Sent: 10/25/2013 10:04:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: [phillypilot] Re: Impressions on the Addington II Trial



I talked to some pilots that were at the Addington II trial in PHX and here are some of their impressions. As it is difficult to get all the facts straight and for a closer look at the trial, I suggest you read the transcripts.

In a nut shell, they felt that things for us started out slowly but by the middle of the trial we were doing very well. Towards the end, it was difficult to tell how we were doing. That's it in a nutshell. Now for a more in-depth analysis.

I suggest you read the transcripts of the trial for a complete picture of what happened. I am only giving you some highlights, but the impression of people that were there is that we put on a vigorous defense, our people did credit to us and that if the Judge rules on the law, we will prevail. Remember that the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff..

The Addington plaintiff's whole premise was that USAPA was only started to get rid of Nicolau and is guilty of DFR due to what they say was our "requirement" to include Nicolau in the MOU. They used a deposition by Steve Bradford to try to get him to admit that the sole purpose of USAPA was to circumvent the Nicolau award. Steve did a very credible job in explaining the reason we left ALPA was because of LOA 93, our pensions and numerous examples of why we felt that ALPA no longer represented the pilots at US Airways. The seniority issue was just the final straw in a long list of issues. So the issues as I see it are: Did USAPA commit a DFR?, Does USAPA have to go to McCaskill Bond with the Nic as their list?, Does USAPA owe legal fees?, and is the West entitled to a Board seat at Mccaskill Bond?

The trial started on day one with the Plaintiffs calling their witnesses, allowing for cross and recross. One of the highlights of the trial was when one of their pilots named Afshin Iranpour testified. He was a complete embarrassment on the stand and had to explain why he threatened west pilots in emails that were not in support of Leonidas. He had been an East pilot and while on furlough, took a job with the West and had a chance to select which side to remain. When questioned as to his recalls on the East, he was unable to remember when, if or how many times he had been offered recall and when asked "all things being equal, wouldn't you go where you made more money", he responded that money wasn't everything. Of course he failed to mention that he would gain over a thousand numbers from the pilot next to him on the East list if the Nic was instituted. He told the Judge that his threats were just a "joke". The Judge was not amused.

From many perspectives of those that were very aware of actual events, many of the West testimonies were "questionable" at best and outright lies at worst. I guess it's OK for the West to "embellish" the truth when it suits them.

In fact, most of the hearing involved the west attorney's trying desperately to trick our people into saying some thing or not saying some thing that would hurt our defense and prove their assertions. They even went so far to use a letter I wrote some time ago in which I said or implied that our attorney Pat Szymanski said the Nicolau award was dead during an MOU road show. I don't remember the letter and it is a mystery to me why they thought what I think or write is relevant since I hold no positions and never have with USAPA? I think it is because they may have wanted to imply fraud if we gave one MOU presentation to the East and another to the West which of course never occurred. They were also very disturbed by the language of Section 10 in the MOU and most specifically in Section 10h. Read the transcripts carefully as this is the area dealing with how seniority will be determined and this is the area where it indicates that the MOU replaces the Transition Agreement. I guess they are now trying to say that USAPA used "trickery" in getting them to vote for the MOU. There of course was no credible evidence to this allegation.

At the end of day one and when the Plaintiff's rested their case, our lead attorney, Pat Szymanski called for the Judge to dismiss the case. One of their attorney's, Andrew Jacob, got up and spoke at length, using every phrase possible to discredit USAPA. It is a good read and probably one of the reasons the West are back in an uproar, including calling us "scabs" when in fact they are the ones trying to steal our jobs and attrition.

Throughout his speech, Jacob must have used the term "Legitimate Union Purpose" a hundred times. I guess the reason for this is that since Judge Silver, in a previous ruling, said that if we have a Legitimate Union Purpose then USAPA is free to negotiate any seniority they wish. If they can prove there is no Legitimate Union Purpose, then they may be able to free her from her previous ruling? In any case, as I read this and you can see for yourself; the Legitimate Union Purpose cannot be more clear. Why the apparent legal strategy seems to talk around the issue, if I were to put it in a short sentence, I would say that the Legitimate Union Purpose is to increase the Pay and Benefits for "all" pilots, and the MOU does just that. Of course that is only my perspective and the Purpose may be much broader.

On day two, the conclusion of Steve Bradford's video deposition was viewed and there was discussion over Gary Hummel's medical condition. Apparently the Judge had previously been informed by Gary's cardiac surgeon that he should be able to testify. Since then our attorney's were told that he would not be able to testify or to be crossed. The Judge wanted to know why she was told one thing and then another. Was it a change in his condition or what? I guess they were unable to get in touch with the surgeon to speak to the Judge during day two and she was not pleased as it appeared that our side was hiding something. The defense offered Gary's Flight Surgeon, Pete Lambrough who was on call and available to testify as to Gary's medical state (I believe that he was actually with Gary when he had his heart attack) but the Judge did not contact him. Later the West made a point that Pete was a former East pilot and tried again to imply wrongdoing even though Pete had been Gary's doctor for years. The Judge did make what might imply a negative view of USAPA when she said she was "not surprised". I'm sure the West got some mileage out of that comment. Overall however, it would have been a positive for the head of USAPA to be on the stand as it gives credibility to our case. All we can say for certain is that it did not help our case for him to be absent during this most critical day in our history.

We then called our witnesses, starting out with Dean Colello, Negotiating Committee Chairman. Dean did a great job on the witness stand explaining how the MOU was negotiated and how it was presented to the pilots and how it is neutral as regard s to seniority and no matter how the west attorney's tried to trick him into saying things they thought would hurt our defense and help their case. Dean handled the questions professionally and truthfully; he came across as articulate, well spoken and credible.

Of the other witnesses, it seemed that the Judge paid particular attention to Merger Committee Chairman, Jess Pauley when he explained the many types of methods to integrate lists, how Nicolau gave no credence to Length of Service, how ALPA has since altered their Merger policy, how the most recent merger with UAL/CAL utilized a combination of Length of Service and Seat/Position, the advantages/disadvantages of combining multiple lists simultaneously, and the difference between Nicolau, Date of Hire with C+Rs, a dynamic list and a hybrid list.

The Plaintiffs of course tried to get Jess to say words that they felt would help their case but Jess was very cool and professional and did not make his comments personal. Another highlight was when the Plaintiff's attorney tried to embarrass Jess by asking him how the Nicolau award would affect him personally. Jess said that he would lose 16.4 years to a pilot 15 years his junior. When the attorney said that the reason for that was because of his furlough and that furloughees historically do not go above active pilots, Jess spoke up that he had "never been furloughed". The attorney then backtracked and tried to make his case by asking Jess if there has ever been another merger where people on furlough would go ahead of active pilots. Jess responded quickly with two examples. From what I hear, that attorney had serious egg on his face.

Apparently there was also a great deal of discussion regarding McCaskill Bond and separate representation starting with several of the depositions. I guess even our seniority neutral company has filed a brief to assist the West pilots to have separate representation. If you read Steve Bradford's deposition it clearly explains the dangers of separating individuals from their collective bargaining agent, how it would undermine the union and that it would be not only unprecedented but likely illegal.

Now we await the result but one thing is certain. Regardless of the outcome, we can expect another trip to the 9th Circuit and maybe even the Supreme Court.