April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[EastUS1]

I didn't want to repeat your name list but you duplicated A through S names twice. Was there a specific reason for this?

One must assume that the poster is attempting to magically surpass the "Who Cares?" index. 🙂

 

[Claxon]

You posted a quote that stated awa pilots did not fly during the Ansett strike. Would you like the opportunity to correct yourself.

In the following video mike daley and eddie chandler were not only flying during that time, they made the following video to recruit others to do so. Be specific. Your post was very misleading

.

 

[EastUS1]

A Conversation with an Attorney​

KEEP THIS INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL​

Oh NO!?...Not the double-secret-probation level!!!??? Oh well....Yawn....Snap?...just call us all whenever/if you can EVER make your fantasies come true. Deal? 🙂

Do you west folks have even the very slightest idea of what completely impotent jackazzes you've all presented yourselves as, for..well, charitably call it nearly 6 years now? Doesn't bother you at all? Well...OK then. Suddenly impress us all. Make the nic actually happen...Frankly; I'm almost six years now past completely bored with you westies. Not even one of you even will accept a flying wager. I check this board purely for laughs. 😉

Oh yes...Sigh!...I've lived in hourly fear of the Nic for nearly six years now! I've no doubt whatsoever that AWA "spartans" are somehow, although invisibly "awesome", and...yadda, yadda, etc, whatever suits your "spartan" fantasies. 🙂

As previously noted = This place is always good for a laugh. 🙂

 

[snapthis]

Claxon,

Would you recognize the Bradford Letter if you saw it?

 

[FL430]

Claxon,

Would you recognize the Bradford Letter if you saw it?

I recognized it, but just curious; how was it that AOL came into the possession of said letter? Was there any proof that Bradford actually was the one that consulted with those attorneys? I mean anyone could walk in an attorneys office and pose as someone else pay them with cash and who would be the wiser? Just asking?

 

[snapthis]

I recognized it, but just curious; how was it that AOL came into the possession of said letter? Was there any proof that Bradford actually was the one that consulted with those attorneys? I mean anyone could walk in an attorneys office and pose as someone else pay them with cash and who would be the wiser? Just asking?

We tried to get Bradford in court for DFR I but he was AWOL. This letter was posted courtesy of :

http://usapawatch.co...aw--part-1.aspx

The true meaning of USAPA case law - Part 1

Posted by TheEye at 8/7/2009 10:34 AM

Categories: uncategorized

What the Cases Really Say...​

...The True Meaning of USAPA Case Law – Part One​

A USAPAWatch Publication​

...USAPA has at various stages misstated law, facts, and procedural history with frequent recourse to the 'contradiction or confusion...produced by a medley of judicial phrases severed from their environment. – The Honorable Judge Neil V. Wake


Recently, your USAPA leadership introduced a new opinion series titled What the Cases Really Say as a rebuttal argument to the recent fact based legal analysis by TheEye. With support for their endeavor shrinking faster than mainline seat capacity, USAPA feels compelled to enlighten our group through flawed case analysis as to the logic behind their ill-advised appeal. With almost trademark imprecision, USAPA's new series misses the target entirely and instead of an accurate case analysis, they took dead aim to try and discredit a Federal Judge in a vein effort to recover fading support.

Questioning authority is often viewed as a virtue as it can reveal and verify truthful intention and purpose for all to see. While we appreciate USAPA's stab at transparency, it once again fails to bring any truth to light. Granted, Judge Wake's case analysis doesn't live in a vacuum and Attorney Lee Seham's analysis certainly does not either. However, considering motive, should one believe a Judge sworn to uphold the law, or a lawyer that is concerned more about billable hours then his clients well being? At least Mr. Seham had the decency to pause his pilot funded European vacation yesterday to participate in a BPR conference call. One specific product of the call was a resolution demanding tighter controls over official USAPA communications and a new approach to censorship. To Mr. Seham's chagrin, no censorship will ever be found in anything published by TheEye as transparency is vital for the long term good of all US Airways pilots.

