Delta Pilots Association
10-13-2011 | 05:51 PM
#6531
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
I am sorry but you are viewing this process through an industrial lens and not through a scientific lens. There were no tradeoffs done to satisfy any party. What the ARC did was to look at two very large studies done on pilot fatigue along with other scientific research on sleep and fatigue. Most of what they found falls into the pilot "duh" category and includes:
The ETOPS issue is just another DPA red herring. First, our contract prohibits ocean crossings over 8 hours without augmentation. Our contract already contains many restrictions far beyond the FAA minimums so it seems unlikely that there is any consensus amongst our pilots that we would want to change this provision.
Carl
10-14-2011 | 02:47 AM
#6532
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,462
Likes: 0
Working 10 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 8
Working 8 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 6
Working 6 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 4
Working 4 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 2
Do you see a pattern yet???
What the ARC and Alfa and all other reasonable people are saying, is you can do the emotional thing, and cherry pick one item you don't like, and tube the whole set of scientifically based work rules, or you can actually use the results of the study, whatever they conclude, and go with that.
No where in the study did it say that 10 was less fatiguing than 8. What it did say, was that 10 was safe just as all of the other parameters.
It is also my understanding that ALPA recommended no more than 9, and the ATA wanted higher flight times through much of the day, and the current FAA proposal is a mix of the two. I don't believe ALPA has given up trying to get the final rule to be 9.
As APA and USAPA continue to show, when you insist on getting everything you want, which only works in forumland, you often end up with nothing that you want. In the real world, if you can get 90% of what you want, sign the deal. Because you will NEVER get everything you want.
10-14-2011 | 02:34 PM
#6533
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
From: 767
No, I did not. It was not a pilot source. Just wondering if anyone has a USAPA source that can comment if the DPA attorney had been fired from USAPA for fraudulent activity.
Obviously there has not been progress over there. Some think that's good. If Delta pilots were to be guided by the same hand, we would hardly think no progress is good.
10-14-2011 | 06:59 PM
#6534
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
More on TWA lawsuit
October 14, 2011
ALPA Digs Deeper Hole in TWA Case
In July of 2011, ALPA was found guilty of harming the TWA Pilots it should have been representing during the merger with American Airlines. In the hope of wooing the American Pilots into joining ALPA, ALPA caused significant harm to the TWA Pilots.
In response to the GUILTY verdict and in an attempt to avoid requested damages of up to $1.2 Billion, ALPA made a recent attempt to discredit the attorneys representing the TWA Pilots. ALPA attorneys accused the TWA attorneys of coaching their witnesses and falsifying testimony, otherwise known as suborning perjury. This is one of the most serious charges an attorney can face as it can lead to disbarring. By making this serious accusation, ALPA attorneys hoped to have the trial and GUILTY verdict thrown out.
The U.S. District Court flatly rejected the accusation and, instead, granted a Rule 11 sanction against the ALPA attorneys. Rule 11 requires that motions be non-frivolous and contain supporting evidence, neither of which did ALPA attorneys comply with. A Rule 11 sanction is extremely rare and occasionally leads to disbarring as well. In this case, ALPA attorneys were fined $5,000.00 to be paid directly to the TWA attorneys along with all legal expenses incurred by the TWA attorneys.
ALPA claims they will fight the GUILTY verdict and drag out the damages process, so Delta Pilots need not worry about a potential assessment. The U.S. District Court showed disdain for the ALPA attorneys' lack of professionalism and quickly dispatched their attempt to discredit the TWA attorneys, one of whom is being considered for the Supreme Court of Missouri. If future attempts to drag out the process are this weak and ill-prepared, ALPA members may see the damage award and potential levied assessments in very short order.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
READ THE ORDER GRANTING SANCTION
READ THE GUILTY VERDICT
READ THE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER
READ THE SEHAM EXPERT REPORT
Delta Pilots deserve high caliber representation that focuses solely on our needs. The ALPA National leadership continues to make strategic errors by even choosing to attack potential Supreme Court nominees. Take the time to read the above documents to learn about the level of service you pay twice the industry average for.
ALPA Digs Deeper Hole in TWA Case
In July of 2011, ALPA was found guilty of harming the TWA Pilots it should have been representing during the merger with American Airlines. In the hope of wooing the American Pilots into joining ALPA, ALPA caused significant harm to the TWA Pilots.
