Nov/Dec 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Check out the LAUNCH VIDEO! http://deltapilotsassociation.org/
Childish, check out the guy who helped them produce these videos!
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,146
- Reaction score
- 3,236
Saw it. They are too big to be managed by Regional pilots. Moak's days are numbered. So is ALPA. Delta pilots first is what they say on the video. Remember the "Keep Delta my Delta" campaign? It WILL happen there as well. Also have you noticed BA/Ibernia are merging into a new international group, they HAVE identified 12 airlines to merge with and they are looking to expand their international reach into the US with additional destinations. Soon cabotage will be a thing of the past. Keep "One world my one world" or "Keep Star alliance MY Star Alliance" or "Keep SkyTeam my SkyTeam". As long as we keep AWA their PHX I'm happy. What a bunch of PROVEN low life's.MUTATIS MUTANDIS said:
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
end_of_alpa said:
West pilots low-lifes?
Let's define a low-life, shall we?
Low-lifes are the reason Parker was able to be in a position to acquire your Airway. Then he took advantage of you fools who created an Onion, an illegitimate union without puropse, then he profited from the division as a result. That's because the group on the pointy end of your union sword wasn't going to be pushed around by a school yard bully. You should have used your union for the intended purpose as a unified force at the bargaining table. Instead you used the Onion as a tool of greed. We're more than happy to punish you with endless lawsuits which will keep you under LOA 93.
Don't come into our house put your feet up on the table and think you own the place.
Now, get your feet off the coffee table.
Comprende?
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
While you guys were rambling about Spartans, Leonidas was busy with....
Document 263 Filed 11/06/13
USAPA fails to offer evidence of its legitimate union purpose for using §10(h) of
the MOU to amend the 2005 Transition Agreement (“TA”). USAPA has presented no
evidence of its intent or purpose for §10(h) because the only person with such
knowledge, Mr. Szymanski, refused to sit for a deposition and declined the Court’s offer
to be sworn in and testify under oath at trial. Instead, USAPA offers partial and
inconsistent explanations. USAPA argues, for example, that the MOU is “seniority
neutral.” In fact, the MOU exchanges the neutral “process” for East/West seniority
integration found in the TA to a “new process” that will be absolutely controlled by the
East Pilot majority. USAPA also attempts to back-door establishing a legitimate union
purpose by ignoring a clear ruling from this Court and attempting to introduce such
evidence through a post-trial declaration from President Gary Hummel. As explained in
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 257), the Court must not allow that. The Declaration
and ¶¶ 11, 14, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41 and 42, of Doc. 260, which rely on it, should be stricken.
Document 263 Filed 11/06/13
USAPA fails to offer evidence of its legitimate union purpose for using §10(h) of
the MOU to amend the 2005 Transition Agreement (“TA”). USAPA has presented no
evidence of its intent or purpose for §10(h) because the only person with such
knowledge, Mr. Szymanski, refused to sit for a deposition and declined the Court’s offer
to be sworn in and testify under oath at trial. Instead, USAPA offers partial and
inconsistent explanations. USAPA argues, for example, that the MOU is “seniority
neutral.” In fact, the MOU exchanges the neutral “process” for East/West seniority
integration found in the TA to a “new process” that will be absolutely controlled by the
East Pilot majority. USAPA also attempts to back-door establishing a legitimate union
purpose by ignoring a clear ruling from this Court and attempting to introduce such
evidence through a post-trial declaration from President Gary Hummel. As explained in
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 257), the Court must not allow that. The Declaration
and ¶¶ 11, 14, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41 and 42, of Doc. 260, which rely on it, should be stricken.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
USAPA also argues that because Plaintiffs did not prove an illegitimate purpose,
USAPA is now legally free and clear. That USAPA refused to allow Mr. Szymanski, the
only person who knows the purpose of § 10(h), to testify regarding its purpose somehow
is irrelevant. USAPA is a labor organization and certified bargaining representative for
the West Pilots. It owes fiduciary duties to the West Pilots. That is has intentionally
obfuscated the intent of §10(h) and is now attempting to use that tactic against the West
Pilots is evidence of its utter inability to act fairly when it comes to the West Pilots.
