USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread

[Tiger 1050]

And, in the next several pages, Mr. Seham explains it. Even the Judge seems to grasp his argument.

Funny how some folks can just grab something and "spin" away.

The jury will make the ruling. Not web board posters.

Could you post quotes you thought support your position?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

No.

My point was from a purely judicial point-of-view. There is ample speculation in the record that the Nicolau award would have been voted down. There is also ample speculation in the record that Kirby, as it existed, would have been voted down. However, it appears less certain that Kirby would have necessarily been voted down. In either event it is all speculation since a vote never actually happened. Had a vote actually occurred then the Court would be listening to evidence of actual pilot vote(s) rather then people saying it would have been voted down.

Had East (ALPA or USAPA) been smart enough to actually put it to a vote, with the expectation that it would lose, then they could claim they tried to implement Nicolau and failed while at the same time they offered their members the Kirby proposal within the same CBA. Could the pilots, despite all the posturing in crew rooms and websites have accepted the proposals? Sure, but it probably is more unlikely to have occurred rather than likely. Did the union leaders fear putting it up for a vote? Probably. But had they done so many of the things we are hearing in court about ALPA be undemocratic would not be able to have been factually stated. Also,, and this is my main point, a judge would have a much harder time coming to a possible conclusion that there has been a breach in the duty of fair representation.

Very good points, but in as much as BOTH sides have stipulated to the ALPA impasse, I don't think that requiring an exercise in futility would be necessary.

It appears to me from Monday's motion hearing that the Judge is trying to understand the issue of the dual ratification under ALPA, and what happens to it under USAPA. I'm not sure that this isn't the crux of the issue. It basically created the impasse which both sides stipulated to.

 

[Crzipilot]

Heck, by the conversation, it sounds like the judge was in pretty much agreement with the east lawyers on jury instructions, and asked for their bullet points to help him out with the final drafting of the wording. In so much, yes, the judge seemed to start to understand the east arguments....

 

[Crzipilot]

Could you post quotes you thought support your position?

Take the part you cut / pasted, and take that as a beginning point, and read the rest of the transcript. you start to see the judges light bulb come on in relation to what the east pilots are arguing. Don't see much admonishing in there at all.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Could you post quotes you thought support your position?

No. You can read, can't you? Just continue past the part that you posted. He explains it very well.

 

[Tiger 1050]

Take the part you cut / pasted, and take that as a beginning point, and read the rest of the transcript. you start to see the judges light bulb come on in relation to what the east pilots are arguing. Don't see much admonishing in there at all.

After Oldie's post I did go back and reread it. I still fail to see the light bulb come on regarding Seham's argument. Honestly I do not believe there was any admonishment. In fact I never suggested that. What I did want to pint out in my post was that Judge Wake seems to fully understand where the west is coming from. As far as the Judge agreeing with Seham, it has more to do with procedure and a request for clearer arguments IMO.

Again I would ask that you post specific remarks so maybe a blind man like me can see what you are talking about...

 

[hp_fa]

Trial impressions

Let's face it, Jeff Skiles was called because he, along with Sully, did a wonderful job saving everyone on board a stricken aircraft in January. On direct examination he maintained good eye contact with the jury and was fairly relaxed. It was obvious that he had been coached about what to say and to try and work "bullet points" into his testimony whenever he could. One of those bullet points was that USAPA helped him after he was involved in a January crash and had been in the water. The judge promptly disallowed any further questioning regarding the accident and direct examination was completed.

As had been the case on Tuesday with Sully, Marty Harper carefully worked to diminish the star power of the witness and was largely successful. The judge, as he has with all (or nearly all) defense witnesses, admonished the witness to answer the questions and not make speeches that were non-responsive to the asked question. Seham was overruled frequently and I don't percieve this plays well to the jury, especially since it has been happening a lot. The more that the defense allows the Court to overrule them the more chance the jury rightfully gets to judge the credibility of both defense witnesses and their counsel.

I had the overall advantage of this witness to the plaintiffs.

Scott Theuer took the stand and also got a court admonition to stop giving narrative answers while on direct examination very early in his testimony, as in the first five questions. It happened a few times and I made a note to myself that it was probably apparent to the jury that the witnesses were coached to make narrative answers that contained Court determined irrelevant material. The idea is get it said and let it be stricken from the record, but knowing the jury actually heard it. My point is when it becomes a pattern and a lot of the case deals with issues of credibility and honor (as in accepting a full and binding arbitration) then it is not helpful to try and skirt rules and let the jury see it occur.