In response to the GUILTY verdict and in an attempt to avoid requested damages of up to $1.2 Billion, ALPA made a recent attempt to discredit the attorneys representing the TWA Pilots. ALPA attorneys accused the TWA attorneys of coaching their witnesses and falsifying testimony, otherwise known as suborning perjury. This is one of the most serious charges an attorney can face as it can lead to disbarring. By making this serious accusation, ALPA attorneys hoped to have the trial and GUILTY verdict thrown out.
The U.S. District Court flatly rejected the accusation and, instead, granted a Rule 11 sanction against the ALPA attorneys. Rule 11 requires that motions be non-frivolous and contain supporting evidence, neither of which did ALPA attorneys comply with. A Rule 11 sanction is extremely rare and occasionally leads to disbarring as well. In this case, ALPA attorneys were fined $5,000.00 to be paid directly to the TWA attorneys along with all legal expenses incurred by the TWA attorneys.
ALPA claims they will fight the GUILTY verdict and drag out the damages process, so Delta Pilots need not worry about a potential assessment. The U.S. District Court showed disdain for the ALPA attorneys' lack of professionalism and quickly dispatched their attempt to discredit the TWA attorneys, one of whom is being considered for the Supreme Court of Missouri. If future attempts to drag out the process are this weak and ill-prepared, ALPA members may see the damage award and potential levied assessments in very short order.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
READ THE ORDER GRANTING SANCTION
READ THE GUILTY VERDICT
READ THE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER
READ THE SEHAM EXPERT REPORT
Delta Pilots deserve high caliber representation that focuses solely on our needs. The ALPA National leadership continues to make strategic errors by even choosing to attack potential Supreme Court nominees. Take the time to read the above documents to learn about the level of service you pay twice the industry average for.
10-14-2011 | 07:33 PM
#6535
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
October 14, 2011
ALPA Digs Deeper Hole in TWA Case
In July of 2011, ALPA was found guilty of harming the TWA Pilots it should have been representing during the merger with American Airlines. In the hope of wooing the American Pilots into joining ALPA, ALPA caused significant harm to the TWA Pilots.
In response to the GUILTY verdict and in an attempt to avoid requested damages of up to $1.2 Billion, ALPA made a recent attempt to discredit the attorneys representing the TWA Pilots. ALPA attorneys accused the TWA attorneys of coaching their witnesses and falsifying testimony, otherwise known as suborning perjury. This is one of the most serious charges an attorney can face as it can lead to disbarring. By making this serious accusation, ALPA attorneys hoped to have the trial and GUILTY verdict thrown out.
The U.S. District Court flatly rejected the accusation and, instead, granted a Rule 11 sanction against the ALPA attorneys. Rule 11 requires that motions be non-frivolous and contain supporting evidence, neither of which did ALPA attorneys comply with. A Rule 11 sanction is extremely rare and occasionally leads to disbarring as well. In this case, ALPA attorneys were fined $5,000.00 to be paid directly to the TWA attorneys along with all legal expenses incurred by the TWA attorneys.
ALPA claims they will fight the GUILTY verdict and drag out the damages process, so Delta Pilots need not worry about a potential assessment. The U.S. District Court showed disdain for the ALPA attorneys' lack of professionalism and quickly dispatched their attempt to discredit the TWA attorneys, one of whom is being considered for the Supreme Court of Missouri. If future attempts to drag out the process are this weak and ill-prepared, ALPA members may see the damage award and potential levied assessments in very short order.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
READ THE ORDER GRANTING SANCTION
READ THE GUILTY VERDICT
READ THE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER
READ THE SEHAM EXPERT REPORT
Delta Pilots deserve high caliber representation that focuses solely on our needs. The ALPA National leadership continues to make strategic errors by even choosing to attack potential Supreme Court nominees. Take the time to read the above documents to learn about the level of service you pay twice the industry average for.
ALPA Digs Deeper Hole in TWA Case
In July of 2011, ALPA was found guilty of harming the TWA Pilots it should have been representing during the merger with American Airlines. In the hope of wooing the American Pilots into joining ALPA, ALPA caused significant harm to the TWA Pilots.
In response to the GUILTY verdict and in an attempt to avoid requested damages of up to $1.2 Billion, ALPA made a recent attempt to discredit the attorneys representing the TWA Pilots. ALPA attorneys accused the TWA attorneys of coaching their witnesses and falsifying testimony, otherwise known as suborning perjury. This is one of the most serious charges an attorney can face as it can lead to disbarring. By making this serious accusation, ALPA attorneys hoped to have the trial and GUILTY verdict thrown out.
