AOL update
12-02-2013, 04:04 AM
#1931
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Your error is "moral" vs. "legal". They have no personal legal obligation to tell the west pilots what is in Section 10. That is reserved for USAPA. So the Judge will not allow any testimony about that to influence the decision. What I think the Judge will do is give the seat to the west for MB. That is not a "win" for the west. They still have to present their proposal in a way that gets them what they want. They would be stupid to ask strict NIC. CAL asked for stupid stuff and got their asses handed to them. Look at the UAL/CAL merger and that is what the arbitrators will follow. I think the east will not get most west stapled to the bottom. They will get slotted higher, no fence for WBs. I do not feel it is right to put a new hire next to a 17 year pilot, but honestly US was going to shut down if the merger had not gone through and that is what GN was basing his thoughts on. And by the way the old man is still pretty sharp. I heard him speak a couple of years ago at a legal conference. He is not stupid. However I don't think the east need to fear what the MB arbitrators will do. There will be no "revenge" for not following the NIC. Last thought for tonight, the east attorney put the Hummel testimony in his post trial filing knowing the Judge would not allow it. He will try to use it on appeal if needed.
You say that the PHX REPS have no legal obligation to the PHX pilots, that is USAPA's responsibility, but the PHX reps ARE a part of USAPA. I'm not talking about the Addington plaintiffs. Just like 2 of the 4 members of the Negotiating Advisory Committee were west pilots, USAPA members and one happened to be a leader of AOL LLC. The guy that helped write the document he is now suing over has no legal obligation to the people he represents?
As far as Hummel's testimony, he had open heart surgery just before the hearing. Maybe he was dodging actually testifying so he wouldn't face the west attorneys, but I've never heard of elective bypass surgery and when my father went through it I wouldn't have wanted him testifying for a while as he was kind of out it. But, Hummel did have a pre-trial deposition on Sept 17th where he said much the same thing that he did on his post-trial statement. That gave the west the time to find rebuttal evidence and witnesses. That is why I asked Cacti why didn't they call Kirby if he really didn't have anything to do with the seniority part of the MOU.
I agree with the rest. Contrary to WD and Cacti's assertions, I'm no diehard USAPA fan. Many of the officers and reps have had issues (lot's of great committee folks that work their tails off for all of us though) and I don't take ANYTHING that comes from them on seniority at face value. I try to read and find out for myself. I actually read the MOU and asked myself what it meant to me. What I got was an acknowledgement that the past course of action had failed. That TA had us with one side's hand around the others neck, and one with the jewels of the other in their hand. Stalemate. We were going to be left behind with the APA making all the decisions and then brought in after the fact and left making our lousy money until we had a new agreement. The MOU put aside the SLI battle that resided in the TA, and left it for the MB type process. The TA was never completed and at POR goes poof, along with the Nic AND a east/west DOH list. With that MB type process I expect something like what happened at UA/CO.
The only other thing I'm confused about is your comment that the APA will control things and not let them get out of hand. No following you on that one and you didn't answer me earlier.
Thanks for your input.
12-02-2013, 04:11 PM
#1932
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
Cacti.....
Tic Toc Tic Toc...
That's a good one, in fact last time you guys used that phrase, the 9th came down and smaked Wake on his ass, and handed you guys a golden loss.
Is that what your expecting from Silver here shortly. I would Imagine she would rule around the 15th or so, just to make it look legit. and to clear her docket of this mess before Xmas. That way USAPA can at least give the 9th their early Xmas present, as they seem to be aware of the goings ons of this case and even requested the JD suit the company filed...or whatever it was.
Either way. I hope your Doc has ya on some good BP medicine, your gonna need it...
Tic Toc Tic Toc...
That's a good one, in fact last time you guys used that phrase, the 9th came down and smaked Wake on his ass, and handed you guys a golden loss.
