ALPA Thread 1/10 to 1/17 ALL ALPA/USAPA Discussed Here

[EastUS]

John Prater did not develop the Nicolau award and had no influence on it.

"had no influence on it"...other than to sit on it for half a year, run expensive BS survey's to see if it was even slightly sale-able, put together a worthless "committee" or two, at dues payers' expense, and in all ways strive mightilly to cover the Alpoid tush. Yup....choosing a path of "no influence" from Alpo regarding any even potentially usefull solution's fully typical.

For any/all intent upon exalting Alpa's performance....I'm open to hearing any explanations for the lost half year...although it'll be "clearly the fault of the east" I'm sure.

"It doesn't matter what John Prater's ideas are about seniority-" At this point in time?...I fully agree, but one wonders then: Why listen to him about anything at all then?

 

[Phoenix]

The "ALPA president" I imagine you are referring to is John Prater? It doesn't matter what John Prater's ideas are about seniority- it has no bearing on Nicolau award- or any arbitration award. The seniority award in our case was developed by three people- two of which you had direct input in their appointment. John Prater did not develop the Nicolau award and had no influence on it.

Who accused Prater of developing the Nic?

Your response only serves to further illustrate "the ALPA president subscribed to the position that seniority must be abandoned to the benefit of others" (nevermind that Prater is among the "others"). It is manifest that ALPA abandoned all responsibility for seniority. There used to be some acceptance that ALPA took on that responsibility of defining seniority among its members. They have chosen to make it abundantly clear that, as you say, they don't choose to even so much as "have influence on it."

The only "influence" ALPA chose before Nic was to submit a false seniority list of AAA pilots to Nicolau in order to subvert a lawsuit from a portion of the AAA pilots. ALPA's "influence" after Nic was to endorse a list that they have acknowledged is failed. And in addition to endorsing it they have conducted at least five polls to discern their ability to manipulate at least 50.1% of AAA pilots to toss 49.9% of AAA pilots under the bus. (Which of course is also your stated hope.)

And Piney thinks there is no unity. He hasn't seen the least of it.

 

[EastUS]

The only "influence" ALPA chose before Nic was to submit a false seniority list of AAA pilots to Nicolau in order to subvert a lawsuit from a portion of the AAA pilots.

I understand from merely conversational input that optimism is quite high, and that Her Honor hasn't been too thrilled with the Alpa defense thus far. It'll be most interesting to see this one play out, as it seems that even RICO Act actions aren't completely out of the question.....In which case at least one "leadership" position on the "concerned pilots" commit-me might open up .

 

[Phoenix]

I understand from merely conversational input that optimism is quite high, and that Her Honor hasn't been too thrilled with the Alpa defense thus far. It'll be most interesting to see this one play out, as it seems that even RICO Act actions aren't completely out of the question.....In which case at least one "leadership" position on the "concerned pilots" commit-me might open up

Oh, what a tragedy. I'm all broke up.

 

[EastUS]

Oh, what a tragedy. I'm all broke up.

Yeah My 2 cents worth of gut hunch is that it'll be resolved via the civil proceedings, rather than going to criminal...but who knows?

 

[luvn737s]

I understand from merely conversational input that optimism is quite high, and that Her Honor hasn't been too thrilled with the Alpa defense thus far. It'll be most interesting to see this one play out, as it seems that even RICO Act actions aren't completely out of the question.....In which case at least one "leadership" position on the "concerned pilots" commit-me might open up .

OK your cover's blown. Only USA320*** could have written that! Welcome back!

 

[EastUS]

OK your cover's blown. Only USA320*** could have written that! Welcome back!

???..Nuts!!..Now I've got to get another phoney Passport.....Methinks you've lost it Milady....But...Well..within the limitless boundaries of an imagination capable of exalting both Alpa and Nic...I suppose that anything, regardless of how absurd, isn't impossible to dream up

It takes little effort out east to talk to folks involved with the above mentioned lawsuit, as there's a good number of them, and few don't know at least one or more from previous trips flying/etc. I've noted that I'm merely offering my opinions, and I've no "Little Birds" so common out west to claim :blink:

While we're at this though: Which, if any of the above/below observations, do you dispute?

