• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

US Airways, Sully and USAPA

Cowboy75

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Posts
397
Total Time
> O
I started this thread for those interested in the anything US Airways, Sully or USAPA related. USAPA has restricted the debate and does not allow dissent. No surprise, USAPA has no message board and has to sensor updates originating from the Phoenix domicile.

Let's start with Sully's rejected testimony in a Federal Court and reasons why he has fallen out of favor with the West pilot group:

In Mid May 2008, Sullenberger acted as the first witness in a Federal Court Case involving his labor union, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) v. The Former America West Pilots. The case was heard in the Arizona District Court by Neil Wake. Although Sullenberger testified that he had "no dog in this fight" he continued that in his opinion, final and binding arbitrations should be ignored if the majority party finds the ruling unsatisfactory. During his testimony, Sullenberger equated the refusal to comply with a duly authorized, and mutually agreed upon arbitrator's ruling to possessing a form of personal "Integrity".
The Jury disagreed. The USAPA was found guilty of violating its legal duty to fairly represent all US Airways pilots. The Jury returned its guilty verdict in under 90 minutes. USAPA is appealing the decision and this case will be heard on December 8, 2009 in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco.

A review of events leading up to the court case:

This litigation would not have occurred but for the fact that East Pilots refused to abide by an arbitrated integrated seniority list (the “Nicolau Award”). Going into the arbitration, the East Pilots agreed that the arbitrated award would be final and binding and would be used in Operational Pilot Integration. Coming out of the arbitration, the East Pilots unjustifiably refused to abide by that agreement. Instead, they took many actions to prevent Operational Pilot Integration using the Nicolau Award, culminating in the creation of USAPA for that purpose.

After shopping several law firms, a group of East Pilots found a law firm willing to guide, indeed promote, a scheme of advancing East Pilot seniority rights to the detriment of West Pilot seniority rights. This law firm, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, advised the East Pilots that, with majority status, they could create USAPA and use it to promote their seniority interests in disregard of the Nicolau Award. Mr. Seham told them, relying on his tortured reading of Rakestraw, that USAPA could advance East Pilot interests to the detriment of West Pilot interests so long as there was any rational relation to a legitimate union objective, regardless of USAPA's actual motives.

USAPA, while guided by its legal advisor, left quite an evidentiary trail of bad faith. Much of that trail was apparently created to garner political support among East Pilots who wanted a union that would advance their majority interests over those of the West Pilot minority. USAPA, with legal guidance, acted while motivated by that bad faith. It drafted a constitution intended to create a pretext defining a duty to disregard the Nicolau Award. It made campaign promises to disregard the Nicolau Award. Once elected, it embarked on a preordained course to disregard the Nicolau Award. It did all these things solely for illegitimate motives.

USAPA left the West Pilots no option but to institute this litigation. Plaintiffs filed this action after the Airline announced plans to reduce service in a manner that would burden West Pilots far more than they would have been burdened if the transition to Operational Pilot Integration had occurred as intended. USAPA selected the Seham law firm to handle its defense. In essence, therefore, the Seham law firm was put in a position of defending both itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and USAPA for following that advice.

The appeal will be heard at a federal courthouse on December 8th. I expect the jury's verdict to be upheld and another defeat handed to USAPA.
 

becket

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Posts
722
Total Time
12000
Sullenberger is coming to Phoenix for a book signing soon. America West guys are going so he can autograph copies of court transcripts of his testimony, and copies of the Injunction.

Sullenberger is no Hero out West.
 

Cowboy75

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Posts
397
Total Time
> O
This letter is being mailed to USAPA dues challengers:


American Arbitration Association
Dispute Resolution Services Worldwide

New England, LaborCenter







November 25, 2009
Stanley J. Silverstone
Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen
445 Hamilton Avenue
12th Floor
White Plains, NY10601


One CenterPlaza, Third Floor, Boston, MA02108


telephone: 617-451-6600 facsimile: 617-451-0763


internet: http://www.adr.org/




446 Dues Challengers
Re: US Airline Pilots Association
and
446 Dues Challengers
Dear Parties:
The US Airline Pilots Association has initiated arbitration proceedings under the American Arbitration Association's Rules for Impartial Determination of Union Fees. A copy of the Rules can be found on our website at: www.adr.org.
Please be advised that Daniel Brent has been designated Arbitrator in this matter. A copy of the Arbitrator's resume is enclosed. In accordance with the Rules, the Arbitrator shall be compensated by the Union at the rate stated on the resume for each day of hearing and for all time devoted to considering evidence and the preparation of the Award and Opinion.
In accordance with Section 6 of the Rules for Impartial Determination of Union Fees, a hearing has been scheduled as follows:
DATE: February 10, 2010
TIME: 1000 AM
PLACE: Hyatt Place Charlotte Hotel

2950 Oak Lake Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28208

The Dues Challengers are advised their attendance at the in-person hearing is not mandatory. Challengers are asked to please notify me if they intend to attend the hearing on February 10, 2009 so appropriate arrangements for a hearing room can be made.
In lieu of appearing at the hearing, challengers may submit written statements for the Arbitrator's consideration. If you choose to file a written statement, please transmit the statement to this office, in duplicate by no later than January 29, 2010. Written statements can be transmitted to this office by e-mail, fax or first class U.S. Mail.

