5.5 million ways to say goodbye
03-13-2016, 07:28 PM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 212
I recommend to those that want to increase their seniority, by climbing over the backs of men they followed in a profession, provide facts.
Rationalization of unearned gain, in ones own mind, is a tempting human trait.
Rationalization of unearned gain, in ones own mind, is a tempting human trait.
03-13-2016, 07:57 PM
#122
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 40
Rationalization of an ill gotten gain is a abhorrent human trait.
03-14-2016, 02:47 AM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 321
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.
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.
03-14-2016, 10:24 AM
#124
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
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
"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
Who is the author of that document you provide ?
A member of US Airways management.
What is the point/purpose of that statement ?
As a co-defendant against the plaintiffs, it's the clarification and defense of the defined protocol in the Transition Agreement (TA) between then ALPA and the two pre-merger pilot groups to keep the pre-merger groups separate operating under their respective CBA's so as not to allow or condone cross-transfer and/or furlough from the arbitrated list as opposed to the still separate lists. That statement defines the parties, defends the pre-merger status-quo of separate CBA's and the validity of an interim TA that controls and defines a "fence" to prevent imbalanced furloughs based on an unactivated (but arbitrated) list until the integration process is completed. The term used is "operational pilot integration".
What is the motive ?
Why, to reduce costs, of course. The terms of the TA are designed to ensure a process that places no "increased costs" on the company in the actual pilot integration process and using an unconsummated list as per the plaintiffs would not be in accordance with the provisions of the TA and would result in those increased costs by furloughing from a properly staffed operation (the East) and training transition with seniority for those in an overstaffed operation (the West).
What does all this indicate ?
It demonstrates that the Nicolau was accepted by the company because it met all the criteria of the TA process, but because the last leg of a "three-legged stool" (Bloch) had not been completed, the desire of the plaintiffs to furlough based on the arbitrated Nicolau list were pre-mature..
Why did the company accept the Nicolau in principle ?
Because it was reached via a process in compliance with then applicable merger policy and was the product of a process called BINDING Arbitration to which BOTH parties readily accepted and agreed to and it was incompliance with the terms of the TA to which both parties also readily agreed to.
What happened ?
As indicated in the statement YOU provide (in baffling inexplainability as to why you provided it), the East MEC withdrew from the process and subsequently reformed a new union based on East majority rule which is the "methodology of subversion" I described. The author even confirms that that the decision to "suspend negotiations" by the East MEC was improper as only ALPA and/or the company could do that as per the TA. They went AWOL anyway.
Why ?
In an affirmation that belies the calculated intransigence of the East MEC, to THWART IMPLIMENTATION OF THE NICOLAU AWARD.
NO, "three-legged stool" means NO "operational pilot integration" and thus NO unbalanced furlough or pre-merger cross bidding/bumping by plaintiffs to avoid displacement or furlough, thus NO "increased costs" for management. Q.E.D.
This is not only semantics, but irrelevant semantics at that. Why ?
Because this action by the plaintiffs has nothing to do with the fact that the East MEC freely accepted the risks of agreeing to Binding Arbitration and then once the result was determined to be so egregious to them, any rationalization was sufficient to pursue an "end justifies the means" strategy to prevent its consummation. Just because it was successfully subverted, that fact cannot erase the prior acceptance and decision made as if it didn't exist. Legally, the plaintiffs had no position, but morally, the East MEC is to blame for it.
I understand you'll have a different opinion, but it's important for both of us to accept and acknowledge we BOTH only have opinions and the information you are anchoring your argument on is simply opinion in and of itself as a result of selective interpretation of something you want to prove what you believe, but in fact, actually indicates in many ways the very opposite. We are all biased in one way or another and do you think it's possible there is some bias in what you perceive ?
03-14-2016, 10:28 AM
#125
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Speaking of facts, could you prove with "facts" just who are the "men" who A. apparently have "followed" you and thus are climbing over your back or B. what proves one parties position based on their own bias isn't perceived as personal gain at the expense of others BY others ?
With all due respect, I think you're on a very high pulpit, sir.
03-14-2016, 05:29 PM
#126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 212
Please elaborate on your ill gotten gain statement.
In addition to this sir, your AMR date of hire would be useful to the readers when they try to comprehend your opinions.
Be specific please sir.
