
    In re PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC./DELTA AIR LINES, INC. PILOT EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION. Walter B. DUKE, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. Edward J. SPELLACY, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
    Nos. MDL 963, CV 92-1049, CV 93-0853.
    United States District Court, E.D. New York.
    April 14, 1997.
    Scott M. Karsten, Sack, Speetor & Barrett, West Hartford, CT, Sigismund Sapinski, Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellaey, P.C., Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff, Spellaey.
    Michael F. Baumeister, Douglas Latto, Baumeister & Samuels, New York City, for Plaintiff, Duke One.
    Michael S. Haber, New York City, for Plaintiff, Duke Two.
    Frederick D. Hafetz, Goldman & Hafetz, New York City, Michael E. Abrams, Peter Herman, Thomas Ciantra, Cohen, Weiss & Simon, New York City, for Defendants.
   MEMORANDUM ORDER AND JUDGMENT

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:

This judgment in favor of defendants ends the trial court’s participation in a difficult Multidistrict litigation.

FACTS

During the terminal days of the then-bankrupt Pan American Airlines, it sold, under bankruptcy court aegis, the last of its major air routes and hundreds of its remaining planes, agreeing to furnish enough qualified Pan Am pilots to fly those planes as Delta employees. Since too few pilots were qualified, Pan Am agreed to train a sufficient number to meet Delta’s requirements.

The local Airline Pilots Association Negotiating Committee had to make a series of decisions in cooperation with Pan Am on who would be trained. As a result of their determinations, those on the committee, together with hundreds of other pilots, were able to. obtain employment with Delta as qualified pilots. Scores of other Pan Am pilots were denied that opportunity because they were not given the necessary training.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Pilots who were unable to obtain employment by Delta brought a number of suits. They were concentrated in the Eastern District of New York by the Multidistrict Panel.

Some pilots sued Delta Airlines. Their complaints were dismissed because Delta did not decide which Pan Am pilots were to be trained.

Three groups of pilots sued the Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”) on the ground that they had been discriminated against by ALPA and that, under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et. seq., 181 et. seq., they had a right to damages. The groups were denominated at the trial as Duke 1, Duke 2 and Spellacy plaintiffs.

The case was bifurcated. Tried at one time were all three groups’ claims on the issue of liability. The jury found for almost all plaintiffs.

Following motions to set aside the verdicts, the court suggested that a mediator attempt to resolve differences among the parties. With the assistance of the mediator, the Honorable Milton Mollen, the Duke 1 and Duke 2 plaintiffs settled with ALPA. Their claims have been dismissed as moot.

DISMISSAL

The issue now is whether defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative to provide a new trial, should be granted. It is with great renitenee that a trial judge approaches a motion to ignore the decision of a well-instructed, well-advised, capable jury. The Spellacy plaintiffs’ case should, however, be dismissed for at least three reasons:

First, insofar as the Spellacy plaintiffs are concerned, the ■ pilots’ collective bargaining agreement with Pan Am — which called for training on a seniority basis for operations of Pan Am — was not applicable to the subsequent Delta-Pan Am agreement entered into with the approval of the bankruptcy court to sell aircraft to Delta and to furnish trained pilots. The Delta-Pan Am agreement did not call for the kind of Pan-Am operational decisions covered by the ALPA-Pan Am agreement. As a matter of law, the straight seniority system did not apply to the Spellacy plaintiffs. Bankrupt, Pan Am was permitted to minimize training costs to itself by departing from strict seniority.in a reasonable way in training pilots for transfer to , Delta.

Second, the training program as devised and executed constituted a reasonable balancing of seniority and cost factors by those in charge of the process during a stressful period for everyone: the pilots, Pan Am, the bankruptcy authorities and creditors. A large number of pilots had to be retrained or requalified during a short period while Pan Am continued to operate.

Third, the jury’s failure to draw a line somewhere reasonable in the Spellacy seniority list indicated that, despite its high quality, it was swayed by prejudice against the ALPA representatives because they ended up, as a result of their decisions, as Delta employees.

EQUITY

There is no basis in equity for an order either requiring some form of reinstatement of the Spellacy plaintiffs to positions held before the sale of Pan Am’s aircraft to Delta or to those which they might obtain at Delta now. It would be impossible to restore the status quo ante. Any equitable causes, implied or explicit, in the complaint and at trial are decided against the Spellacy plaintiffs for the same reasons that the jury verdict cannot stand. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52(a).

CONCLUSION

This decision covers all remaining aspects of the MDL case. Final judgment for defendant is now entered in these, the remaining open cases. No costs or disbursements.

SO ORDERED.  