5.5 million ways to say goodbye
03-08-2016, 05:03 AM
#71
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
In reading this latest manifesto, it's clear it is founded on the long-standing position of the West that the present and future is and should be anchored in the Nicolau award and that anyone who refuses to subscribe to that belief and act in accordance with that position is divisive, opportunistic and unfair. It even alludes that another committee (AAPSIC) who in their belief should not at any time have argued for any position that didn't not subscribe to the interests of West pilots, even to their own detriment. The AAPSIC (or any of the pre-merger integration committees) has no fiduciary duty to anyone other then their own pre-merger pilot group, period. It is not surprising then that the West will periodically reassert their position reinforcing a 'World according to Nicolau' reality until the Arbitrators reveal their position on that issue and use any development to do just that.
It would seem that in certain cases, extending the rights of pre-merger pilots described in their specific pre-merger CBA wouldn't be that much of an issue, but apparently the West wants to either apply rights that did not exist retroactively for their benefit (essentially adoption and inclusion of the Nicolau) or at a minimum prevent this occurring (because it is not in accordance with the Nicolau). Both of which would only give a desert camel (no pun intended) easier egress to insert its snout in the tent flap of a future DFR case based on the Nicolau. That's understandable as to look the other way wouldn't be defending their merger/integration position and could be seen by the arbitrators as passive acceptance of a position other then that involving the Nicolau. Perhaps, APA is upholding pre-merger (non-Nicolau) rights for the same reason in reverse, along with protecting themselves by maintaining consistent position and defense of pre-merger agreements ? It would seem to do that would be a more neutral position then awarding the West a theoretical Nicolau protection because it upholds pre-merger rights in accordance with the provisions of an actual CBA instead of one that did not exist on 12/9/2013. They also claim that APA has "wiped clean" the past regarding the LUS Nicolau conflict, when it would appear anything but that occurred. The West pilots WERE awarded the right to represent themselves in the integration hearings and were allowed to present any argument they saw fit. The West even gained traction in their Nicolau arguments when AAPSIC reversed themselves (incorrectly IMO) and actually validated it, although demonstrated that doing so required substantial alteration to minimize damage to pre-merger LAA pilots thus highlighting to all how destabilizing its inclusion would be based on the requirement to ensure no windfall would occur to the West, something WELL within the scope and rights of the AAPSIC (prevent windfalls) whose theoretical duty is solely to pre-merger LAA pilots.
Clearly, the West is NOT the helpless victims being stripped of all their rights by a new tyrannical majority that they hope to convince others of. They cling to this position as they have no choice but to maintain their view of a pre-merger reality that did not exist as the goal is STILL the convincing of the arbitrators that such a reality SHOULD exist regardless of the collateral damage elsewhere and so I think if any audience was targeted with this latest blast, it is hoped it would be the arbitrators who might be sympathetic to supposed skinny-armed weaklings getting sand repeatedly kicked in their face (also no pun intended) by beach bullies they claim just about every other non West entity is. It also sounds as though they may be seeding their future of possible DFR against APA for not "including" their interests in building a future as THEY see fit as apparently, the 'tyranny of the weak' may just be the self-appointed future path for the West should the ISL not include a pure Nicolau component and for APA's refusal to agree to be the new USAPA retroactively inheriting all that was done in the past. It's a pretty myopic view and clearly one that will never be changed.
