En Banc Denied!
08-25-2015, 08:48 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Yes, this confuses me too. Again, the reality is that at merger snapshot date, like it or not, three separate groups existed. I can understand neutrality being required of the pre-merger unions and thus the surviving union and even buy the requirement for USAPA to not advocate anything other then the Nic (which may allow them to take no position at all just like APA), but each committee should be free to argue anything it so chooses (even at their own peril) considering the reality is that pre-merger there were three separate pilot groups with three distinct interests, separate equities and positions on the various aspects of SLI.
The Arb Panel will watch with amusement as Silver and the rest of the court jesters juggle balls, blow gazoos, and prance on one foot with a stack of plates on their head. Each MC performance will be just as entertaining and amusing.
The Arb Panel sits on high and smiles at all the posturing. They alone have all the power. The decision belongs to them and no one else. They smile to themselves, "It's good to be king."
08-25-2015, 08:51 AM
#42
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
The court was very careful not to alter a single letter in the MOU, the Protocol Agreement, or the MB statute. They are LEGAL, BINDING CONTRACTS and STATUTES for crying out loud... And the courts never said otherwise.. and I have little doubt the Arb Panel is already 98% finished with their list and are now just biding their time until the play acting rolls are complete.
The Arb Panel will watch with amusement as Silver and the rest of the court jesters juggle balls, blow gazoos, and prance on one foot with a stack of plates on their head. Each MC performance will be just as entertaining and amusing.
The Arb Panel sits on high and smiles at all the posturing. They alone have all the power. The decision belongs to them and no one else. They smile to themselves, "It's good to be king."
The Arb Panel will watch with amusement as Silver and the rest of the court jesters juggle balls, blow gazoos, and prance on one foot with a stack of plates on their head. Each MC performance will be just as entertaining and amusing.
The Arb Panel sits on high and smiles at all the posturing. They alone have all the power. The decision belongs to them and no one else. They smile to themselves, "It's good to be king."
08-25-2015, 09:07 AM
#43
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Dude, it's not "my" assertion, it's the 9th's. You are confusing 2 separate things here. Two things happened, in laymans terms, the 9th found the mou/pa language violated the law and the 9th refused to tie the boa hands. Forcing usapa to show up with the nic is no different than saying the nic. is the lus list but the boa can do whatever they want just as they can with the laa list. It's not my "assertion", it's the LAW now.
Okay..........so what ?
What is to then stop the East committee from arguing a position that includes the Nic, BUT recognizes and acknowledges that three separate pre-merger groups existed and proposes their OWN fences on the East side ?
In the past, West pilots vehemently attacked USAPA for not representing THEIR interests in this SLI and now are you implying that East pilots cannot represent anything other then the West's beliefs and position ?
Wave the Nic all over the place if it gets you off, but all APA can do AT MOST, is require the East committee to make a proposal that includes the Nic. What and how the East ADDS to that to protect what they believe to be their pre-merger interests the APA won't stop and you can't sue them for DFR for that. Well, you can try, but good luck.
The LAA committee may or may not incorporate the Nic into their model, but if so, will (or should) propose mitigators to offset LAA collateral damage. Perhaps they will propose TWO models, one with and another without the Nic to both give the arbitrators options and also demonstrate their sensitivity to this issue ?
The East should be able to also make any compensation to whatever they propose if their proposal has include the Nic.
I think you're going to snap that string. Again, it appears all you see anymore is the Nic. You sound like you eat, dream and crap the damn thing. It is NO closer to reality as a result of the 9th as they did not require it be acknowledged let alone used by the arbitrators and I doubt Silver will do that either. All each party has is what they had months ago and that is an argument and soon another proposal. You are getting your 'day in court' to argue (thanks to APA) and so you should.
Controlling OTHERS arguments or positions is going too far and the 9th never intended for that.
08-25-2015, 09:28 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
...and so someone "shows up" with the Nic. Dude..........that has already occurred. The West already showed up with it. The fact the 9th enjoined USAPA into X or Y changes nothing. Silver hasn't clarified anything yet. It makes it no more or less likely the arbitrators will use it in pure form then from prior to the appellate ruling. OK, so APA says..........."USAPA must advocate the Nic" or "the East committee cannot propose anything that doesn't include the Nic"
Okay..........so what ?
What is to then stop the East committee from arguing a position that includes the Nic, BUT recognizes and acknowledges that three separate pre-merger groups existed and proposes their OWN fences on the East side ?
In the past, West pilots vehemently attacked USAPA for not representing THEIR interests in this SLI and now are you implying that East pilots cannot represent anything other then the West's beliefs and position ?
