It appears you have both.
USAPA Loses DFR Case!/US pilot thread
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
It appears you have both.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Trial Impressions - Day 7
The two big impressions today were the cross-examination of Randy Mowrey and a suggestion by Mr. Seham after the jury was dismissed until Tuesday.
I felt the cross-examination by Don Stevens of Capt. Mowrey was technically poor, disjointed and generally disappointing from a legal perspective. My opinion, based on my experience, was that there was ample fertile ground that had been opened by Capt. Mowrey on direct examination to provide for a lively, and perhaps damaging, cross-examination. It failed, and I felt it failed badly. Mr. Stevens did not seem to have command of facts, terminology or much of anything and, again in my opinion, a golden opportunity was lost and USAPA won this particular day in court.
Capt. Mowrey, like the other witnesses for the defendant, showed plenty of evidence of being prepared by attorneys to give unsolicited narrative answers to yes or no questions, likely in the hope of getting a few extra words said in front of the jury before being stopped. He was more subtle than predecessors, but it was still apparent to me. He got quite a few admonishments from the Judge and I simply don't believe that one side's witnesses all seemingly being admonished for the same thing aids that party's cause. We'll see next week.
At any rate I was severely disappointed in Mr. Stevens cross. I had similar complaints previously about how he handled prior cross-examinations, but the stakes were higher on this one and that, too me, made the failure all the more apparent. The salvation, if there is any, is Mr. Seham was drawing many sustained objections, particularly on re-direct, and that may have helped the jury forget the ineffective cross-examination.
The other surprise was after the dismissal of the jury the Judge entered into a think-out-loud session with counsel where neither party was bound by what they said nor waived any legal rights. The Judge spoke of the bench trial regarding injunctive relief and if the defendant were found by the jury to have acted improperly what he could or should do as one or more remedies. Mr. Seham suggested that if that were to happen and the Court decided to grant injunctive relief than the Court might consider returning the plaintiffs to status quo ante, in other words return them to the position they had regarding the ability, as a group, to vote yes or no on CBA's, effectively restoring their right to veto any proposed CBA's. It was not discussed how long this proposed right would attach, although it is my view that any such right should apply until the time that any CBA is approved by both sides at which time the injunctive relief would conclude and USAPA could resume it's 50% +1 policy of all pilots voting as one large unit on any subsequent CBA's.
Mr. Seham's proposal would potentially save the parties and the Court time and effort down the road in the form of perhaps frequently needing to return to court regarding alleged breaches in the injunction. The Court would probably have to seldom revisit this case except for perhaps a status hearing.
At any rate I thought that was a potentially good solution if this matter were deemed to be ripe for injunctive relief.
Trial continues tomorrow before the Judge regarding jury instructions and the bench trial.
The two big impressions today were the cross-examination of Randy Mowrey and a suggestion by Mr. Seham after the jury was dismissed until Tuesday.
I felt the cross-examination by Don Stevens of Capt. Mowrey was technically poor, disjointed and generally disappointing from a legal perspective. My opinion, based on my experience, was that there was ample fertile ground that had been opened by Capt. Mowrey on direct examination to provide for a lively, and perhaps damaging, cross-examination. It failed, and I felt it failed badly. Mr. Stevens did not seem to have command of facts, terminology or much of anything and, again in my opinion, a golden opportunity was lost and USAPA won this particular day in court.
Capt. Mowrey, like the other witnesses for the defendant, showed plenty of evidence of being prepared by attorneys to give unsolicited narrative answers to yes or no questions, likely in the hope of getting a few extra words said in front of the jury before being stopped. He was more subtle than predecessors, but it was still apparent to me. He got quite a few admonishments from the Judge and I simply don't believe that one side's witnesses all seemingly being admonished for the same thing aids that party's cause. We'll see next week.
At any rate I was severely disappointed in Mr. Stevens cross. I had similar complaints previously about how he handled prior cross-examinations, but the stakes were higher on this one and that, too me, made the failure all the more apparent. The salvation, if there is any, is Mr. Seham was drawing many sustained objections, particularly on re-direct, and that may have helped the jury forget the ineffective cross-examination.
The other surprise was after the dismissal of the jury the Judge entered into a think-out-loud session with counsel where neither party was bound by what they said nor waived any legal rights. The Judge spoke of the bench trial regarding injunctive relief and if the defendant were found by the jury to have acted improperly what he could or should do as one or more remedies. Mr. Seham suggested that if that were to happen and the Court decided to grant injunctive relief than the Court might consider returning the plaintiffs to status quo ante, in other words return them to the position they had regarding the ability, as a group, to vote yes or no on CBA's, effectively restoring their right to veto any proposed CBA's. It was not discussed how long this proposed right would attach, although it is my view that any such right should apply until the time that any CBA is approved by both sides at which time the injunctive relief would conclude and USAPA could resume it's 50% +1 policy of all pilots voting as one large unit on any subsequent CBA's.
Mr. Seham's proposal would potentially save the parties and the Court time and effort down the road in the form of perhaps frequently needing to return to court regarding alleged breaches in the injunction. The Court would probably have to seldom revisit this case except for perhaps a status hearing.