Indeed, USAPA’s only evidence that it can fairly represent the West Pilots in McCaskill-
Bond process is self-serving testimony and West Pilots’ appointments to minority
positions within USAPA. USAPA’s representations are empty words and the minority
positions are worth nothing when it comes to seniority.
USAPA is now legally free and clear. That USAPA refused to allow Mr. Szymanski, the
only person who knows the purpose of § 10(h), to testify regarding its purpose somehow
is irrelevant. USAPA is a labor organization and certified bargaining representative for
the West Pilots. It owes fiduciary duties to the West Pilots. That is has intentionally
obfuscated the intent of §10(h) and is now attempting to use that tactic against the West
Pilots is evidence of its utter inability to act fairly when it comes to the West Pilots.
Indeed, USAPA’s only evidence that it can fairly represent the West Pilots in McCaskill-
Bond process is self-serving testimony and West Pilots’ appointments to minority
positions within USAPA. USAPA’s representations are empty words and the minority
positions are worth nothing when it comes to seniority.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
None of USAPA’s arguments are supported by the evidence in this matter.
USAPA believes that the “effect” of § 10(h) is a “clean slate” on seniority. [Colello,
Bradford, Hummel.] USAPA has also admitted that it will not propose the Nicolau
Award during McCaskill-Bond process. [Pauley.] The economic benefits of the MOU
were almost exclusively negotiated by APA, not USAPA. [Hummel, Colello, Owens,
Holmes]. The limited additional benefits that USAPA obtained had nothing to do with
§10(h). [Hummel, Colello, Owens, Holmes]. Finally and most damning is that the pay
rates in the MOU are the same as those that US Airways pilots would have received in
2007 if they had agreed to what is known as the Kirby Proposal. [Bradford]. The only
thing that USAPA really achieved with § 10(h) it that it believes this provision nullifies
its obligation to use the Nicolau Award. It has provided the Court no evidence as to why
it did so and thus has not established a legitimate union purpose. It has also failed to
were almost exclusively negotiated by APA, not USAPA. [Hummel, Colello, Owens,
Holmes]. The limited additional benefits that USAPA obtained had nothing to do with
§10(h). [Hummel, Colello, Owens, Holmes]. Finally and most damning is that the pay
rates in the MOU are the same as those that US Airways pilots would have received in
2007 if they had agreed to what is known as the Kirby Proposal. [Bradford]. The only
thing that USAPA really achieved with § 10(h) it that it believes this provision nullifies
its obligation to use the Nicolau Award. It has provided the Court no evidence as to why
it did so and thus has not established a legitimate union purpose. It has also failed to
rebut the evidence provided by Plaintiffs that establishes USAPA cannot represent the
West Pilots fairly in the McCaskill-Bond process
rebut the evidence provided by Plaintiffs that establishes USAPA cannot represent the
West Pilots fairly in the McCaskill-Bond process
USAPA believes that the “effect” of § 10(h) is a “clean slate” on seniority. [Colello,
Bradford, Hummel.] USAPA has also admitted that it will not propose the Nicolau
Award during McCaskill-Bond process. [Pauley.] The economic benefits of the MOU
were almost exclusively negotiated by APA, not USAPA. [Hummel, Colello, Owens,
Holmes]. The limited additional benefits that USAPA obtained had nothing to do with
§10(h). [Hummel, Colello, Owens, Holmes]. Finally and most damning is that the pay
rates in the MOU are the same as those that US Airways pilots would have received in
2007 if they had agreed to what is known as the Kirby Proposal. [Bradford]. The only
thing that USAPA really achieved with § 10(h) it that it believes this provision nullifies
its obligation to use the Nicolau Award. It has provided the Court no evidence as to why
it did so and thus has not established a legitimate union purpose. It has also failed to
were almost exclusively negotiated by APA, not USAPA. [Hummel, Colello, Owens,
Holmes]. The limited additional benefits that USAPA obtained had nothing to do with
§10(h). [Hummel, Colello, Owens, Holmes]. Finally and most damning is that the pay
rates in the MOU are the same as those that US Airways pilots would have received in
2007 if they had agreed to what is known as the Kirby Proposal. [Bradford]. The only
thing that USAPA really achieved with § 10(h) it that it believes this provision nullifies
its obligation to use the Nicolau Award. It has provided the Court no evidence as to why
it did so and thus has not established a legitimate union purpose. It has also failed to
rebut the evidence provided by Plaintiffs that establishes USAPA cannot represent the
West Pilots fairly in the McCaskill-Bond process
rebut the evidence provided by Plaintiffs that establishes USAPA cannot represent the
West Pilots fairly in the McCaskill-Bond process
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
There is no evidence showing that the other parties to the MOU wanted to change
the McCaskill-Bond language from what was contained in MOU I. The evidence shows
that it was USAPA that unilaterally insisted on amending the McCaskill-Bond provision
from MOU I. [Colello; JPS, Doc. 206-1, Stipulations of Fact, at ¶ § F(94)].
