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.