US Pilots Labor Discussion-8/12 to 8/19--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[Waketurbulence]

Were his exact words "Weenie ou[t]"?

Actually, his words were..."We think is a slam dunk".

The first of many promises' made by him and others that turned out to be empty.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Jim,
In BK 1, which is when the plan was "distressed" terminated, there was no abrogation of any other portion of the pilots contract.

Correct. The version of the story that I've heard since BK1 is that the judge said that the plan met the parameters for distress termination but that he couldn't terminate it because it was part of the contract between US and the pilots. That was what I was referring to when I said that I had trouble reconciling the judges supposed lack of power to amend the contract while at the same time having the power to throw out any or all of the contract if warranted.

Jim

 

[Megasnoop]

You got the order slightly wrong. He had to pay and rejoin ALPA before he got appointed.Correct. It has nothing to do with anything. It does say a lot about his character that he was willing to look past his valid complaint against ALPA to serve the AWA pilots.

It says a lot about your west gunslinger shoot first, ask questions later. Your MEC appointed him then sent his name to Rice. Rice didn’t have active membership # on him, he sent it to Chris. Horner was suing ALPA, wasn’t a member, never paid any West dues. Beebe was livid. Horner’s on the NIC list, but not on the LCC seniority list. So he went back to AMR? Character? He sounds like an angry guy.

That's a valid point but it wasn't an issue and if it had became an issue legal malpractice could've come into play. What, you mean the end of self-serving pontificating attorneys? Of course not. Roland worked for the East once before so I'm shocked, shocked, to see him agreeing with counselor Seham.

Legal malpractice? You’re projecting. You have no way of knowing who wrote the blog. Back on TWA, Even though it was our money (from the general fund), ALPA National had to approve our use of Wilder when we sued West, just like ALPA had to approve Wilder in TWA/AMR seniority integration. With ALPA gone, we never got an answer to that one, but from the case Hate2fly copied, we were on a way to a win.

He followed our direction and not anybody else's. That's all that matters.

Did he? Then why you sue ALPA for DFR, if Wilder was following your directions? Here’s why. Reality, Wilder did a good job for you. But his role was limited, handcuffed. ALPA was not hands off, no “independence-plusâ€￾ in that mess, since AMR wasn’t ALPA. If he hadn’t played ball with ALPA, he would have been removed. ALPA pulled all the strings. ALPA closed all the TWA LECs and consolidated them into one, STL, where they narrowed the votes they needed to control to one F/O Rep and one C/O Rep. Under intense pressure from ALPA and Cohen, Weiss and Simon and ALPA National, they voted for the scope waiver. TWA-MEC Chairman Bob Pastore had no vote, only two status reps. How do I know this? I got to listen to my cousin whine about it at every family gathering here in New Hope for the past 8 years.

Read the court document below and tell me, do you really believe Roland Wilder was acting independently, following your “direction?â€￾ If you do, then I have some waterfront property at Three-Mile Island…

In Terms of silencing dissent, most notable is ALPA’s treatment of TWA-MEC Merger Counsel Roland P. Wilder, Jr. Of all the professional advisors present at the April 2, 2001 meeting, Mr. Wilder stands out for a number of reasons. First, he was the only attorney who had a written retainer with the TWA-MEC. Wilder expressly recognized the MEC, and not ALPA National, to be his client (doc 229). Second, Mr. Wilder had the greatest professional experience of any of the professional advisors participating in the room that day concerning the Railway Labor Act and airline seniority issues (230). Indeed, with respect to the latter subject area, he was one of only six legal practitioners in the country (231).

