PurpleTurtle

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of arbitration. Arbitrations are nothing but a subordinate contract. ALL arbitrations are performed pursuant to a contract or a statute. ALL arbitrations. No arbitration is powerful unto itself. There is no inherent authority of an arbitrator. The overarching contract (or statute) is inviolate. Apart from the terms of the inviolate contract or statute, the arbitration and any results are of no effect. No one has been deemed to have violated any contracts in these matters. No one.

The courts have been going to great lengths to inject their personal opinions into the various contracts as they relate to the SLI but thus far their hot air hasn't touched a single contractual provision of the PA, the JCBA, the MB statute, or the MB rulings.

There are some people trying desperately to get the courts to interfere or alter the contracts and the statutory provisions. The sooner the boa is simply acknowledged (by everyone, including the courts, especially the courts!) the sooner things will move forward.

R57 relay

Maybe one or two, but they will be handled and that will be it. I've already flown with about 5 furloughed west guys that came east. No issues, all great guys.

beancounter

Wow. Yeah I'd say someone has a fundamental misunderstanding around here. Shheesh.

beancounter

I agree. Actually had beers recently with two east pilots. Nice likable guys, had several things in common. I guess because I look young though they thought I was a third lister. I didn't lie, I just failed to correct them

eaglefly

I'm afraid you (and Relay) have a fundamental misunderstanding of my point, that being it has nothing to do with legaleze, but a person or party living by their agreements. To criticize the West for supposedly failing to live up to the MOU and/or trying to subvert it when that is the EXACT same philosophy the East embraced when it suited their purposes (both of the Nic and of USAPA's subsequent stalling and intransigence of subverting the merger process) is hypocrisy and I'm afraid convoluted rationalizations simply wont justify that.

Let's face it............that is EXACTLY why the East is where it is today, that being on the cusp of finalizing their pyrrhic victory.

eaglefly

Welcome to the club.

Again, my point was about USAPA agreeing to a process that had no guarantees of what the result would be and then when they felt that was was unfair, disregarding that which they agreed to and doubling down with multiple instances of self-serving subversion over an extended period of time nor are any of their supporters in ANY position to throw that type of rock.

At anyone.

You can fluff that cake up with flour, air and frosting all you want, but it will never become palatable.

Monkeyfly

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

PurpleTurtle

I get your point. You disagree with the provisions of the 2005 TA and pilot representational, legal prerogatives.
I don't fault anyone for following their contractual obligations according to the dictates of their own conscience. Do you?

The contracts are the contracts. Running to the courts hoping to get a new interpretation of the 2005 TA was the West initiative. Running to the courts hoping to get a new interpretation of the MOU was a West initiative. Running to the courts to impede the PA and MB rulings is a West initiative in two courts.

No one except the West is questioning the sole authority of the MB arbitrators. That's their right, but they can't blame anyone for the massive delays in contract and statute implementation caused by the courts that they employ.

eaglefly

No, I disagree with accepting the risks of BINDING arbitration by agreeing to that process and then reneging on that agreement when the result was undesirable. That's black and white and there's no way to rationalize that. I disagree with those who have done that then criticizing others for not living up to their agreements either.

The foundation of agreeing to contractual provisions is based on "conscience" ?

Wow. Then you should also have no compunction criticizing Parker for dragging his feet on his agreements with all of us or for that matter Iran, should they reneg on their "contract" with the West and nuke Israel anyway. I'm sure they would only be following their conscience.

....and only if the East had lived up to THEIR end of an agreement to abide by a process they knew to be binding would we not be here now with the West only taking a page from USAPA's playbook.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander or at least that is just as valid a rationalization as deflecting agreements and contracts in different directions. Obviously, the only reality has become that which is in the eye of the beholder.

PurpleTurtle

We all accepted and abided by the 2005 TA provisions. Your apparent unwillingness to acknowledge the Nic arbitration process and result was subordinate to and dependent on the 2005 TA terms is noted.

If the Nic was included in an enforceable contract it would have already been implemented. It wasn't, to the chagrin of the West. If the Nic were to be now implemented, contrary to the current contracts negotiated by the APA, the APA and its LAA members would go apoplectic, and rightfully so.

The MB arbitrators now have the SLI. They have twice ruled to establish three independent, free committees for each of the three seniority lists. Only one committee is voicing their opposition to continuing under the sole authority of the MB arbs. I don't blame them, but after castigating the East for their supposed opposition against Nicolau's instructions, it is quite humorous that they are now opposing the MB arbitrator rulings, in two courts.