Sully's Story

[Sandhawk]

Had to do a double-take on your signature...at first I thought it read Captain John Prater.

stlflyguy

:laugh:

 

[Dan Roman]

Jealously, Hatred, and Envy -

Even my young children are familiar with those feelings

Metrojet

I used to think the same thing when I heard people bashing him. Give me a break, he did a good job and shined a positive light on our profession.
However, I'm staring to wonder about the guy. He really seems to be milking this for all the personal gain he can get.
The fact is, any of us faced with an instant choice of either aim for a large city or aim for a large open glassy body of water would all make the same choice. Keeping the wings level and landing simply wasn't that hard.
There have been many many instances were airline pilots exhibited much higher levels of airmanship and saved a plane load of passengers lives. The difference is, they kept it in perspective as "just doing their job" and didn't go on a campaign of aggressive self promotion for profit.

 

[Cowboy75]

I thought the same thing until the Sully & Skiles roadshow came to the courthouse. It has nothing to do with a DFR case. Their testimony is more relevant and entertaining on the Tonight Show.

 

[Abernathy]

wtf are you guys talking about. I've been out of the loop, what did Sully say to disgrace his image in the testimony?

 

[TWA Dude]

First, he showed up to testify as a witness at a trial that he had zero involvement in. Thus he allowed himself to be used as a tool.

Second, the whole point of him testifying was to tell the jury how unfair he felt the arbitration was. But you see, this trial isn't about the arbitration, it's about USAPA and DFR.

Finally while being examined by the defense he regurgitated a rehearsed speech about how his little girl asked him what "integrity" is. On cross-examination he admitted USAPA's actions didn't fit his own definition of integrity (abiding by agreements). So in the end he just humiliated himself.

Sully should've just kept himself out of it and not sullied his reputation.

 

[captairbusbb]

wtf are you guys talking about. I've been out of the loop, what did Sully say to disgrace his image in the testimony?

Sully "quoted" a prefabricated statement endorsed by usapa about his little daughter asking what integrity meant.

He stated to the court that when his daughter asked him what "integrity" meant, he spewed out a well rehearsed line something to the effect of, (and this is not a direct quote), that "integrity" means standing by your words to an agreement, even if it is not convenient.

Well, Sully is now a usapa supporter, and does not believe that final and binding is appropriate in this case, and has lost all his credibility re-affirming usapa's agreement that the NIC award was only a negotiating tool, and not meant to be looked at as a final award.

He is going from HERO to ZERO very quickly.

 

[captairbusbb]

Oh, and by the way Mr. God almighty Captain Chesley Sullenburger, I have lost all respect that was credited to you on your ill fated flight.

In your testimony, you could have ignored questions about what a great sky god you are and presented a forum that this is not about "me" or how brillianty "I" performed on Januay 15, and reminded everybody that this case is about the failure of usapa to represent FAIRLY both the east and the west, (which they don't) but you grandstanded yourself to deflect the true meaning of this trial.

You, Mr. Sullenburger, should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Jar Jar]

Finally while being examined by the defense he regurgitated a rehearsed speech about how his little girl asked him what "integrity" is. On cross-examination he admitted USAPA's actions didn't fit his own definition of integrity (abiding by agreements). So in the end he just humiliated himself.

We dont have a full transcript here, but if what you say is correct, isn't he actually modelling his deffinition of integrity?

Admitting that the actions of USAPA failed to fit his definition of integrity would not be personally convenient for him. But, it would be the truth and in that case has he not shown integrity on the stand?

In your testimony, you could have ignored questions about what a great sky god you are and presented a forum that this is not about "me" or how brillianty "I" performed on Januay 15, and reminded everybody that this case is about the failure of usapa to represent FAIRLY both the east and the west, (which they don't) but you grandstanded yourself to deflect the true meaning of this trial.

Were you at the trial to hear this grandstanding personally or do you have a transcript of it? I'd like to see this "grandstanding" of the events of Jan 15 because I'd certainly be surprised to find out that a judge or the West attorneys would allow such irrelivant information to be presented.

 

[vetrider]

Fahrenheit 451 for my copy of Sully's book this winter.

 

[TWA Dude]

We dont have a full transcript here, but if what you say is correct, isn't he actually modelling his deffinition of integrity?

I don't understand your question. Here's an exerpt from the transcript of the cross-examination of Sully. Harper is a Plaintiff's attorney, Brengle is a USAPA attorney. (Sorry for the bad formatting but it came from a PDF.)