At any rate I thought that was a potentially good solution if this matter were deemed to be ripe for injunctive relief.
Trial continues tomorrow before the Judge regarding jury instructions and the bench trial.
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
I saw a possible light at the end of the tunnel today when Mr. Seham suggested a possible remedy of status quo ante if the Court were to grant injunctive relief. If that happened it might be an option to forego appeal and work instead to work out a contract that East, West and the Company could agree to.
If the plaintiffs lose I see an appeal being filed, in no small part because of the seeming non-availability of Mr. Bradford for trial. If the defedant loses I also see an appeal, however if the remedy was sine quo ante I could see defendant possibly waiving an appeal, saving legal fees and working toward an acceptable seniority proposal and a CBA. This scenario would both save legal fees and perhaps get the pilots significantly closer to a new CBA. At any rate it would allow the pilots to focus their energies on the Company rather than each other, which in the long run saves and makes money.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
ALPA 2006 spending;
AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC $ 260,473 $ 1,093,622 $ 1,354,095
USAIRWAYS $ 400,674 $ 378,835 $ 779,509
Representational Activities Air Line Pilots (ALPA) Financial Disbursements for 2006
Do the math.
AMERICA WEST AIRLINES, INC $ 260,473 $ 1,093,622 $ 1,354,095
USAIRWAYS $ 400,674 $ 378,835 $ 779,509
Representational Activities Air Line Pilots (ALPA) Financial Disbursements for 2006
Do the math.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
Yeah, that's a great remedy...Dual Ratification. I will remind you that is what the West already had before it was stolen from them and the attempted cram down began.
I think the judge was clearly leaning towards option 2. The fixation of the Nic into ANY and ALL contract proposals in the future. I agree that stevens was confused and disjointed at times the but the main fact remains this:
"Who gave these guys the right to determine ANY "conditions and restrictions"? Final and binding Arbitration is over.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
The "cram down" sir, was initiated by ALPA against Us Airways pilots, the by-product was the birth of USAPA.
E
EastUS
Guest
It would appear that nothing else is actually "over" though....Just an observation. Don't wear out any pom poms too early in the season.
nostradamus
Veteran
- Dec 7, 2004
- 2,038
- 0
"I'm not convinced that this can end in a U.S. District Court in Phoenix, Arizona," said Bill Swelbar, an industry analyst with the International Center for Air Transportation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
AZ Central.com article
AZ Central.com article
prechilill
Veteran
- Nov 28, 2002
- 2,544
- 3,406
Now that could be a solution. I'm not saying should, would or other wise, I'm saying that could be one of many solutions. If I would do it over my suggestion would be treat all pilots as equal. Take top 10% of both list and slot them together on a 2:1 basis. Move down the list the same way till the end. My solution wouldn't change my NIC position a whole lot, but would reduce my DOH position by alot. Under my solution all west capt hired after me on DOH would remain senior to me. AS you move down the list, when you get closer to the bottom, you get closer to east los and west current position at the time of merger. An example of this would be a west pilot with say 2yr would be with a east with 2yr los. AS I said, just a thought.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
I know. You want your lottery ticket cashed in. At what price? We all have our perspectives on how things should have happened and how they should end up. There is no way to get the Nic and have a successful company going forward. There is no way to get monetary damages and have a successful company going forward. This pilot group cannot have a war and have a successful company to work for. Either we find a solution that the majority of the pilot group can live with (West AND East) or we start looking for work. You, me, ALL OF US.
At this point it doesn't matter how we got here. The question is, what do we do from here? I think Judge Wake understands that. At least I hope he does.
A320 Driver B)
Good point
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
If you guys decide to destroy your employer because you can't live with the agreements you've made, then that's your problem. Do you really think the company is going to sit idly by and watch you guys try to implode shareholder value? USAPA stole ALL of the West's independent representation and protections. Whom do you suggest you negotiate with to rehash and agreement? By what authority? I submit that the "majority of the pilots" can live with the Judge permanently attaching the Nic. with zero adjustments to whatever contract gets drafted. The West just wants what they're owed as a result of final and binding arbitration and not be some sacrificial lamb to an absurd notion of "core union principals". Principals that the tyranny of the majority are attempting to cram down under the guise of a fake union. The Captains over there need to make more money as retirement approaches. Between the West, the Captains, and the other rationally minded, there is your majority. Happy? I doubt it. The fact that any Eastie still has a job at all is nothing short of a miracle.
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Aug 24, 2002
- 3,358
- 2,319
Really?
Can you live with it if the NIC goes up in smoke next week when the verdict is read? Can you sit there with a good attitude and convince yourself that everything is OK?
I think not and the reason I say that is your statement about what you are OWED. Nic said I had no value as an East pilot and frankly I resent it. Here we are today...East is bringing in the cash and West is losing it. Does that mean West has no value. NO IT DOESN"T. We all have value as part of this outfit and part of a bigger picture.
We (East and West) better come up with another plan cause this one ain't working!
A320 Driver B)
Very well said. As a furloughed guy, I just want my job back. Unfortunately thats probrably not going to happen until the majority can put the bull@#$% aside and start acting like the professionals I thought we were and collectvely come up with a reasonable solution to this.
- Status
Similar threads
