AOL update
01-07-2014, 02:09 PM
#2352
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
"The America West Proposal
America West's initial proposal differed dramatically from that of
US Airways. As previously indicated, its position, when first presented
in detail, was a series of ratios accompanied with a two year condition and restriction reserving to US Airways pilots all Captain positions on the 9 A330 aircraft flying international routes as of May 19, 2005. The first proposed ratio was not Captain to Captain. Instead, America West added to its 855 Captains an additional 114 First Officers, who, America West claimed, expected captaincies based on the 19 A320s on firm order as of May 2005. That combined figure (969) was to be integrated on a straight ratio basis with 1121 US Airways Captains, a number derived from staffing assumptions based on what 'were 221 USAirways aircraft as of February 2006. This ratio would be followed by an integration of the remaining America West First Officers (925) with 1051 US Airways First Officers, also on a straight ratio basis. After the reinsertion of those on extended medical leaves and those in nonflying positions, this would put 2431 US Airways pilots on the bottom of the list, 959 of whom were active pilots as of May 19, 2005 with the
remaining 1472 furloughees."
With such great offers like this I just can't understand how we couldn't come to an agreement.
America West's initial proposal differed dramatically from that of
US Airways. As previously indicated, its position, when first presented
in detail, was a series of ratios accompanied with a two year condition and restriction reserving to US Airways pilots all Captain positions on the 9 A330 aircraft flying international routes as of May 19, 2005. The first proposed ratio was not Captain to Captain. Instead, America West added to its 855 Captains an additional 114 First Officers, who, America West claimed, expected captaincies based on the 19 A320s on firm order as of May 2005. That combined figure (969) was to be integrated on a straight ratio basis with 1121 US Airways Captains, a number derived from staffing assumptions based on what 'were 221 USAirways aircraft as of February 2006. This ratio would be followed by an integration of the remaining America West First Officers (925) with 1051 US Airways First Officers, also on a straight ratio basis. After the reinsertion of those on extended medical leaves and those in nonflying positions, this would put 2431 US Airways pilots on the bottom of the list, 959 of whom were active pilots as of May 19, 2005 with the
remaining 1472 furloughees."
With such great offers like this I just can't understand how we couldn't come to an agreement.
01-07-2014, 07:21 PM
#2354
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Again one word DISCLOSURE!
I have tried my level best to make this as clear as it can be. Its not up to AOL to disclose as that is a function of this so called union and the union is usapa. The members of usapa have stated that they did not know what 10H meant and the attorney for usapa is on the record as well stating that the mou as a whole is seniority neutral. Now everyone claims that its clear. Can't have it both ways.
Here is a little "legal" hint for you on what is really being reviewed by court. Misrepresentation is a concept in contract law referring to a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. Now was this the intent of usapa by and thru section 10H of the MOU?
WD at AWA
I have tried my level best to make this as clear as it can be. Its not up to AOL to disclose as that is a function of this so called union and the union is usapa. The members of usapa have stated that they did not know what 10H meant and the attorney for usapa is on the record as well stating that the mou as a whole is seniority neutral. Now everyone claims that its clear. Can't have it both ways.
Here is a little "legal" hint for you on what is really being reviewed by court. Misrepresentation is a concept in contract law referring to a false statement of fact made by one party to another party, which has the effect of inducing that party into the contract. Now was this the intent of usapa by and thru section 10H of the MOU?
WD at AWA
Just to be clear.. Defendants do not have the burden to say anything or prove anything. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove their specific claim alleged against the defendant... and by the way, your lawyer never claimed USAPA committed fraud or deceit, and shouting "They won't tell us what 10h means" is not proof of anything, accept that you won't even take responsibility to read for yourself before you vote.
01-07-2014, 07:37 PM
#2355
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Once an award is made the arbitrator and his award has no legal authority, but the one thing that has legal consequence is the contract that circumscribes the award and the parties. The contract to enter arbitration superseded the arbitration and always remains superior and dispositive as to any result of arbitration. Nothing else does.
Courts never take jurisdiction over an arbitration award. Never. And no court would successfully presume to contradict a contract that gives rise to and circumscribes an arbitration award.
01-08-2014, 05:35 AM
#2356
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
You are so desperate to be a victim that you keep shouting about how much of an imbecile each West pilot had to be when they voted for the MOU.
Just to be clear.. Defendants do not have the burden to say anything or prove anything. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove their specific claim alleged against the defendant... and by the way, your lawyer never claimed USAPA committed fraud or deceit, and shouting "They won't tell us what 10h means" is not proof of anything, accept that you won't even take responsibility to read for yourself before you vote.
Just to be clear.. Defendants do not have the burden to say anything or prove anything. The Plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove their specific claim alleged against the defendant... and by the way, your lawyer never claimed USAPA committed fraud or deceit, and shouting "They won't tell us what 10h means" is not proof of anything, accept that you won't even take responsibility to read for yourself before you vote.
WD at AWA
01-08-2014, 07:43 AM
#2357
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
01-08-2014, 12:35 PM
#2359
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Once an award is made the arbitrator and his award has no legal authority, but the one thing that has legal consequence is the contract that circumscribes the award and the parties. The contract to enter arbitration superseded the arbitration and always remains superior and dispositive as to any result of arbitration. Nothing else does.
Courts never take jurisdiction over an arbitration award. Never. And no court would successfully presume to contradict a contract that gives rise to and circumscribes an arbitration award.
Courts never take jurisdiction over an arbitration award. Never. And no court would successfully presume to contradict a contract that gives rise to and circumscribes an arbitration award.
On the other hand, if the award favors the AA pilots more or gives more to the west than USAPA believes is fair, the APA can just incorporate the award into the contract and now it's a legal contractual term and part of a contract that "circumscribes the award and the parties" (previously in existence) as isn't the JCBA in force before the arbitration award ?
Man, I love USAPA spaghetti logic !!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