BY MR. HARPER:
Q. So you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that when a pilot
gives his word, he or she should keep it?
A. Yes, I do, but as in most things in life, this has
consequences. And I believe that the consequence of that would
have been that the Nicolau Award would never have been
implemented because it would have required a common CBA, in
other words, the West MEC, and the East MEC would both have had
to have voted in favor of any combined contract that included
the use of the Nicolau Award, which I don't believe would have
happened.
And in addition to that, the West Pilots themselves
individually would have had to ratify that contract, and the
East Pilots individually would have had to vote to ratify that
contract which, I believe, would not have happened from my
experience. So the practical matter is that was never a real
possibility.
Q. Well, the process broke down because the East members of
the Joint Negotiating Committee left the table?
MR. BRENGLE: Counsel is arguing with the witness,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please sit down.
THE WITNESS: No. Actually, as a matter of fact the
process broke down because the ALPA Merger Policy was flawed
and led to an inevitable impasse that could not be resolved
under ALPA procedures.
BY MR. HARPER:
Q. But because they left the table, no single Collective
Bargaining Agreement proposal was ever arrived at, correct?
A. I know from my experience that the --
Q. Please answer.
A. -- East Pilots would not have voted for that Collective
Bargaining Agreement.
THE COURT: You can ask your question again.
MR. HARPER: Can I have the question read back,
please?
(The question was read back by the court reporter.)
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
BY MR. HARPER:
Q. So no vote has ever been taken on a proposed single
Collective Bargaining Agreement that includes the Nicolau,
correct?
MR. BRENGLE: That's stipulated to, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please stop interrupting the
cross-examination, counsel.
You may continue, Mr. Harper.
BY MR. HARPER:
Q. Can you answer the question, please?
THE WITNESS: Would you read it again, please. I'll
make sure I answer it correctly.
(The question was read back by the court reporter.)
THE WITNESS: The pilots never had a chance to vote on
it because the MEC did not approve it. That is correct.​

MR. HARPER: No further questions.

Admitting that the actions of USAPA failed to fit his definition of integrity would not be personally convenient for him. But, it would be the truth and in that case has he not shown integrity on the stand?

Judge for yourself based on his testimony. Apparently according to him keeping one's word has "consequenses" that override it.

I'd like to see this "grandstanding" of the events of Jan 15 because I'd certainly be surprised to find out that a judge or the West attorneys would allow such irrelivant information to be presented.

The judge repeatedly stated on the record (but not in front of the jury) how conflicted he was by allowing USAPA so much leeway to introduce confusing and irrelvent information to the jury. The instructions he'll give the jury before they deliberate will undoubtedly emphasize the DFR aspect and beg them to disregard the alleged fairness of the Nicolau award. We won't know exactly what those instructions are until after the fact. Suffice to say USAPA objected to all 11 of them and our side had no objections.

 

[vetrider]

You can tell from that transcript that seham and usapa were figuratively behind the bush wispering in sullied's ear. What a jack off for stooping so low. Fahrenheit 451.

 

[BeCareful!]

We won't know exactly what those instructions are until after the fact. Suffice to say USAPA objected to all 11 of them and our side had no objections.

Well that certainly sounds fair.

So if you guys lose this are you going to appeal? I only ask because if we've learned anything from reading this stupid message board it's that you guys have most if not all of the integrity in the whole wide world, and also, that you think Judge Wake is the bestest, most fairest, coolest thing since DME. Appealing would indicate that you think the process is flawed. You don't think processes are ever flawed, do you?

 

[TWA Dude]

Well that certainly sounds fair.

You just don't get. The judge is allowed to have an opinion and he arrived at that opinion after seeing the evidence and hearing the testimony. So yes, it most definitely is fair -- even if you don't like it.

So if you guys lose this are you going to appeal?

Probably. My guess is neither appeal will go anywhere.

 

[TWA Dude]

Here is some commentary from Judge Wake found in Friday's (May 8th) transcript excerpts on page 1795 at line 19:

MR. SEHAM:

Well, this is a factual issue for the jury that relates to motive. What was the motive to uniformly benefit an East monolithic group and uniformly disadvantage a monolithic West group? And, in fact, these groups are very factionalized. They break down into segments. There's some benefits to East Pilots and some disadvantages. The same applies to West Pilots. With respect to this whole concept of catastrophic, Captain Mowrey testified it's really a non-issue given the restriction --
​

THE COURT:

If your view is it matters because it goes solely to the subjectivity to the defendant's officers, I must tell you, having heard the evidence, I do not see how any reasonable juror could think that the USAPA list is not substantially and gravely less favorable to the West Pilots. Now maybe your people believe that and they may have a pure heart. But no rational person could think it's just as good. And the catastrophic layoff provision alone demonstrates that powerfully.
​

 

[Jar Jar]

Are the transcripts available online in pdf? I googled but couldn't find 'em.

 

[TWA Dude]

go to www.pilotloop.com

 

[Colonel Savage]

What is this "catastrophic layoff provision" he refers to?

 

[becket]

What is this "catastrophic layoff provision" he refers to?

A catastrophic layoff is considered to occur when 25% of the pilots are furloughed. The danger is when a catastrophic furlough happens, ALL "conditions and restrictions" that the fake union Usapa arbitrarily yanked from their rectums to impose on the west, go away.

Obviously, if 25% get furloughed under the DOH scheme, 80% of AMW pilots lose their jobs...the ones they actually HAD when the merger was announced unlike the 800 easties who were on the street with 5 year old pink slips.

BTW, US Air East entered this merger with 33% of their pilots on furlough...it can happen.

Today is closing arguments. So far, the Judge has handed the East their own azz at every turn. Let's hope for the final blow.

 

[denny]

Chesley Sullenberger is a charlatan.