The intent of adding Section 10(h) could not be established by anyone from
USAPA, other than Mr. Szymanski, who refused to sit for a deposition, or testify at trial.
[Exhibits 129-130; Transcript at 310:21-311:4]. However, everyone from USAPA now
agrees that the effect of Section 10(h) was to nullify the obligation to use the Nicolau
Award. [Hummel, Bradford, Colello].
the McCaskill-Bond language from what was contained in MOU I. The evidence shows
that it was USAPA that unilaterally insisted on amending the McCaskill-Bond provision
from MOU I. [Colello; JPS, Doc. 206-1, Stipulations of Fact, at ¶ § F(94)].
The intent of adding Section 10(h) could not be established by anyone from
USAPA, other than Mr. Szymanski, who refused to sit for a deposition, or testify at trial.
[Exhibits 129-130; Transcript at 310:21-311:4]. However, everyone from USAPA now
agrees that the effect of Section 10(h) was to nullify the obligation to use the Nicolau
Award. [Hummel, Bradford, Colello].
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Mr. Colello’s testimony that USAPA worked collectively for the good of
all pilots is self-serving. Mr. Colello testified that the MOU created a “clean slate” for
USAPA with respect to the Nicolau Award and that he did not inform any West Pilot that
this was the effect of §10(h). [Colello].
6. See Response to ¶ 5. USAPA’s argument that bargaining is a “give and
take” is canned testimony intended to divert the Court’s attention from the fact that
USAPA does not provide a legitimate union purpose for inclusion of § 10(h) and its
failure to disclose the “effect” of § 10(h) until this litigation. USAPA has admitted that it
did not receive anything of value for the inclusion of § 10(h). [Colello, Holmes]. With
respect to §10(h), there was nothing but give on the part of West Pilots (lose the Nicolau
Award) and take on the part of East Pilots (Date of Hire List).
all pilots is self-serving. Mr. Colello testified that the MOU created a “clean slate” for
USAPA with respect to the Nicolau Award and that he did not inform any West Pilot that
this was the effect of §10(h). [Colello].
6. See Response to ¶ 5. USAPA’s argument that bargaining is a “give and
take” is canned testimony intended to divert the Court’s attention from the fact that
USAPA does not provide a legitimate union purpose for inclusion of § 10(h) and its
failure to disclose the “effect” of § 10(h) until this litigation. USAPA has admitted that it
did not receive anything of value for the inclusion of § 10(h). [Colello, Holmes]. With
respect to §10(h), there was nothing but give on the part of West Pilots (lose the Nicolau
Award) and take on the part of East Pilots (Date of Hire List).
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
USAPA has provided no admissible evidence as to why § 10(h) was
included in the MOU. [Colello, Hummel, Pauley, Holmes]. Instead, USAPA’s counsel,
who drafted the language but refused to testify to its purpose, argues its purpose was to
“make clear” the “status quo” would continue. That Mr. Szymanski is the same person
who wrote §10(h), is defending USAPA in this lawsuit and is merger counsel underscores
the inability of USAPA to recognize or avoid a conflict of interest on seniority.
Without §10(h), the procedures in the 2005 Transition Agreement would control
East/West integration. According to the testimony of USAPA’s officers and NAC
Chairman, § 10(h) nullifies those provisions by providing USAPA a “clean slate.”