So who DO we believe? Is it the holdings of a well respected Federal District Judge or an opportunistic lawyer? In a calm, quiet, and reasoned environment, the choice would be pretty simple. However, in the frenzied world of USAPA, misinformation flows with effortless abandon. In order to provide clarity amidst USAPA's constant spin, we will lend assistance in your analysis of the question by providing informed opinions from a group of highly respected Railway Labor attorneys. Over the coming weeks, TheEye will introduce a series of letters from these attorneys written at the request of various parties involved in the dispute. As if providing forbearance to Judge Wake’s holdings in the Addington trial, these legal experts reached remarkably similar conclusions without any collaboration or knowledge of each other's written opinions on the matter.

This is not a coincidence and it is not a conspiracy. Most of these RLA legal opinions were sought and written immediately following the release of the Nicolau Award. With an understanding of the true and accurate assessment conducted by this diverse group of legal professionals, the question will likely become: Why did Mr. Stephen Bradford and hired Attorney Lee Seham embark on such a perilous journey culminating in a fiery pit of litigation hell? One can only speculate, but as the letters reveal, Mr. Bradford and his coconspirators were well aware of the universal (save Mr. Seham) conclusion that the likelihood of overturning a properly conducted arbitration was slightly north of zero.

One can only speculate as to the true motivations of Mr. Bradford, but as our first letter will disclose, he completely ignored the clear and concise advice of expert counsel. As a matter of fact, Mr. Bradford was specifically told to not divulge the real reason for founding USAPA, but as revealed in second letter, he couldn’t contain his emotions and decided to engage the ALPA Executive Board without restraint. As fate would have it, Mr. Bradford further damaged his and USAPA's credibility by the conscious decision to avoid defending his motives for forming a new collective bargaining unit at the Addington trial. Of course, his appearance would have been under oath to tell the truth, and it was highly unlikely that his attendance would have changed the outcome unless he was willing to perjure himself. Nevertheless, his ‘no-show’ confirmed Mr. Bradford's original intentions that began in May 2007, intentions that an esteemed RLA attorney clearly warned against disclosing.

The following text reveals the context of the legal opinion from respected labor attorney Chris Katzenbach of Katzenbach and Khitikan. Mr. Katzenbach’s firm was interviewed in May 2007 in the early stages of Mr. Bradford’s expedition to form a new organization, an organization with the singular goal of destroying the careers of the former America West pilots. Although the letter was marked confidential, in the fanaticism to gain support of the East pilots, this material was published on a public Web site thus piercing the normally ironclad veil of attorney/client privilege. As a result of this all too common recklessness and oversight within USAPA’s founding leadership, this letter was admitted into evidence and became an important component of the Addington trial and subsequent verdict. In the discussion, Mr. Katzenbach warned Mr. Bradford by stating,

...the language you use in setting up your new union and how you go about talking and writing about your solutions to this award can be used against you. You need to stress [t]he positives of the new union and not dwell on the award. Don't give the other side a large body of evidence that the sole reason for the new union is to abrogate an arbitration, the Nicolau award, that in the opinions of most judges, should be allowed to stand due to no gross negligence or fraud

With that introduction, here is the entire discussion:

A Conversation with an Attorney​

KEEP THIS INFORMATION CONFIDENTIAL​

On Saturday, June 9th in San Francisco I had a conversation regarding our case with Chris Katzenbach of Katzenbach and Khitikan, a labor law firm.

Katzenbach and Khitikan have done some NMB work primarily with the American Eagle pilots group and they helpd them set up a 501C3 non-profit format to hold the Eagle Pilots independent union which is involved in an organizing campaign to oust ALPA from that property.

In commenting on our case he said that as an outsider he really had to hand it to the opposing counsel in the final brief for the America West Pilots. He understands, in some respects, the issues involving airline seniority. He said however that to an outsider the America West brief was very convincing and easy to follow. This doesn't make it right or more fair, it's just an easier to follow and better presentation to follow than the Katz presentation. The America West brief, appears a least on the surface, to be more in line with the stated new ALPA merger policy. It ignores past president but if you only have the current policy as a point of reference then their argument seems more in tune with it.

Chris Katzenbach feels that a direct assault on this award in the courts is a looser. The courts don't want to be educated on the minutia of this case or any other complicated private matter. The courts only concern is if there is fraud or bribery or some other gross misconduct in the conduct of this arbitration. If pressed they would take a case like that but he feels it to be a looser. It would also probably require a substantial down payment up front to pursue. By the way their fees are very reasonable, $275.00 per billable hour.

