USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread

[Megasnoop]

Rise above the politic snoop! Can your peers do that? Apparently not. Spin it and justify it any way you like but in the end we should know by now we'll never see eye to eye. Too bad families will pay the price for the east's indignation.

Right back at you, Tiger. Too bad families will pay the price for the West bullying pilots not to join. The vote was democratic, via the USAPA constitution. Your AWAPPA actions were cowardly. Read what Lurker-man said. He was spot-on.

Sorry Mr. Snoop, I do not, and most probably don't, take anything but vindictiveness away from that vote. Solidarity? Unification? Only in spite towards the west.

As I said, I voted for the exemption, but I wont fault a democratic vote. But speaking of spite, how about your former MEC Chairman disallowing East JS requests.

The story continues... Too bad too. We could be a formidable force in dealing with this management team but alas you require I and my peers out west make you whole at our personal expense. Not going to happen.

Not as long as you keep denying JSs and flipping us off.

But look on the bright side, you've got your 70 mil., you've got your "snapback." (love that one. Still can't find the word "snapback" though.) And hey! Another 5 years of US Airways!

Thanks for reminding me. I love it too. Pay restoration, not "snapback." btw, I cant wait for the remedy phase, if you win:

THE COURT: But as I think about this at times, Mr. Stevens, it seemed to me that if the plaintiff prevails, the remedy is an injunction that orders the union to negotiate for the Nicolau Award. And I can't think of any other remedy.

 

[nic4us]

Well..
I was hoping to assist the furloughed. That was why I bothered to post. What assistance are you offering to the furloughed sir/maam? We should have voted to do so.
The rest I shall leave to the frequent posters.

Well it appears 37% of voters had good intentions. The vote having taken place at all says something as well.

Someone, please refresh my memory. Did this vote take place as a result of Brice becoming West rep, and/or was it his resolution being voted on?

 

[Tiger 1050]

Right back at you, Tiger. Too bad families will pay the price for the West bullying pilots not to join. The vote was democratic, via the USAPA constitution. Your AWAPPA actions were cowardly.



As I said, I voted for the exemption, but I wont fault a democratic vote. But speaking of spite, how about your forward MEC Chairman disallowing East JS requests.



Not as long as you keep denying JSs and flipping us off.



Thanks for reminding me. I love it too. Pay restoration, not "snapback." btw, I cant wait for the remedy phase, if you win:

THE COURT: But as I think about this at times, Mr. Stevens, it seemed to me that if the plaintiff prevails, the remedy is an injunction that orders the union to negotiate for the Nicolau Award. And I can't think of any other remedy.

Ya know what Snoop? None of this went down until YOU and YOUR PEERS decided they could not be men/women and live up to the pre-arranged agreement.

Slice it any way you like but not even you can spin that fact...

BTW if I wanted to flip you off I'd invite you to sit on the jumpseat and give you bird there so you'd know with certainty it was me and I meant it.

 

[V1cut]

“Ummm, isn't that what arbitration is supposed to do? Split the baby down the middle? Or I guess you wanted the whole baby which is why USAPA came into existence and is about to get clobbered in federal court.â€

“Then perhaps you can explain to us out west why you deserve the whole baby and we get nothing? You obviously haven't convinced George Nicolau, and the three arbitrators working the DAL-NWA integration, the US Congress for making the seniority arbitration bill and your former union as well because they don't agree with you either. Everybody understands how our seniority integration process worked itself out except the vocal east. Maybe you shouldn't try for the whole baby next time, or at least recognize you can't leave the other side with nothing and still call it a fair integration. I'm glad you at least admitted you wanted the whole thing, not a split down the middle. Nothing wrong with being honest! “

“I think USAPians live in a different world- certainly not the same one the rest of the planet lives in... “


“Can anybody follow this guy's logic???â€

“Spoken like a true USAir union pilot-- who needs unity?â€




These are Prechillil’s posts from just yesterday morning at 0700 until now….if you do a search of her posts, it gets MUCH more “unifyingâ€â€¦since it’s now her desire to point out “Unityâ€â€¦as lacking from East pilots for not paying for West pilots families’ insurance…

I’d point out that the FIRST person responsible for THEIR FAMILY’S well-being are the West pilots who CHOSE AOL over USAPA…or, ALLOWED themselves to be coerced into non-membership status. (We’re all wearing big-boy/girl panties now, right?)

Se la vie’

( I voted for coverage…reluctantly…and now I see whey I was reluctant, Tiger1050 has placed his families’ well-being in MY hands while he spends money on a brass ring he can never wear, and sues the Union to get itm abd then has the unmitigated gall to point a finger at the East group for not taking care of his family)

 

[nic4us]

All of the non dues payers/non members should have section 29 proceedings started asap for their termination. Furloughees who were dues paying members deserve to be on the property instead. Why should the union members help those who are suing their organization? Why financially reward someone who contributes financially to the demise of the union?