[Colello, Hummel, Bradford]. It also allows USAPA to dictate East/West seniority
integration, or in other words subject the West Pilots to a date of hire list with East Pilots,
which was not the status quo prior to the MOU. [Pauley (depo.) at 18:18-20:16; Ciabatoni
(depo.) 50:7-50:15; Crimi (depo.) at 94:18-94:24; Bradford (depo.) at 52:23- 53:6].
included in the MOU. [Colello, Hummel, Pauley, Holmes]. Instead, USAPA’s counsel,
who drafted the language but refused to testify to its purpose, argues its purpose was to
“make clear” the “status quo” would continue. That Mr. Szymanski is the same person
who wrote §10(h), is defending USAPA in this lawsuit and is merger counsel underscores
the inability of USAPA to recognize or avoid a conflict of interest on seniority.
Without §10(h), the procedures in the 2005 Transition Agreement would control
East/West integration. According to the testimony of USAPA’s officers and NAC
Chairman, § 10(h) nullifies those provisions by providing USAPA a “clean slate.”
[Colello, Hummel, Bradford]. It also allows USAPA to dictate East/West seniority
integration, or in other words subject the West Pilots to a date of hire list with East Pilots,
which was not the status quo prior to the MOU. [Pauley (depo.) at 18:18-20:16; Ciabatoni
(depo.) 50:7-50:15; Crimi (depo.) at 94:18-94:24; Bradford (depo.) at 52:23- 53:6].
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
It is apparent there was a “secret agenda” with respect to § 10(h). Only Mr.
Szymanski knows the purpose or intent of Section 10(h). [Hummel, Pauley, Colello,
Owens [dep.], Homes]. He refused to testify. [¶ 3, supra]. Before ratification USAPA
took the position that the MOU was “neutral” on seniority, after ratification it states that §
10(h) gave USAPA a “clean slate.” [Colello, Holmes, Scherff]. The only plausible reason
for doing so was to trick the West Pilots to voting in favor of the MOU
Szymanski knows the purpose or intent of Section 10(h). [Hummel, Pauley, Colello,
Owens [dep.], Homes]. He refused to testify. [¶ 3, supra]. Before ratification USAPA
took the position that the MOU was “neutral” on seniority, after ratification it states that §
10(h) gave USAPA a “clean slate.” [Colello, Holmes, Scherff]. The only plausible reason
for doing so was to trick the West Pilots to voting in favor of the MOU
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
USAPA never disclosed to the West Pilots during the roadshows that the
MOU abandoned the obligation to use the Nicolau Award. [Holmes, Scherff] Instead, the
West Pilots were told that the MOU was seniority “neutral” and that their vote on the
MOU should not be predicated in any way on the Nicolau Award. [Ex. 78, 124, 125].
21. Prior to the ratification vote on the MOU, USAPA did not disclose to the
West Pilots that the “effect” of § 10(h) was to nullify the TA obligation to use the
Nicolau Award. [Scherff, Holmes, Colello] When speaking to East Pilots at a Charlotte
domicile road show, Mr. Szymanski stated that he regarded the Nicolau Award as “dead.”
[Holmes; Scherff; Ex. 131, Ex. 123]. The Phoenix domicile roadshow occurred after the
Charlotte one and Mr. Szymanski changed his tune, going back to the MOU is “neutral.”
[Scherff, Holmes]. Whether Mr. Szymanski was playing to the East audience by saying
the Nic was “dead” was unclear to the West Pilots in the audience. [Holmes
MOU abandoned the obligation to use the Nicolau Award. [Holmes, Scherff] Instead, the
West Pilots were told that the MOU was seniority “neutral” and that their vote on the
MOU should not be predicated in any way on the Nicolau Award. [Ex. 78, 124, 125].
21. Prior to the ratification vote on the MOU, USAPA did not disclose to the
West Pilots that the “effect” of § 10(h) was to nullify the TA obligation to use the
Nicolau Award. [Scherff, Holmes, Colello] When speaking to East Pilots at a Charlotte
domicile road show, Mr. Szymanski stated that he regarded the Nicolau Award as “dead.”
[Holmes; Scherff; Ex. 131, Ex. 123]. The Phoenix domicile roadshow occurred after the
Charlotte one and Mr. Szymanski changed his tune, going back to the MOU is “neutral.”