Moreover, ALPA hardly could challenge Wilder’s superior credentials because the national union, in exercising it vetting rights had effectively submitted Mr. Wilder to the TWA MEC as their sole choice for merger counsel (232). Unfortunately, this necessary endorsement had a darker side – ALPA National’s apparent ability to control Mr. Wilder by either silencing him or denying him authorization to take legal action that was “necessaryâ€￾ to protect the TWA pilots’ seniority rights…..Merger Committee Chairman Michael Day, having by chance wandered into the meeting of professionals, described the union advisors as ALPA’s “henchmanâ€￾ who were “beating upâ€￾ on Roland Wilder. “They were trying to get him to back off of his position that we should not waive scope, which was ridiculous because he was supposed to be representing us.â€￾ (233)
Former Merger Committee Chairman Bud Bensel concurred with the characterization of Wilder have been “beaten upâ€￾ and testified that in Wilder’s meeting with the ALPA advisers “voices were raised substantially.â€￾ (234)

…..Mr. Wilder’s dialogue with the ALPA National advisors did not change his views; indeed, he has testified that he disagreed “very, very stronglyâ€￾ with the advice provided by the ALPA National advisors, and that the advice he provided in his March 13, 2001 memorandum would be the same today. (236) He considered the TWA pilots’ LPP to be “their most potent weapon for achieving a fair seniority integrationâ€￾ and the idea that these rights might be waived constituted a matter of “extraordinary importance and concern to me.â€￾ (237) Nevertheless, on April 2, ALPA was apparently able to silence him on this issue. (238)

After the “beating,â€￾ Mr. Wilder changed his vote, or at least allowed himself to be bullied into sullen acquiescence to the position of the ALPA National advisors. (239) As another witness testified, a “quite distraughtâ€￾ Roland Wilder “capitulated.â€￾ (240) Ted Case provided the following testimony concerning his inquiry with Mr. Wilder as to why the attorney had gone silent: I never really got a direct response other than Mr. Wilder telling me how disappointed and how disgusted and how unprofessional the proceedings with the advisors was and he would never involve himself in any activity of this nature again. (241)

…..Another witness recounted that Wilder “told me personally that it was one of the most embarrassing things he’s been involved in with this group of people [ALPA National], and he will not be involved with them ever again.â€￾ 242 To Wilder it was a “professional embarrassment.â€￾ A third witness described Mr. Wilder’s behavior in the following manner: I looked at him. I saw his body language. I saw his gestures. I saw his motions. I saw a man that was disgusted. I saw a mand that was outraged. I saw a man that was like a child put in a corner and told to sant there and be settled.â€￾ (244)

Even Roland Wilder appears to have tacitly admitted that he was silenced. Wilder testified that he diisagreed with the ALPA advisors at the meeting that took place “earlier in the morningâ€￾ and “I strongly disagreed at the meeting attended by the – not attended by the MEC, but the meeting before the MEC.â€￾ (245)

Now where did I get those quotes? From LEE SEHAM! You should get a good laugh out of that. He didn’t write it for fun. He was just contracted by Bud Bensel and you (if your still a TWA plaintiff) to write a legal opinion on the DFR (@$300/hr). This isn’t new. It came out last year. The report’s mostly quotes verified facts, with logical conclusions. It’s not made up speculation but a New Jersey Federal Court document.

Seham and Wilder are not enemies. They are professional attorneys who frequently comment critically, either for fun or profit, on each other’s work. Some times their on the same side, some times opposite. Did Roland Wilder write this or did it just appear on their blog? I don’t know. As I said in my first post on this topic, this was “Open air BLOG discussion.â€￾ For all I know it could have been written by Lee Seham. One thing I’d guess, they wouldn’t allow something to stay on a blog that would cost them business or legal issues. If you think Baptiste & Wilder dissent blog on Wake trial is isolated, just wait until you read the other Amicus Curiae that will blast the trial. You see it’s not just about ALPA v USAPA, or AFL-CIO v Seham or even Seham v Harper. It’s about whether a union has the right to bargain. Now if there was a DOH contact in place, you’d have every right to sue on DFR. You might not win, but you’d have the right. This case was never ripe. On that issue alone, good luck at a Ninth win.