1) That there's a lawsuit being pressed against Alpo by some of ours that were earilier hosed?
2) That they're very optimistic about the outcome?
3) That RICO charges are possible?...

 

[EastUS]

I assume you mean a Civil RICO suit? As opposed to a criminal RICO investigation?

Based on what I've read over the years is that ALPA might be a rigged deck but winning a RICO suit is long shot IMO.

There's been discussion of it possibly turning into criminal charges. As noted in my "2 cents worth" above..I personally think it'll stay "civil" or at least as civil as such proceedings go.
One never knows....

 

[AWA320]

Nos, a serious question: are you lucid? Leaving the scene is pretty easy to prove, and the evidence is in the record and admitted by eveyone but you that they left the scene of the fatal accident with the knowledge that authorities wanted to speak to them. That act is illegal in every jurisdiction in the United States. No inferences need to be drawn. What on Earth do you not understand?

This is no longer fair, your knowledge of the law and his lack of basic understanding of it is too much the bare. What should come to mind is that this crew were not rookies were they I mean how can this happen with God's gift to the profession?

 

[dariencc]

Yes I do understand jurisdiction; a lot more than you do or probably ever will.

One of Arizona's brightest lights asserts himself!

NTSB jurisdiction at an accident scene is not exclusive. It only took me a few minutes to find this link: http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/w...action=retrieve

Pay particular attention to this tidbit. I added the emphasis:

"(3) This section and sections 1113, 1116B, 1133, and 1134( a) and
( c)-(e) of this title do not affect the authority of another department,
agency, or instrumentality of the Government to investigate an accident
under applicable law or to obtain information directly from the parties
involved in, and witnesses to, the accident. The Board and other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities shall ensure that
appropriate information developed about the accident is exchanged in a
timely manner."

I better notify Herndon. It turns out that the Alpa Central Air Safety committee is wrong! Thank you so much for the ten minutes you spent on Yahoo. And rest assured, I did "pay particular attention" to your "tidbit." After all your earnest work, I can barely bring myself to point out that your feverish research was all for naught. You truly are addicted to playing the fool.

Perhaps you should "pay particular attention" to the phrase under applicable law in your term paper. Or is the above paragraph the final word on every accident from a freight train to a cessna 150 to a Greyhound bus to a 747? An obvious question would be if your cut and pasted regulation gives police authority to "investigate" airline accidents by disturbing the wreckage or taking the recorder boxes back to the station house for analysis?

At an accident scene, pilots are required to comply with police requests for identification and licenses, as well as for drug and alcohol tests. That is it. Pilots are not required to make any statement or answer any questions from the police or any other investigative agency, with one exception.

After an accident, pilots are required to make a statement to the NTSB, and the NTSB only. Under accepted NTSB protocol, this is never done at the accident scene. Alpa's Air Safety people remove the pilots from the scene and get them to a safe, comfortable place. Before the pilot makes a statement to the NTSB, he is provided with representation from Alpa's Legal and Safety departments. The statement to NTSB never takes place the same day as the accident. This is for the obvious reason that crew members are unlikely to be thinking clearly in the immediate aftermath.

The Alpa response team at the 5050 site followed established protocol, which the NTSB fully agreed with. The local law enforcement personnel were insistent on questioning the pilots on scene, and the Alpa reps properly stood up for the crew and removed them from the airport.

Your slanderous accusation that the 5050 pilots "fled the scene of the accident" in an act of "treachery" is disgusting. Your small minded ignorance says so very much about you.

Since you're into research, the number for Alpa in Herndon is 703-689-2270. Ask for the Central Air Safety office and they can tell you how things actually work. No need to come back on here and apologize.

