August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[CallawayGolf]

Noted. Then also, why give (an inch) the West Class a seat at the table when the law of the land has said "no" to that since the CAB days? The West Class and Parker want something they are not legally allowed to get. And I won't bite on fuel school tonight. Shame on you for not seeing the line that was crossed there. We feel we were legally entitled to our 3% raises, but the legal system said we were not. You feel you are entitled to the NIC, same legal system says for going on 7 years you also are not entitled, supporting our not "abiding" by said agreement. I actually think we are on the same page. RR

I wouldn't expect USAPA to give an inch. A leopard doesn't change its spots. The APA won't care about the east west dispute so long as they can move forward without going to court over the issue. Until then, it's the same old same old.

 

[snapthis]

"NO FURTHER QUESTIONS"​

Excerpts: ​

ROBERT E. DAVISON - Cross

BY MR. HARPER:​

Q. What is the most recent arbitration award?​

A. I believe you are speaking of the Continental/United.​

Q. United. That's the one that just came out here a few --

A. September.​

Q. Accept. Okay. I think I have the letter.​

MR. HARPER: I'm sorry. Jen says we don't have it so​

I'll pass on it.​

MS. AXEL: Wait. We do.​

MR. HARPER: Now we do.​

MS. AXEL: 37.​

BY MR. HARPER:​

Q. Mr. Davison, have you seen this September 6, 2013, from the chairman of --

MR. HARPER: Can you go to the bottom or the top so I​

can see?​

Q. The Continental MEC chairman?​

A. No.​

Q. On the Merger Committee, you have not been keeping track​

of how the Continental pilots' MEC chairman reacted in any way​

to that decision?​

A. I am interested in it but I have been doing other things recently.

Q. Well, if I just paraphrase for you -- and you can take it​

and read it if you want. In general, what he says, this has​

been a bad time for us. It's not a good result. We're all​

seriously disappointed but the one union, we have to join​

together and we have to go forward. That is about what he says​

in that letter. Do you want to read it or do you want to take

[size=3]my word for it, Captain Davison?[/size]​

[size=3]MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, I have to make the same[/size]​

[size=3]objection that Mr. Harper made previously. I think he's[/size]​

[size=3]testifying at this point and I also don't see the relevance.[/size]​

[size=3]THE COURT: Well, I think there is some relevance but[/size]​

[size=3]if he can't read it, we'll give him an original copy. I[/size]​

[size=3]presume you want to ask him a question after he reads it.[/size]​

[size=3]MR. HARPER: Just the thrust of the way --[/size]​

[size=3]THE COURT: Can you see it on the screen,[/size]​

[size=3]Mr. Davison?[/size]​

THE WITNESS: Yes, I think so.

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]THE COURT: So, now, pinpoint what portion you wish[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]to have him look at and then ask him a question.[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]MR. HARPER: I'm getting a queue from the back.[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]BY MR. HARPER:[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]Q. Okay. Third paragraph. Do you want to take a look at[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]that, Captain Davison?[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]A. Okay.[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]Okay.[/size][/font][/size][/font]

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]So you agree with me that, in general, the Continental MEC[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]chairman is saying we had a bad day. We're disappointed with[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]the results. We have one union and we need to go forward.[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]That's, in general, what he's telling the Continental pilots[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]after this decision; correct?[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]A. That's what whoever wrote this is saying [/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]Q. And you and Captain Bradford and others back in 2007[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]decided to do just the opposite. You decided to pick up all of[/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]your marbles and go form a new union for the purpose of [/size][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]avoiding implementing the Nicolau Award; correct?​

A. That's not true.​

MR. HARPER No further questions​

 

[Reed Richards]

Excerpts: ​

ROBERT E. DAVISON - Cross

[font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]Q. And you and Captain Bradford and others back in 2007[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]decided to do just the opposite. You decided to pick up all of[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]​

[font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3][font=TT1DBt00][size=3]your marbles and go form a new union for the purpose of [/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]avoiding implementing the Nicolau Award; correct?​