The U.S. District Court flatly rejected the accusation and, instead, granted a Rule 11 sanction against the ALPA attorneys. Rule 11 requires that motions be non-frivolous and contain supporting evidence, neither of which did ALPA attorneys comply with. A Rule 11 sanction is extremely rare and occasionally leads to disbarring as well. In this case, ALPA attorneys were fined $5,000.00 to be paid directly to the TWA attorneys along with all legal expenses incurred by the TWA attorneys.
ALPA claims they will fight the GUILTY verdict and drag out the damages process, so Delta Pilots need not worry about a potential assessment. The U.S. District Court showed disdain for the ALPA attorneys' lack of professionalism and quickly dispatched their attempt to discredit the TWA attorneys, one of whom is being considered for the Supreme Court of Missouri. If future attempts to drag out the process are this weak and ill-prepared, ALPA members may see the damage award and potential levied assessments in very short order.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
READ THE ORDER GRANTING SANCTION
READ THE GUILTY VERDICT
READ THE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER
READ THE SEHAM EXPERT REPORT
Delta Pilots deserve high caliber representation that focuses solely on our needs. The ALPA National leadership continues to make strategic errors by even choosing to attack potential Supreme Court nominees. Take the time to read the above documents to learn about the level of service you pay twice the industry average for.
MR. FRAM: Your Honor, could I just clarify in terms
of who the award is against? I assume it's against me.
THE COURT: Yes, it's not against the client (ALPA).
MR. FRAM: I just wanted to make sure.
THE COURT: It's not against ALPA. I have nothing in
the record that has suggested that somehow or other, and there
are cases where there is authority that Rule 11 can be against
a client if you can show, I believe if you can show that the
client played some role in bringing about the improper filing.
But I don't find that here. Maybe it was there but I don't
know about it, nothing in this record has suggested to me that
the motion was somehow or other ALPA's internal people were
beating up on outside counsel to file this motion. So far as
I know, this motion was the result of counsel's work. So, no.
And I'm also, actually, as part of my Order, that no part of
the $5,000 and no part of the fees can be charged back to
ALPA.
of who the award is against? I assume it's against me.
THE COURT: Yes, it's not against the client (ALPA).
MR. FRAM: I just wanted to make sure.
THE COURT: It's not against ALPA. I have nothing in
the record that has suggested that somehow or other, and there
are cases where there is authority that Rule 11 can be against
a client if you can show, I believe if you can show that the
client played some role in bringing about the improper filing.
But I don't find that here. Maybe it was there but I don't
know about it, nothing in this record has suggested to me that
the motion was somehow or other ALPA's internal people were
beating up on outside counsel to file this motion. So far as
I know, this motion was the result of counsel's work. So, no.
And I'm also, actually, as part of my Order, that no part of
the $5,000 and no part of the fees can be charged back to
ALPA.
MR. PRESS: This is Mr. Press. (TWA lawyer)
Again, Judge, I don't know really what to add. But,
first of all, thank you for denying Mr. Fram's (ALPA lawyer) motion. But in
doing that, Judge, you characterized the allegations as almost
reckless and dubious, and that characterization I would agree
with and I think it's squarely within what Rule 11 is designed
to punish.
We were defamed by Mr. Fram in a very serious and
public way. He may be immune from civil suit, but Rule 11
provides a remedy that we think is appropriate in this
situation. And we ask for you to grant our motion and enter
whatever sanction you deem appropriate.
Again, Judge, I don't know really what to add. But,
first of all, thank you for denying Mr. Fram's (ALPA lawyer) motion. But in
doing that, Judge, you characterized the allegations as almost
reckless and dubious, and that characterization I would agree
with and I think it's squarely within what Rule 11 is designed
to punish.
We were defamed by Mr. Fram in a very serious and
public way. He may be immune from civil suit, but Rule 11
provides a remedy that we think is appropriate in this
situation. And we ask for you to grant our motion and enter
whatever sanction you deem appropriate.
10-14-2011 | 08:24 PM
#6536
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
Carl, I know you are not this dense.
Working 10 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 8
Working 8 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 6
Working 6 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 4
Working 4 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 2
Do you see a pattern yet???
