US Pilots' Labor Thread 4/28-5/5--NO PERSONAL REMARKS

[EastUS]

Reductio ad absurdum

caudex sum

 

[flybynite]

Why don't you guys take a breather????? Whew....enough already.

Anyway, did anyone sit in court today and if so what happened? Also, where can I locate the court transcripts so I can read them.

Thanks

 

[A320 Driver]

Why don't you guys take a breather????? Whew....enough already.

Anyway, did anyone sit in court today and if so what happened? Also, where can I locate the court transcripts so I can read them.

Thanks

AMEN...

Things haven't changed much, have they?

A320 Driver B)

 

[beachboy]

It's sick. I would really be more scared about getting on a plane with a West Capt and East F/O then getting Swine Flu! Shut the heck up already. All sides are looking like jack asses at this point. I say break it up and be done. Lost cause. If life only came with an eraser.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

http://www.pilotloop.com/secure/LinkClick....=36&mid=546

 

[hp_fa]

Oh, and we're getting the transcripts of the trial over here. I just read USAPA has pulled them for whatever reason.

Wonder what they're hiding?

After the jury was dismissed today this came up in open court.

The plaintiff's had apparently objected to it and it was discussed in court. There were two issues: 1) compensation to the court reporters and 2) That the jury could conceivably see the transcripts that included issues that were not discussed in their presence. The compensation issue was determined to be a non-issue since the court reporter stated that compensation issues had been taken care of beforehand. The second issue the agreed with Seham's contention that members who could not attend trial should have the opportunity to see what transpired in trial. The Court agreed that it is a public trial and he was not going to rule one way or the other at this point, leaving it to the attorney's to agree or not agree to this and possibly bring it before the court later (like tomorrow) if need be.

 

[hp_fa]

Couple of interesting tidbits from the trial so far. West attorney Ms Flood lost 4 out of 6 Brengle objections today. West Ms Brown didnt fare much better. Its clear how Brengle will be arguing. snoopo

Mr. Brengle has lost his share of objections also, probably about 95%. However, that doesn't mean too much at this stage since everyone is posturing for appealable grounds. As of now from the trial itself West has the appealable grounds regarding the nonavailability of Mr. Bradford if the jury rules against West. The East has evidenciary rulings. Other appealable grounds are contained in the many rulings issued by the Court prior to the opening of trial.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Mr. Brengle has lost his share of objections also, probably about 95%. However, that doesn't mean too much at this stage since everyone is posturing for appealable grounds. As of now from the trial itself West has the appealable grounds regarding the nonavailability of Mr. Bradford if the jury rules against West. The East has evidenciary rulings. Other appealable grounds are contained in the many rulings issued by the Court prior to the opening of trial.

I think the only way that the Bradford issue could result in an appeal for the West is if they claim imcompetent representation. Pretty difficult since they hired them. Also, I don't think that either side can legitimately make any jury statements concerning the reason that the witnesses did not appear, only that they didn't. If they try to blame it on the "witnesses", it will only open them up to criticism for incorrectly serving the subpoenas. No one can be expected to appear unless the proper protocol is followed.

Is there some place to read the transcripts?

 

[Piedmont1984]

pilotloop.com has the transcripts.

 

[hp_fa]

As my two prior replies show, I attended trial today. Here is a recap.

Before the jury was brought in...

Motion in Limine #25, dealing with attorney/client privilege, does not attach to statements Seham made in public. The biggest example of this is things he said in the Roadshow(s). There is no expectation of private communications in a public forum.

All objections to the Bradford deposition were overruled by the Court and one objection concerning the Hemmingway deposition was granted.

Jury is brought in....

The deposition of Mr. Bradford was, in large part, read to the jury. Reading of depositions is always a proverbial can of worms, with two people reading questions and answers to a jury. The jury tends to yawn because they do not get to see someone react to questions in the witness chair.

The deposition did establish that the plaintiffs were on notice that Bradford's term would end on 4/17/09. Therefore any snafu regarding the trial subpoena for Mr. Bradford, in my opinion, clearly lies with the plaintiffs. Bradford testified that he viewed himself as term-limited under promises he had made during the formation of USAPA.

Bradford hated ALPA political squabbles, and that referred mostly to PIT internal ALPA squabbles. He testified that he had refrained from any ALPA positions because he so hated the political (his choice of word) stuff. He mentioned the PIT president John Davies as a difficult personality. (I am reporting what was done in open court. I don't know John Davies.)

Bradford was **not** aware that the Nicolau award would be "final and binding". "It would be an award." He also said "there was a way of challenging this." He later said that the award would be "final and binding to the parties of the agreement", supposedly exempting USAPA or any other replacement union.

Bradford also opined to the effect that Nicolau could be negotiated away by USAPA whether West agreed or not.

He said during the campaign that USAPA will remove this impediment to a fair contract.

He was shocked by his Nicolau award position. (I think it was 3404, but I was writing too much at the time to be sure I heard that number correctly. However, the comment is correct.) He guessed it would be 5-6 more years to make captain.

It was after the meeting called by ALPA National to deal with the East complaints to Nicolau that Bradford began researching what could be done to do away with Nicolau. He also contended that Nicolau was a "bargaining position."

He had great antipathy towards ALPA after BK's 1 & 2 regarding loss of pension and LOA 93. "The system is broken." (The problem I have is that the term ALPA continues to be nebulous, it refers to both National, as well as MEC/LEC. I still contend that the local ALPA were the cause of much of the frustration.)

Bradford never attempted to personally get any West member to join USAPA.

According to the deposition, Mr. Bradford said Seham was not speaking on behalf of USAPA at the Roadshow(s), he was merely giving legal opinions. (I don't buy that and would have much preferred a live witness for that)

Bradford interviewed three lawfirms for USAPA.

