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

[EastUS]

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 worries at all then. I'm completely certain that it'll be unquestionably clear to each and every juror that all your 7 year "veterans" truly "belong in front of him"......won't it?

As I've said all along; None of us can now know how this will play out in the thoughts and perceptions of the jurors.

 

[Metroyet]

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

there goes that irrelevant "F" word again...it's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[EastUS]

there goes that irrelevant "F" word again...it's in the eye of the beholder.

While it's long been made very, VERY clear that said, and I quote; "F" word" = Fairness, is not only "irrelevant" but even utterly blasphemous from the west's perceptions....Well...it's still not entirely impossible that the concept does yet exist in the minds of some on the jury. We'll all have to wait and see.

 

[toganoflex]

It will be interesting to see if Bradford complies with the spirit of the Judges request, or whether he'd rather try his luck with judicial Whack A Mole.

Evading the process speaks volumes abouts USAPA's choice to do what it can rather than what it should.

Bradford doesn't need to show up and its better if he doesn't.

Why would the founder/former President of USAPA avoid the courtroom if his union was an honest one and formed to benefit both east and west pilots.

His deposition will speak for him and he won't be there for cross.

Him not showing says quite a bit.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Bradford doesn't need to show up and its better if he doesn't...

...Him not showing says quite a bit.

Yea. It says the west lawyer really screwed up.

 

[hp_fa]

I was in court today.

The first thing to be said is that the Judge ruled in court, outside the presence of the jury, that he will not grant the plaintiff's relief on the Bradford issue under Rule 16. However, he ruled that the plaintiffs may read into the record the deposition of Mr. Bradford and may, in closing statement, make a negative inference to Mr. Bradford having not appeared in court. Some folks in court thought this was actually better for the plaintiffs than having Mr. Bradford testify in person. Frankly I disagree insofar as I think it would have been preferable to have Mr. Bradford testify before the jury so that they could personally judge his testimony, body language, etc.

Next, the existence of the Nicolau decision was discussed in front of the jury. The entire negotiations process was discussed by two witnesses. Defendants had multiple objections which were generally overruled, but they did have some objections sustained.

Third, someone needs to buy Superglue and generously pour it on Seham's chair. Seham was seated third from the aisle and every time that testimony was coming in that he didn't like he was getting up and moving to over to Mr. Brengle and discussing things. I know that the jury was watching this and I would think that some of them were not viewing this in a favorable light. Frankly, to me, he resembled a Jack-In-The-Box toy.

Testimony came in about the Phoenix Roadshow. Mr. Seham's comments at that Roadshow were discussed, at least in part. (This obviously let the jury know that Seham was involved in this matter from early on, not just as trial counsel.)

The plaintiff's expect to be done with their case-in-chief tomorrow, or Friday noon at the latest. (Frankly with the reading-in of the Bradford deposition I think it will be Friday. Reading depositions takes longer than live testimony in my experience.)

After the jury was excused for the day the judge discussed proposed revised jury instructions. He is uncomfortable that words like "bad faith" and other words will be confusing to the jury and wants them properly instructed in plain and simple language for the issues that are actually going to be potentially decided by the jury. Counsel for the parties have a lot of work to do tonight and tomorrow to have the objections to the Bradford deposition and the potential revised jury instructions done by 5:00 am tomorrow (Bradford deposition) and 5:00 pm Friday (jury instructions).

As for the witnesses themselves I think they came across well to the jury. I understand that even a better recitation of events will come tomorrow.

 

[toganoflex]

Yea. It says the west lawyer really screwed up.

Not really.

But hang on to that if it make you feel better.

 

[nic4us]

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

Oh...I understand now...USAPA is going to plead guilty with an excuse. We did it because we do not think it is fair.

But exactly how does a West guy, senior to Skiles, steal his job? For instance, I am senior to Skiles, I am not going to go take his F/O job away from him. However, he and USAPA would like to place him senior to me, so he can upgrade and steal my position.

 

[nic4us]

No worries at all then. I'm completely certain that it'll be unquestionably clear to each and every juror that all your 7 year "veterans" truly "belong in front of him"......won't it?

As I've said all along; None of us can now know how this will play out in the thoughts and perceptions of the jurors.