Back to TWA v ALPA, point is 717, you had a good case. But it just goes to prove how difficult it is to win a legitimate DFR. The case you did “winâ€￾ was so tainted I doubt it will survive appeal. Another point, with all you went through at TWA, do you really want ALPA back on property?

I never said most of the things I said. Yogi Berra

 

[CactusFlyr]

Actually, his words were..."We think is a slam dunk".

The first of many promises' made by him and others that turned out to be empty.

I thought it was "we are supremely confident", or is that the new leadership motto?

 

[Richard]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have just removed a great number of posts from this thread, regarding nasty comments and body part measurements. These comments are not appropriate to this thread or this board and will not be permitted.

As a reminder, if you see an offensive post you are NOT to respond to it but report to a moderator. If you respond, you will be held equally liable.

Thank you.

 

[boeingplt]

If the case is sent back to judge Wake we have another jury trial. The “adviceâ€￾ from the ninth would be something like allow some evidence into court and let the jury look at it. The jury then decides the case again. The ninth is not going to now find usapa, not liable.
So if a new jury finds in favor of usapa this time I suppose the west files an appeal on that trial, or drops it there.
What happens if usapa is found liable in a second trial? Does usapa file another appeal again?

What happens if the ninth agrees with judge Wake this first time? What does usapa do then? Finally accept the reasoning of an arbitrator, a federal judge, nine jurors and three appellate judges. Or do they let Seham pad his resume and bank account again and try for the Supreme Court?

It could go back to Wake or it could be overturned altogether - "Wake got it wrong" or "Wake never should have heard it because it wasn't ripe, go back to court when it is ripe and start over"

What happens if the 9th agrees with USAPA? Does the west go to the Supreme Court? I suspect that they would try. They believe they are right, this is incredibly important to them and they will fight until there are no options left.

The east is no different in this regard yet the west posters on this board fling ridicule with utter abandon at the east for doing what they would do themselves if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[exB717Flyer]

It says a lot about your west gunslinger shoot first, ask questions later. Your MEC appointed him then sent his . Horner’s on the NIC list, but not on the LCC seniority list. So he went back to AMR?

Yes, he accepted recall to AA. He was a TWA captain before the merger so he returned to a higher pay scale.

Character? He sounds like an angry guy.

Yeah, but he was our angry guy. Your angry guys just annoyed (and occasionally amused) Mr. Nicolau.

Legal malpractice? You’re projecting. You have no way of knowing who wrote the blog.

Perhaps it was my fault for not being more explicit but your missive showed you confused my statements between two different mergers. My legal malpractice comment was in response to your suggestion that the AWA merger counsel was beholden to anyone other than our MEC. When Roland disobeyed the TWA MEC's instructions in 2002 it was too late to do anything about it. Thus, the AWA MEC made sure our counsel was doing our bidding the entire way.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

Yep! The east pilot like to blame an individual and ALPA for all of their troubles. I guess that keeps them from blaming themselves.

I deleted the rest of your post because it was nonsensical. I think the East pilots have every right to blame ALPA for the pension dump.

By the way, can you substantiate this? The judge in the distressed termination case would not let the USAir fiduciary testify because if he had, there would have been no termination.......?

Anyone?

 

[UtterlyUdder]

So you have all ready decided that usapa has lost the appeal in the ninth. That we are going to have to defend in SCOTUS now.

Confidence. Nice!

Learn something about the legal system. If usapa wins we would go back to district court. Not the SCOTUS. It would be usapa that has to appeal to SCOTUS.

Not a chance will USAPA lose! I have every "Confidence" in that.

I'm not so sure you are right about the sequence.

 

[UtterlyUdder]

Pension, smension.

It ain't about whether or not the pension should have been given away... we have already seen plenty of folks who think they know enough to unilaterally make the decision on behalf of everyone else...

