This testimony, fool?

Q. You mentioned Scott Kirby. We have heard of something
called the Kirby proposal. And you mentioned that Scott Kirby
gave a presentation. Did the Kirby proposal get -- was that
offered at that meeting, or was it sometime later?
A. It was at that meeting, yes.
Q. Do you remember what the content of the Kirby proposal was?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What was it?
A. Well, it was something that was a non-starter. It was
woefully inadequate. I think that's a term -- I don't know if
John was there. I think Mitch Vasin might have been there at
that meeting. Both sides, even after the award came out, we
realized this was not going anywhere, this proposal. It kept
our defined contribution rate for retirement at 10 percent, and
I believe it only raised the current America West rates for
sort of narrow body equipment, only a few dollars into the
future.
It would have still kept us below the -- well below
the average median for airline pilots at the time and for the
life of the contract.
Q. I may not have been paying too close attention. Did you
say that both the East and the West MECs shared that view?
A. Absolutely. We were very concerned at that meeting that
the company leave with no misunderstanding about how we felt
about that proposal. We even rehearsed our, sort of, script
that we would, you know, speak to them when we got back into
session and everybody had sort of a role. Mitch and I think --
Mitch Vasin, vice-chairman at the time –

Q. For the West MEC?
A. West MEC, actually approached Scott by ourselves telling
him that I don't know what to be more shocked over, the
proposal or the fact that the company thinks that this was
something that would move the process along.
Q. Was there any dissent at all by anybody at the JNC, anybody
who did not think that it was woefully inadequate?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Did anybody ask Mr. Kirby at this meeting if there was any
other -- if there was a way that the Nicolau Award could be
addressed with the company, not with ALPA, not within your
groups, but with the company? Did he engage in any discussions
at all concerning the award?
A. There were several meetings, and I'm not sure if it was at
this meeting. But if it wasn't at this meeting it was the one
right after that in June where we were together with our -- the
same group of individuals, the East representatives, West
representatives, company representatives. Scott Kirby was
there. And I remember -- perhaps it might have been later on
because the Nicolau Award and the effects of it started to sink in.




Q. And in your other discussions with the company, had you
received some informal indication that they might be able --
might be willing to go up as high as 7 or 10 percent above the
West rate?
A. Nothing in writing.
Q. That wasn't my question. Good answer.
Was there informal discussions, sir, about the area in
which the final contract could wind up?
A. There were informal discussions, yes.
Q. And you have -- I don't remember whether you used
loggerhead or log-jam or what the phrase was, would you agree
with me, sir, that the stall in the forward progress of
negotiations towards a single CBA was because the East Pilots,
the East MEC, would not accept the Nicolau Award?
A. Not totally.
Q. Or list?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. I'm sorry. I will try it over. I interrupted you. I
apologize.
Isn't it fair to say that the forward progress towards
a single CBA was stalled because the West refused -- excuse
me -- the East refused to accept Nicolau List?
A. I believe that was one reason.
Q. Is that the primary reason that the East MEC did not move
forward with joint negotiations?
A. From this pilot, no.


Scott Kirby publicly contradicted that an additional 10% was available.


It's a fact that the cost of a JCBA went up after the Nicolau award came out. I'm sure we could have gotten a little better than Kirby, but I doubt enough to overcome the Nic. After the company saw how the Nic divided us, I really doubt it. Why would they?

Then we have the FACT that you guys filed an unripe DFR while we were negotiating a contract........