Originally Posted by Wiskey Driver

I get a kick out of watching you chase your tail. That is a avatar befitting of what you do.

WD at AWA

Originally Posted by Wiskey Driver

Res judicata!!! Learn the meaning...

WD at AWA

Originally Posted by cactiboss

Have YOU read the transcripts? Apparently not.

Originally Posted by R57 relay

Have you? They don't much resemble your predictions.

Originally Posted by R57 relay

Obviously you don't know the meaning of it as it applies to USAPA now.

Judge Silver: "No, No, No......"

What do you think Eric and the boys are discussing at HQ right now?

Originally Posted by LittleBoyBlew

How original.. Try coming up with your own quotes...Unlike you, and most of your "Spartan" friends, that dog knows when something is ripe, or not..

Originally Posted by eaglefly

I'm aware of that argument and I'm confident it won't apply. First of all USAPA would have to present that as a means to gain in the AA/U arbitration. Then, to capitalize on that, they'd have to make a compelling argument that AA is indeed a "failing carrier" in and of itself and convince the arbitration panel it was a valid argument (good luck on that). Quite frankly, I bet the APA could make an even better argument that ultimately US Airways is a failing carrier as without hitching their cart to AA, they're the most likely to founder in the future, being neither fish (a global legacy) nor fowl (an LCC) and solo, would be a divided carrier and crippled in many ways as such. TWA had perhaps 300 million in operating cash, had been through multiple bankruptcies and was steadily being stripped of its assets by Icahn who was down to the point of burning the furniture to heat the house. AA on the other hand didn't file bankruptcy out of necessity, but out of convenience. It was simply a methodology of this management to finally gut labor across the board and although they met that goal, they slit their own throats in the process. They had 6 billion and simply needed to flush their debt, that being primarily the pension funds and retiree medical obligations. Free of those with their global brand name and presence, AA was quite valuable and would have had financiers falling all over each other to get in on the action. TWA on the other hand was begging for help and although rumored to have SOME interest, that hasn't been proven conclusively that even if it was valid, would have saved the carrier that unknown to everyone would soon have to face 9/11 solo. With TWA, it could be argued the parts were worth more than the whole and post 9/11 it would have been overly ripe for fragmentation or liquidation.

Anyhoo, as for the rest of your argument that the APA should agree to USAPA's dream of DOH, that's pure propwash. It's a non-starter that ain't going to happen even in arbitration and if you're hoping this arbitration panel decides to vendictively punish AA pilots for APA's past decisions regarding TWA, I think you'll end up empty-handed in that respect as well.

Originally Posted by Wiskey Driver

I havent the faintest clue. I do know that right at this moment there is hope that the west will just bend. You and I both know that is just not going to happen so the judge will have to make a decision and then on to the ninth and who knows from there but there will be no new pay rates if there is no merger and you east boys are holding up the show. Honor your agreements and we can move on dont and we are status quo with loa 93 at the front of the line.

WD at AWA

Originally Posted by cactiboss

..On the DJ she ordered that usapa must have a LUP to abandon the Nic. She forgot that was what she ordered and went off the reservation. ....

Originally Posted by cactiboss

PS. Silver ordered the company and usapa to negotiate in the DJ ruling, yet in court she chastised the west for not negotiating, which of course was never her order.

Originally Posted by eaglefly

Well, I've never observed Judge Silver, so it's difficult to make an informed opinion on her, but it does sound as if she wants someone or something else to absolve her of having to deal with this hot potato. The fact she is asking the disputing parties to tell HER why she has the responsibility to resolve this seems puzzling.

I would think that would be something she would tell THEM via a ruling or an sxplanation of refusal to to rule.