Its about whether or not the people who pay dues have a right to vote or if they are too stupid to vote and thus need privileged elite to ignore them and do what is best for the elite. We have seen the eventual end of that paradigm.

Stay tuned... It now appears the electorate is too stupid and un-American to understand/handle a vote on health care.

Spot on!

Union members should have the right to vote on issues that directly concern them...which means EVERY issue that comes up in a union. West people and a few East people will argue against that but that is one of USAPA's stated goals: the membership will not be left out in the cold. ALPA froze pilots to death. They practiced executive sessions until nobody bothered with meetings. Why go to have the door slammed in your face? After all, double secret stuff was going on behind that door.

Union reps will argue that they were elected to do the business of the union, but look at our congressional reps! They don't pay any attention to the voters who put them in power. GOP or DEMS just don't understand that they are NOT there to screw the very people who they "represent". Same thing with ALPA.

As for socialized medicine, I can hardly wait for my little cyanide pill to show up a day after the gov't decides I am too old to live. Oh joy.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Not a chance will USAPA lose! I have every "Confidence" in that.

I'm not so sure you are right about the sequence.

He's not. While sending the case back is one possible scenario, it's not the only one. But don't try to tell him that. He knows EVERYTHING!

 

[USA320Pilot]

UtterlyUdder,

UtterlyUdder: "I think the East pilots have every right to blame ALPA for the pension dump."

USA320Pilot comments: When something goes wrong people want to point the finger out somebody else instead of accepting blame them self for their problems. US Airways offered twice to freeze the East pilot's DB pension plan and the MEC's hardliners, the same type of people now in charge of USAPA, said "no". When the federal governement changed ERISA and the IRS created FASB 106 keeping the DB Pension became impossible because the creditors committee would not approve the Company's POR if nearly $600 million would be needed to fund the Plan.

With the limitations at hand I believe ALPA's R&I Committee did a great job when they negotiated Target Benefit Plan to replace the DB Plan,. The Target Benefit Plan would have paid an East Captain with 30 years of servcie an estimated $1 million, which is not too bad.

Bob Gaudioso wrote an excellent article on this problem, which can be read here on pension restoration and the how the government is ultimately responsbile to what happened to the East pilot's DB Plan.

Do I like what happened to the Pilots' DB Plan? No, of course not. But, it's wrong to blame ALPA for the termination.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[hp_fa]

OK thanks.

So if I go back to my civics classes in school where they explained that a court case is a "Search For Truth" then the ONLY way for all of the evidence to be tested in front of a jury is for the 9th Circuit to send the case back to be retried?

Also in reading the last few weeks here am I the only one who thinks Lee Seham got "out Lawyered" in this from beginning to end?

Hi Bob.

This has mostly been covered in numerous discussions on this board over time.

The court case originally started as a request for an injunction against USAPA arising from its duty of fair representation in failing to follow the Nicolau Award, which had been arrived at under ALPA's merger policy. The merger policy had numerous steps in it and the final step was for a binding arbitration between the AAA MEC and the AWA MEC. Injunction proceedings are entitled to preferential (ie-speedy) treatment under law. The court initially declined to enter a temporary injunction and set further proceedings. Eventually the court decided to hold a bifurcated trial on the sole issue of liability. If liability were to be found the court would set further proceedings for the damages portion of the trial, but if liability was not found the case would have likely been dismissed.

The limited trial began in April. The court scheduled nine days of trial and it ended up being seven. The court, as it is allowed to do under its inherent judicial authority, made numerous rulings on the admissibility of evidence to be heard by the jury. This happens in all trials to be heard by juries. Any evidence excluded by the judge is referred to in the record so that an appeals court can determine whether or not the trial judge improperly excluded evidence that it believes should have been presented to the jury. This too happens in all cases.

The appellant, USAPA, has a limited size to the brief it can submit to the Ninth Circuit. It can choose what particular issues and arguments that it decides to present to the appeals court. That brief is due to be filed in late September. At that point we will know what points of error USAPA claims were made by the trial judge.

