Route66

That was simple. I agree with the separate ops.

The DFR doesn't apply for them (APA) under M-B.

That is an issue for all of us if the Ninth issues an opinion, (which I think they will), that finds for USAPA that the Statute rules. The law is plain on this: manifest disregard of the statute (and USAPA NEVER ceded the legality of M-B) is at issue and the PAB is in danger of being vacated.

Now whether you agree with me or not is not at issue, because the ball is NOT in my court (pun intended), its in the hands of the Ninth and ultimately USAPA's if they prevail. It's in the MOU/Protocol agreement, it was argued before the PAB before, during and after that USAPA waived NO right under the Statute and that the PAB did not have jurisdiction to over-run the Statute.

Only the court has ultimate determination over final and binding.

The ONE thing I can say about all this is that the APA siding with the Company on this and that is why the APA is a Company union. It will ALWAYS be a company union.

And this is why we don't need a union.

Wiskey Driver

Well not this time. First how did you plan to bring an action before the US 9th Circuit? In other words who's ruling do you plan to oppose? The US 9th Circuit as you may be aware is an appellant division so unless you have a lower court ruling for which you plan to oppose, San Francisco will not come in to play. Now I know what you are thinking but you need to take as step back and REALLY think about that. Is it coming into focus for you yet?

Usapa played its majority game and stagnated the careers of every west pilot for almost a decade. They have told the 3rd list pilots they will be slotted above every west pilot on the property in an effort to gain their support and who wouldn't? The fact of the matter is that there is but ONE list that exists here at LUS and you can bet that the company will argue that position as well. The new panel will see that every element has been met and that a final and binding process did take place in this case, see AIR WISCONSIN PILOTS PROTECTION COMMITTEE, JAMES M. FENSKE, GARY M. PELACH, RICHARD J. MAGIERA, and THOMAS K. BLY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CLIFFORD R. SANDERSON, Trustee and Acting Chairman of Air Wisconsin Master Executive Council, et al., Defenda. Route66 your game is over my friend and its high time you pay up on your promise.

WD at AWA

GrapeNuts

There is no longer an achilles heel (I believe that is what you meant LOL) now that USAPA is dead. This process will finally move forward and there is no way you can continue to obstruct it. Hard times ahead for you easties and we on the west are enjoying the show.

Now, regarding separate ops, it won't happen because again the APA, the company and the shareholders want a combined operation. We will have a contract, probably by the end of this month, and the SLI arbitration will follow. There is nothing you and your east blowhard buddies can do to stop it. But, if crowing on here about your success the past eight years of keeping yourselves on the lowest paid contract among the majors makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

GrapeNuts

I don't think scab is really the proper term to describe you and your ethics, scumbag is probably more appropriate. Feeling a little naked these days without your scab union? LOL Thought so. Well, bud, the APA will take care of the process and there is nothing you can do to stop progress. You easties are the only ones on here bantering about lawsuits and delays, you no are no longer the brakeman, though. The APA has that job and they are full speed ahead with the integration. Enjoy your day!

eaglefly

Another of your empty posts of nothingness. APA had no choice but to punt this question to neutrality and USAPA once again agreed to binding arbitration as a method of resolution to disagreement and it's the APA's fault the arbitrators (plural) ruled against them ?

Nuttier than squirrel turds.

This time there were several arbitrators, so the senile lone wolf argument is invalid. The West is entitled to a fair chance to represent their pilots since the status quo involves three lists and not two and that's what neutral arbitrators (not APA) decided. Deal with it.

Route66

The "action" is already before the Ninth. The issue of M-B is already before them. They have to address whether APA (or anyone else) is a proper party that has the right to "appoint" any or NO committees to the process.

Look, you disagree with me and we'll leave it at that. All I'm saying is it isn't over yet. There is more to unravel in the SLI and the Company union APA supported it. It will play out in the courts. That is a given.

Route66

We'll see. All the while you keep making MY point.

Red herrings are all you got.

Route66

Keep telling yourself that.

SewerPipeDvr

I just love this shiete. I said APA should not let USAPA on the property, should not allow any former/current USAPA officer or rep to oversee the East MC. I said it would be a big mistake if they did. Well, here we go. For a lawyer, this is a birds nest on the ground. Ka Ching! Old P.T. (and Judge Silver) was right on the money. You can try to sue, but can you? Does USAPA have any real standing, or will they be found interfering with a RLA appointed CBA? Prediction. No separate ops. This is not some regional airline fight. This is a major part of the national airway system. Lots of very big money. East will not get far. Pony up boys, you got to pay to play. Will you have to pay dues to APA while funding your own lawyers? Joe D. said it best "it's deju vu all over again!". If I was a smart APA lawyer I would be filing that injunction (with Judge Silver's court) freezing USAPA's past dues right about now. Merely protecting APA members (former West pilots) you understand.

eaglefly

McCaskill-Bond only requires a fair PROCESS. Any argument USAPA makes that claims M-B has been violated because they had the right to represent two separate lists of unintegrated pilots will fail. On one hand USAPA rejects their arbitrated integrated list, yet on the other demands they represent the list of pilots whose arbitration they rejected.

USAPA can't have it both ways as that is not in compliance with M-B and then if they're only weapon is once again to embrace intransigent obstructionism, this time it will fail. If for some reason the Nic is adopted (within the realm of possibility, but I don't believe it will) and USAPA (or former pilots of) sues APA for DFR, they will lose. It will take 5-7 years to run through the court system and in the interim the arbitrated merger ISL will be adopted and USAPA will have stopped nothing, nor ultimately won anything.