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

[traderjake]

The Nic award was slotting by equipment.

Everyone can hold the job they could hold before the merger.

DOH make a reserve East F/O senior to a West block holding Captain.

That would be job stealing.

 

[Waketurbulence]

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

"Outright lying" is calling someone a liar.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Jake, your seeing the light! Welcome back! snoopo

ALPA, or actually Prater went limp. He definitly was trying to save the "mothership" by trying to appease the east while strong arming the West to give in. Didn't work.

usapa will claim that things were at an impass, however, they can offer no proof.

Appeal? Your already throwing up the flag?

As far as the list? Doesn't matter to the jury. They are not there to determine if it is fair or not. Don't believe me? Think I'm lying? This, from court transcripts and the Judge day one...

"MR. BRENGLE: Identificationed I'd like to lodge an
objection /*FR going into the merits or he do mares of
/STKPWAOG the Nicolau award at this time.

THE COURT: Well, let min ruling on your objection I
think it's appropriate for me to explain to the jury that I've
instructed the lawyers before the trial that they may present
evidence about the nature and the reasons for the Nicolau
seniority award and therefore that's appropriate background.
However, as jurors you will not be called upon to decide for
yourself whether the Nicolau award is the right one or the best
one. You're not charged with second-guessing the decision as
to what the seniority award would be. Therefore, I'm going to
allow evidence about the nature of the arbitration award, the
reasons that were offered for it, so that you can understand
the nature of the dispute between the plaintiff pilots and the
union. I do want you to understand and I'm sure you'll be
relieved to knee you don't have to redo the seniority award.
So with that background, the objection is overruled."




"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. "

They can argue till they're blue in the face. It isn't going to matter.

It seems like usapa's defense is "Well, ya we did all those things you see presented in the evidence, but we have a good reason for it"

 

[Megasnoop]

The Nic award was slotting by equipment.

Everyone can hold the job they could hold before the merger.

DOH make a reserve East F/O senior to a West block holding Captain.

That would be job stealing.

Jake, have you read the C&Rs in the USAPA proposal? BTW, I edited my previous reply to you. The original one was maybe too subtle sarcasm.

"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. "

They can argue till they're blue in the face. It isn't going to matter.

Just asking Mr. Skiles who is ahead of him, that should make the point. Lots of ways to make the point. snoopo

 

[Waketurbulence]

Just asking Mr. Skiles who is ahead of him, that should make the point. Lots of ways to make the point. snoopo

What point? That it isn't fair?

Read the Judges words! This trial is not about the fairness of the Nic. (for the hundreth time)

The list is done.

In a few days, you will hear Hemenways deposition that says the company HAS A LIST. When he returns he will testify the same.

The jury is going to see the letter Doug Parker sent to all pilots saying the ACCEPTED THE LIST.

Oh, and even though ole' stevie bradford is hiding out in some bunker somewhere, he will be heard from tomorrow in court. His letter and deposition are the main event in the morning.

What this means is that the founding pilot, organizer and president of USAPA managed to surreptitiously disappear from the spotlight. How many times did we see during all of those USAPA road shows the smug assurance coming from Bradford that USAPA represented a "new union" and a commitment to transparency and fair dealing. Interestingly, one would expect that the founding pilot of a labor union sold on these assurances would be eager to take the stand in the defense of his creation, but this is not the case.

 

[EastUS]

QUOTE (EastUS @ Apr 29 2009, 02:23 PM) *
From AZcentral.com, whom, one must now presume from your last, are either completely misinformed or just outright lying

"Outright lying" is calling someone a liar.

Appeal? Your already throwing up the flag?

As far as the list? Doesn't matter to the jury. They are not there to determine if it is fair or not.

1) Sigh....Once more for the record = I didn't call you a liar. I can only suggest some remedial reading tutorials there.

2) None can now even possibly know what will actually "matter to the jury". That's for them to decide.

3) Whatever result the court produces; an appeal is a virtual certainty.

Nothing said here's going to effect the outcome in any case. Life's short. Have a good day.

 

[EastUS]

QUOTE (Megasnoop @ Apr 30 2009, 01:34 AM) *
Just asking Mr. Skiles who is ahead of him, that should make the point. Lots of ways to make the point. snoopo

What point? That it isn't fair?

Well, now that you mention it,..ummm....yeah. It's obviously an extremely uncomfortable thought for the folks out west, BUT..that does actually matter to some people

Anyone who presumes to know the collective mind of any jury in advance is just engaging in pure fantasy. We'll know when this is done, and we all know that whatever side fails to sway the jury will appeal in any event.

Enjoy the day and life in the meanwhile.

 

[nic4us]

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.

There most certainly is a list, produced by and conforming to the unions merger policy, accepted by the company and disregarded by USAPA. On that list I am senior to Skiles. I understand that I may not exercise my seniority until there is a joint contract, but right now I am senior to Skiles. If USAPA gets their way that will be gone and Skiles will be senior to me and will have successfully stolen my postion.

I would like to state for the board that I did not seek the MEC chairmans identity. It is 12 miles from my garage to the employee parking lot and I have not jumpseated more than 3 times in the last 5 years. However, I am trying to do something about denials, because I do not think it right.

 

[nic4us]

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???