In addition to this sir, your AMR date of hire would be useful to the readers when they try to comprehend your opinions.
Be specific please sir.
Last edited by airmailpilot; 03-14-2016 at 05:53 PM.
03-14-2016, 05:31 PM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 212
.........this post sure indicates that to me.
Speaking of facts, could you prove with "facts" just who are the "men" who A. apparently have "followed" you and thus are climbing over your back or B. what proves one parties position based on their own bias isn't perceived as personal gain at the expense of others BY others ?
With all due respect, I think you're on a very high pulpit, sir.
Speaking of facts, could you prove with "facts" just who are the "men" who A. apparently have "followed" you and thus are climbing over your back or B. what proves one parties position based on their own bias isn't perceived as personal gain at the expense of others BY others ?
With all due respect, I think you're on a very high pulpit, sir.
What is your AMR date of hire? Easy question for you to answer.
Be specific sir.
03-14-2016, 05:35 PM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 212
I'll once again engage you because I think it's important for you to understand my "opinion". My opinion is that what you have provided here is simply nothing more then YOUR interpretation of one document of position and just like a chief pilot, your interpretation is also nothing more then opinion. The "snippet" I referenced was correctly only what you highlighted from the text of that document. But let's examine just what IS that document you provide and represent here as some form of proof that the East MEC (first as ALPA) and then as its afterbirth USAPA, reneged on the agreement to accept BINDING Arbitration ?
Who is the author of that document you provide ?
A member of US Airways management.
What is the point/purpose of that statement ?
As a co-defendant against the plaintiffs, it's the clarification and defense of the defined protocol in the Transition Agreement (TA) between then ALPA and the two pre-merger pilot groups to keep the pre-merger groups separate operating under their respective CBA's so as not to allow or condone cross-transfer and/or furlough from the arbitrated list as opposed to the still separate lists. That statement defines the parties, defends the pre-merger status-quo of separate CBA's and the validity of an interim TA that controls and defines a "fence" to prevent imbalanced furloughs based on an unactivated (but arbitrated) list until the integration process is completed. The term used is "operational pilot integration".
What is the motive ?
Why, to reduce costs, of course. The terms of the TA are designed to ensure a process that places no "increased costs" on the company in the actual pilot integration process and using an unconsummated list as per the plaintiffs would not be in accordance with the provisions of the TA and would result in those increased costs by furloughing from a properly staffed operation (the East) and training transition with seniority for those in an overstaffed operation (the West).
What does all this indicate ?
It demonstrates that the Nicolau was accepted by the company because it met all the criteria of the TA process, but because the last leg of a "three-legged stool" (Bloch) had not been completed, the desire of the plaintiffs to furlough based on the arbitrated Nicolau list were pre-mature..
Why did the company accept the Nicolau in principle ?
Because it was reached via a process in compliance with then applicable merger policy and was the product of a process called BINDING Arbitration to which BOTH parties readily accepted and agreed to and it was incompliance with the terms of the TA to which both parties also readily agreed to.
What happened ?
As indicated in the statement YOU provide (in baffling inexplainability as to why you provided it), the East MEC withdrew from the process and subsequently reformed a new union based on East majority rule which is the "methodology of subversion" I described. The author even confirms that that the decision to "suspend negotiations" by the East MEC was improper as only ALPA and/or the company could do that as per the TA. They went AWOL anyway.
Why ?
In an affirmation that belies the calculated intransigence of the East MEC, to THWART IMPLIMENTATION OF THE NICOLAU AWARD.
NO, "three-legged stool" means NO "operational pilot integration" and thus NO unbalanced furlough or pre-merger cross bidding/bumping by plaintiffs to avoid displacement or furlough, thus NO "increased costs" for management. Q.E.D.
This is not only semantics, but irrelevant semantics at that. Why ?
Because this action by the plaintiffs has nothing to do with the fact that the East MEC freely accepted the risks of agreeing to Binding Arbitration and then once the result was determined to be so egregious to them, any rationalization was sufficient to pursue an "end justifies the means" strategy to prevent its consummation. Just because it was successfully subverted, that fact cannot erase the prior acceptance and decision made as if it didn't exist. Legally, the plaintiffs had no position, but morally, the East MEC is to blame for it.