The incident with Theuer being seen speaking with an attorney surely didn't help their credibility with the Court. The jury never saw or heard this, but there is also a bench trial occurring at the same time as the jury trial is going on and the judge is deciding that matter. Extra aggravation of the judge is unnecessary, even if it is in the form of counsel not properly instructing their own witness about the Exclusion Rule and to not discuss testimony with anyone except the lawyers until the case is concluded.

Before lunch the line of questioning had become tiring and repetitive. Don't believe me? One of the jurors appeared to be asleep for a few minutes. Even after lunch the jury appeared bored and stayed that way until cross-examination started. They seemed to be awake during cross, but again some of them seemed bored during re-direct.

To be perfectly honest I think that the more the defense proceeds the more they are hurting their case. I discussed with some other folks attending trial that right after the plaintiffs rested their case, if the defense really felt the case had not been proven, that they could have rested. It had appeared to me that the plaintiffs had not gotten in all the evidence I would have liked to have seen as a juror and that they might be planning on counter-punching during the defense case and I thought that was a risk. The more the defense has continued the more I think that the smart move may have been to rest and have the judge give a jury instruction that provided that the plaintiff had the burden of proof and the fact that the defense did not present a case does not release the plaintiff from their burden of proof.

We will find out what the real jury thinks in the net 6-10 days, but I really don't think the defense has been doing themselves any favors.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

After Oldie's post I did go back and reread it. I still fail to see the light bulb come on regarding Seham's argument. Honestly I do not believe there was any admonishment. In fact I never suggested that. What I did want to pint out in my post was that Judge Wake seems to fully understand where the west is coming from. As far as the Judge agreeing with Seham, it has more to do with procedure and a request for clearer arguments IMO.

Again I would ask that you post specific remarks so maybe a blind man like me can see what you are talking about...

I think that he was making a statement, "fishing" for some logic. He indicated that the issue "appeared" to be straightforward, attempting to illicit from the defense what their case was to be based on. What started this entire thought was when the defense was trying to get "rule50" imposed, basically saying that the plaintiff's case had no merit for a number of reasons. The judge disagreed as to the '"ripeness", which set of the discussion you clipped and pasted. He said that the rule50 issue would be revisited later.

Mr. Seham explained the case, even relating it to one the Judge was apparently familiar with. Then, he explained the defense's case in very clear detail. It actually cleared up a few things for me, as well. All of this is being discussed in the context of exactly what the jury will be instructed as to law before the deliberations.

Still sounds like anybody's game to me.

 

[cleardirect]

Very good points, but in as much as BOTH sides have stipulated to the ALPA impasse, I don't think that requiring an exercise in futility would be necessary.

It appears to me from Monday's motion hearing that the Judge is trying to understand the issue of the dual ratification under ALPA, and what happens to it under USAPA. I'm not sure that this isn't the crux of the issue. It basically created the impasse which both sides stipulated to.

Both sides have not stipulated to the impasse. Part of the plaintiffs argument is that ALPA did not do everything they could. Today the question was asked if it was put to a vote.

The judge has a very firm grasp on the issues. He understands quite clearly about the dual ratification. There has been way to much talk about other issues. Ratification is not the crux of the issue. How usapa acted is.

No impasse. That is the buzzword from usapa lawyers. But the judge and jury don't care.

Check the transcripts. How many times has the judge told the jury they will not be deciding which list to use? I think it is three so far. That is before instructions.

During an exchange today they were talking about the total time used. The plaintiff lawyers were questioning the total. The judge said that it was correct. Marty Harper jokingly asked if that was final and binding. A nice chuckle from the gallery. Seham grabs a mic and states but only on the reps not the pilots. Silence.

A very lame defense from usapa. Binding arbitration was only binding on the six merger reps not the pilots. Amazing that anyone can keep a straight face even saying it.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Both sides have not stipulated to the impasse. Part of the plaintiffs argument is that ALPA did not do everything they could. Today the question was asked if it was put to a vote.

The judge has a very firm grasp on the issues. He understands quite clearly about the dual ratification. There has been way to much talk about other issues. Ratification is not the crux of the issue. How usapa acted is.

No impasse. That is the buzzword from usapa lawyers. But the judge and jury don't care.

Check the transcripts. How many times has the judge told the jury they will not be deciding which list to use? I think it is three so far. That is before instructions.

