West Merger update 8/31
09-03-2015, 06:17 AM
#51
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
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.
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.
So yes, here we are now in what ?
Another Binding Arbitration.
All parties have agreed to the process and yet this process is no different then the Nic process in and of itself with the exception the McCaskill-Bond amendment exists to theoretically ensure a "fair and equitable" result. Again, "fair" is a subjective term that usually means different things to the parties involved and "equitable" while also having some subjective basis has a little more to add considering known, fact-based equities that can be quantified to have existed pre-process. But all that apparently means nothing to you as Binding Arbitration sounds as though it is nothing more then the suggestion of neutral advisors that can be disregarded should their "opinions" be incompatible with your beliefs and/or expectations. It seems THAT is what you believe you are agreeing to which in essence, is redefining the arbitration process to suit your OWN definitions. Hey, if you can do that, why can't anyone else ?
As such then, there should be no reason whatsoever that should the arbitral award THIS time be incompatable with one of the parties "conscience", that that party may simply disregard both the results and the process they agreed upon to resolve the issue and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the East or West does exactly that and attempts (or continues) any strategy od self-serving delay or impedance. Thus, this arbitration being intrinsically no different then the Nicolau arbitration, means nothing and resolves nothing, it is only then a process of neutral suggestion. If the result happens to end up incompatable with my conscience, then I believe that the New AA should be run as a fragmented split airline like LUS was in the past. In fact, that would be one very good outcome as it would free up the Nic to be ruled on based on its purity with no complicated additions and resolving that issue to benefit the company where Parker can then merge East/West ops (without your consent) and then run the carrier as a split fenced LAA/LUS carrier for pilot concerns for say 10 years as 'Red pilot/Blue pilot'. This is fabulous...........I underestimated the pleasure one gets from simply seeing the World only as the way I want to see it with no consideration for any realities that exist outside of myself !
You see..................I AM learning to think like a Usapian.
09-03-2015, 07:26 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 227
I think the first time around with Nic no one really even imagined someone would try to get around it or be able to delay implementation so long. I don't see arb's or anyone else allowing that situation to develop again.
Last time the fight allowed company to basically lock in post bankruptcy wages for something like 10 years. Would have been interesting to see how long wages would have been stuck without APA coming in.
Last time the fight allowed company to basically lock in post bankruptcy wages for something like 10 years. Would have been interesting to see how long wages would have been stuck without APA coming in.
09-03-2015, 07:35 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
At the end of the day, the East pilots agreeing to the process of binding arbitration and then subverting the result has little to do with "enforceable contracts" or any other rationalization. If you want to muddy this reality up with rationalizations or deflect it into irrelevant directions, that's fine, but it doesn't change anything. From an ethical standpoint, the East agreed to abide by an uncertain process and reneged when the result wasn't to their liking. End of story and that has nothing to do with what was in a contract or what directions they can use to rationalize that.
So yes, here we are now in what ?
Another Binding Arbitration.
All parties have agreed to the process and yet this process is no different then the Nic process in and of itself with the exception the McCaskill-Bond amendment exists to theoretically ensure a "fair and equitable" result. Again, "fair" is a subjective term that usually means different things to the parties involved and "equitable" while also having some subjective basis has a little more to add considering known, fact-based equities that can be quantified to have existed pre-process. But all that apparently means nothing to you as Binding Arbitration sounds as though it is nothing more then the suggestion of neutral advisors that can be disregarded should their "opinions" be incompatible with your beliefs and/or expectations. It seems THAT is what you believe you are agreeing to which in essence, is redefining the arbitration process to suit your OWN definitions. Hey, if you can do that, why can't anyone else ?
As such then, there should be no reason whatsoever that should the arbitral award THIS time be incompatable with one of the parties "conscience", that that party may simply disregard both the results and the process they agreed upon to resolve the issue and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the East or West does exactly that and attempts (or continues) any strategy od self-serving delay or impedance. Thus, this arbitration being intrinsically no different then the Nicolau arbitration, means nothing and resolves nothing, it is only then a process of neutral suggestion. If the result happens to end up incompatable with my conscience, then I believe that the New AA should be run as a fragmented split airline like LUS was in the past. In fact, that would be one very good outcome as it would free up the Nic to be ruled on based on its purity with no complicated additions and resolving that issue to benefit the company where Parker can then merge East/West ops (without your consent) and then run the carrier as a split fenced LAA/LUS carrier for pilot concerns for say 10 years as 'Red pilot/Blue pilot'. This is fabulous...........I underestimated the pleasure one gets from simply seeing the World only as the way I want to see it with no consideration for any realities that exist outside of myself !
You see..................I AM learning to think like a Usapian.
So yes, here we are now in what ?
Another Binding Arbitration.
All parties have agreed to the process and yet this process is no different then the Nic process in and of itself with the exception the McCaskill-Bond amendment exists to theoretically ensure a "fair and equitable" result. Again, "fair" is a subjective term that usually means different things to the parties involved and "equitable" while also having some subjective basis has a little more to add considering known, fact-based equities that can be quantified to have existed pre-process. But all that apparently means nothing to you as Binding Arbitration sounds as though it is nothing more then the suggestion of neutral advisors that can be disregarded should their "opinions" be incompatible with your beliefs and/or expectations. It seems THAT is what you believe you are agreeing to which in essence, is redefining the arbitration process to suit your OWN definitions. Hey, if you can do that, why can't anyone else ?
As such then, there should be no reason whatsoever that should the arbitral award THIS time be incompatable with one of the parties "conscience", that that party may simply disregard both the results and the process they agreed upon to resolve the issue and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the East or West does exactly that and attempts (or continues) any strategy od self-serving delay or impedance. Thus, this arbitration being intrinsically no different then the Nicolau arbitration, means nothing and resolves nothing, it is only then a process of neutral suggestion. If the result happens to end up incompatable with my conscience, then I believe that the New AA should be run as a fragmented split airline like LUS was in the past. In fact, that would be one very good outcome as it would free up the Nic to be ruled on based on its purity with no complicated additions and resolving that issue to benefit the company where Parker can then merge East/West ops (without your consent) and then run the carrier as a split fenced LAA/LUS carrier for pilot concerns for say 10 years as 'Red pilot/Blue pilot'. This is fabulous...........I underestimated the pleasure one gets from simply seeing the World only as the way I want to see it with no consideration for any realities that exist outside of myself !
You see..................I AM learning to think like a Usapian.
).
09-07-2015, 06:31 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 335
At the end of the day, the East pilots agreeing to the process of binding arbitration and then subverting the result has little to do with "enforceable contracts" or any other rationalization. If you want to muddy this reality up with rationalizations or deflect it into irrelevant directions, that's fine, but it doesn't change anything. From an ethical standpoint, the East agreed to abide by an uncertain process and reneged when the result wasn't to their liking. End of story and that has nothing to do with what was in a contract or what directions they can use to rationalize that....
09-08-2015, 08:35 AM
#56
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
I think you misunderstand me. The "uncertainty" in binding arbitration.........ANY binding arbitration is what the outcome will be. In this respect, East ALPA agreed to that process, but when it completed itself in just the way it intended to (an unknown outcome), they subverted that result because it wasn't to their liking.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
