US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

So while you smugly take pot shots at this fine gentleman, just put yourself in his place that January day. First trip out of OE, never flew the Airbus previously, three minutes from bird ingestion til splashdown.

I wonder if you, or any of us, could have done as well under those circumstances.

I would have gone toga and used the running engine to land at the airport instead of the river.

 

[luvthe9]

I would have gone toga and used the running engine to land at the airport instead of the river.

Gotta love back seat drivers. B)

 

[SparrowHawk]

I would have gone toga and used the running engine to land at the airport instead of the river.

Monday Morning Quaterbacking is rather unbecoming in this particular circumstance. First off since you weren't there it is impossible to state what you would or would not have done. Nobody knows what they will do when faced with a specific set of conditions until they face those conditions. Simulators are great and make good pilots into great ones, but it's just like the sport of boxing, your sparring and training will take you far, but until you get hit the ring and get tagged with a left hook it's all story hour.

Secondly, we have proof positive that Captain Sullenberger and First Officer Skiles made exactly the right decision! HOW? The same number who walked on walked off none the worse for wear physically.

Some things are pretty simple, this is such a case.

 

[A320 Driver]

I would have gone toga and used the running engine to land at the airport instead of the river.

TOGA buys you nothing. One engine was dead and the other around 35% N1.

Undershoot and you fly into the side of a pier. Overshoot and you hit a barrier. Either way you are dead.

Sure you want to attempt that Buck Rogers?

Driver B)

 

[luvthe9]

124 vs 186 -

Your bragging about 144 vs 186, not much better.

 

[nevergiveup]

I would have gone toga and used the running engine to land at the airport instead of the river.

and killed many people. Why care about the plane....it's insured!!!!

 

[Al Legheny]

Think of this boys

DCA, PHX and Seham Ally To Topple USAPA Leadership


Fellow Pilots,


The above headline may appear too fantastic to believe but it is in fact what is happening as you read this. It is very easy to understand why PHX, and the Company too for that matter, would like to see Cleary and Mowery unseated but because of this very fact it is beyond reason how any east representative can fail to recognize how such an act would play to our opponents’ greatest wishes. Seham’s motivation is age old and quite simple - money.


To understand how this came together some history is in order. Seham, from the onset, has been USAPA’s go-to legal counsel. For a variety of reasons USAPA, under the guidance of President Cleary and Vice President Mowery, has enlisted the help of {Firm} Odwyre. This firm has taken center stage in the status quo litigation that has just concluded. Seeing this has caused Seham to undoubtedly question his shelf life here and whether his firm’s coffers are going to suffer as a result.


That’s where the high drama enters the picture. USAPA Vice President Randy Mowery has been involved in a long term committed relationship with a former Seham employee. When this relationship began taking root, some eighteen months ago, Mowery, Cleary and this former employee took the matter to Seham and Scott Petersen (Seham partner) for their consideration, in the interest of transparency and due diligence to the union. Both Seham and Petersen unequivocally stated that there was no conflict of interest where this relationship was concerned and no issue on the matter was raised until recently - coincident with Odwyer’s rise to increasing influence.


Suddenly, Seham has changed his answer and now claims that a great impropriety has taken place which can not go unaddressed. First it is important to understand that this is the exact opposite of what he and Petersen told the parties and what they have endorsed for the last eighteen months. Second, it should be recognized that Seham’s claims are completely baseless, both under the law and as a matter of simple common sense. Finally, it is vital to understand that if Seham’s stated concerns were legitimate then he never would have expressly condoned the matter when it was initially brought to his attention let alone for the last eighteen months.


The math here is simple. Seham sees his business slipping away and has aligned himself with Cleary’s and Mowery’s political opposition in the slimiest form of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” politics. All of this is going to be revealed at the August 25 BPR meeting at USAPA headquarters in CLT. DCA and PHX are going to give Seham the venue he seeks to assure that his cash flow is not eroded by Odwyre and they in return will have the opportunity to aid the advancement of their chosen candidates into USAPA’s leadership - both efforts facilitated by trying to cripple Cleary and Mowrey.


All you have to know if you are trying to get to the bottom of which side to be on is that the Company and AOL are foaming at the mouth at the prospect of seeing the unseating of the leadership that is responsible for the unrelenting effort that is frustrating their attempts to profit at your expense.


Pick up your phones and call your reps. Get to CLT tomorrow August 25 and catch the Best Western Sterling van to USAPA HQ for the meeting. These malcontents need to hear loud and clear from you to knock it the hell off NOW! It may be the most important thing you ever do for your career.

Baseless charges?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Attorney-Client+Relationship

Attorney Misconduct
(redirected from Attorney-Client Relationship


Behavior by an attorney that conflicts with established rules of professional conduct and is punishable by disciplinary measures.