During an exchange today they were talking about the total time used. The plaintiff lawyers were questioning the total. The judge said that it was correct. Marty Harper jokingly asked if that was final and binding. A nice chuckle from the gallery. Seham grabs a mic and states but only on the reps not the pilots. Silence.

A very lame defense from usapa. Binding arbitration was only binding on the six merger reps not the pilots. Amazing that anyone can keep a straight face even saying it.

The impasse which BOTH sides stipulated to is the impasse created by the dual ratification requirement of th TA. Nothing ALPA could do would alter that, and BOTH sides admitted that the East would not ever ratify an agreement containing the Nic. Besides, if ALPA didn't do everything in their power, you should be suing them, not your own union.

Here's the issue as I see it (maybe not like anyone else does): Even if USAPA had come onto the property and GUARANTEED that the NIC would be implemented, would we have a new CBA today? Clearly not. And the same would have happened if ALPA were still here, as well.

 

[Waketurbulence]

Even if USAPA had come onto the property and GUARANTEED that the NIC would be implemented, would we have a new CBA today? Clearly not. And the same would have happened if ALPA were still here, as well.

Clearly not?

That is your opinion. If and when it is made abundantly clear that the Nic IS the list for a combined USAirways, many more pilots will start looking for the money and better work rules.

That is when you will see there is no impass.

 

[Metroyet]

It doesn't make a dang bit of difference if there was an "impasse". Where is it written that settling an impasse has priority over a unions duty to fairly represent all pilots? The argument all week was that USAPA MUST do what they did to "break the logjam". Who gives a crap if there is a logjam? What right does that *perceived and unproven* fact have to do with the disenfranchisement of nearly 40% of us airways pilots? Pinocchio nosed Jack Stephan testified that "getting a contract was a priority...but not at the expense of seniority". Gee, I wonder whose seniority he was worried about. AWA seniority to him was worthless, and his sides' was priceless. DFR.

The Jury gets it.

This will be over soon enough.

 

[nostradamus]

Interesting take on the trial on the america west pilots recent update regarding Jeff Skiles.

""For Skiles, it was interesting to hear his testimony about the seniority number he expected to occupy at his retirement; somewhere in the neighborhood of 125. Doing some rough math, that means that Jeff Skiles was hired at the ripe age of twenty-five or so. Now, please recall the major thrust of Wargocki's testimony from the day before; in that case, a pilot's age was evidence of a completely unfair arbitration result. With Skiles, however, we were supposed to accept that a pilot's good fortune of being hired at a young age morphs into an expectancy that cannot be measured by any metric other than date of hire. Overall, Mr Skiles was precise in his delivery under direct examination, and if there was a way to ignore the glaring inconsistencies exposed on cross examination, then his performance was flawless.""

 

[cubfan]

I believe that an action can be proved by an actual action or the lack of an actual action otherwise required or expected. I believe there is ample case law to substantiate that belief.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that East (ALPA or USAPA) never attempted to put Nicolau into Section 22 and try to agree to the rest of the contract and submit it for ratification. All the Court has before it is speculation that the contract would have not been ratified by East, however that speculation does not make it a fact. There is evidence in the record that East shut down negotiations regarding Nicolau and then moved to the issue of pay parity. The East never placed the Kirby Proposal, valued by the Company at $122 million, in front of the parties for a vote. The Company clearly offered pay parity in the context of being included in a full CBA.

Had East combined Nicolau and the Kirby economic numbers into a proposed contract and submitted it for ratification and the contract was subsequently voted down then East (USAPA) would have been in far better position in the Addington litigation then where it currently finds itself.

Thanks hp, I agree speculation doesn't mean fact so who really knows for sure. If the judge really already claimed "going to bench trial for damages" as prechilli claims, could one assume he has already made up his mind, I don't think he would make that mistake, basically saying GUILTY before jury decides?

 

[A320 Driver]

Clearly not?

That is your opinion. If and when it is made abundantly clear that the Nic IS the list for a combined USAirways, many more pilots will start looking for the money and better work rules.

That is when you will see there is no impass.

Your dreaming. No East F/O in his right mind would vote yes for the meager raise that USAPA will be able to extract from the company if the NIC is attached to it.

That is your OPNION. This is MINE. The difference is, mine is based on first hand knowledge. Virtually every F/O I talk to wants to upgrade into more money. NO way to do that with the NIC.

West might win in court, might even get damages. Judge Wake CANNOT force a majority of East pilots to vote for a contract that includes the NIC.

A320 Driver B)