En Banc Denied!
08-27-2015, 09:46 PM
#101
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
The problem I see with your logic is that APA now has a DFR obligation for three groups, West, East and LAA.
08-27-2015, 09:59 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
The agreement to nullify all previous agreements prior to the MOU was in a paragraph way before 10h. The court did not un-nullify any previous agreements.
Try again.
Use the quote function.
08-27-2015, 10:10 PM
#103
Cactus Aviator
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Learning to fly with my left hand.
Posts: 250
That's not the reason why we west pilots voted in favor of the MOU. But... you made your point.
08-27-2015, 10:17 PM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Many have questioned you to provide references to support your position. So far you haven't. In your responses you "talk in tongue" by never fully clarifying your position so that we can try to understand your views nor do you refer us to any specific legal documents to read that provide support for your position.
Can you please explain how I made your point?
Can you provide any judicial decision that describes the "illegal contract term" you continually reference? Until a judicial body has awarded an opinion declaring it illegal, it's not necessarily illegal. You've been in this industry long enough to know nothing is guaranteed when put in front of a judge or arbitrator. The 9th only found a breach of DFR by USAPA in agreeing to implement 10 h. in the MOU and provided a remedy for that breach which did not include the implementation of the Nic list.
I can only assume you intentionally did not mean to express absolute certainty of APA's DFR case by stating, "not correcting it may be". The use of the term may is a whole lot different than the term shall, thus the very reason why APA will not implement the Nic list without an adjudicated award requiring them to do so.
Otherwise you totally ignored my post. You are obviously well versed in this ongoing struggle and have been involved in it for nearly a decade. At this point it should be fairly easy for you to provide documented support for your position and not just opinion.
08-27-2015, 10:40 PM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Is this the language you are referring to? It's in Paragraph 5 of the MOU?
"It is the Parties' intention that the JCBA shall replace any and all prior collective bargaining agreements for USAPA; however, for APA, the JCBA shall be an amendment to the MTA."
Is it your view that this language results in the JCBA replacing the Transition Agreement?
08-27-2015, 10:50 PM
#106
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
And yet it was still a dfr. Illegal is illegal regardless how many vote for it. I guess you are the one that needs to try again.
08-27-2015, 10:57 PM
#107
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Cactiboss,
Many have questioned you to provide references to support your position. So far you haven't. In your responses you "talk in tongue" by never fully clarifying your position so that we can try to understand your views nor do you refer us to any specific legal documents to read that provide support for your position.
Can you please explain how I made your point?
Can you provide any judicial decision that describes the "illegal contract term" you continually reference? Until a judicial body has awarded an opinion declaring it illegal, it's not necessarily illegal. You've been in this industry long enough to know nothing is guaranteed when put in front of a judge or arbitrator. The 9th only found a breach of DFR by USAPA in agreeing to implement 10 h. in the MOU and provided a remedy for that breach which did not include the implementation of the Nic list.
I can only assume you intentionally did not mean to express absolute certainty of APA's DFR case by stating, "not correcting it may be". The use of the term may is a whole lot different than the term shall, thus the very reason why APA will not implement the Nic list without an adjudicated award requiring them to do so.
Otherwise you totally ignored my post. You are obviously well versed in this ongoing struggle and have been involved in it for nearly a decade. At this point it should be fairly easy for you to provide documented support for your position and not just opinion.
Many have questioned you to provide references to support your position. So far you haven't. In your responses you "talk in tongue" by never fully clarifying your position so that we can try to understand your views nor do you refer us to any specific legal documents to read that provide support for your position.
Can you please explain how I made your point?
Can you provide any judicial decision that describes the "illegal contract term" you continually reference? Until a judicial body has awarded an opinion declaring it illegal, it's not necessarily illegal. You've been in this industry long enough to know nothing is guaranteed when put in front of a judge or arbitrator. The 9th only found a breach of DFR by USAPA in agreeing to implement 10 h. in the MOU and provided a remedy for that breach which did not include the implementation of the Nic list.
I can only assume you intentionally did not mean to express absolute certainty of APA's DFR case by stating, "not correcting it may be". The use of the term may is a whole lot different than the term shall, thus the very reason why APA will not implement the Nic list without an adjudicated award requiring them to do so.
Otherwise you totally ignored my post. You are obviously well versed in this ongoing struggle and have been involved in it for nearly a decade. At this point it should be fairly easy for you to provide documented support for your position and not just opinion.
08-28-2015, 08:45 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
There is case law to back up what I say, you can't find it in the ruling but the ruling causes certain things to be triggers. I use "may" because nothing is for sure, what I can tell you is for sure is that we are willing and able to go to court to have our contract honored.
Since even you agree it's not for sure I am pretty confident APA will not risk a DFR from its LAA members by implementing the NIC since they don't know if it's even legally required - since its not for sure. Otherwise it would be negligent of them to do so in regards to potential harm to the LAA pilots.
Unless Silver does something definitively concerning the NIC and unless someone can point to some absolute legal requirement for APA to implement the NIC list my only conclusion is someone will have to file a DFR lawsuit and we will enter round two of the East/West and now LAA merger dispute.
08-28-2015, 08:46 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
There is case law to back up what I say, you can't find it in the ruling but the ruling causes certain things to be triggers. I use "may" because nothing is for sure, what I can tell you is for sure is that we are willing and able to go to court to have our contract honored.
You still haven't quoted any language that requires the Nic to be used by anybody for anything. If you go to court again you will need to quote something besides a Spartan/AOL wish list.
08-28-2015, 08:58 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
The Nic is alive and well in the minds and proposals of the West. After all these years the Nic is still a proposal among other proposals just like it always was.
Let's see what Silver does. I doubt she will change anything about the status of the Nic.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