Attorney-Client Sexual Relations
The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized sexual relations between attorneys and their clients as a significant ethical problem for the legal profession. The ABA's Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility addressed this issue in 1992 by issuing a formal opinion (no. 92-364). Although the opinion acknowledged that the Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not specifically address the issue of attorney-client sex, it argued that an attorney's sexual relationship with a current client "may involve unfair exploitation of the lawyer's fiduciary position and presents a significant danger that the lawyer's ability to represent the client adequately may be impaired, and that as a consequence the lawyer may violate both the Model Rules and the Model Code." Becoming sexually intimate with a client, the opinion adds, undermines the "objective detachment" necessary for Legal Representation because "[t]he roles of lover and lawyer are potentially conflicting ones." In addition, the opinion argued, attorney-client sex introduces a clear conflict of interest into a case, and it may also compromise Attorney-Client Privilege, the principle that ensures the confidentiality of lawyer-client communication. Any secrets revealed to an attorney by a client outside of their legal relationship may not be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Seham or Petersen don't have the authority to OK this relationship. That is not the issue, the issue is that it appears that the lawyer client relationship and lawyer client privileged may be breached. This is against ABA rules of conduct. This arrangement has not been disclosed to the board prior to this time. This female lawyer doesn't work for the Vice President she works for the Union and it looks like the BPR was not aware of this.

The Vice President does not act on his own behalf but on the behalf of all USAPA members in good standing. It is a clear ethical violation and it is clear that there has been a cover up. Why does this lawyer no longer work for Seham? Does the BPR know that she is now working for the Union? Was there a vote for new legal representation? the president does not have the authority to hire and fire without the consent of the Board?

Could it be that the current leadership doesn't like having adults around telling them that they shouldn't do things like file lawsuits in New York or engage in activities that will result in injunctions? Maybe its easier to hire lawyers who do what the President wants and doesn't talk back? Of course there is the question of a lack of Board approval, who is going to pay if the BPR balks?

 

[3dtv]

Excellent comments.

 

[prechilill]

Your bragging about 144 vs 186, not much better.

The AWA MEC would have had a lot more than 144 right now but you stole my union from me you scab.

 

[Reed Richards]

I would have gone toga and used the running engine to land at the airport instead of the river.

You must be a real hoot at the neighborhood cook out, wearing your bomber jacket and tinted aviators.

Nothing wrong with pontification on what "I would have done." We all think it. You are just stupid enough to verbalize an acknowledged failed strategy.

Kudos to Jeff, as if he needs that from me.

RR

 

[luvn737s]

I had the privilege of flying with Jeff shortly before he took advantage of a three year leave.

He is in fact a great guy and a great pilot.

So while you smugly take pot shots at this fine gentleman, just put yourself in his place that January day. First trip out of OE, never flew the Airbus previously, three minutes from bird ingestion til splashdown.

I wonder if you, or any of us, could have done as well under those circumstances.

You used to be one of the more credible West posters on here, and have always made a good case for the West position since the Nic was rendered.

Don't let posts like the one above ruin your reputation. And bring back the Chevy!

You are right.

In all the hero worship, though, there has been far too little analysis of what they did wrong as well as what they did right, so we can learn little more than what supermen these two were.

But that doesn't excuse me from feeding into the vitriol (like the stuff above) that fuels this board.

 

[prechilill]

Mowrey quote of the day "My butt hurts Mike"

 

[N924PS]

I would have gone toga and used the running engine to land at the airport instead of the river.

It wouldn't have worked. Read this:

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf

You may not like Sully or Jeff because of their testimony in the Addington case. I don't think they should have been there either.

Having said that, they are still two fine fellows and aviators. You couldn't have hand picked two better pilots to represent our profession as they did, given their Lindbergh like notoriety.

For you youngsters, that's Charles A. Lindbergh. Flew the Atlantic solo in the Ryan NYP (New York-Paris) in 1927. No GPS or autopilot, just an Earth Inductor compass, sitting on a wicker seat for 33 or so hours. Just about as amazing as ditching a wounded Airbus 320 in the Hudson River with no loss of life. And he planned his trip, a luxury Sully and Jeff did not enjoy.

 

[Art at ISP]

It wouldn't have worked. Read this:

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/AAR1003.pdf

You may not like Sully or Jeff because of their testimony in the Addington case. I don't think they should have been their either.

Having said that, they are still two fine fellows and aviators. You couldn't have hand picked two pilots to represent our profession as they did, given their Lindbergh like notoriety.

For you youngsters, that's Charles A. Lindbergh. Flew the Atlantic solo in the Ryan NYP (New York-Paris) in 1927. No GPS or autopilot, just an Earth Inductor compass, sitting on a wicker seat for 33 or so hours. Just about as amazing as ditching a wounded Airbus 320 in the Hudson River with no loss of life. And he planned his trip, a luxury Sully and Jeff did not enjoy.

Very well said, sir.

 

[luvthe9]

The AWA MEC would have had a lot more than 144 right now but you stole my union from me you scab.

Oh please, do tell how you would have done so much better, your the second lowest paid in the industry. I guess you guys are OK with that, enjoy all that stagnation. 😛