Start up those section 29's. Seems West does not owe dues prior to dec 08, and may not owe anything depending on the outcome of the trial.

Also, it appears new hires are not members of the class suing the union.

Well I guess we know how you voted.

 

[hp_fa]

Trial - Day Nine 5/12/09

Prior to the arrival of the jury there was a piece of evidenciary housekeeping done.

Jury brought in

Limited parts of the deposition of Doug Mowery are read for foundation purposes.

He was an ALPA merger committee member

His loyalty to ALPA had been questioned due to his wearing a yellow USAPA lanyard

He donated to USAPA in the Summer (06 or 07?)

He filled out a USAPA card

He worked on the JNC while supporting USAPA

Discussion of a letter he wrote after he had resigned ALPA position


Jury Instructions Given


Plaintiffs Closing (Mr. Harper)

(Before I go into what detail I have, Mr. Harper's closing utilized a PowerPoint presentation that was effective in the manner used. It also made it easier for me to capture details to post here. Mr. Seham did not use PowerPoint, which made it harder for me to take notes to subsequently post here. So much of the difference in what I report is, in part, a function of having PowerPoint on the screens in the courtroom.)

"A Deal is a Deal."

1. The TA
2. ALPA merger policy
3. The Nicolau award

The Award shall be final and binding (Explanation - Despite us all now knowing the phrase, the jury as part of their instructions was instructed that the award was final and binding on not just the merger committee representatives, but the pilots of the two airlines.)

Nicolau retained limited jurisdiction after the award was issued

No party went back to George Nicolau to ask him to re-open or re-visit any portions of the award after it was rendered.

ALPA policy was that the award was not subject to ratification

The parties agreed to the rules ahead of time

The Nicolau document described the volume of evidence, exhibits and legal arguments that went into the arbitration process. It also described the background as far as facts and factors that were present at the time of the merger announcement through the time of the award itself.

East position was DOH w/LOS

USAPA's position is now DOH with C&R's

Discussion of pre-merger expectations

Discussion of the five ALPA merger principles

Nicolau felt it not fair to place furloughees ahead of active pilots

Discussion of the parties to Nicolau, who it bound by its decision and the jury instructions and that it settles that it was binding on all pilots and USAPA

"A Period of Unrest;
East Pilots Are Angry"

Picketing at ALPA HQ 5/21/07

Bradford did not testify (why?) (negative inference that the Judge had allowed because of Mr. Bradford's non-availability)
Cleary did not testify

East appeals to ALPA

East asks for a re-do - 7/20/07

Makes an analogy to Texas Hold-em where a party would be "all in only if I win"

ALPA was beginning to move towards a MEC trusteeship

"East Starts Stalling While USAPA Organizes"

The process needed to be stalled to avoid presentation of a CBA for a vote

Jack Stephan - "pilots would never ratify"

8/15/07 - East JNC members ordered by East MEC to walk-out of joint negotiations

9/24/07 - 9/26/07 ALPA orders East to resume negotiations

"The Deal is on the Table;
What Did East Walk Away From?"

Kirby proposal

Stephan - "Woefully short" (Stephan's actual words had been "woefully inadequate")

Kirby proposal never actually shared with pilots

Kirby proposal never countered by the JNC

"East MEC is Stalling, Bradford is Busy"

Exhibit 107, letter from Bradford to Weber 12 days after Nicolau made public
1. 2:1 majority
2. "We don't want to leave ALPA" (Important to the state of mind despite testimony of how upset folks reportedly were after the pension loss and LOA 93)

Reviews jury instructions on "pretext" (When something is said or done, but not for the purpose for which it is reportedly done)

6/9/07 - Bradford interviews attorney for a "new bargaining agent to get around Nicolau"

Attorney (nameless) advises Bradford to "dwell on things other than Nicolau" (pretext again)

7/07 Theuer starts the USAPA website

8/10/07 (3 mos. after Nicolau) Exhibit 44, over 2,450 cards collected.

"Until the contract is closed, seniority is an open question."

Nicolau will be overturned "constitutionally"

"ALPA Wants a Contract & Give the Pilots a Chance to Vote"

10/1/07 ALPA instructs East to go back to negotiations

"USAPA Shows its Colors:
Vote no on Nic"

Ties the "vote no on Nic" campaign materials to jury instructions

USAPA never attempted to utilize Nicolau

Randy Mowrey never attempted to consider West positions or participation but just once

Conclusion
A Deal is a Deal
ALPA's process never had a full chance to work
Pilots never had a chance to vote

Defendant's Closing (Mr. Seham)

(Seham did not PowerPoint. He utilized breaking his closing into three chapters: 1) The ALPA Chapter; 2) The pre 4/18/08 Chapter ;and, 3) The post 4/18/08 Chapter. It was much harder to follow Seham's closing as far as note taking was concerned.)