Is that what your expecting from Silver here shortly. I would Imagine she would rule around the 15th or so, just to make it look legit. and to clear her docket of this mess before Xmas. That way USAPA can at least give the 9th their early Xmas present, as they seem to be aware of the goings ons of this case and even requested the JD suit the company filed...or whatever it was.
Either way. I hope your Doc has ya on some good BP medicine, your gonna need it...
12-03-2013, 02:24 PM
#1933
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
I think we may agree more than disagree, but I'm still confused by a couple of things you've written.
You say that the PHX REPS have no legal obligation to the PHX pilots, that is USAPA's responsibility, but the PHX reps ARE a part of USAPA. I'm not talking about the Addington plaintiffs. Just like 2 of the 4 members of the Negotiating Advisory Committee were west pilots, USAPA members and one happened to be a leader of AOL LLC. The guy that helped write the document he is now suing over has no legal obligation to the people he represents? No he does not. Only the committee/union officer has a LEGAL responsibility to provide the information. Note I said committee as in official committee communication to the rank and file. They cannot say well a West pilot was on the committee so we don't have to tell, UNLESS the official or committee designated the west member to provide the information. Legal requirement. Not personal requirement. So the question is did the BPR/NAC/Union official with a legal requirement to report what section 10 contained do their legal duty or did they assume a West member told them so we don't need to? Simple really, who was LEGALLY required to convey the information about Sec10. Did they do that clearly?
As far as Hummel's testimony, he had open heart surgery just before the hearing. Maybe he was dodging actually testifying so he wouldn't face the west attorneys, but I've never heard of elective bypass surgery and when my father went through it I wouldn't have wanted him testifying for a while as he was kind of out it. But, Hummel did have a pre-trial deposition on Sept 17th where he said much the same thing that he did on his post-trial statement. That gave the west the time to find rebuttal evidence and witnesses. That is why I asked Cacti why didn't they call Kirby if he really didn't have anything to do with the seniority part of the MOU. Again simple. The surgery is immaterial. The East attorney did not want him to testify. Period. BUT, he wants the information contained in Hummel's statements, so he just did what any attorney does, he tries a backdoor. He used Hummel's testimony in post filings when he could not get Judge Silver to accept it on open court. I predict Hummel's testimony won't be allowed and the East attorney knows that, BUT he will try to use it on appeal if required. 50/50 chance of success on that.
I agree with the rest. Contrary to WD and Cacti's assertions, I'm no diehard USAPA fan. Many of the officers and reps have had issues (lot's of great committee folks that work their tails off for all of us though) and I don't take ANYTHING that comes from them on seniority at face value. I try to read and find out for myself. I actually read the MOU and asked myself what it meant to me. What I got was an acknowledgement that the past course of action had failed. That TA had us with one side's hand around the others neck, and one with the jewels of the other in their hand. Stalemate. We were going to be left behind with the APA making all the decisions and then brought in after the fact and left making our lousy money until we had a new agreement. The MOU put aside the SLI battle that resided in the TA, and left it for the MB type process. The TA was never completed and at POR goes poof, along with the Nic AND a east/west DOH list. With that MB type process I expect something like what happened at UA/CO.
The only other thing I'm confused about is your comment that the APA will control things and not let them get out of hand. No following you on that one and you didn't answer me earlier. OK this is a personal opinion only. APA has 10K members plus West members. They consider themselves a true legacy. My friends (both AA) don't consider USA a true legacy, but a big regional that has a few WBs. The AWA side is no different. Their attitude is USAPA should be seen and not heard. They did the same to TWA and they will do it again. I think the USA pilots will be marginalized . APA with the West will control pretty much every aspect of the association. They don't think they need to let you guys do anything but pay your monthly dues . With MB APA will dominate simply because the east/west split. I do not believe the East will be "punished" by the arbitrators for the NIC. But you won't be happy either. Might be way off. Might not.
Thanks for your input.
