En Banc Denied!
#151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Everyone understands your position on the NIC list. Unfortunately for your position there is absolutely (to date) no requirement that APA must implement the NIC list as there has never been a court order over the past eight years ordering that they or anyone else must do so.
You seem to be implying that the APA only represents the West interests. You know they represent three subsets of members, West, East and legacy LAA. If they were to implement the NIC list without any legal requirement to do so can't you at least admit that would not be representing the interests of two of the three groups consisting of 12,500 of the 14,000 active pilots.
The irony of what you are criticizing APA of, non-representation, is exactly what you want then to do to those other 12,500 pilots.
Once Silver gives you the award legally requiring APA to implement the NIC and if APA then does not, you can be critical of APA. Until then you really should quit making statements against APA for doing what they legally should be doing - representing all pilots within the legal confines of their duty.
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Agreed. They are probably 98% finished with the methodology and have their staff working a couple days a week to pound out the final award.. meanwhile they are spending lots of time on the golf course. The hearings are a show to placate the people who think they can make a difference.
#154
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: a320 capt
Posts: 52
A couple of points:
1. If the East complies with the 9th then there will be no one suggesting that NIC not be used.
2. To my knowledge there has never been an arbitration where the arbs messed with the lists of the parties. They always put the lists together as they are presented by the pilot groups.
If anyone knows otherwise, I'd like to hear about it.
1. If the East complies with the 9th then there will be no one suggesting that NIC not be used.
2. To my knowledge there has never been an arbitration where the arbs messed with the lists of the parties. They always put the lists together as they are presented by the pilot groups.
If anyone knows otherwise, I'd like to hear about it.
#155
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
A couple of points:
1. If the East complies with the 9th then there will be no one suggesting that NIC not be used.
2. To my knowledge there has never been an arbitration where the arbs messed with the lists of the parties. They always put the lists together as they are presented by the pilot groups.
If anyone knows otherwise, I'd like to hear about it.
1. If the East complies with the 9th then there will be no one suggesting that NIC not be used.
2. To my knowledge there has never been an arbitration where the arbs messed with the lists of the parties. They always put the lists together as they are presented by the pilot groups.
If anyone knows otherwise, I'd like to hear about it.
#156
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
It appears listening to Cacti, that the APA should be rewarded for doing the proper thing and giving the West a fair chance at argument of their position on the Nic by stepping aside and allowing them to essentially RUN this arbitration as THE de facto determiner of all issues Nic and otherwise.
I think they got some old USAPA juice and are on the verge of running wild, if not corralled back to reality by Silver.
So far, NO ONE has compelled all of the THREE separate committees nor the arbitration panel to commit to recognition of a two-list landscape (with still THREE committees !) and until THAT occurs, the attempt to paint this SLI as an integration of two lists and not three is simply a strategy of one party.
#157
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
By making this claim, you insinuate that AAPSIC will be reordering a list that presently DOES NOT EXIST in terms of required recognition be all in this SLI, except in unconsummated theory. The REALITY is that at present and thus pre-merger, THREE separate lists exist and that is supported by the existence of THREE separate committees. IF the East were to be forced to recognize the Nic, concurrent with that should be the dissolution of the West committee to be merged with the East committee and a single new committee representing LUS pilots comprising of both East and West pilots. IF there is only ONE pre-merger LUS list and it is the Nic, there should be no conflicting issues among all LUS pilots, only positions on how to integrate the SINGLE LUS list with the LAA list.
That would mean that for all intents and purposes the Nic would have to be decided in its favor at THIS juncture due to being recognized as the ONLY pre-merger LUS list and thus required to be realized in the final ISL by the arbitrators by default as to not, would be "reording" the LUS list. It's clear you (and perhaps the West committee) may intend to engineer the pathway to this new reality by claiming that if the LAA committee chooses NOT to recognize the Nic once this new paradigm is instituted (which is essentially advocating it by validation), then the LAA committee is attempting to override Nic, reorder their pre-merger seniority list (becoming the "new" him in the process) and using that as a defensive argument to the arbitration panel should LAA do that.
You are WAY............WAY off the reservation with this colossal stretch of a claim here Cacti and it is destroying your credibility IMO. But hey, I believe THAT is the goal............to engineer a pathway whereby everyone including the arbitrators MUST use the Nicolau effectively stripping EVERYONE of any other consideration before the actual hearings. A result like that at this point would fly in direct opposition to the concept of obtainment of a fair and equitable result as the entire pre-merger situation and positions of two of the three parties would be altered post merger and pre integration and thus side-stepping the McCaskill-Bond requirements that ARBITRATORS decide what is fair and equitable, not courts or one out of control committee in the throes of delusions of grandeur.
You are simply advocating lunacy. One committee (again, out of THREE) should NEVER by allowed to control this SLI and strip the arbitrators out of weighing the Nic for themselves in consideration of the SPECIFICS of THIS SLI as they have reaffirmed in past statements. What you are advocating by this claim Cacti is nothing short of a 9/11 style hijacking of this arbitration.
That would mean that for all intents and purposes the Nic would have to be decided in its favor at THIS juncture due to being recognized as the ONLY pre-merger LUS list and thus required to be realized in the final ISL by the arbitrators by default as to not, would be "reording" the LUS list. It's clear you (and perhaps the West committee) may intend to engineer the pathway to this new reality by claiming that if the LAA committee chooses NOT to recognize the Nic once this new paradigm is instituted (which is essentially advocating it by validation), then the LAA committee is attempting to override Nic, reorder their pre-merger seniority list (becoming the "new" him in the process) and using that as a defensive argument to the arbitration panel should LAA do that.
You are WAY............WAY off the reservation with this colossal stretch of a claim here Cacti and it is destroying your credibility IMO. But hey, I believe THAT is the goal............to engineer a pathway whereby everyone including the arbitrators MUST use the Nicolau effectively stripping EVERYONE of any other consideration before the actual hearings. A result like that at this point would fly in direct opposition to the concept of obtainment of a fair and equitable result as the entire pre-merger situation and positions of two of the three parties would be altered post merger and pre integration and thus side-stepping the McCaskill-Bond requirements that ARBITRATORS decide what is fair and equitable, not courts or one out of control committee in the throes of delusions of grandeur.
You are simply advocating lunacy. One committee (again, out of THREE) should NEVER by allowed to control this SLI and strip the arbitrators out of weighing the Nic for themselves in consideration of the SPECIFICS of THIS SLI as they have reaffirmed in past statements. What you are advocating by this claim Cacti is nothing short of a 9/11 style hijacking of this arbitration.
Last edited by eaglefly; 08-31-2015 at 06:05 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post