Deposition reading concluded.

Russ Payne (spelling?) testified. Mostly about his work on the Grievence, Negotiating and Merger committees for the West MEC.

He did discuss the Kirby Proposal that would have increased all East pilots to West rates and benefits and added a 3% raise to all pilots from those existing rates. He also testified about the East pulling out of merger negotiations, that East failed to show for a scheduled meeting with both the Company and West and that West never had an opportunity to vote on a contract.

Steve Wargowski (spelling?) testified. He spoke of being 55 pilots from the bottom of the West list and now being furloughed. During cross-examination Mr. Brengle got into the issue of "post-merger expectations" and I was wondering in legal terms if he opened a door for plaintiffs down the road in the trial.

John Bostic testified. He was also furloughed. The West used him for authentication of many exhibits, most of which were obtained via a discovery request.

Dean Stockdell testified. He had made demonstrative charts which showed how various West pilots would be slotted both under Nicolau and under USAPA's DOH seniority plan.

Before the plaintiffs finished they allowed the defense to call Russ Payne as a witness under the provisions of a hostile witness rule. (I assume Mr. Payne had a scheduling problem for appearing next week if recalled by defendant.) The testimony only really involved an inaccuracy in his deposition testimony. He openly stated he had caught the error, knew the error but had not been provided with an errata sheet to fix the problem. It did not appear to be a big deal the way it concluded and I don't think Mr. Payne's credibility was tarnished. In fact I think it may have been strengthed the way he responded to the questions.

That's all for now...

 

[hp_fa]

Also, I don't think that either side can legitimately make any jury statements concerning the reason that the witnesses did not appear, only that they didn't.

The judge does not appear to agree with you. He has already stated that the plaintiffs may negatively refer to Mr. Bradford not appearing in closing statement. (Remember that more has gone on in chambers regarding this than I have witnessed in open court.)

 

[Tiger 1050]

Sully and Skiles dealt with a situation that they weren't even trained to foresee. I think your "observations" about experience are absolutely ridiculous. It's the split-second decision, tempered by experience, that can mean survival or not. This is NOT a forgiving environment. No matter how much training they give pilots, there will ALWAYS be situations which develop outside of that training. It's the experience and airmanship of the pilots (and crew) which can save or minimize damage and injury.

With your outlook, you really should be looking into another line of work.

How many times had Sully or Skiles ditched an airliner prior to this event? I'd say we are all about as experienced as the next regarding this event. Lotta luck boys. No two ways about it.

What about my outlook? Why should I consider something else?

 

[Twicebaked]

So you're irked, are you? Is this the passage about which you are irked?

"A group of US Airways pilots who came from America West are suing a new union created by the original US Airways pilots. Even though America West bought the bankrupt US Airways four years ago, taking on the older airline's name, the two groups of pilots (nicknamed "West" and "East") have never flown together. For four years they've argued over seniority, starting back when home prices were still rising and most people had never heard of Barack Obama."

Where does it say anything about the good people of Arizona? This article was written and published by CNBC, a national, well respected news organization. Maybe you should be irked even more, now that the good people of CNBC believe, and have published that "AWA bought the BANKRUPT US Airways" for all the world to see.

Just because the media says it doesn't make it so!!! Unless we are all living under rocks, Parker and Kirby have both discussed this on NUMEROUS occasions!!! INVESTORS MADE THIS ALL HAPPEN NOT US OR AWA BUT INVESTORS!!

 

[jetjok1]

While I applaud Sully for accomplishing what he AND his crew did, it would be completely ignorant to assume it was executed deftly with nothing more than skill and experience. We as aviators know that there was a lot of Divine intervention/Luck (whatever you're comfortable with). Period. Ignoring such only serves to puff up your own ego as a pilot. All the puzzle pieces came together that day. Notably Sully and his crew had absolutely no control over most of those elements. And thank God it turned out the way it did!

For those who disagree... When was the last time you practiced ditching in the simulator? Yeah. That's what I thought.

On another note, I hope the #1 engine running at 30+% N1 will not tarnish his hero character! We'll have to see from the NTSB report what was done regarding the thrust levers. Anybody know what thrust mode was annunciated on the FMA?

Tiger,

Completely agree, everything was lined up that eventful afternoon. I was thinking about that the other day after I had 8 wheelchairs to RSW. What if.................... Also, nighttime.................. and, then, there's that awesome Rat Motor!!!!!............. and so on and on!! Nevertheless, I applaud Sully and his crew as well!!!

 

[toganoflex]

Anyone overly quick to judge without the facts leaves the door open to serious ridicule. To call Sully a hero who single handedly saved the lives of 155 people is quick judgment in my mind. The east and in particular USAPA want to paint this picture of Sully standing tall, chest puffed out, his fists resting on his hips atop his ill-fated ship halfway sunk in the Hudson. All while wearing a giant "S" on his chest. Is that for "Sully?" Or is it for "Savior?"Or simply "Superman?" Anyhow the point I am trying to make is this; You want to call yourself the hero before all the facts are in then you had better accept the idea that the facts may eventually illustrate a whole other picture...

So. Can you tell me what was indicated by the FMA regarding thrust? I am gonna guess it was in speed mode. Pitching over the FADEC will command idle thrust. Without moving the thrust levers to MCT there is no way for Sully to know if he had any thrust available. Was he in Thrust Lock? Surely he knows how to get out of that mode.

You see. These are all things we don't know yet. However we do know per the NTSB that the number 1 engine was idling at 30% N1. What say you? You fly the airbus out of DCA. Right?

I heard Sully is out as a witness.