Discussion of jury instructions "wide range of reasonableness"

Chapter 1

Impasse of indefinite duration

Getting around the impasse is a legitimate union objective

Stipulated facts
1. Parker letter to pilots "ALPA integration slowing the process"
2. Kirby opinion that Nicolau had to be negotiated away
3. Parker that both sides had to move off their increasingly hardening positions

Chapter 2

Theuer relied on plaintiffs exhibits

USAPA took two MEC's and replaced them with one BPR to remove an impediment

East could not get West participation in the union or to join committees

Chapter 3

Randy Mowery's testimony should be the only testimony considered regarding USAPA's seniority proposal because Stockdell admitted he did not understand the C&R's

Mowery's testimony of personal integrity

Equated that due to the majority vote that by voting for USAPA that Nicolau was unable to be implemented

Conclusion

Does not ask that the jury find USAPA wise, but that it did not act in bad faith

Briefly mentioned the unprecedented Nicolau principle

Plaintiff's Rebuttal Closing

Exhibit 377 (USAPA Q&A) was created after the lawsuit

Mowery's integrity argument

Skiles testimony untruthful - he could be a captain

Sullenberger's testimony re: daughters question of what integrity meant and his response demonstrated situational ethics ("situational ethics" was my choice of term to convey the point)

Impasse could be manufactured. USAPA could both have created and solved the impasse

Pilots never had the ability to vote

Closings close

Jury receives a couple of last minute instructions and the admonition is changed and they can now discuss the case with one another, but no one other than the jury

Jury begins deliberations (approx 4:10 pm)

Housekeeping on bench trial and "status quo ante"

Court dismissed pending either jury resolution of until 9:00 am for bench trial

 

[traderjake]

All of the non dues payers/non members should have section 29 proceedings started asap for their termination.

I got my section 29 letter and paid my agency fee. No big deal.

Hopefully all USAPA members will soon receive their assessment for Court awarded damages.

 

[hp_fa]

My Impressions

The plaintiffs method of communication with the jury was superior. The jury was following the PowerPoint presentation as it was being given. The jury appeared, at times, bored during Seham's closing. He had apologized/explained that he is not a PowerPoint user, but I think the plaintiffs had a better technical presentation. I also think that the technical presentation made it much easier to bring the jury along for the ride in showing the jury instructions as well as the applicable testimony on the same screen so that it tied those ends together for the jury. Accordingly I believe that the plaintiffs prevailed on the day. HOWEVER, arguments from counsel are not to be considered as evidence or testimony so some folks could argue 'so what if the plaintiffs prevailed with not much actual evidence coming in (the deposition at the very beginning was evidence) to the record. I disagree and thought that it just made a cleaner closing, much cleaner than in the old days when PowerPoint did not yet exist.

My opinion (guess, ouija board or Magic 8-Ball) is that the jury will find for the plaintiffs. Do I know that as a fact. Nope. Does it matter what I think? Nope. But, right or wrong, that is my opinion. I also expect a verdict tomorrow, but I could be wrong about that also.

 

[EastUS]

Maybe someday I'll get to deny every East USAPA member the jump seat and tell them why.

I simply can't even imagine a truly prouder moment for you to have ever happen in your life trader

 

[Elevation]

What's the word on USAPA sitting on a arbitration they lost since last week? and why? We get more info from the company than the union.

 

[nostradamus]

My Impressions

My opinion (guess, ouija board or Magic 8-Ball) is that the jury will find for the plaintiffs. Do I know that as a fact. Nope. Does it matter what I think? Nope. But, right or wrong, that is my opinion. I also expect a verdict tomorrow, but I could be wrong about that also.

What are your impressions on the appeal process. Length of time, etc.

 

[Tiger 1050]

What's the word on USAPA sitting on a arbitration they lost since last week? and why? We get more info from the company than the union.

I want to know the details of why it was lost. Is USAPA so incompetent that they could not convince Bloch that there was a third list of pilots to be furloughed first. Does not the TA specifically point this out? I looked forward to the block hour issue but I now believe USAPA's incompetence with nullify that win long before it starts. Well Snooper what say you? You have been the consummate USAPA cheerleader especially regarding the "big 3" grievances. What now?

 

[Metroyet]

I want to know the details of why it was lost. Is USAPA so incompetent that they could not convince Bloch that there was a third list of pilots to be furloughed first. Does not the TA specifically point this out? I looked forward to the block hour issue but I now believe USAPA's incompetence with nullify that win long before it starts. Well Snooper what say you? You have been the consummate USAPA cheerleader especially regarding the "big 3" grievances. What now?

Here's where he blames ALPA. If only SEHAM had been on the case!

 

[Phoenix]

...

I am sorry you lost your cushy union job. Perhaps there is a similar job for you in the welfare state of Tempe. B)

That explains everything.

 

[Phoenix]

27 September 2005. ....

My barber has magazines older than that still laying around in his barbershop.