Originally Posted by
SewerPipeDvr
Your error is "moral" vs. "legal". They have no personal legal obligation to tell the west pilots what is in Section 10. That is reserved for USAPA. So the Judge will not allow any testimony about that to influence the decision. What I think the Judge will do is give the seat to the west for MB. That is not a "win" for the west. They still have to present their proposal in a way that gets them what they want. They would be stupid to ask strict NIC. CAL asked for stupid stuff and got their asses handed to them. Look at the UAL/CAL merger and that is what the arbitrators will follow. I think the east will not get most west stapled to the bottom. They will get slotted higher, no fence for WBs. I do not feel it is right to put a new hire next to a 17 year pilot, but honestly US was going to shut down if the merger had not gone through and that is what GN was basing his thoughts on. And by the way the old man is still pretty sharp. I heard him speak a couple of years ago at a legal conference. He is not stupid. However I don't think the east need to fear what the MB arbitrators will do. There will be no "revenge" for not following the NIC. Last thought for tonight, the east attorney put the Hummel testimony in his post trial filing knowing the Judge would not allow it. He will try to use it on appeal if needed.
I think we may agree more than disagree, but I'm still confused by a couple of things you've written.
You say that the PHX REPS have no legal obligation to the PHX pilots, that is USAPA's responsibility, but the PHX reps ARE a part of USAPA. I'm not talking about the Addington plaintiffs. Just like 2 of the 4 members of the Negotiating Advisory Committee were west pilots, USAPA members and one happened to be a leader of AOL LLC. The guy that helped write the document he is now suing over has no legal obligation to the people he represents?
As far as Hummel's testimony, he had open heart surgery just before the hearing. Maybe he was dodging actually testifying so he wouldn't face the west attorneys, but I've never heard of elective bypass surgery and when my father went through it I wouldn't have wanted him testifying for a while as he was kind of out it. But, Hummel did have a pre-trial deposition on Sept 17th where he said much the same thing that he did on his post-trial statement. That gave the west the time to find rebuttal evidence and witnesses. That is why I asked Cacti why didn't they call Kirby if he really didn't have anything to do with the seniority part of the MOU.
I agree with the rest. Contrary to WD and Cacti's assertions, I'm no diehard USAPA fan. Many of the officers and reps have had issues (lot's of great committee folks that work their tails off for all of us though) and I don't take ANYTHING that comes from them on seniority at face value. I try to read and find out for myself. I actually read the MOU and asked myself what it meant to me. What I got was an acknowledgement that the past course of action had failed. That TA had us with one side's hand around the others neck, and one with the jewels of the other in their hand. Stalemate. We were going to be left behind with the APA making all the decisions and then brought in after the fact and left making our lousy money until we had a new agreement. The MOU put aside the SLI battle that resided in the TA, and left it for the MB type process. The TA was never completed and at POR goes poof, along with the Nic AND a east/west DOH list. With that MB type process I expect something like what happened at UA/CO.
The only other thing I'm confused about is your comment that the APA will control things and not let them get out of hand. No following you on that one and you didn't answer me earlier.
Thanks for your input.