As for Seham being "out-lawyered" I would simply state that he and his firm were involved with USAPA from the beginning, long before there was ever a lawsuit. I personally take the position that Seham and his firm were simply fundamentally wrong on many issues and strategies.

You can find a complete copy of Judge Wake's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order here. Grab a gin and tonic and take a look at it and you will likely see that Judge Wake did carefully state the issues, state the respective arguments and stated his view as the trial judge. Whether he is upheld or not remains to be seen, although I think there was no reversible error and that his decision will be upheld.

You are, of course, free to review the last six months or so of these threads and view the totality of all the arguments of the people participating in this thread and their respective views of what was happening as the case progressed. In that case you better bring at least 20 gallons of gin and tonic because you will be reading for awhile.

Regards,

John

 

[cleardirect]

Not a chance will USAPA lose! I have every "Confidence" in that.

I'm not so sure you are right about the sequence.

"Not a chance" I hope that you don't spend much time in A.C. The casinos love people like you.

The sequence.

99% this happens. The ninth agrees with judge Wake. It is usapa that now has to appeal to the SCOTUS.

1% that usapa wins. A couple of ways to win.

It is not ripe. That only kicks it down the road. The suit still exists. We just have to wait. A couple of problems with this. usapa still has to convince the company that DOH will fly. This is after the company has admitted the Nicolau is the list. We all wait around for a long time for a new contract. The east pilots lose way more money then the west.

Next the ninth finds that some evidence should have been allowed. We go back to trial so a jury can see that special evidence. In front of judge Wake again. The trial remains the same. What did usapa do? Did they represent the west correctly. Seham argues about the Nicolau but the trial is still not about the Nicolau. Most likley we get the same outcome usapa DFR.

The ninth finds that the judge made grave errors and overturns the jury. Not likley.

As you see the only one going to the SCOTUS would be usapa.

Did I miss any oldie?

 

[AZ Bus Cap'n]

I guess it all boils down to this. Arbitrations essentially mean nothing if the larger party disagees with the outcome.

Both sides spent approximaely 1.5 million each in the arbitration, because it was hugely important that this issue be resolved. That's why people go to arbitration. To achieve finality. I can assure you that if the East had been given date of hire in the Nicolau Award, their rallying cry would have been "Final and Binding!"

Also, nobody would have spent that kind of money if the results could be essentially thrown in the trash the next day by the dissatisfied party.
As an aside, if USAirways had merged with United a few years back, Joe Monda (who was the junior working pilot at USAirways when they merged with AWA) would have asked, with a straight face, to be placed above Captain RH Carreras at UAL, who was hired at UAL two weeks after First Officer Monda was hired at USAirways.

Guess how may pilots RH Carreras had below him as of the July 9, 2007 UAL pilot seniority list?

Drumroll please... Over 6,500 pilots!!!

If USAPA thinks that any arbitrator would have placed Joe Monda above 6,500 UAL pilots (no matter what the C&R's were) in a date of hire solution, they are sadly mistaken.

The only difference there is that ALPA would have presented the arbitrated seniority list (some sort of ratio, no doubt) to UAL the very next day. No Rice commissions, no blue ribbon panels, no Wye River, etc.
USAirways just got lucky they merged with a smaller carrier so that, temporarily, they could impose their will on the minority and (temporarily) make the West pilots bear the brunt of the furloughs.

I'm not saying how the Ninth will rule, but EVERY neutral that has looked at this case (Nicolau, ALPA Executive Council, and now a jury of nine American citizens) has sided with AWA pilots. That's three neutrals in a row. I believe the Ninth will make it 4-Zip.

It's easy to impose your will when you are the majority, but fortunately there are neutral parties in this country with the ability to restrain unchecked majorities in this country.

Brown v. Board of Education comes to mind.