Wiskey Driver

Ok we seem to be on two different plains here. Would you like me to do the research for you or would you rather do it on your own. Westlaw will help you a great deal.

WD at AWA

justjack

And let me get this correct (as if it needed to be explained). You are on the side of the company here. You believe that the "binding arbitration" makes it OK for the company to essentially steal more money from pilots? So it does not really matter how egregious an arbitrated decision is, the arbitration is binding.

cactiboss

Just exposing your group for who you are.

Wiskey Driver

I am going to try and make it very clear to you and others about how the arbitration system works. There are several stages PRIOR to getting to an award. Negotiations are conducted in an effort to find a solution for both parties. These negotiations very often lead no where as the sides are usually entrenched in their beliefs of what they deem as fair. Mediation is the next step where like arbitration it is conducted much in the same manner however the results are not binding. Mediation is an excellent meter as to where the case will go should the parties decide to proceed toward arbitration.

Arbitration results are next to impossible to get out of absent some wrong doing on the part of the arbitrator. Usapa believes that these rules don't apply to them. No matter one's feeling about what took place, what is fair or not fair no longer has meaning once an award is made. I repeat, UNLESS A PARTY CAN PROVE TO A COURT THAT AN ARBITRATOR WAS IN SOME WAY INFLUENCED (BRIBED OR THREATENED) IT IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY TO PURSUE THIS.

WD at AWA

DCA A321 FO

I think you meant plane mr engineer.

cactiboss

Collectively they are the biggest failures of any professional airline pilots, with many, many examples of plain stupidity, yet the union they created is the pinnacle of their achievement.

Wiskey Driver

Fast typing and lack of proof reading. I see that it does bother you and as I result I will make every effort in the future to proof what I send out

WD at AWA

DCA A321 FO

Just teasing you bro :-)

Buddyfish

Apparently you also did not proof read the MOU prior to voting for it. The language was very "plane". What exactly was not Disclosed in paragraph 10h, that you feel constitutes a DFR. The MOU was and is seniority neutral. It does not contain the NIC, nor does it contain DOH language. It simply says we do away with all old agreements and start off fresh.

Have you ever asked your AOL leadership why they were so concerned with paragraph 10h, yet did not publicly discuss it. Why would they be so concerned about the MOU, yet recommend a yes vote across the board.

You are not fooling anyone here. You couldn't possibly be so ignorant and naive as to not understand a simple paragraph in the MOU. You simply took your chances on passing the MOU and then immediately claimed you couldn't comprehend the simplistic language in it. Now it's up to Judge Silver to see if she believes you. She just may and you may win the DFR, time will tell.

cactiboss

You are the one that's "Simplistic". How do you explain that no usapa officer or committee member could explain under oath what 10h meant or who inserted it in the mou?