Boom!
09-24-2015, 07:52 PM
#161
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
I don't think the LAA group thinks it's the Nic at all, especially after Silvers award.
Remember the LAA group did not have the Nic as the list in their original proposal. The only reason it was in their second proposal was that they had to make a strategic decision based on the uncertainty of Silver's award. Including the Nic on the second proposal was the safer of the two choices for their group.
The West will advocate hard for the Nic if they stay with their strategy. Just because the LAA group has the Nic in their proposal doesn't mean they plan on giving a very good case for the final inclusion of the Nic. The Nic is not their objective. It will be two entirely different presentations of why the Nic was included in their respective proposals.
Your implication is that because the LAA included the Nic then they are aligned with the West on its inclusion in the final award. I can guarantee you that's not their ultimate objective in this arbitration.
Remember the LAA group did not have the Nic as the list in their original proposal. The only reason it was in their second proposal was that they had to make a strategic decision based on the uncertainty of Silver's award. Including the Nic on the second proposal was the safer of the two choices for their group.
The West will advocate hard for the Nic if they stay with their strategy. Just because the LAA group has the Nic in their proposal doesn't mean they plan on giving a very good case for the final inclusion of the Nic. The Nic is not their objective. It will be two entirely different presentations of why the Nic was included in their respective proposals.
Your implication is that because the LAA included the Nic then they are aligned with the West on its inclusion in the final award. I can guarantee you that's not their ultimate objective in this arbitration.
09-24-2015, 10:48 PM
#162
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
I don't think the LAA group thinks it's the Nic at all, especially after Silvers award.
Remember the LAA group did not have the Nic as the list in their original proposal. The only reason it was in their second proposal was that they had to make a strategic decision based on the uncertainty of Silver's award. Including the Nic on the second proposal was the safer of the two choices for their group.
The West will advocate hard for the Nic if they stay with their strategy. Just because the LAA group has the Nic in their proposal doesn't mean they plan on giving a very good case for the final inclusion of the Nic. The Nic is not their objective. It will be two entirely different presentations of why the Nic was included in their respective proposals.
Your implication is that because the LAA included the Nic then they are aligned with the West on its inclusion in the final award. I can guarantee you that's not their ultimate objective in this arbitration.
Remember the LAA group did not have the Nic as the list in their original proposal. The only reason it was in their second proposal was that they had to make a strategic decision based on the uncertainty of Silver's award. Including the Nic on the second proposal was the safer of the two choices for their group.
The West will advocate hard for the Nic if they stay with their strategy. Just because the LAA group has the Nic in their proposal doesn't mean they plan on giving a very good case for the final inclusion of the Nic. The Nic is not their objective. It will be two entirely different presentations of why the Nic was included in their respective proposals.
Your implication is that because the LAA included the Nic then they are aligned with the West on its inclusion in the final award. I can guarantee you that's not their ultimate objective in this arbitration.
Silver didn't rewrite the protocol agreement. I'll wait and see if the boa is the new Nic or the old Nic.
09-25-2015, 04:48 PM
#163
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: a320 capt
Posts: 52
Hey Cactiboss,
Is this a legitimate analysis?
1. 9th Circuit says the East Pilots are guilty of failing DFR to the West
2. They tell Judge Silver to write up an injunction saying that the East must advocate NIC in the upcoming merger
3. East merger committee quits en-mass
4. APA (which now represents all pilots East, West & legacy AA pilots) rounds up some more East pilots to form a new committee
5. Judge Silver says: the original committee is no longer in existence, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: USAPA no longer exists, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: the new (unenjoined) committee formed after the original committee quit, can do anything it wants (including advocating the Gold Standard DOH list)
7. The penalty for failing DFR is: Nothing
Make sense?
Is this a legitimate analysis?
1. 9th Circuit says the East Pilots are guilty of failing DFR to the West
2. They tell Judge Silver to write up an injunction saying that the East must advocate NIC in the upcoming merger
3. East merger committee quits en-mass
4. APA (which now represents all pilots East, West & legacy AA pilots) rounds up some more East pilots to form a new committee
5. Judge Silver says: the original committee is no longer in existence, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: USAPA no longer exists, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: the new (unenjoined) committee formed after the original committee quit, can do anything it wants (including advocating the Gold Standard DOH list)
7. The penalty for failing DFR is: Nothing
Make sense?