So I'd say yes...that if a cop happens upon an accident scene, then there is absolutely nothing in the Federal statutes that would stop the officer from detaining a pilot and investigating provided, of course, that the threshold requirements of the 4th and 5th Amendments are met.

Thank you, Clarence Darrow. :down:

 

[dariencc]

This is no longer fair, your knowledge of the law and his lack of basic understanding of it is too much the bare. What should come to mind is that this crew were not rookies were they I mean how can this happen with God's gift to the profession?

Yes, his knowledge of the law is very impressive. :huh:

And what, may I ask, is "too much the bare." I guess that's the illiterate's version of "too much to bear."

God's gift to the profession? Why that could only be you.

 

[EastUS]

And what, may I ask, is "too much the bare." I guess that's the illiterate's version of "too much to bear."

An uncharitable assumption sir. I can't be so insensitive as to discount the possible expression of religious freedom via speaking in tongues......

 

[aquagreen73s]

At an accident scene, pilots are required to comply with police requests for identification and licenses, as well as for drug and alcohol tests. That is it. Pilots are not required to make any statement or answer any questions from the police or any other investigative agency, with one exception.

Sure. That's basic 4th Amendment law. What's your point? What's certain is that it is illegal in every jurisdiction to abscond from police after the police have notified an individual that they wish to stop and question them. But from what you and others have said, and from what was reported in the media, your boys skipped off after the police wanted to have a few words with them, allegedly acting upon the advice of counsel (which I find hard to believe, but it's immaterial). In that situation they were not free to leave, but they did and then they stayed hidden for nearly 48 hours knowing full well they were evading law enforcement. What on Earth is so hard for you to understand?

The Alpa response team at the 5050 site followed established protocol, which the NTSB fully agreed with.

Total BS. They were hidden for 48 hours. And the issue is not the NTSB, but law enforcement who wanted to question them and had every right to do so. Whether they responded was up to them. But nowhere, and I mean nowhere, can you find any legal principle which would justify their actions or provide them some sort of immunity. That's the law.

"fled the scene of the accident"

Ummmm....it's uncontroverted that they did!

Your slanderous accusation that the 5050 pilots "fled the scene of the accident" in an act of "treachery" is disgusting.

Slander is defamatory language concerning the plaintiff spoken to a third party. Libel is a written publication of a defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff. I think you mean libel. A statement or opinion is actionable only if it appears to be based on specific facts. Opinions or characterizations of an act are not actionable unless allegations of the act are patently false. Here, the entire issue is the act of absconding from police. The record is clear that they purposely remained unavailabe from law enforcement for a period of nearly 48 hours. In the meantime, perishable evidence (blood alcohol, if it were present), dissipated. Those are the facts. Finally, truth is an absolute defense to the tort of defamation. Recitation of the facts pertinent to this case are absolutely protected, as is my opinion of that act - my opinion being that the act was TREACHEROUS.

Your small minded ignorance says so very much about you.

You're welcome to your own opinions about me; I could care less what you think. But congratualtions - your inability to articulate says a lot about you in a public forum. I have enjoyed reading your emotional rants and illogic. Seriously, you are quite the entertainment value.

Since you're into research, the number for Alpa in Herndon is 703-689-2270. Ask for the Central Air Safety office and they can tell you how things actually work.

Why don't you call and let us know what the CASC would say about absconding from authorities for 48 hours. I know and probably 98% of the readers know what they would say. Do you?

And one more thing, you suggested that they ran because the cops had no jurisdiction at an accident scene to question them. Obviously, that's not the case. So, would you like to eat your crow now or later?

 

[EastUS]

Might one hope that you're among the legal advisors/Alpo brain trust/etc being listened to out west?.....

 

[700UW]

NYT Article

Asked about Mr. Kleissas's disappearance after the accident, which prevented a timely drug test, the fellow pilot, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said: ''No way, no way he's ever touched drugs, and you can quote me on that.''