AOL update
#2871
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
I believe Attorney Siegal disagrees with you. I suspect he is paid 900.00 per hour. You know more than him? You should get a different job. He even gets to sleep at home each night.
#2872
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
#2873
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
Wasn't it Siegal that came up with the idea that the West could be a 3rd party at the SLI table, argueing that in Silver's court?
Pretty sure he is the first one to broach that subject and presented all sorts of CAB cases to back up his theory.
How did Silver rule on that idea from the 900.00/hr attorney?
#2874
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
"APA seeks a further declaration that, following USAPA’s decertification as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots and its replacement by APA as the collective bargaining representative for all US Airways and American pilots, USAPA may only participate in the MOU seniority integration process if and to the extent deemed appropriate by APA."
So, [if] the APA decides it's ok then USAPA can participate.
Then, [if] USAPA can participate then APA decides to what extent.
Or, they may bag it entirely putting forth whatever the heck APA wants on the USAPA pilots behalf and we are excluded entirely from the process?
The Arbitration panel is going to come up with same result than if a second adversarial party is involved?
#2875
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
Wasn't it Siegal that came up with the idea that the West could be a 3rd party at the SLI table, argueing that in Silver's court?
Pretty sure he is the first one to broach that subject and presented all sorts of CAB cases to back up his theory.
How did Silver rule on that idea from the 900.00/hr attorney?
Pretty sure he is the first one to broach that subject and presented all sorts of CAB cases to back up his theory.
How did Silver rule on that idea from the 900.00/hr attorney?
#2876
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Your error is thinking his main purpose was to allow the West a seat. That was just a step. He is representing Parker. Parker told him what he wants (at THAT time- a quick marriage). He has been playing chess. Several moves ahead of what most here are thinking. Also what Parker wanted then might NOT be what Parker wants now, so strategy and direction might have changed. Judge Silver did describe exactly what is going down right now. She is not as stupid as many on here think. Go read Siegal's response. He demolished every point USAPA tries to make. Again I think the Judge in DC (although I do not know his methods) will send it back to the Executive branch. No Fed Court for USAPA on this. Back to the grievance for this. USAPA's arguments are weak at best. I think they will quickly (in legal time) lose.
#2877
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
Thats's the problem isn't it? The Arbitrators won't be on any fact finding mission - they will use what's put before them. I disagree. The Arbitrators are not stupid. Each side will present conflicting statements. So which one is correct? They really do try to make informed well reasoned decisions.They will have legal clerks researching everything. Being a retired attorney I have known quite a few Arbitrators. I have said I do not believe any Arbitrator will "punish" the East. What they did was perfectly legal (but perhaps not exactly ethical), although it brings up possible damages for the time they did not deliver a contract if the reason can be clearly brought before judgement. The MOU might or might not be gone, but the damage for the time frame of delay remains. If USAPA is dissolved it will likely be moot.
"APA seeks a further declaration that, following USAPA’s decertification as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots and its replacement by APA as the collective bargaining representative for all US Airways and American pilots, USAPA may only participate in the MOU seniority integration process if and to the extent deemed appropriate by APA."
So, [if] the APA decides it's ok then USAPA can participate. They still must fairly represent ALL members under a threat of DFR.
Then, [if] USAPA can participate then APA decides to what extent. Under threat of DFR not likely.
Or, they may bag it entirely putting forth whatever the heck APA wants on the USAPA pilots behalf and we are excluded entirely from the process? Gee, that sure sounds like what has been going for the past several years, don't it? I read sometime ago a East poster state "majority rules". Now that is a tasty **** sandwich! Not going to happen under MB fed guidelines. Relax. You won't get the USAPA wants, but APA won't either.
The Arbitration panel is going to come up with same result than if a second adversarial party is involved?
"APA seeks a further declaration that, following USAPA’s decertification as the collective bargaining representative for legacy US Airways pilots and its replacement by APA as the collective bargaining representative for all US Airways and American pilots, USAPA may only participate in the MOU seniority integration process if and to the extent deemed appropriate by APA."
So, [if] the APA decides it's ok then USAPA can participate. They still must fairly represent ALL members under a threat of DFR.
Then, [if] USAPA can participate then APA decides to what extent. Under threat of DFR not likely.
Or, they may bag it entirely putting forth whatever the heck APA wants on the USAPA pilots behalf and we are excluded entirely from the process? Gee, that sure sounds like what has been going for the past several years, don't it? I read sometime ago a East poster state "majority rules". Now that is a tasty **** sandwich! Not going to happen under MB fed guidelines. Relax. You won't get the USAPA wants, but APA won't either.
The Arbitration panel is going to come up with same result than if a second adversarial party is involved?
I have never taken "a side" in this East/West fight. I will say I suspect Nic got most right but making a judgement without all details is not a good idea. A few problems but it is what it was. A lot of damage has been done to the piloting profession over the past years starting before Frank Lorenzo came along. You are smart men and women but you better come together. Or you will become the "regional pilots of the future". Management has big bucks and politicians. All you have are each other.
#2878
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Done with that
Posts: 191
I disagree. He does not give two whits about a pilot, just profits. I think his strategy was to keep cost cheap as possible. Divided pilots was just a method given to him (by pilots) to use. It worked well. But it might not work well agian or in the future. I think APA wants to cut that off at the start. They know what is going on with regional pilots. They don't want that to get a toe hold in the legacy ops.
#2879
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
Each side will present conflicting statements
Not if only one side appears before the Arbitration panel.
Like a divorce action excluding one spouse from the proceedings. Oh but don't worry, the remaining one will be sure and fully represent the other.
Not if only one side appears before the Arbitration panel.
Like a divorce action excluding one spouse from the proceedings. Oh but don't worry, the remaining one will be sure and fully represent the other.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post