09-25-2015, 05:29 PM
#164
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Hey Cactiboss,
Is this a legitimate analysis?
1. 9th Circuit says the East Pilots are guilty of failing DFR to the West
2. They tell Judge Silver to write up an injunction saying that the East must advocate NIC in the upcoming merger
3. East merger committee quits en-mass
4. APA (which now represents all pilots East, West & legacy AA pilots) rounds up some more East pilots to form a new committee
5. Judge Silver says: the original committee is no longer in existence, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: USAPA no longer exists, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: the new (unenjoined) committee formed after the original committee quit, can do anything it wants (including advocating the Gold Standard DOH list)
7. The penalty for failing DFR is: Nothing
Make sense?
Is this a legitimate analysis?
1. 9th Circuit says the East Pilots are guilty of failing DFR to the West
2. They tell Judge Silver to write up an injunction saying that the East must advocate NIC in the upcoming merger
3. East merger committee quits en-mass
4. APA (which now represents all pilots East, West & legacy AA pilots) rounds up some more East pilots to form a new committee
5. Judge Silver says: the original committee is no longer in existence, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: USAPA no longer exists, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: the new (unenjoined) committee formed after the original committee quit, can do anything it wants (including advocating the Gold Standard DOH list)
7. The penalty for failing DFR is: Nothing
Make sense?
It's all available at cactuspilot.com if you'd like to read it. Just a tip-I wouldn't take cacti's word for it.
09-25-2015, 08:36 PM
#165
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Hey Cactiboss,
Is this a legitimate analysis?
1. 9th Circuit says the East Pilots are guilty of failing DFR to the West
2. They tell Judge Silver to write up an injunction saying that the East must advocate NIC in the upcoming merger
3. East merger committee quits en-mass
4. APA (which now represents all pilots East, West & legacy AA pilots) rounds up some more East pilots to form a new committee
5. Judge Silver says: the original committee is no longer in existence, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: USAPA no longer exists, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: the new (unenjoined) committee formed after the original committee quit, can do anything it wants (including advocating the Gold Standard DOH list)
7. The penalty for failing DFR is: Nothing
Make sense?
Is this a legitimate analysis?
1. 9th Circuit says the East Pilots are guilty of failing DFR to the West
2. They tell Judge Silver to write up an injunction saying that the East must advocate NIC in the upcoming merger
3. East merger committee quits en-mass
4. APA (which now represents all pilots East, West & legacy AA pilots) rounds up some more East pilots to form a new committee
5. Judge Silver says: the original committee is no longer in existence, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: USAPA no longer exists, therefore it can't be enjoined!
6. Judge Silver says: the new (unenjoined) committee formed after the original committee quit, can do anything it wants (including advocating the Gold Standard DOH list)
7. The penalty for failing DFR is: Nothing
Make sense?
Last edited by cactiboss; 09-25-2015 at 08:50 PM.
09-25-2015, 08:39 PM
#166
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
The 9th said and meant east pilots in writing, Silver f'ed up is ****ed and claims the 9th shouldn't have enjoined usapa to begin with, disgraceful. Wake would have strung you up like you deserve.
09-26-2015, 05:50 AM
#167
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
integrated seniority list. Permitting USAPA to go forward in the SLI arbitration process effectively ratifies USAPA’s past violations of its duty of fair representation. It allows USAPA to take advantage of the absence of an integrated list—the direct result of its own misconduct—to advocate a brand new list unfettered by its obligations under the ALPA Merger Policy and Transition Agreement. We cannot countenance such a result. Nevertheless, we also recognize that it is not certain whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented fully but for USAPA’s breach. Because a good faith attempt to implement the Nicolau Award would have ultimately required a ratification vote by all the pilots, and we cannot know what the results of such a vote would have been, we can never be certain whether efforts to implement the Nicolau Award through a collective bargaining agreement with US Airways would have succeeded. See Addington I, 606 F.3d at 1179.
I don't see an east in there. You got the injunction the 9th said you should get, just not the usual AOL overreach.
BTW, didn't you guys ask for either Silver or Wake? And remember, Wake got overturned.
So, what's the next legal challenge?