A. That's not true.​

MR. HARPER No further questions​

Bob is correct. The founders did NOT start USAPA for the sole purpose of avoiding the NIC, not by a longshot. But the voting pilots of USAPA did exactly that, voted for USAPA to get rid of the NIC, that was the only reason they voted USAPA in. Old news, already admitted to Silver long ago by Pat. Davison tells the truth. What bearing does any of the founding of USAPA have on the DFR MOU question at hand? Nothing. RR

 

[snapthis]

Bob is correct. The founders did NOT start USAPA for the sole purpose of avoiding the NIC, not by a longshot. But the voting pilots of USAPA did exactly that, voted for USAPA to get rid of the NIC, that was the only reason they voted USAPA in. Old news, already admitted to Silver long ago by Pat. Davison tells the truth. What bearing does any of the founding of USAPA have on the DFR MOU question at hand? Nothing. RR

I think the evidence presented showed otherwise. Keep reading the tanscripts relating to the DFR MOU, 10 h, etc, RR.

 

[snapthis]

I thought that President Hummel's surgeon gave the green light for him to testify via telephone then it is learned in court that another doctor apparently stepped in and said otherwise. Judge Silver seemed annoyed of the late notice and asked if his condition may have suddenly got worse....


Haper had a few questions of his own which prompted this exchange:

MR. HARPER: Your Honor, I have a point that I would​

like to raise with the Court before we go to the next witness.​

I did not know at the time when Mr. Szymanski announced that​

they had a letter from a flight surgeon, Peter Lambrou, I think​

or something like that. And I learned during the break, that​

this flight surgeon is a former US Airways pilot for about 40​

years. And I would have expected, and perhaps the Court would​

have expected, that at least we would have been informed that​

the letter that they now have is somebody who has been​

associated with US Airways for 40 years.​

THE COURT: Well, it doesn't surprise me in a way. I​

wasn't particularly impressed with the fact that he was a​

flight surgeon in the sense of this is a situation involving​

cardiac surgery. That doesn't mean that he isn't a qualified,​

competent doctor. But this is a different issue here. And for​

the reasons I already stated, he will not testify unless the​

two of you can agree to a method and means of his testifying by​

way of affidavit. ​

 

[Reed Richards]

I think the evidence presented showed otherwise. Keep reading the tanscripts relating to the DFR MOU, 10 h, etc, RR.

I am well read. The evidence clearly points to Kirby and his gang as primary architects of 10h. The evidence also points clearly to the fact the West Class was aware all the language implications and voted "yes" anyway. Holmes claims a last minute revelation, but has no explanation for dead silence. Not good to be "Holmes" going foward. I feel his pain. Look, Silver is going to find a way to find favor in the West Class to please Siegel. Our real case will be heard in the Ninth. I am not predicting a win is Silver's courtroom for USAPA. RR

 

[Reed Richards]

I thought that President Hummel's surgeon gave the green light for him to testify via telephone then it is learned in court that another doctor apparently stepped in and said otherwise. Judge Silver seemed annoyed of the late notice and asked if his condition may have suddenly got worse....


Haper had a few questions of his own which prompted this exchange:

MR. HARPER: Your Honor, I have a point that I would​

like to raise with the Court before we go to the next witness.​

I did not know at the time when Mr. Szymanski announced that​

they had a letter from a flight surgeon, Peter Lambrou, I think​

or something like that. And I learned during the break, that​

this flight surgeon is a former US Airways pilot for about 40​

years. And I would have expected, and perhaps the Court would​

have expected, that at least we would have been informed that​

the letter that they now have is somebody who has been​

associated with US Airways for 40 years.​

THE COURT: Well, it doesn't surprise me in a way. I​

wasn't particularly impressed with the fact that he was a​

flight surgeon in the sense of this is a situation involving​

cardiac surgery. That doesn't mean that he isn't a qualified,​

competent doctor. But this is a different issue here. And for​

the reasons I already stated, he will not testify unless the​

two of you can agree to a method and means of his testifying by​

way of affidavit. ​

What part of "Hummel is on pain meds" does Silver not get? A doctor's note to testify on narcotics? Really? She is going to rule in the West Class favor anyway, so what if she had her feathers ruffled over someone having open heart surgery a week ago and not being able to present cognitive testimony. I think it reflected poorly on her basic judgment, but she was just making sure we knew who was boss. I remain unimpressed. RR