November 25, 2009 Page 2
This letter is being sent to all participants via first class U.S. Mail. If you would prefer that future correspondence be transmitted to you by e-mail, please provide me with your e-mail address.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours,
Claire M. Connelly Assistant Supervisor 6176956014 ConnellyC@adr.org
Enclosure
cc: Daniel F. Brent, Esq. (via e-mail only)
 

av8tor76

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Posts
68
Total Time
12k
great..just what we need..another bash usapa thread..WE GET IT ALREADY!!!!
 

PHXFLYR

USAir by default
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Posts
2,177
Total Time
>0;<1
I started this thread for those interested in the anything US Airways, Sully or USAPA related. USAPA has restricted the debate and does not allow dissent. No surprise, USAPA has no message board and has to sensor updates originating from the Phoenix domicile.

Let's start with Sully's rejected testimony in a Federal Court and reasons why he has fallen out of favor with the West pilot group:

In Mid May 2008, Sullenberger acted as the first witness in a Federal Court Case involving his labor union, the US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) v. The Former America West Pilots. The case was heard in the Arizona District Court by Neil Wake. Although Sullenberger testified that he had "no dog in this fight" he continued that in his opinion, final and binding arbitrations should be ignored if the majority party finds the ruling unsatisfactory. During his testimony, Sullenberger equated the refusal to comply with a duly authorized, and mutually agreed upon arbitrator's ruling to possessing a form of personal "Integrity".
The Jury disagreed. The USAPA was found guilty of violating its legal duty to fairly represent all US Airways pilots. The Jury returned its guilty verdict in under 90 minutes. USAPA is appealing the decision and this case will be heard on December 8, 2009 in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals in San Francisco.

A review of events leading up to the court case:

This litigation would not have occurred but for the fact that East Pilots refused to abide by an arbitrated integrated seniority list (the “Nicolau Award”). Going into the arbitration, the East Pilots agreed that the arbitrated award would be final and binding and would be used in Operational Pilot Integration. Coming out of the arbitration, the East Pilots unjustifiably refused to abide by that agreement. Instead, they took many actions to prevent Operational Pilot Integration using the Nicolau Award, culminating in the creation of USAPA for that purpose.

After shopping several law firms, a group of East Pilots found a law firm willing to guide, indeed promote, a scheme of advancing East Pilot seniority rights to the detriment of West Pilot seniority rights. This law firm, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, advised the East Pilots that, with majority status, they could create USAPA and use it to promote their seniority interests in disregard of the Nicolau Award. Mr. Seham told them, relying on his tortured reading of Rakestraw, that USAPA could advance East Pilot interests to the detriment of West Pilot interests so long as there was any rational relation to a legitimate union objective, regardless of USAPA's actual motives.

USAPA, while guided by its legal advisor, left quite an evidentiary trail of bad faith. Much of that trail was apparently created to garner political support among East Pilots who wanted a union that would advance their majority interests over those of the West Pilot minority. USAPA, with legal guidance, acted while motivated by that bad faith. It drafted a constitution intended to create a pretext defining a duty to disregard the Nicolau Award. It made campaign promises to disregard the Nicolau Award. Once elected, it embarked on a preordained course to disregard the Nicolau Award. It did all these things solely for illegitimate motives.

USAPA left the West Pilots no option but to institute this litigation. Plaintiffs filed this action after the Airline announced plans to reduce service in a manner that would burden West Pilots far more than they would have been burdened if the transition to Operational Pilot Integration had occurred as intended. USAPA selected the Seham law firm to handle its defense. In essence, therefore, the Seham law firm was put in a position of defending both itself for advising USAPA to take the actions that led to this lawsuit and USAPA for following that advice.

The appeal will be heard at a federal courthouse on December 8th. I expect the jury's verdict to be upheld and another defeat handed to USAPA.



man...give it a rest already, will you please ???


PHXFLYR:cool:
 

St. Nic

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Posts
658
Total Time
1
You just don't know when to keep your pie shut, do you? Give it a break, nobody likes a whiner.
 

Cowboy75

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Posts
397
Total Time
> O

Cowboy75

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Posts
397
Total Time
> O

samballs

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Posts
1,511
Total Time
000000
Sully is one of the few pilots I have ever seen that will tell you how good he is
 
Top