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

[Waketurbulence]

I'm no legal expert, but I'd have to say advantage, union, on day one. The case is extremely complex for those who haven't followed it, with acronyms and industry lingo galore (USAPA, MEC, CBA, East pilots, West pilots, duty of fair representation, date of hire, etc. etc. etc. etc.) and a timeline stretching back nearly four years, so the potential to confuse the heck out of jurors is huge. From where I was sitting, attorneys for the US Airline Pilots Association presented a more crisp, easy-to-understand outline of the case and why it should prevail.

Not sure who is being quoted here, but is sounds eerily similar to the reports coming out a few years ago at the arbitration hearings.

There were less than two hours of testimony yesterday after opening statements, so to draw any conclusion at this point would be pointless.

As far as bradford testifing...this case will not be won or lost with or without his testimony. The letter and video's will be introduced to the jury and will speak for themselves. If sehman doesn't want to call braford to refute the testimony, then thats his choice. The jury will have to make their decision based on what is presented by the West. That's fine.

You try to make it sound like the West lawyer has made a huge "blunder" in the serving process. Again, you should read thru the judges order that was reversed and the West's motion to compell the court. There is a reason it happened, and if it is within the judges power, he will make bradford available, don't worry.

 

[des nudo]

Not sure who is being quoted here, but is sounds eerily similar to the reports coming out a few years ago at the arbitration hearings.

There were less than two hours of testimony yesterday after opening statements, so to draw any conclusion at this point would be pointless.

As far as bradford testifing...this case will not be won or lost with or without his testimony. The letter and video's will be introduced to the jury and will speak for themselves. If sehman doesn't want to call braford to refute the testimony, then thats his choice. The jury will have to make their decision based on what is presented by the West. That's fine.

You try to make it sound like the West lawyer has made a huge "blunder" in the serving process. Again, you should read thru the judges order that was reversed and the West's motion to compell the court. There is a reason it happened, and if it is within the judges power, he will make bradford available, don't worry.

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/USAi...2075?&wired


zzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[EastUS]

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/USAi...2075?&wired[/url]

Interesting. While the author properly notes the involved issues to be potentially confusing to the jury...I'll take a wild stab at assuming the following wouldn't be at all difficult to immediately understand:

"USAPA definitely plans to use Sully co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles in its defense. He was a centerpiece of its opening statement, with a union attorney noting that the 50-year-old pilot with 19 years of seniority at US Airways ranks below an America West pilot with less than seven years seniority on the arbitrated seniority list. That means, the attorney said, Skiles' hopes of moving to the captain's seat before the mandatory retirement age of 65 would be dashed because hundreds of America West pilots would be ahead of him on the seniority list as vacanies opened up."

 

[des nudo]

Not sure who is being quoted here, but is sounds eerily similar to the reports coming out a few years ago at the arbitration hearings.

There were less than two hours of testimony yesterday after opening statements, so to draw any conclusion at this point would be pointless.

As far as bradford testifing...this case will not be won or lost with or without his testimony. The letter and video's will be introduced to the jury and will speak for themselves. If sehman doesn't want to call braford to refute the testimony, then thats his choice. The jury will have to make their decision based on what is presented by the West. That's fine.

You try to make it sound like the West lawyer has made a huge "blunder" in the serving process. Again, you should read thru the judges order that was reversed and the West's motion to compell the court. There is a reason it happened, and if it is within the judges power, he will make bradford available, don't worry.

"Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Court should require USAPA to produce Stephen Bradford for testimony during Plaintiffs' case-in-chief. Mr. Bradford was the primary moving force in the formation of USAPA, instrumental in the campaign USAPA waged to replace ALPA as the bargaining agent for the pilots..."

(this would be covered under the order by Wake that denied any information or testimony PRIOR to USAPA's legal date of April 18th 2008....right?)


"Mr. Bradford was the President until just two days ago. He has apparently been replaced by Mr. Cleary..."

(Apparently?...I guess the uber-secret election escaped the super-sleuth lawyer?)


Are these quotes from the documents that I'm supposed to review to illustrate why none of this is a setback to the West? And, excuse me, Harper must be blowing an embolism over the procedural failure by his team to let Bradford slip through his fingers on a technicality?....don't kid yourself.

 

[cubfan]

I hope I'm not putting the cart in front of the horse, but this whole trial will soon be over. What we will be left with is a decision to move on no matter the outcome. The main thing left for us all will be the contract. Both sides will need to pull together or one side or both may loose out. Lets try to put are collective heads toether to come up with some ideas on what you would like to see. I would like to see an improved and iron clad scope agreement that would protect all jobs in the event of a future merger, fragmentation etc... I would also like to see some language that would help the age 65 pilots and allow others to move up, and get furloughs back. My 62 yr old buddy at netjets told me the pilots and company came together to offer 5 yr of pay at 70% of salary along with med benefits until age 65. Something along those lines may get some to retire. A good thing for all. Any other ideas?

 

[EastUS]

"We'd rather be evasive than honorable"

Speaking of which; Is that "honorable" notion the reason the west so desperately wishes to exclude Capt Sullenberger and FO Skiles? Is it yet an additional badge of "honor" to have the "Army" of leo-the-lions instruct their OWN PEOPLE to avoid being in the actual presence of the jury?..by way of telling them to sit in the listening room?...Or; does the "Army" simply and "honorably" fear their own people to be incapable of exercising the self control appropriate to professional pilots?.. :blink:

 

[Waketurbulence]

Is it yet an additional badge of "honor" to have the "Army" of leo-the-lions instruct their OWN PEOPLE to avoid being in the actual presence of the jury?..by way of telling them to sit in the listening room?...Or; does the "Army" simply and "honorably" fear their own people to be incapable of exercising the self control appropriate to professional pilots?..:

That simply isn't true.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Speaking of which; Is that "honorable" notion the reason the west so desperately wishes to exclude Capt Sullenberger and FO Skiles? Is it yet an additional badge of "honor" to have the "Army" of leo-the-lions instruct their OWN PEOPLE to avoid being in the actual presence of the jury?..by way of telling them to sit in the listening room?...Or; does the "Army" simply and "honorably" fear their own people to be incapable of exercising the self control appropriate to professional pilots?.. :blink:

Honorable, agreeing to binding arbitration. Dishonorable, agreeing to binding arbitration, then trying to weasel out of it.