I next specifically asked him about the formation of a new bargaining agent as an avenue of advance to get around this award. He says that it is entirely possible. The key the courts look for is not the private squabbles, procedures and methodologies between unions and their nationals, the facts of the collective bargaining agreement. The CBA is the defining argument in a case to the courts. The Railway Labor Act /National Mediation Board procedure and policy above all governs.

"Could the America West pilots sue us" I asked, "if we pursue this course of action." "Yes", he said however Duty of Fair representation suits are losers, Katzenbach and Khitikan sued ALPA for the American Eagle Pilots over their current contract which among other things had a 20 year no strike clause. The contract was a negotiating committee cram down to keep from having the Eagle flying farmed out and allowing for the American equivalent version of "jets for jobs" and "flow through." Does this sound familiar?? As a result of this contract the Eagle pilots are trying to get out of ALPA.

Chris said the contract was truly piece of "####" but because it was negotiated by the duly elected negotiating committee it would stand in court. They lost big-time and that's that. So to answer the question, yes you can be sued but they must prove fraud or other really gross violations of law to have the suit stand up. However, he cautioned, the language you use in setting up your new union and how you go about talking and writing about your solutions to this award can be used against you. You need to stress he positives of the new union and not dwell on the award. Don't give the other side a large body of evidence that the sole reason for the new union is to abrogate an arbitration, the Nicolau award, that in the opinions of most judges, should be allowed to stand due to no gross negligence or fraud.

In a ruling by the NLRB, not the NMB, in 1954, stated: Seniority status in mergers must be resolved between the the employer and the union not by the union unilaterally. 107 NLRB 837;225F.2nd.343. That is to say seniority lives in the collective bargaining agreement not inside the unions. It will cost some more money to find if there is an equivalent ruling in a case by the NMB, but Chris feels there most certainly is.

A study and roadmap of the case law based on the premise that a new bargaining agent can get around the award and make the Nicolau award moot will cost 5 to 7 billable hours, so about $1925 with this firm.

When I stated that our Chairman Doug Parker had expressed an interest in industry consolidation he replied "well you know this process can work in reverse". That is, if we had a merger with United then even before there was an arbitration process the United pilots would petition the NMB for "single carrier status" and we could find ourselves back in the same position as we are now, inside ALPA. The Nicolau award won't die until ALPA dies. If there are mergers down the road then the award can come back if ALPA does. Seniority lives in the CBA so you need a new contract to go with the new union to solidify your claims. Can something be put in the contact to protect these claims, I asked. "That question will require a lot of research". Katzenbach and Khitikan seem to be competent in this area although they are not experts in Railway Labor Act /
NMB law. Chris stated that there are very few firms who specialize in RLA/NMB law, it's a very small portion of labor law pie.

This consultation is not free, they don't do that with this kind of case, but they have low rates ie, $275/hr. My name is the one given so I will pony up on this meeting and the firm will supply a resume of their qualifications to do this kind of law and a recap and their opinions on what was discussed and I will forward that information when I get it so that all can see what type of law firm this is and if we want to do business with them in the future.

Respectfully Submitted,

an aaapilots4fairness committee member

As we disclose the second correspondence, Mr. Bradford appears to be in the grips of anger while writing to ALPA Executive Board Member Captain Russ Webber. This e-mail was also entered into evidence during trial.

Before introducing the Bradford e-mail to close-out this first installment of ...The True Meaning of USAPA Case Law, we would like to leave you with a few thoughts to ponder.
USAPA's appeal filed with the 9[sup]th[/sup] Circuit Court is strictly an administrative view of the District Court proceedings. It is in no way a re-analysis of the Nicolau Arbitration. The case law arguments that are espoused upon in What the Cases Really Say have no real bearing on the Circuit Courts final decision as the District Court trial was NOT a trial on the merits or lack thereof of the arbitration. USAPA's attempt to continue a smear campaign in the hopes of gaining sympathy will truly not work.