After reading the first days transcipt of the trial I have changed my opinion. Let Skiles take the stand. Seham has already mentioned him by name in opening statements, so lets have it.

I do not know why our attorneys wished to exclude the Hudson crew, although I could venture a guess. My statement that it would be a huge mistake was for reasons outside the seniority dispute, and I am still concerned.

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

Well, Jurors are human after all. Maybe the fairness of the nic isn't being directly judged by them, but to say it won't be in a juror's own mind in some form or another is a mistake. That's my take anyhow.

 

[cleardirect]

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.

In this case the jury is not going to decide fair or unfair of the Nicolau.

That is a nice legal distention that you are trying to make. However I believe that the jury has been hearing a lot about the action of the east pilots. Pretty hard to convince a jury that just three pilots from the old US Airways is responsible for the entire reason the 9 jurors are sitting in a court room. Brengle is crying about how the west just would not compromise after the fact. The jury does not look like it is going to it.

Keep trying to make that distinction. It was the merger committee not the east pilots. It was ALPA not the east pilots. No it is the east pilots that make up these groups.

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.

Brengle tried. The judge is being very tight and specific about the jury NOT deciding the fairness of where or who is next to whom. Lame argument.

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

Same complaint. Same statement. Fair, unfair the that is not what the jury is there for. But please feel free to use your 22 hours of court time to convince the jury is something that are not going to decide.

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

That sounds really unfair doesn’t it. Until you get behind the facts. Without the merger could this mythical F/O have upgraded ever? Does this mythical F/O bid lifestyle and CHOOSE to remain and F/O? Does this mythical F/O want to fly senior international wide body blah blah blah?

 

[cleardirect]

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???

I don’t understand your puzzlement? The west is asking the question, to what point would Sully and Skiles make about the action of the union? But you have absolutely no problem with usapa fighting very hard to block the testimony of the creator, founder and president at the time from appearing. I see a bit of inconsistency in your opinion.

The judge was also wondering why Sully was being called. As he has no direct knowledge of the formation or actions of usapa.

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?

Wunderkind? Well the jury saw a very outstanding testimony by one of our 53 year old grey haired “wunderkindâ€￾ The same gentleman that flew international DC-8’s. The same gentleman that has been a captain for AWA for last 10 years. The same gentleman who was the merger chairman during all of this. The same gentleman that talked to Bradford for 45 minutes back in Aug or Sept about being the PHX representative. But was turned down with no explanation.

Kind of dispels the myth that the west would not participate. Dispels the myth that anyone who tried to volunteer was physically threatened and persuaded from joining.

I guess the jury should ignore the FAA required training to be a captain. I guess they, the jury should ignore the hiring requirements for a major airline in this country. I guess they should ignore the safety record of the industry as a whole. Before the merger given a choice between the AWA and US Air safety record which captain would the jury rather fly with?

 

[cleardirect]

Well, Jurors are human after all. Maybe the fairness of the nic isn't being directly judged by them, but to say it won't be in a juror's own mind in some form or another is a mistake. That's my take anyhow.

That is because seniority is on our minds. Not so with the jury. We have access to everything. The jury has a limited decision to make using narrowed information.

The question asked of the jury. Is usapa liable for their actions.

Where in there does fair unfair or how did Nicolau get where he did enter into that?

 

[V1cut]

You can't litigate this case from your desktop, and stop making assumptions about what the jury will do. I can think of a very good reason(several, actually) why Sully may testify...1) star power...undeniable. 2) He was a proponent FOR ALPA...read that again. Whats that mean?, you ask...

It means, contrary to west contention, the West's contention that the entire East pilot group did NOT vote for USAPA, as you all claim...it was not a "slam dunk" for USAPA's election on the property..it was indeed a fair and democratic vote that was NOT pre-destined East majority to win...3) He can talk with the jury on bended-ear about the importance of experience in this industry that is earrned the age-old way....tenure....length of service on the job, accumulating the "toolbox of experience I used that day on the Hudson"....(his words)...and that it isn't earned by any other way...and that to claim DFR because of a new union's failure to uphold a prior decision that bypasses the "tenure" principle is a clear attemp to short-cut the process...

And the tears will be flowing down cheeks far and wide, as they all vividly recall that jetliner floating with 150 pax on the wings while Sully ran the aisle...twice...before stepping out...

He doesn't even have to say the word Nicolau...or "fair"...and the jury will listen to every word he says...

thats just for starters...


so relax.

EDITED BY MODERATOR TO REMOVE PERSONAL COMMENT

 

[toganoflex]

... 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.

No one here accepts ALPA, especially with Prater at the helm.

They took a cowardly approach in trying to strong-arm the west pilots and they failed. Those committees and meetings were set up to try and calm the east down and show them that ALPA had their back.

They threw their process out the window along with what little credibility they had left.

No one out west is a fan of Prater and they're at the bottom of the list should USAPA need replacing when this is all done.

 

[Pi brat]

This board gets funnier by the day. A bunch of people sitting around arguing about what is happening in the court room, what the jury thinks, etc. Let me give you guys our west one thought. A lot of east pilots thought this little seniority thing would be a piece of cake, and they only had to convince one experienced labor man why they were right. The west has to convince 9 folks off the street they are right. It may happen, but my point is we really don't have a clue what they are thinking, why not just let it play out?