5.5 million ways to say goodbye
03-14-2016, 07:07 PM
#131
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
The 9th Circuit Court did not rule that the ill fated nic had to be used.
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
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
The issue is Binding arbitration and agreeing to the "binding" component. I'd ask you, "what do you say, sir", but I already know.
03-14-2016, 07:13 PM
#132
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
But, where in any statement do I make any claim I or any given flow-through pilot (or any particular pilot for that matter) "go above" never furloughed East pilots ?Your bias has now been joined by agenda and again, what does this have to with accepting Binding arbitration with AMERICA WEST pilots and then reneging after the fact ?
I don't see this having ANYTHING to do with those pesky Eagle flows.
03-14-2016, 09:14 PM
#133
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 40
Any gains LUS pilots have enjoyed while subverting the results of the Nicolau Award are ill gotten.
Those two sentences are not hard to comprehend. Obviously, my seniority at AA cannot be compared to your apparently lofty seniority, but my career expectations were way better until the merger with USAirways came along.
And your earnings took one giant leap thanks to the merger with AA. Absent that, you would still be on your bankruptcy pay scale and the AW pilots on their last ALPA contract rates from 2004.
Looking forward to the new list, so the battle of the Hatfield's and McCoy's becomes a distant memory.
03-15-2016, 06:34 AM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: CA
Posts: 483
Didn't the both parties also agree to ratify a TA to 'get' the arbitrated results? You can't have one without the other. I've never understood why this isn't, also, considered when people discuss the issue.
03-15-2016, 09:07 AM
#135
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 40
There was never a chance for a CBA using the Nicolau Award.
Parker capitalized on that, feigning "neutrality", but saved nearly a billion dollars in pilot labor costs.
03-15-2016, 09:47 AM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
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 ?
03-15-2016, 02:16 PM
#138
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
So you're arguing East ALPA's acceptance of BINDING ARBITRATION and all that entails was designed to be optional or conditional when they formulated the TA ?
Again, the question is what excuse was used successfully to negate that which they agreed to. That acceptance contained no caveats since no one objected to the term "binding" seeking to eliminate it nor did either side redefine that controlling term to mean something other then its common understanding as neither party anticipated they would desire to subvert the results post award. Once one side saw what occurred, the only way to achieve that was in effect a "scorched earth" maneuver of decertifying the present union and reinventing a new one that was specifically designed for one thing.
If not, perhaps you can tell us all the real reason the East MEC spearheaded a change of union before the third leg of the stool could be built as the only realistic conflict at that point necessitating a union change WAS the Nicolau award and while you're at it, also lay out just how binding arbitration really isn't binding ?
Come to think of it, also explain from an ethical standpoint (not a legal one), why majority LAA pilots shouldn't be allowed to repeat that strategy if this ISL is determined to be objectionable to them and they boot APA and bring in a new union via majority rule and essentially thwart the construction of the latest stool ?
Again, the question is what excuse was used successfully to negate that which they agreed to. That acceptance contained no caveats since no one objected to the term "binding" seeking to eliminate it nor did either side redefine that controlling term to mean something other then its common understanding as neither party anticipated they would desire to subvert the results post award. Once one side saw what occurred, the only way to achieve that was in effect a "scorched earth" maneuver of decertifying the present union and reinventing a new one that was specifically designed for one thing.
If not, perhaps you can tell us all the real reason the East MEC spearheaded a change of union before the third leg of the stool could be built as the only realistic conflict at that point necessitating a union change WAS the Nicolau award and while you're at it, also lay out just how binding arbitration really isn't binding ?
Come to think of it, also explain from an ethical standpoint (not a legal one), why majority LAA pilots shouldn't be allowed to repeat that strategy if this ISL is determined to be objectionable to them and they boot APA and bring in a new union via majority rule and essentially thwart the construction of the latest stool ?
03-16-2016, 12:40 PM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
So you're arguing East ALPA's acceptance of BINDING ARBITRATION and all that entails was designed to be optional or conditional when they formulated the TA ?
Again, the question is what excuse was used successfully to negate that which they agreed to. That acceptance contained no caveats since no one objected to the term "binding" seeking to eliminate it nor did either side redefine that controlling term to mean something other then its common understanding as neither party anticipated they would desire to subvert the results post award. Once one side saw what occurred, the only way to achieve that was in effect a "scorched earth" maneuver of decertifying the present union and reinventing a new one that was specifically designed for one thing.
If not, perhaps you can tell us all the real reason the East MEC spearheaded a change of union before the third leg of the stool could be built as the only realistic conflict at that point necessitating a union change WAS the Nicolau award and while you're at it, also lay out just how binding arbitration really isn't binding ?
Come to think of it, also explain from an ethical standpoint (not a legal one), why majority LAA pilots shouldn't be allowed to repeat that strategy if this ISL is determined to be objectionable to them and they boot APA and bring in a new union via majority rule and essentially thwart the construction of the latest stool ?
Again, the question is what excuse was used successfully to negate that which they agreed to. That acceptance contained no caveats since no one objected to the term "binding" seeking to eliminate it nor did either side redefine that controlling term to mean something other then its common understanding as neither party anticipated they would desire to subvert the results post award. Once one side saw what occurred, the only way to achieve that was in effect a "scorched earth" maneuver of decertifying the present union and reinventing a new one that was specifically designed for one thing.
If not, perhaps you can tell us all the real reason the East MEC spearheaded a change of union before the third leg of the stool could be built as the only realistic conflict at that point necessitating a union change WAS the Nicolau award and while you're at it, also lay out just how binding arbitration really isn't binding ?
Come to think of it, also explain from an ethical standpoint (not a legal one), why majority LAA pilots shouldn't be allowed to repeat that strategy if this ISL is determined to be objectionable to them and they boot APA and bring in a new union via majority rule and essentially thwart the construction of the latest stool ?
03-16-2016, 12:50 PM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