What the ARC and Alfa and all other reasonable people are saying, is you can do the emotional thing, and cherry pick one item you don't like, and tube the whole set of scientifically based work rules, or you can actually use the results of the study, whatever they conclude, and go with that.
No where in the study did it say that 10 was less fatiguing than 8. What it did say, was that 10 was safe just as all of the other parameters.
It is also my understanding that ALPA recommended no more than 9, and the ATA wanted higher flight times through much of the day, and the current FAA proposal is a mix of the two. I don't believe ALPA has given up trying to get the final rule to be 9.
As APA and USAPA continue to show, when you insist on getting everything you want, which only works in forumland, you often end up with nothing that you want. In the real world, if you can get 90% of what you want, sign the deal. Because you will NEVER get everything you want.
Working 10 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 8
Working 8 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 6
Working 6 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 4
Working 4 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 2
Do you see a pattern yet???
What the ARC and Alfa and all other reasonable people are saying, is you can do the emotional thing, and cherry pick one item you don't like, and tube the whole set of scientifically based work rules, or you can actually use the results of the study, whatever they conclude, and go with that.
No where in the study did it say that 10 was less fatiguing than 8. What it did say, was that 10 was safe just as all of the other parameters.
It is also my understanding that ALPA recommended no more than 9, and the ATA wanted higher flight times through much of the day, and the current FAA proposal is a mix of the two. I don't believe ALPA has given up trying to get the final rule to be 9.
As APA and USAPA continue to show, when you insist on getting everything you want, which only works in forumland, you often end up with nothing that you want. In the real world, if you can get 90% of what you want, sign the deal. Because you will NEVER get everything you want.
But I do find 1 predawn leg, 2 hour sit, 1 leg, 3 hour sit, weather delay, plane delay, 1 leg short short overnight, wait for van delay, early wake up, 5 legs with the last one delayed, fatiguing.
I also find going from the late shift to the early shift fatiguing on the same trip.
But the good thing about early morning flights, I can usually find bacon.
All that to say, fatigue is a function to me of duty day, previous rest, wake times, cumulative duty time on trip and boring sits- never flight hours.
10-14-2011 | 08:58 PM
#6537
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
Carl, I know you are not this dense.
Working 10 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 8
Working 8 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 6
Working 6 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 4
Working 4 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 2
Do you see a pattern yet???
Working 10 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 8
Working 8 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 6
Working 6 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 4
Working 4 hours is, of course, more fatiguing than working 2
Do you see a pattern yet???
What the ARC and Alfa and all other reasonable people are saying, is you can do the emotional thing, and cherry pick one item you don't like, and tube the whole set of scientifically based work rules, or you can actually use the results of the study, whatever they conclude, and go with that.
As APA and USAPA continue to show, when you insist on getting everything you want, which only works in forumland, you often end up with nothing that you want. In the real world, if you can get 90% of what you want, sign the deal. Because you will NEVER get everything you want.
Carl
10-14-2011 | 09:00 PM
#6538
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
No, I did not. It was not a pilot source. Just wondering if anyone has a USAPA source that can comment if the DPA attorney had been fired from USAPA for fraudulent activity.
Obviously there has not been progress over there. Some think that's good. If Delta pilots were to be guided by the same hand, we would hardly think no progress is good.
Obviously there has not been progress over there. Some think that's good. If Delta pilots were to be guided by the same hand, we would hardly think no progress is good.
Carl
10-14-2011 | 09:10 PM
#6539
Back on TDY
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,487
Likes: 0
From: 747-400 Captain
October 14, 2011
ALPA Digs Deeper Hole in TWA Case
In July of 2011, ALPA was found guilty of harming the TWA Pilots it should have been representing during the merger with American Airlines. In the hope of wooing the American Pilots into joining ALPA, ALPA caused significant harm to the TWA Pilots.
In response to the GUILTY verdict and in an attempt to avoid requested damages of up to $1.2 Billion, ALPA made a recent attempt to discredit the attorneys representing the TWA Pilots. ALPA attorneys accused the TWA attorneys of coaching their witnesses and falsifying testimony, otherwise known as suborning perjury. This is one of the most serious charges an attorney can face as it can lead to disbarring. By making this serious accusation, ALPA attorneys hoped to have the trial and GUILTY verdict thrown out.
