep Mr. Bradford from testifying since the court now apparently lacked in personam jurisdiction over Mr. Bradford.

Mr. Bradford has always been central to this case and the judge is well aware of that. The judge is now aware that ten days before trial the defendant informaed the plaintiffs that Mr. Bradford was, all of a sudden, not subject to acceptance of service by counsel and that he subsequently fought to remain away from the trial as a witness.

In my opinion the counsel for USAPA, seeing the potential damage that the "Bradford letter" could cause, orchestrated this scenario and then also got lucky that the $80.00 check was somehow not provided to Mr. Bradford, giving counsel a chance to fight to exclude Mr. Bradford from trial. Authentication of that letter in the form of lawyers call foundation could also keep that letter from being admitted before the jury if one assumes that Mr. Cleary had no knowledge of that letter, only Mr. Bradford.

As of the time I am writing this I have no idea what, if anything, has happened in court today. But I will hazard a guess of what will happen and why.

Mr. Seham, and to a lesser extent other members of his firm, have aggravated the judge from the beginning of this case. I don't know if they are just an obnoxious law firm or they thought they would come teach the cowboys out west something about how law is practiced. In any event Seham has seemingly aggravated the judge a few times in Seham's professional capacity. That means he, and USAPA's other counsel, have a track record with how they have argued USAPA's position and what positions they have taken (including contrary positions with their other positions) throughout this litigation.

The judge is not going to buy that this turn of events is a coincidence. Nor is he going to let his precious court time be wasted by what surely seems to be a last minute ploy. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the judge is going to order USAPA to produce Mr. Bradford as a witness or else be sanctioned in the form of what evidence they may present in defense and possibly allowing plaintiffs to inform the jury that Mr. Bradford will not be testifying and that they may draw a negative inference from that absence.

If the judge does as I suspect he will be providing Sehan with at least an argument to be made of reversible error. However, also based on the record, the appellate court might well decide that what actions the judge took under the circumstances are justified under the facts and circumstances of the case.

It will be very interesting to see how Judge Wake deals with this situation and counsel. By the way, if I am correct in my read of this mess, I could see the judge taking action via the bar association regarding Seham.

 

[pilotn79]

Does no windfall ( an unexpected piece of good fortune) for either side ring a bell.

Hopefully, the windfalls will end and the pilots affected will return to their respective positions prior to the acquistion. After that, we can start honoring our agreement to abide by binding arbitration.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Long post warning...............

There is something unusual going on even considering that it is happening in an already unusual case. I am going to be specific about what I know vs. what I suspect vs. what I think may be the result.

What I know...

I hardly think that going by the letter-of-the-law is a "fast trick" (to use YOUR words) in a court of law. If the subpoenas were NOT served correctly, as apparently the were not, That's the plaintiff's issue, not the defendant's. Maybe there's time for them to recover, maybe not.

Using ALL resources available to BOTH sides is hardly an impeachable offense. I have seen correspondence from Judge Wake rebuking BOTH sides for some of their actions.

If the Judge takes anything other than a legal, impartial approach to this, it is only grounds for an appeal. It's the plaintiffs that have to prove their case.

It'll be up to the jury just what happens.


The West guys are still contending that USAPA's sole reason for existence is the Nic award, which it is not. It may have been the final straw, but it certainly isn't the only reason.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Long post warning...............

IOW, if Seham follows the laws AS WRITTEN, it's a ploy and annoys the impartial judge.

When the west attorneys, or their minions, screw up for whatever reason, it's a Seham ploy.

It sounds like next Wake is going to hold Seham responsible for global warming.

Are we talking law here, or wild-west justice?

 

[hp_fa]

Changing officers, outside of the nominal time to do so and after having told counsel you will be accepting service of process for the officers, is not normal, expected or a valid reason for even attempting to evade trial when it has been clear from the beginning that Mr. Bradford is fundamental to any meaningful adjudication in this matter.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Changing officers, outside of the nominal time to do so and after having told counsel you will be accepting service of process for the officers, is not normal, expected or a valid reason for even attempting to evade trial when it has been clear from the beginning that Mr. Bradford is fundamental to any meaningful adjudication in this matter.

Bradford and the other officers' term ended April 18th, per the C&BL. Not his fault that the plaintiff's attorneys didn't do their homework.