Wave the Nic all over the place if it gets you off, but all APA can do AT MOST, is require the East committee to make a proposal that includes the Nic. What and how the East ADDS to that to protect what they believe to be their pre-merger interests the APA won't stop and you can't sue them for DFR for that. Well, you can try, but good luck.
The LAA committee may or may not incorporate the Nic into their model, but if so, will (or should) propose mitigators to offset LAA collateral damage. Perhaps they will propose TWO models, one with and another without the Nic to both give the arbitrators options and also demonstrate their sensitivity to this issue ?
The East should be able to also make any compensation to whatever they propose if their proposal has include the Nic.
I think you're going to snap that string. Again, it appears all you see anymore is the Nic. You sound like you eat, dream and crap the damn thing. It is NO closer to reality as a result of the 9th as they did not require it be acknowledged let alone used by the arbitrators and I doubt Silver will do that either. All each party has is what they had months ago and that is an argument and soon another proposal. You are getting your 'day in court' to argue (thanks to APA) and so you should.
Controlling OTHERS arguments or positions is going too far and the 9th never intended for that.
Okay..........so what ?
What is to then stop the East committee from arguing a position that includes the Nic, BUT recognizes and acknowledges that three separate pre-merger groups existed and proposes their OWN fences on the East side ?
In the past, West pilots vehemently attacked USAPA for not representing THEIR interests in this SLI and now are you implying that East pilots cannot represent anything other then the West's beliefs and position ?
Wave the Nic all over the place if it gets you off, but all APA can do AT MOST, is require the East committee to make a proposal that includes the Nic. What and how the East ADDS to that to protect what they believe to be their pre-merger interests the APA won't stop and you can't sue them for DFR for that. Well, you can try, but good luck.
The LAA committee may or may not incorporate the Nic into their model, but if so, will (or should) propose mitigators to offset LAA collateral damage. Perhaps they will propose TWO models, one with and another without the Nic to both give the arbitrators options and also demonstrate their sensitivity to this issue ?
The East should be able to also make any compensation to whatever they propose if their proposal has include the Nic.
I think you're going to snap that string. Again, it appears all you see anymore is the Nic. You sound like you eat, dream and crap the damn thing. It is NO closer to reality as a result of the 9th as they did not require it be acknowledged let alone used by the arbitrators and I doubt Silver will do that either. All each party has is what they had months ago and that is an argument and soon another proposal. You are getting your 'day in court' to argue (thanks to APA) and so you should.
Controlling OTHERS arguments or positions is going too far and the 9th never intended for that.
The APA and USAPA will remain neutral, which is ironic since they are the ones that collected all the dues...
Well, actually one of the APA BOD members may not be entirely neutral.
08-25-2015, 09:34 AM
#46
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
This just blows my mind, how you can think the 9th's ruling has absolutely no bearing on this sli and the legitimacy of the nic as the lus list is beyond my ability to comprehend.
08-25-2015, 09:45 AM
#47
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
The "legitimacy" of the Nic is a subjective and thus arguable concept unless the arbitrators are compelled to incorporate that in pure form in their final ISL. They are not and HAVE not by anyone including the 9th. The fact that the 9th appellate went to great measure to ensure their ruling would not be construed as such says as much about the ruling as their enjoinment of the Nic to USAPA.
Perhaps the euphoria of that ruling and the subsequent and repetitive hangovers that are resulting from its aftermath is altering your comprehension ?
08-25-2015, 09:56 AM
#48
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,967
08-25-2015, 10:13 AM
#49
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Apparently so.
The "legitimacy" of the Nic is a subjective and thus arguable concept unless the arbitrators are compelled to incorporate that in pure form in their final ISL. They are not and HAVE not by anyone including the 9th. The fact that the 9th appellate went to great measure to ensure their ruling would not be construed as such says as much about the ruling as their enjoinment of the Nic to USAPA.
Perhaps the euphoria of that ruling and the subsequent and repetitive hangovers that are resulting from its aftermath is altering your comprehension ?
The "legitimacy" of the Nic is a subjective and thus arguable concept unless the arbitrators are compelled to incorporate that in pure form in their final ISL. They are not and HAVE not by anyone including the 9th. The fact that the 9th appellate went to great measure to ensure their ruling would not be construed as such says as much about the ruling as their enjoinment of the Nic to USAPA.
Perhaps the euphoria of that ruling and the subsequent and repetitive hangovers that are resulting from its aftermath is altering your comprehension ?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