09-26-2015, 07:38 AM
#168
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
How about a few quotes from her order....
"USAPA has withdrawn from the arbitration and has stated it will make no efforts in the future to become involved. This Court is not in the habit of issuing an injunction when there is no longer a live controversy. ..prior to issuance of the mandate [for Judge Silver to issue an injunction], the Ninth Circuit knew USAPA had withdrawn from the arbitration. Despite that, the Ninth Circuit panel that issued the opinion made no changes to its instructions. Thus, the Ninth Circuit wants a formal injunction prohibiting USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond proceeding and the Court will issue such an injunction [even though there is no longer a liver controversy].
Its quite comical to see Silver school the 9th on their judicial blunders.
09-26-2015, 08:24 AM
#169
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Yeah, that was funny how Silver kept quoting Tashima (the dissent) and basically said there was no point in enjoining USAPA, because there is no longer a liver controversy.
How about a few quotes from her order....
"USAPA has withdrawn from the arbitration and has stated it will make no efforts in the future to become involved. This Court is not in the habit of issuing an injunction when there is no longer a live controversy. ..prior to issuance of the mandate [for Judge Silver to issue an injunction], the Ninth Circuit knew USAPA had withdrawn from the arbitration. Despite that, the Ninth Circuit panel that issued the opinion made no changes to its instructions. Thus, the Ninth Circuit wants a formal injunction prohibiting USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond proceeding and the Court will issue such an injunction [even though there is no longer a liver controversy].
Its quite comical to see Silver school the 9th on their judicial blunders.
How about a few quotes from her order....
"USAPA has withdrawn from the arbitration and has stated it will make no efforts in the future to become involved. This Court is not in the habit of issuing an injunction when there is no longer a live controversy. ..prior to issuance of the mandate [for Judge Silver to issue an injunction], the Ninth Circuit knew USAPA had withdrawn from the arbitration. Despite that, the Ninth Circuit panel that issued the opinion made no changes to its instructions. Thus, the Ninth Circuit wants a formal injunction prohibiting USAPA from participating in the McCaskill-Bond proceeding and the Court will issue such an injunction [even though there is no longer a liver controversy].
Its quite comical to see Silver school the 9th on their judicial blunders.
09-26-2015, 08:26 AM
#170
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
"The harm resulting from USAPA’s violation is the persisting absence of an
integrated seniority list. Permitting USAPA to go forward in the SLI arbitration process effectively ratifies USAPA’s past violations of its duty of fair representation. It allows USAPA to take advantage of the absence of an integrated list—the direct result of its own misconduct—to advocate a brand new list unfettered by its obligations under the ALPA Merger Policy and Transition Agreement. We cannot countenance such a result. Nevertheless, we also recognize that it is not certain whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented fully but for USAPA’s breach. Because a good faith attempt to implement the Nicolau Award would have ultimately required a ratification vote by all the pilots, and we cannot know what the results of such a vote would have been, we can never be certain whether efforts to implement the Nicolau Award through a collective bargaining agreement with US Airways would have succeeded. See Addington I, 606 F.3d at 1179.
I don't see an east in there. You got the injunction the 9th said you should get, just not the usual AOL overreach.
BTW, didn't you guys ask for either Silver or Wake? And remember, Wake got overturned.
So, what's the next legal challenge?
integrated seniority list. Permitting USAPA to go forward in the SLI arbitration process effectively ratifies USAPA’s past violations of its duty of fair representation. It allows USAPA to take advantage of the absence of an integrated list—the direct result of its own misconduct—to advocate a brand new list unfettered by its obligations under the ALPA Merger Policy and Transition Agreement. We cannot countenance such a result. Nevertheless, we also recognize that it is not certain whether the Nicolau Award would have been implemented fully but for USAPA’s breach. Because a good faith attempt to implement the Nicolau Award would have ultimately required a ratification vote by all the pilots, and we cannot know what the results of such a vote would have been, we can never be certain whether efforts to implement the Nicolau Award through a collective bargaining agreement with US Airways would have succeeded. See Addington I, 606 F.3d at 1179.
I don't see an east in there. You got the injunction the 9th said you should get, just not the usual AOL overreach.
BTW, didn't you guys ask for either Silver or Wake? And remember, Wake got overturned.
So, what's the next legal challenge?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