I understand you'll have a different opinion, but it's important for both of us to accept and acknowledge we BOTH only have opinions and the information you are anchoring your argument on is simply opinion in and of itself as a result of selective interpretation of something you want to prove what you believe, but in fact, actually indicates in many ways the very opposite. We are all biased in one way or another and do you think it's possible there is some bias in what you perceive ?
Who is the author of that document you provide ?
A member of US Airways management.
What is the point/purpose of that statement ?
As a co-defendant against the plaintiffs, it's the clarification and defense of the defined protocol in the Transition Agreement (TA) between then ALPA and the two pre-merger pilot groups to keep the pre-merger groups separate operating under their respective CBA's so as not to allow or condone cross-transfer and/or furlough from the arbitrated list as opposed to the still separate lists. That statement defines the parties, defends the pre-merger status-quo of separate CBA's and the validity of an interim TA that controls and defines a "fence" to prevent imbalanced furloughs based on an unactivated (but arbitrated) list until the integration process is completed. The term used is "operational pilot integration".
What is the motive ?
Why, to reduce costs, of course. The terms of the TA are designed to ensure a process that places no "increased costs" on the company in the actual pilot integration process and using an unconsummated list as per the plaintiffs would not be in accordance with the provisions of the TA and would result in those increased costs by furloughing from a properly staffed operation (the East) and training transition with seniority for those in an overstaffed operation (the West).
What does all this indicate ?
It demonstrates that the Nicolau was accepted by the company because it met all the criteria of the TA process, but because the last leg of a "three-legged stool" (Bloch) had not been completed, the desire of the plaintiffs to furlough based on the arbitrated Nicolau list were pre-mature..
Why did the company accept the Nicolau in principle ?
Because it was reached via a process in compliance with then applicable merger policy and was the product of a process called BINDING Arbitration to which BOTH parties readily accepted and agreed to and it was incompliance with the terms of the TA to which both parties also readily agreed to.
What happened ?
As indicated in the statement YOU provide (in baffling inexplainability as to why you provided it), the East MEC withdrew from the process and subsequently reformed a new union based on East majority rule which is the "methodology of subversion" I described. The author even confirms that that the decision to "suspend negotiations" by the East MEC was improper as only ALPA and/or the company could do that as per the TA. They went AWOL anyway.
Why ?
In an affirmation that belies the calculated intransigence of the East MEC, to THWART IMPLIMENTATION OF THE NICOLAU AWARD.
NO, "three-legged stool" means NO "operational pilot integration" and thus NO unbalanced furlough or pre-merger cross bidding/bumping by plaintiffs to avoid displacement or furlough, thus NO "increased costs" for management. Q.E.D.
This is not only semantics, but irrelevant semantics at that. Why ?
Because this action by the plaintiffs has nothing to do with the fact that the East MEC freely accepted the risks of agreeing to Binding Arbitration and then once the result was determined to be so egregious to them, any rationalization was sufficient to pursue an "end justifies the means" strategy to prevent its consummation. Just because it was successfully subverted, that fact cannot erase the prior acceptance and decision made as if it didn't exist. Legally, the plaintiffs had no position, but morally, the East MEC is to blame for it.
I understand you'll have a different opinion, but it's important for both of us to accept and acknowledge we BOTH only have opinions and the information you are anchoring your argument on is simply opinion in and of itself as a result of selective interpretation of something you want to prove what you believe, but in fact, actually indicates in many ways the very opposite. We are all biased in one way or another and do you think it's possible there is some bias in what you perceive ?
No combined awa US Airways contract no nic, bottom line.
It is that simple.
Enjoying our discussion and appreciate the forum that provides it.
What say you sir?
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/DFR_...eclaration.pdf
Last edited by airmailpilot; 03-14-2016 at 05:52 PM.
03-14-2016, 07:04 PM
#130
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
What would this prove ? You state the fact I am an Eagle Flow through pilot, but what does that or my AMR DOH have to do with East ALPA agreeing to Binding arbitration and then reneging on the agreement once the award was revealed ?
Let me guess...........you subscribe to a "date-of-hire" philosophy as it is the foundation of East ALPA/USAPA integration policy and wish to confirm my inferiority under that paradigm ? Considering I'm an Eagle flow-through, it is common belief I'm inferior regardless of my AMR DOH.
But nonetheless, it is in the mid-late 1980's which is the best I can do considering its irrelevancy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