I said some time back it would be a huge mistake for Sullenberger to testify. It would be an even bigger mistake to let Skiles testify.

Because as you say, we do not know the thoughts and perceptions of the jurors.

 

[ClueByFour]

I'd say the question is whether the Bradford deposition includes the letter. If it does, it seems to me that not being able to cross the deposition is a bad thing.

 

[EastUS]

I said some time back it would be a huge mistake for Sullenberger to testify. It would be an even bigger mistake to let Skiles testify.

Because as you say, we do not know the thoughts and perceptions of the jurors.

1) Then you evidently have no worries whatsoever..although it remains "somewhat" puzzling as to just why the west side's been so adamant about seeking their exclusion...given that it will obviously be such a huge "mistake" to have them testify...???? Perhaps you can clear up the west's reasoning in your ace attorneys striving mightilly to exclude them???

2) No argument there. I do have some small concerns for your side though, in that it's not entirely inconceivable that some of the jurors may not be so impressed with your 7 year wunderkind as to believe that they should become "senior" to Mr. Skiles. heck...as utterly incredible, and even completely fantastic to you as it may well seem..some of them might even feel it preferable to have him as a Captain on future flights for themselves, rather than your "abused" little wunderkinder. Who knows how it will all be perceived?

 

[toganoflex]

I'd say the question is whether the Bradford deposition includes the letter. If it does, it seems to me that not being able to cross the deposition is a bad thing.

Bradford's letters are in.

And the judge has allowed our attorney to pose the question in closing arguments as to why Bradford refused to show up to defend his union.

The jury can come to whatever conclusion they want as to Bradford's motive.

 

[traderjake]

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

Please explain how a West Captain keeping the job he brought to the merger is stealing an East F/O's job.

 

[luvn737s]

Why is the fairness of the Nic award even being discussed? How does (un)fairness of an award allow you to have a pass for failing to defend the rights of group of pilots you represent and choosing to support one group at the expense of another?

USAPA willingly put itself in this position knowing full well it's obligation to fully support the rights of the west pilots, but chose instead to focus all it's efforts on protecting the east pilots. This is very simple for a jury to understand. Fabricating a reason for chosing to disenfranchise 1/3 of the pilots only clouds the issue, but not sufficiently to block the truth.

USAPA did what they did solely because their superior numbers allowed them to, and a jury will see that.

 

[Megasnoop]

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

For the record, HP, it was 2 ALPA merger committees in arbitration, not USAPA. Since you really believe in the NIC, then how can you accept ALPA trying to compromise it through the Rice Committee, ALPA Exec Council resolutions and Wye River? Now THAT was dishonorable, only done for 1 reason, to save the mother ship. If USAPA had been the CBA back then, youd be right. We werent, so your wrong.

This trial may or (pending appeal) may not end the question. Juries are dont decide honor or dishonor. There like umpires, they call you out or safe. But since you retired early, not sure what your dog is in this.

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

Whoa there, puslot. No one called you "A LIAR!"

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, sir. Its not a question of importance. Oldie and EastUS had it right. USAPA is going to argue that 1986-hire Skiles does not belong behind a 1998-hire West pilot.

But exactly how does a West guy, senior to Skiles, steal his job? For instance, I am senior to Skiles, I am not going to go take his F/O job away from him. However, he and USAPA would like to place him senior to me, so he can upgrade and steal my position.

Until theres a list, you dont know if your senior to Skiles or not. Right now, your not. BTW, your former MEC chairman again turned down another of our JSers. I did appreciate the 4 emails I received asking for his name. Maybe you guys can do something about him.

I said some time back it would be a huge mistake for Sullenberger to testify. It would be an even bigger mistake to let Skiles testify. Because as you say, we do not know the thoughts and perceptions of the jurors.

A 1986-hire below a 1998-hire? Im sure the jury will be confused.

Please explain how a West Captain keeping the job he brought to the merger is stealing an East F/O's job.

Jake, the issue is a 50-year old 23-year East FO never being able to upgrade. The issue is a 19-year West CA being able to outbid a 26-year East pilot (regardless of current seat) for an A-330 International CA seat. snoopo