You say that the PHX REPS have no legal obligation to the PHX pilots, that is USAPA's responsibility, but the PHX reps ARE a part of USAPA. I'm not talking about the Addington plaintiffs. Just like 2 of the 4 members of the Negotiating Advisory Committee were west pilots, USAPA members and one happened to be a leader of AOL LLC. The guy that helped write the document he is now suing over has no legal obligation to the people he represents? No he does not. Only the committee/union officer has a LEGAL responsibility to provide the information. Note I said committee as in official committee communication to the rank and file. They cannot say well a West pilot was on the committee so we don't have to tell, UNLESS the official or committee designated the west member to provide the information. Legal requirement. Not personal requirement. So the question is did the BPR/NAC/Union official with a legal requirement to report what section 10 contained do their legal duty or did they assume a West member told them so we don't need to? Simple really, who was LEGALLY required to convey the information about Sec10. Did they do that clearly?
As far as Hummel's testimony, he had open heart surgery just before the hearing. Maybe he was dodging actually testifying so he wouldn't face the west attorneys, but I've never heard of elective bypass surgery and when my father went through it I wouldn't have wanted him testifying for a while as he was kind of out it. But, Hummel did have a pre-trial deposition on Sept 17th where he said much the same thing that he did on his post-trial statement. That gave the west the time to find rebuttal evidence and witnesses. That is why I asked Cacti why didn't they call Kirby if he really didn't have anything to do with the seniority part of the MOU. Again simple. The surgery is immaterial. The East attorney did not want him to testify. Period. BUT, he wants the information contained in Hummel's statements, so he just did what any attorney does, he tries a backdoor. He used Hummel's testimony in post filings when he could not get Judge Silver to accept it on open court. I predict Hummel's testimony won't be allowed and the East attorney knows that, BUT he will try to use it on appeal if required. 50/50 chance of success on that.
I agree with the rest. Contrary to WD and Cacti's assertions, I'm no diehard USAPA fan. Many of the officers and reps have had issues (lot's of great committee folks that work their tails off for all of us though) and I don't take ANYTHING that comes from them on seniority at face value. I try to read and find out for myself. I actually read the MOU and asked myself what it meant to me. What I got was an acknowledgement that the past course of action had failed. That TA had us with one side's hand around the others neck, and one with the jewels of the other in their hand. Stalemate. We were going to be left behind with the APA making all the decisions and then brought in after the fact and left making our lousy money until we had a new agreement. The MOU put aside the SLI battle that resided in the TA, and left it for the MB type process. The TA was never completed and at POR goes poof, along with the Nic AND a east/west DOH list. With that MB type process I expect something like what happened at UA/CO.
The only other thing I'm confused about is your comment that the APA will control things and not let them get out of hand. No following you on that one and you didn't answer me earlier. OK this is a personal opinion only. APA has 10K members plus West members. They consider themselves a true legacy. My friends (both AA) don't consider USA a true legacy, but a big regional that has a few WBs. The AWA side is no different. Their attitude is USAPA should be seen and not heard. They did the same to TWA and they will do it again. I think the USA pilots will be marginalized . APA with the West will control pretty much every aspect of the association. They don't think they need to let you guys do anything but pay your monthly dues . With MB APA will dominate simply because the east/west split. I do not believe the East will be "punished" by the arbitrators for the NIC. But you won't be happy either. Might be way off. Might not.
Thanks for your input.
12-03-2013, 02:42 PM
#1934
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Sorry to drive someone nuts, BUT, one small question. Who had a LEGAL responsibility to report what Sec10 stated? The west BPR reps had NO legal responsibility to report to the west voters. So anything about them is immaterial and not allowed in trial. Only USAPA held that LEGAL responsibility. Did USAPA tell the west voters what was in Sec 10? Not from what was reported in open testimony. The Company will use you against yourselves.