Based on the first two documents disclosed in part one of this series, one can clearly deduce the early mindset of the players. On that well-known May 2007 van ride to Herndon, Mr. Bradford and his coconspirators embarked on an emotional and clumsy effort that was doomed to fail from the start. As we will document in the coming weeks, the efforts of a few East pilots guided by their chosen Attorney Lee Seham clearly disregarded the sound opinion and advice of various well respected labor law attorneys. In all honesty, we couldn't make this stuff up if we tried. It is almost laughable if it weren't so damaging to the careers of ALL US Airways pilots.

We leave you now with the words of USAPA's founding President F.O. Stephen Bradford.


From: "Stephen Bradford"
To: "Russ Webber"
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Leaving ALPA

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Stephen H. Bradford

ALPA Executive Board

Dear Captain Webber,

Very shortly, I will be making a decision that I never thought I would
have to make in my 20 years of wearing this ALPA pin. Moreover, that
decision is to remove ALPA as my collective bargaining representative
from US Airways. Why? Just sour grapes and the childish wish to “stick
it to national?” “Just so we can show them whose boss and deny them the
dues?”

None of the above are correct. We must leave ALPA if this award stands
because our great leader, Doug Parker, thinks the industry needs more
consolidation. He has already made a very ill advised run on Delta and
he will be looking for another partner soon. The pilots of US Airways
cannot go into another round of seniority negotiations with this award
as the starting point in our negotiations. By the logic of this award,
my 20 years at US Airways, all without furlough and twice, upgraded and
then downgraded to and from the left seat will buy me maybe a slot
behind three or four year pilot rather than the seven year pilot I am
not slotted behind. My fellow pilots and I simply cannot allow this to
happen. We have to defend what little we have left.

The move is purely defensive; we are not trying to take anything from
anyone, just trying to hold on to what we have. Make no mistake, we
don’t not want to leave ALPA, but we will just to ensure we can have
some say in the next merger. We will write our own merger policy into
our bylaws and defend it in civil court if we have to, even if we are
out-voted by ALPA in another election as a result of a merger.

Current ALPA merger policy is ill formed, deviates from over 60 years of
prior practice and produces bizarre and unfair awards in arbitration
because all the considerations of prior settlements are no longer a part
of the precedent. I would like to see someone defend the notion of
Career expectations vs. actual time in service to an independent judge.
That term may have sounded fine prior to September 11 but now with all
the legacy carriers either in or freshly out of Chapter 11 what good are
expectations. United had or has pilots on furlough. Northwest is still
in Chapter 11 and Delta has just emerged. Is “career expectation” a term
designed to protect wide body flying? If it is, then say so! A carrier
with significant wide body flying vs. a merger partner with little or
none has a right to take that into consideration. This was implied in
prior merger policy by the term _advancement opportunities_. This term
was specifically required to be considered in previous ALPA merger
policy. A pilot from the wide body carrier would expect advancement
opportunities to wide body equipment and a pilot from a non-wide body
airline could at least expect advancement due to attrition on his own
list, even if there were no wide body flying.

The current wording, interpretation and application of ALPA merger
policy will force the US Airways pilots, and by default, the America
West Pilots, because we have a two to one majority that is increasing,
into an independent or other collective bargaining agent condition.
Again, this is not because we want to but because we have to just to
protect what little we have left.

How could this be fixed? Allow the Nicolau award to stand but build a
long, 10yr, fence between East and West flying at US Airways. Change the
national ALPA merger policy to at least give time in service, date of
hire or any measure of total time on the property at least some value
and consideration in an arbitration. To use career expectation,
considering what has happened post September 11 to the industry, rather
than actual date of hire, is absurd. Delete the term career expectations
and replace it with “advancement opportunities” “and consideration for
the type of flying done by both pre-merger pilot groups.” This gives
defense to wide-body and international premium flying but does not
negate time in service or date of hire.

Sincerely and respectfully submitted,

Stephen H. Bradford

US Airways

A320 F/O PIT

 

[Beancounter]

Wow............

 

[cleardirect]

I recognized it, but just curious; how was it that AOL came into the possession of said letter? Was there any proof that Bradford actually was the one that consulted with those attorneys? I mean anyone could walk in an attorneys office and pose as someone else pay them with cash and who would be the wiser? Just asking?

Are you that stupid or just clueless? Talk about denial.

That letter was entered into federal court under federal rules of evidence. usapa opposed it but lost because it was proven true and accurate.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

I am asking questions tonight. Look forward to some dialog.

