airmailpilot

I am enjoying the civil conversation we are having, thank you.

In regards to your posted quote, I am providing the following information, I hope you and others find it helpful;


""17. On December 19, 2007, I sent a letter to Captain John Prater, President of ALPA,
in which I informed him that the Company accepted the Nicolau Award because it satisfied the
criteria specified for acceptance of a combined seniority list under the Transition Agreement, but
reminded ALPA that “[p]ursuant to the terms of the Transition Agreement, the award will not be
implemented by the Company until we have concluded negotiations over the terms of a single
labor agreement covering both pilot groups.” A true and correct copy of my December 19, 2007
letter to Captain Prater is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.""

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/DFR_...eclaration.pdf

eaglefly

Most of the "readers" on this forum know full well the history of the Nicolau award and need no "help" in that regard. The agreement the East pilots made was the acceptance of the process of Binding Arbitration with emphasis on the term "binding". It is a process that offers no guarantees and has risks. They accepted those realities and from an ethical standpoint, should have abided (my spelling) by them. The fact it was successfully subverted by orchestrating an end run methodology (essentially a post award coup) that allowed the majority East to impede the result in no way nullifies the fact they reneged on an agreement, even if successful by stopping the process required for its implementation (a JCBA) before completion.

The only issue I see in this regard in the denial some cling to in the hope of rationalizing the irrational and the only help needed is taking responsibility for the truth of what that failure was.

airmailpilot

I have provided specific information, you provided an opinion.

Opinions, everyone has them.

Your specific accusations, with links, would be appreciated by the readers sir.

I enjoy this forum for other reasons than seniority issues sir, but when you post false accusations I feel the need to respond.

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/DFR_...eclaration.pdf

eaglefly

Two responses to the same post ? Seems a bit obsessive, but the fact is the East subverted the result by orchestrating a coup to gain majority control via a new union with East majority rule. By doing that, they could essentially stop the process so as to never complete that process unless their demands were met.

I understand for some, they will never accept the reality of that past and will attempt to convince others a dog turd is indeed a gold bar. I'm sorry, but I'll never be one of those people, so perhaps it would be more productive for you to argue this issue with others. For me it's not only old trodden ground, but also pointless to waste time weaving around its many decaying turds.

eaglefly

Your opinion apparently is one that your "specific information" is factual. Actually, it's simply a statement that requires interpretation and yours is simply selective interpretation of your own factual information to support your beliefs, or a Strawman argument, if you will.

Respond as you wish, but I think you're wasting your time as there are two philosophies on this issue and everyone has already subscribed to one side, so you won't be changing anyone's mind. But by all means, knock yourself out.

It simply isn't important to me, so the last word on this issue is all yours.

AAFlagship

Eaglefly sums up my thoughts on USAPA In his most recent posts.

I couldn't say it any better or more succinctly.

airmailpilot

I respect your opinions sir, but you have not provided any factual information regarding your accusations. Readers need such.

airmailpilot

In your opinion, eaglefly's opinion, agrees with your opinion.

Thank you sir for clearing up, the factual inconsistencies I pointed out providing facts, by giving your opinion.

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/DFR_...eclaration.pdf

eaglefly

Did the "factual information" he provide (as if one snippet of a paragraph taken from what must be thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation is the definitive conclusion of this subject) prove anything specific ?

I certainly didn't come to that conclusion. It simply highlighted that for the Nicolau to be activated, a process of contractual completion must occur first. If one side successfully prevents that completion is that something that converts "binding arbitration" to just "arbitration" or more aptly (apparently at least in his belief) "suggestive arbitration" ?

I don't buy that for one minute.

airmailpilot

from your post;

"Did the "factual information" he provide (as if one snippet of a paragraph taken from what must be thousands upon thousands of pages of documentation is the definitive conclusion of this subject) prove anything specific ?"

Give us a "snippet"


You never read the link I provided below. The timeliness of your responses and the conduct of your posts prove this.

You have preconceived opinions that provide blinders to the truth.

Provide facts, your opinions are like chief pilots, everyone has them.



http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/DFR_...eclaration.pdf