What matters -----> The Company and Siegal won this case. Read the Siegal's filings and you will know what is going to happen. You people are just along for the ride with no real say in the outcome. MB will decide. The east will not be "punished" in MB. The west will get slotted close to NIC. Letting this go to MB will solve the Company's legal responsibility. They got their cake (seven years of idiot pilots fighting while getting paid table scraps) and no legal jeopardy. Thats a win in anyone's book. Those that can pay the best, wins. Not to rub salt into wounds but I believe if the east had kept Seham and LISTENED to his advice the east would have pulled this off to the end. Too bad there are too many "legal experts" on the east. He who represents himself has a fool for a attorney. Happily retired (from flying in 1983)
What matters -----> The Company and Siegal won this case. Read the Siegal's filings and you will know what is going to happen. You people are just along for the ride with no real say in the outcome. MB will decide. The east will not be "punished" in MB. The west will get slotted close to NIC. Letting this go to MB will solve the Company's legal responsibility. They got their cake (seven years of idiot pilots fighting while getting paid table scraps) and no legal jeopardy. Thats a win in anyone's book. Those that can pay the best, wins. Not to rub salt into wounds but I believe if the east had kept Seham and LISTENED to his advice the east would have pulled this off to the end. Too bad there are too many "legal experts" on the east. He who represents himself has a fool for a attorney. Happily retired (from flying in 1983)
First of all it wasn't chapter 10 that nullified the 2005 TA and the arbitration and single agreement included in the that TA, it was in paragraph 4 of the MOU.
Second, Pat Szymanski, lead council for USAPA told everyone in the road shows that the 2005 TA was a nullity.
AND THE WEST NAC MEMBER NODDED HIS HEAD IN AGREEMENT AS HE LISTENED!
Listen for yourself at 0:39 seconds in....
Part 12 Q and A - YouTube
12-03-2013, 04:52 PM
#1935
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Whatever happens you will be better compensated and I hope both sides move on and live life while you can. The Chinese are buying lots of gold. They are producing lots of gold. They are making noises about a new World Reserve Currency. If that happens the United States will only need about a dozen aircraft at each legacy and JetA will cost about 300.00/gal regardless of the fact the US has increased our oil production this past year. It is very expensive oil.
12-03-2013, 08:22 PM
#1937
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
First of all it wasn't chapter 10 that nullified the 2005 TA and the arbitration and single agreement included in the that TA, it was in paragraph 4 of the MOU. We were specifically talking about Sec 10 as it applies to the NIC, not how the TA disappears.
Second, Pat Szymanski, lead council for USAPA told everyone in the road shows that the 2005 TA was a nullity. Immaterial when you state it that way. Did he say the exact same thing at all road shows? Any differences? There are always differences. Is this recorded? Specifically, did he say the MOU was Neutral as regards the NIC? Did USAPA put out a statement saying don't vote for the MOU regards the NIC/NoNIC? Conflicting information impeaches the nullity statement.
AND THE WEST NAC MEMBER NODDED HIS HEAD IN AGREEMENT AS HE LISTENED!
Listen for yourself at 0:39 seconds in....
Part 12 Q and A - YouTube
Second, Pat Szymanski, lead council for USAPA told everyone in the road shows that the 2005 TA was a nullity. Immaterial when you state it that way. Did he say the exact same thing at all road shows? Any differences? There are always differences. Is this recorded? Specifically, did he say the MOU was Neutral as regards the NIC? Did USAPA put out a statement saying don't vote for the MOU regards the NIC/NoNIC? Conflicting information impeaches the nullity statement.
AND THE WEST NAC MEMBER NODDED HIS HEAD IN AGREEMENT AS HE LISTENED!
Listen for yourself at 0:39 seconds in....