As to our current dispute on seniority, what difference does it make (now) as to “who saved who.” Will any answer to that question have any bearing on a legal ruling as to USAPA using the NIC or not?

Does anyone believe the pre certification actions, intent, emails from the founders, even hate mail from the founders..have any effect on the outcome of a DFR lawsuit based on USAPA NOT using the NIC?

Does the current West Class Addington II filing present ANY case law or complaints that actually meet the standards of a true DFR?

Does an MOU, that indeed sets forward a binding process for a contract and seniority integration, have any relevance in a DFR filing BEFORE the POR, to say another way, before the merger is official and a sure thing?

Will Judge Silver ruling “ripe” bring the NIC to US Airways, and would that ruling make the NIC the list USAPA presents to M/B as a starting point for seniority negations?

Did the East pilots vote on the MOU and ratify a combined East/West seniority list, without knowing so?

Does the Company’s stated belief on ripeness have any bearing on actual ripeness?

Does the UCC’s stated belief on ripeness have any bearing on actual ripeness?

Does AMR’s stated belief on ripeness have any bearing on actual ripeness?

Did the West Class agree (with USAPA) to amend the process for seniority integration, by doing away with LOA 96? Secondly, cannot both USAPA and US Airways (in lieu of East ALPA, US Airways, and West ALPA) change the rules with a member ratified agreement..a “new” transition agreement?

Would USAPA’s unilateral agreement to use the NIC as their new list relieve them of any DFR’s from the East pilots? Does the West Class have a greater weight in the DFR arena, than an “East” class suing because the CBL was not followed?

I have about 20 more questions, I will keep them coming.

Greeter

 

[EastUS1]

I am asking questions tonight. Look forward to some dialog.

" Look forward to some dialog."...? Good luck Greeter. These "spartan" people seemingly live their lives entirely within the confines of Fantasyland....and don't dare question, or ever expect any cogent thoughst/responses from within their little cult. 🙂

Just enjoy them for the laughs they always provide sir. 🙂

 

[lynyrdskynyrd]

It can be easily summed up. Yes, usapa might get by with it. Alternatively, they might not. We'll know one of these days, years, or decades.

 

[snapthis]

I am asking questions tonight. Look forward to some dialog.

Claxon has some stange fascination with Australia. If you send him into exile in the Outback maybe we can return to a normal diologue.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

We tried to get Bradford in court for DFR I but he was AWOL. This letter was posted courtesy of :

So let me give you the real story, since you are paying for Marty's fine work. A few weeks before the Addingtion I trial Bradford is personally deposed by Harper for 7 hours. In that recorded and official deposition Bradford says he is leaving office on 18 Apr 09, to be replaced by “unknown.” That ended up being Cleary. Bradford goes on vacation with his family, and gets the call from Legal/ via Harper to show up. But now he is a line pilot and not available, nor is provided with transportation or compensation. Dumbass Harper did not even know who the current President of USAPA was.

I cannot believe you keep bringing this up. What a screw up by Harper. Tragic.

Greeter

 

[FL430]

Are you that stupid or just clueless? Talk about denial.

That letter was entered into federal court under federal rules of evidence. usapa opposed it but lost because it was proven true and accurate.

Just because something is entered as evidence doesn't make it true. Did they take fingerprints off the document and find Mr Bradfords prints on It? You act as if you know everything about everything so now is your time to shine. How exactly was it proven that the letter was from Bradford? Federal court doesn't mean jack! You should have learned that when the 9th gave Wake his spanking. Wake is a federal judge right? Wasn't Seham telling Wake all along " NOT RIPE"? I guess he can't hear very well.

 

[EastUS1]

Dumbass Harper did not even know who the current President of USAPA was.

Indeed. This place is always good for some laughs...None have any reason to take any of this otherwise. 🙂

"The nic is it!"....."Final and Binding!" It's OVER!..Get used to it!"...."You won't even get 200 cards!"...."Send the cards..I DARE you!"....."Ho ho ho!..St. Nic is coming to town!"...If one can't just laugh after all these years...well...no point in even reading any of this nonsense...And frankly?...How could one do otherwise than laugh? 🙂

"Lord what fools these mortals be!" 🙂