 

[Claxon]

"I found the America West Airline drug trafficking trial fascinating. Patrick Thurston, Vice President of Operations, America West, Bob Russell, Chief of Pilots, and Carl Wobser, a captain, all pleaded guilty to multiple counts of narcotics trafficking. They had purchased a DC 6 and embarked upon a career in the drug trade. Unfortunately for them their plane, which they maxed out electronically, had chronic engine problems which required them to touch down unexpectedly in several countries. This was more than embarrassing, since they had not filed flight plans. On one such emergency stop in Aruba, on the way back from Columbia, their plane was found packed with marijuana. There is reason to believe that their intended cargo was cocaine and that after a mix-up they did not wish to fly back empty. Despite the lofty positions these men held with America West, they seemed to have no difficulty getting time off for their drug flights, and America West wanted to rehire Russell after his six months in the Federal country club.

Twenty percent of the stock of AMERICA WEST AIRLINES was owned by ANSETT AIRLINES of Australia and 55% of ANSETT AIRLINES was held by Sir Peter Ables and Rupert Murdock. We know from Jonathan Kwitny 's book, the Crimes of Patriots, that Burny Houghton, perhaps the key figure in the founding of the CIA drug money laundering bank Nugan-Hand in Australia, had coffee with Sir Peter Ables the night of his first day in Australia. (Editor's note: Very few know that Michael Hand was one of the 5 top aids of General Edward Landsale. The CIA extraction of Michael Hand after the very, very doubtful sucicide of Frank Nugan came from Arizona. For that matter Tom Clines and David Morales grew up in Phoenix! bdq 8-12-97)

I watched Assistant U.S. Attorney James Lacey prosecute both rounds of this case. The three AMERICA WEST pilots had all plea bargained out. If they did not testify truthfully about the others in the case, they would be looking forward to serious time. Lacey prosecutes all the large narcotics cases in Arizona. Because he is the son of Frederic Lacey, the federal judge appointed by the Justice Department to be administrator of the Teamsters Union, Jim Lacey has unusual clout in the U.S. Attorney's office here. Although Lacey could not deny the pertinence of the information I gave him, it was clear that he did not want to know where this case ultimately led. I watched him play patty cake with the defendants when he should have been playing hard ball.

The plot began ia July of 1986 when Helmut Bubble called Thurston from Alaska and arranged a meeting at the ARIZONA BILTMORE RESORT HOTEL with Thurston and the other pilots. Ten days later they met again in Bangkok, Thailand to arrange their first cargo. Their original plan was to make their pick-up in communist Laos. One doesn't go to the great difficulty to travel to restricted Laos to purchase marijuana or Thai stick as the pilots claimed. Pot is legal in Thailand. One goes to Laos for heroin. Thurston testified that his cut of this first flight was to be one million dollars. When I ran the numbers for Lacey, it was obvious that only a heroin cargo would generate this amount of profit. With the DC 6, three or four flights a year would have provided the entire US requirement for heroin."

 

[snapthis]

This may have a bearing, RR.

WILLIAM G. PAULEY, JR - Cross

BY MR. JACOBS:​

Q. Prior to the vote on the MOU, are you aware that any​

information was given to the pilots represented by USAPA to the​

effect that they would not be put into an integrated list with​

each other before you would enter the process of integrating​

them with the APA pilots?​

A. I think it was described in the road shows.​

Q. What was said in the road shows to that effect?​

A. That we would be taking two lists to the integration. It​

would be the status quo of the East list and the West list​

going forward.​

Q. Is there any document that you can point us to where that​

was said where it said that your plan is to integrate three​

lists: East, West, and APA?​

A. Not to my knowledge there's no document that says that,​

sir.​

 

[Phoenix]

I think the evidence presented showed otherwise. Keep reading the tanscripts relating to the DFR MOU, 10 h, etc, RR.