Part 12 Q and A - YouTube
Interesting. Who was the pilot group being briefed? East pilots? Was the same talk given to the West Pilots? And is that recorded? According to the trial transcripts it did not sound like the same talk was given. Note again, it is NOT the legal responsibility of a individual to tell the West pilots, it is either the officers of USAPA or someone delegated specifically/officially by the committee and/or USAPA officers. Legal responsibility can be rather tricky. That is what would be interesting to know. If the NAC did not tell the west NAC member to brief the West he should have no legal responsibility under the law, making his knowledge immaterial in court. Who's responsibility was it to tell the West pilots what Sec10 contained? Did anyone West ask P.S. about the effect of the new agreement on the NIC? I thought I saw the West road show and he said it was neutral? If my memory is correct USAPA has a legal problem. Again I think all this is moot. Siegal won this case for the company. The company will get what they want. Getting the West into MB relieves them of legal responsibility from any East/West damages. I believe it would also insulate APA from inheriting any legal jeopardy but would need to research that (which ain't gonna happen, I'm happily retired). All this is just fun stuff to argue but it won't mean squat. You people should look at what APA will be asking in MB. CAL asked for the moon, and instead got mooned and UAL won most of the marbles. Asking for the NIC OR DOH is a non-starter. USAPA really needs to step up and figure out a plan to win in MB, against APA not the West. You will be ignored if you stick with NIC/DOH, unless APA gets greedy and screws up. I don't think they will and they will follow UALs lead. Again I think you will end up a step below CAL. Maybe I am wrong.
12-03-2013, 09:02 PM
#1938
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
12-03-2013, 09:22 PM
#1939
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Interesting. Who was the pilot group being briefed? East pilots? Was the same talk given to the West Pilots? And is that recorded? According to the trial transcripts it did not sound like the same talk was given. Note again, it is NOT the legal responsibility of a individual to tell the West pilots, it is either the officers of USAPA or someone delegated specifically/officially by the committee and/or USAPA officers. Legal responsibility can be rather tricky. That is what would be interesting to know. If the NAC did not tell the west NAC member to brief the West he should have no legal responsibility under the law, making his knowledge immaterial in court. Who's responsibility was it to tell the West pilots what Sec10 contained? Did anyone West ask P.S. about the effect of the new agreement on the NIC? I thought I saw the West road show and he said it was neutral? If my memory is correct USAPA has a legal problem. Again I think all this is moot. Siegal won this case for the company. The company will get what they want. Getting the West into MB relieves them of legal responsibility from any East/West damages. I believe it would also insulate APA from inheriting any legal jeopardy but would need to research that (which ain't gonna happen, I'm happily retired). All this is just fun stuff to argue but it won't mean squat. You people should look at what APA will be asking in MB. CAL asked for the moon, and instead got mooned and UAL won most of the marbles. Asking for the NIC OR DOH is a non-starter. USAPA really needs to step up and figure out a plan to win in MB, against APA not the West. You will be ignored if you stick with NIC/DOH, unless APA gets greedy and screws up. I don't think they will and they will follow UALs lead. Again I think you will end up a step below CAL. Maybe I am wrong.
I am not so sure the company need to care if the West gets a seat. They just need to make it appear that they care. They were already dismissed from the case, and anything now is just acting.
If the West does get a seat at the table they need to realize the APA will start off by demanding that the West class will never have access to fly any wide bodies, except the new deliveries.
I agree its all entertaining but I think it will work out Ok except for the hard core extremists.
12-04-2013, 05:47 AM
#1940
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
You missed the point. There will be no SLI before the MB. Read what the company wants. The West will have a seat at MB and present a NIC list and propose a SLI with APA. The East will present a DOH list and propose a SLI with APA. Neither one will get that. Three list SLI. One thing for certain the MB arbitrators will NOT punish the East. That is not their mandate. Fair integration is. The arbitrators already know basicly how they are going to integrate (UAL/CAL), just a few details to be decided. If the West does get a seat at the table there will be no East/West SLI, just three groups being combined. You people are just along for the ride. Federal law has power behind it. Don't believe any attorney that tells you they can beat it. P.T. Barnum is looking down.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