[Scherff, Holmes]. Whether Mr. Szymanski was playing to the East audience by saying
the Nic was “dead” was unclear to the West Pilots in the audience. [Holmes
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
26. USAPA did not disclose to the West Pilots that the “effect” of § 10(h)
would be to nullify the obligation in the TA to utilize the Nicolau Award. See ¶¶ 19-21,
supra. USAPA has also failed to articulate what the legitimate union purpose of
including §10(h) in the MOU was other than generalities about the economic benefits of
the MOU, all of which are unrelated to Section 10(h). See ¶¶ 6, 10, supra.
27. Although USAPA indicates in the Summary of Evidence that it intends to
use Date of Hire for purposes of integration with the American pilots, the Chairman of its
Merger Committee would not answer this question on the stand and stated that USAPA
would go into McCaskill-Bond process with two lists: East and West. [Pauley]. Despite
Mr. Pauley’s attempts to mislead the Court, it is obvious to all that USAPA will go into
McCaskill-Bond process with its pilots organized by date of hire list(s). See ¶ 10, supra.
28. Exhibit 310 was an internal discussion amongst Plaintiffs regarding the
“intent behind the language in the MOU.” USAPA has still failed to provide that intent.
Plaintiffs’ suppositions on USAPA’s intent with respect to the MOU, or its effect are
simply evidence of USAPA’s failure to provide that information to the West Pilots prior
to the vote on the MOU. That some Plaintiffs or members of Leonidas ultimately
guessed the “effect” of § 10(h), which USAPA cannot even stand by in its pleadings, is
hardly surprising or somehow an effective waiver. See ¶ 14.
29. See ¶ 28. The MOU not including reference to the Nicolau Award is of no
probative value. Mr. Koontz, one of Leonidas’ founders, testified this “made sense”
because other CBA’s, like the Kirby proposal, also did not include reference to the
Nicolau Award. [Koontz]. There is no evidence that the West Pilots, Leonidas or
Captain Holmes knew, prior to the ratification vote, that USAPA intended for the MOU
to nullify its obligation to utilize the Nicolau Award.
Leonidas and its members like Captain Holmes have been fighting for six
years,
with their own funds, for the Nicolau. That they recommended that the West Pilots vote
in favor of the MOU is evidence of the lack of disclosure by USAPA and the confusion
created by USAPA, Mr. Szymanski and § 10(h).
would be to nullify the obligation in the TA to utilize the Nicolau Award. See ¶¶ 19-21,
supra. USAPA has also failed to articulate what the legitimate union purpose of
including §10(h) in the MOU was other than generalities about the economic benefits of
the MOU, all of which are unrelated to Section 10(h). See ¶¶ 6, 10, supra.
27. Although USAPA indicates in the Summary of Evidence that it intends to
use Date of Hire for purposes of integration with the American pilots, the Chairman of its
Merger Committee would not answer this question on the stand and stated that USAPA
would go into McCaskill-Bond process with two lists: East and West. [Pauley]. Despite
Mr. Pauley’s attempts to mislead the Court, it is obvious to all that USAPA will go into
McCaskill-Bond process with its pilots organized by date of hire list(s). See ¶ 10, supra.
28. Exhibit 310 was an internal discussion amongst Plaintiffs regarding the
“intent behind the language in the MOU.” USAPA has still failed to provide that intent.
Plaintiffs’ suppositions on USAPA’s intent with respect to the MOU, or its effect are
simply evidence of USAPA’s failure to provide that information to the West Pilots prior
to the vote on the MOU. That some Plaintiffs or members of Leonidas ultimately
guessed the “effect” of § 10(h), which USAPA cannot even stand by in its pleadings, is
hardly surprising or somehow an effective waiver. See ¶ 14.
29. See ¶ 28. The MOU not including reference to the Nicolau Award is of no
probative value. Mr. Koontz, one of Leonidas’ founders, testified this “made sense”
because other CBA’s, like the Kirby proposal, also did not include reference to the
Nicolau Award. [Koontz]. There is no evidence that the West Pilots, Leonidas or
Captain Holmes knew, prior to the ratification vote, that USAPA intended for the MOU
to nullify its obligation to utilize the Nicolau Award.
Leonidas and its members like Captain Holmes have been fighting for six
years,
with their own funds, for the Nicolau. That they recommended that the West Pilots vote
in favor of the MOU is evidence of the lack of disclosure by USAPA and the confusion
created by USAPA, Mr. Szymanski and § 10(h).
- Status