Evidence of what? Unless Marty starts with the SCOTUS standard of DFR and then proceeds to show evidence of a breach of that standard, the evidence is irrelevant. Marty has never done so, and Silver has never done so. If I am wrong, point to the transcript of Marty or Silver that acknowledges the SCOTUS standard of DFR....

 

[snapthis]

What part of "Hummel is on pain meds" does Silver not get? A doctor's note to testify on narcotics? Really? She is going to rule in the West Class favor anyway, so what if she had her feathers ruffled over someone having open heart surgery a week ago and not being able to present cognitive testimony. I think it reflected poorly on her basic judgment, but she was just making sure we knew who was boss. I remain unimpressed. RR

I think she gets the bigger picture, RR.

A little background:

THE COURT: All right. So our hearing with Dr.​

Gleason was held on Thursday, October 17, at 1 and Dr. Gleason,​

who is his surgeon, after some questions by me, said he did not​

see why he could not participate in telephonic testimony before​

this court. And I asked counsel to let me know -- and he also​

said he was in stable condition. He was on a telemeter and​

that he was not in critical condition. He was going to be​

released he expected in the next couple of days. I ordered​

counsel to inform me of circumstances where his health​

depreciated where he was unstable, his status, that is his​

health, had deteriorated to such an extent that he could not​

participate in a hearing such as this.​

So you know, as a footnote, in a criminal case that I​

held on Monday, a defendant appeared after I determined that he​

was competent to appear who was charged with very serious​

offenses but was on dialysis and the hearing of course was​

confrontational. However, he was able to appear. ​

And I heard also Mr. Szymanski said that --​

You told me you learned this from somebody, that is​

the opinion of Dr. Lambrou, on Sunday.​

This hearing did not occur until Tuesday. I made​

clear that if there has been change in circumstances, I was to​

know. We could have perhaps made arrangements for me to talk​

to the doctor at that time to make an appropriate determination ​

instability of Mr. Hummel's condition. To merely say it's​

stressful for him is not enough.​

So either -- and the other aspect, too, is although I​

have appreciation, having been there, that counsel, when a​

deposition is taken of a party or a witness, the opposing party​

doesn't always ask questions of that witness and perhaps you​

didn't have reason to do so at the time because you didn't​

anticipate that Mr. Hummel would have emergency surgery.​

Nonetheless, that was your choice.​

 

[Claxon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5t5aE0iW4o

 

[EastUS1]

If speaking the truth doesn't fit with your worldview, so be it. Call me any name you like. It doesn't have the slightest effect on me.

No worries, as I personally both respect and fully agree with that viewpoint...if not your group's well-demonstrated, sucking-up-to-management-at-every-chance-behavior.

What would you think of any east pilot "leader", personally and on video, asking of "Doug" if he could "turn in" any of your group? I'm guessing such behavior wouldn't much impress you either, at least not favorably.

We've both our notions of the other group's worth, or lack thereof. Mine are reasonably based on direct observations, not hyperbole or pure, "spartan" BS.

 

[snapthis]

Evidence of what? Unless Marty starts with the SCOTUS standard of DFR and then proceeds to show evidence of a breach of that standard, the evidence is irrelevant. Marty has never done so, and Silver has never done so. If I am wrong, point to the transcript of Marty or Silver that acknowledges the SCOTUS standard of DFR....

SCOTUS? It has not even reached the 9th. Please reference the SCOTUS standard of DFR in particular as it relates to your question.

 

[Claxon]

Please reference the SCOTUS standard of DFR in particular as it relates to your question.

You west scabs and drug runners tried to be tried in the Supreme Court.

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/Supreme_Court/USAPA_Response_Opposing_Cert.pdf