The U.S. District Court flatly rejected the accusation and, instead, granted a Rule 11 sanction against the ALPA attorneys. Rule 11 requires that motions be non-frivolous and contain supporting evidence, neither of which did ALPA attorneys comply with. A Rule 11 sanction is extremely rare and occasionally leads to disbarring as well. In this case, ALPA attorneys were fined $5,000.00 to be paid directly to the TWA attorneys along with all legal expenses incurred by the TWA attorneys.
ALPA claims they will fight the GUILTY verdict and drag out the damages process, so Delta Pilots need not worry about a potential assessment. The U.S. District Court showed disdain for the ALPA attorneys' lack of professionalism and quickly dispatched their attempt to discredit the TWA attorneys, one of whom is being considered for the Supreme Court of Missouri. If future attempts to drag out the process are this weak and ill-prepared, ALPA members may see the damage award and potential levied assessments in very short order.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
READ THE ORDER GRANTING SANCTION
READ THE GUILTY VERDICT
READ THE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER
READ THE SEHAM EXPERT REPORT
Delta Pilots deserve high caliber representation that focuses solely on our needs. The ALPA National leadership continues to make strategic errors by even choosing to attack potential Supreme Court nominees. Take the time to read the above documents to learn about the level of service you pay twice the industry average for.
ALPA Digs Deeper Hole in TWA Case
In July of 2011, ALPA was found guilty of harming the TWA Pilots it should have been representing during the merger with American Airlines. In the hope of wooing the American Pilots into joining ALPA, ALPA caused significant harm to the TWA Pilots.
In response to the GUILTY verdict and in an attempt to avoid requested damages of up to $1.2 Billion, ALPA made a recent attempt to discredit the attorneys representing the TWA Pilots. ALPA attorneys accused the TWA attorneys of coaching their witnesses and falsifying testimony, otherwise known as suborning perjury. This is one of the most serious charges an attorney can face as it can lead to disbarring. By making this serious accusation, ALPA attorneys hoped to have the trial and GUILTY verdict thrown out.
The U.S. District Court flatly rejected the accusation and, instead, granted a Rule 11 sanction against the ALPA attorneys. Rule 11 requires that motions be non-frivolous and contain supporting evidence, neither of which did ALPA attorneys comply with. A Rule 11 sanction is extremely rare and occasionally leads to disbarring as well. In this case, ALPA attorneys were fined $5,000.00 to be paid directly to the TWA attorneys along with all legal expenses incurred by the TWA attorneys.
ALPA claims they will fight the GUILTY verdict and drag out the damages process, so Delta Pilots need not worry about a potential assessment. The U.S. District Court showed disdain for the ALPA attorneys' lack of professionalism and quickly dispatched their attempt to discredit the TWA attorneys, one of whom is being considered for the Supreme Court of Missouri. If future attempts to drag out the process are this weak and ill-prepared, ALPA members may see the damage award and potential levied assessments in very short order.
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
READ THE ORDER GRANTING SANCTION
READ THE GUILTY VERDICT
READ THE JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER
READ THE SEHAM EXPERT REPORT
Delta Pilots deserve high caliber representation that focuses solely on our needs. The ALPA National leadership continues to make strategic errors by even choosing to attack potential Supreme Court nominees. Take the time to read the above documents to learn about the level of service you pay twice the industry average for.
To have filed a motion that was so beyond the pale that you actually get a Rule 11 sanction, proves your legal skills and judgment are SO BAD that you really don't belong in law. In fact, I would file with the state bar to have this lawyer disbarred. It's that bad.
Wow!
Carl
10-15-2011 | 06:11 AM
#6540
At home on the maddog!
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 0
From: Retired (mandatory age 65)
This is so absolutely outrageous that I can hardly put this into words. I cannot even remember the last time I've heard of an attorney actually getting slapped with a Rule 11 sanction. I've had some really sleazy ambulance chasers cross-examine me in my time, and none of those sleaze balls ever got the Rule 11 slap that they deserved.
To have filed a motion that was so beyond the pale that you actually get a Rule 11 sanction, proves your legal skills and judgment are SO BAD that you really don't belong in law. In fact, I would file with the state bar to have this lawyer disbarred. It's that bad.
Wow!
Carl
To have filed a motion that was so beyond the pale that you actually get a Rule 11 sanction, proves your legal skills and judgment are SO BAD that you really don't belong in law. In fact, I would file with the state bar to have this lawyer disbarred. It's that bad.
Wow!
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lbell911
Regional
23
04-22-2012 10:33 AM