 

[Metroyet]

Interesting. While the author properly notes the involved issues to be potentially confusing to the jury...I'll take a wild stab at assuming the following wouldn't be at all difficult to immediately understand:

"USAPA definitely plans to use Sully co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles in its defense. He was a centerpiece of its opening statement, with a union attorney noting that the 50-year-old pilot with 19 years of seniority at US Airways ranks below an America West pilot with less than seven years seniority on the arbitrated seniority list. That means, the attorney said, Skiles' hopes of moving to the captain's seat before the mandatory retirement age of 65 would be dashed because hundreds of America West pilots would be ahead of him on the seniority list as vacanies opened up."

Too bad this is irrelevant to the DFR. Stay tuned.

 

[EastUS]

That simply isn't true.

From AZcentral.com, whom, one must now presume from your last, are either completely misinformed or just outright lying?

"In an update last week providing rules for America West pilots interested in attending the trial, Leonidas suggested they sit in a less formal overflow room because it might be tough to suppress their reactions to USAPA's testimony in the court room.

It also chided the union for potentially trotting out Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles, the captain and co-captain of Flight 1549, the US Airways plane that splash-landed in the Hudson River in January and brought both international acclaim.

They are on the witness list for the defense."

 

[Waketurbulence]

From AZcentral.com, whom, one must now presume from your last, are either completely misinformed or just outright lying?

"In an update last week providing rules for America West pilots interested in attending the trial, Leonidas suggested they sit in a less formal overflow room because it might be tough to suppress their reactions to USAPA's testimony in the court room.

It also chided the union for potentially trotting out Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles, the captain and co-captain of Flight 1549, the US Airways plane that splash-landed in the Hudson River in January and brought both international acclaim.

They are on the witness list for the defense."

You are quoting a NEWSPAPER? !!! :blink:

I am not misinformed and definatly NOT A LIAR! (I don't appreciate being call one either!)

This is from the ACTUAL update.

"We have one final admonition as it relates to the trial. If you plan on attending, keep in mind that the arguments and statements made by Seham in court will be somewhat nauseating to the sensible person. Recall what we said in last week’s update: poker faces are the required uniform before the jury as it does nobody any good to communicate emotion nonverbally. If this will be a challenge for you, then we recommend that you sit in the observation room outside of the court. "

 

[EastUS]

You are quoting a NEWSPAPER? !!! :blink:

I am not misinformed and definatly NOT A LIAR!

If you must know, this is from the ACTUAL update.

"We have one final admonition as it relates to the trial. If you plan on attending, keep in mind that the arguments and statements made by Seham in court will be somewhat nauseating to the sensible person. Recall what we said in last week’s update: poker faces are the required uniform before the jury as it does nobody any good to communicate emotion nonverbally. If this will be a challenge for you, then we recommend that you sit in the observation room outside of the court. "

1) It seems the "NEWSPAPER" at least got it right then: "In an update last week providing rules for America West pilots interested in attending the trial, Leonidas suggested they sit in a less formal overflow room because it might be tough to suppress their reactions to USAPA's testimony in the court room."

2) I didn't accuse you of being any such things, and I'm not making this personal. It's worth noting although; your response was certainly just more "spin".

3) What sorts of professional aviators should EVER need "one final admonition as it relates to the trial"...insofar as their personal conduct is concerned? More to the point = What sorts would reasonably follow any who would thus patronize them so severely?.....Just wondering aloud here.....

 

[Waketurbulence]

1) It seems the "NEWSPAPER" at least got it right then: "In an update last week providing rules for America West pilots interested in attending the trial, Leonidas suggested they sit in a less formal overflow room because it might be tough to suppress their reactions to USAPA's testimony in the court room."

2) I didn't accuse you of being any such things, and I'm not making this personal. It's worth noting although; your response was certainly just more "spin".

3) What sorts of professional aviators should EVER need "one final admonition as it relates to the trial"...insofar as their personal conduct is concerned? More to the point = What sorts would reasonably follow any who would thus patronize them so severely?.....Just wondering aloud here.....

Whatever...

 

[nic4us]

Interesting. While the author properly notes the involved issues to be potentially confusing to the jury...I'll take a wild stab at assuming the following wouldn't be at all difficult to immediately understand:

"USAPA definitely plans to use Sully co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles in its defense. He was a centerpiece of its opening statement, with a union attorney noting that the 50-year-old pilot with 19 years of seniority at US Airways ranks below an America West pilot with less than seven years seniority on the arbitrated seniority list. That means, the attorney said, Skiles' hopes of moving to the captain's seat before the mandatory retirement age of 65 would be dashed because hundreds of America West pilots would be ahead of him on the seniority list as vacanies opened up."

So USAPA is going to argue that Skiles' career is more important than the hundreds of West pilots that belong in front of him?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

So USAPA is going to argue that Skiles' career is more important than the hundreds of West pilots that belong in front of him?

No. They're going to argue that the west guys stealing the east guys' jobs isn't fair. Because it isn't.