It would seem that in certain cases, extending the rights of pre-merger pilots described in their specific pre-merger CBA wouldn't be that much of an issue, but apparently the West wants to either apply rights that did not exist retroactively for their benefit (essentially adoption and inclusion of the Nicolau) or at a minimum prevent this occurring (because it is not in accordance with the Nicolau). Both of which would only give a desert camel (no pun intended) easier egress to insert its snout in the tent flap of a future DFR case based on the Nicolau. That's understandable as to look the other way wouldn't be defending their merger/integration position and could be seen by the arbitrators as passive acceptance of a position other then that involving the Nicolau. Perhaps, APA is upholding pre-merger (non-Nicolau) rights for the same reason in reverse, along with protecting themselves by maintaining consistent position and defense of pre-merger agreements ? It would seem to do that would be a more neutral position then awarding the West a theoretical Nicolau protection because it upholds pre-merger rights in accordance with the provisions of an actual CBA instead of one that did not exist on 12/9/2013. They also claim that APA has "wiped clean" the past regarding the LUS Nicolau conflict, when it would appear anything but that occurred. The West pilots WERE awarded the right to represent themselves in the integration hearings and were allowed to present any argument they saw fit. The West even gained traction in their Nicolau arguments when AAPSIC reversed themselves (incorrectly IMO) and actually validated it, although demonstrated that doing so required substantial alteration to minimize damage to pre-merger LAA pilots thus highlighting to all how destabilizing its inclusion would be based on the requirement to ensure no windfall would occur to the West, something WELL within the scope and rights of the AAPSIC (prevent windfalls) whose theoretical duty is solely to pre-merger LAA pilots.
Clearly, the West is NOT the helpless victims being stripped of all their rights by a new tyrannical majority that they hope to convince others of. They cling to this position as they have no choice but to maintain their view of a pre-merger reality that did not exist as the goal is STILL the convincing of the arbitrators that such a reality SHOULD exist regardless of the collateral damage elsewhere and so I think if any audience was targeted with this latest blast, it is hoped it would be the arbitrators who might be sympathetic to supposed skinny-armed weaklings getting sand repeatedly kicked in their face (also no pun intended) by beach bullies they claim just about every other non West entity is. It also sounds as though they may be seeding their future of possible DFR against APA for not "including" their interests in building a future as THEY see fit as apparently, the 'tyranny of the weak' may just be the self-appointed future path for the West should the ISL not include a pure Nicolau component and for APA's refusal to agree to be the new USAPA retroactively inheriting all that was done in the past. It's a pretty myopic view and clearly one that will never be changed.
03-08-2016, 05:53 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 403
In reading this latest manifesto, it's clear it is founded on the long-standing position of the West that the present and future is and should be anchored in the Nicolau award and that anyone who refuses to subscribe to that belief and act in accordance with that position is divisive, opportunistic and unfair. It even alludes that another committee (AAPSIC) who in their belief should not at any time have argued for any position that didn't not subscribe to the interests of West pilots, even to their own detriment. The AAPSIC (or any of the pre-merger integration committees) has no fiduciary duty to anyone other then their own pre-merger pilot group, period. It is not surprising then that the West will periodically reassert their position reinforcing a 'World according to Nicolau' reality until the Arbitrators reveal their position on that issue and use any development to do just that.
It would seem that in certain cases, extending the rights of pre-merger pilots described in their specific pre-merger CBA wouldn't be that much of an issue, but apparently the West wants to either apply rights that did not exist retroactively for their benefit (essentially adoption and inclusion of the Nicolau) or at a minimum prevent this occurring (because it is not in accordance with the Nicolau). Both of which would only give a desert camel (no pun intended) easier egress to insert its snout in the tent flap of a future DFR case based on the Nicolau. That's understandable as to look the other way wouldn't be defending their merger/integration position and could be seen by the arbitrators as passive acceptance of a position other then that involving the Nicolau. Perhaps, APA is upholding pre-merger (non-Nicolau) rights for the same reason in reverse, along with protecting themselves by maintaining consistent position and defense of pre-merger agreements ? It would seem to do that would be a more neutral position then awarding the West a theoretical Nicolau protection because it upholds pre-merger rights in accordance with the provisions of an actual CBA instead of one that did not exist on 12/9/2013. They also claim that APA has "wiped clean" the past regarding the LUS Nicolau conflict, when it would appear anything but that occurred. The West pilots WERE awarded the right to represent themselves in the integration hearings and were allowed to present any argument they saw fit. The West even gained traction in their Nicolau arguments when AAPSIC reversed themselves (incorrectly IMO) and actually validated it, although demonstrated that doing so required substantial alteration to minimize damage to pre-merger LAA pilots thus highlighting to all how destabilizing its inclusion would be based on the requirement to ensure no windfall would occur to the West, something WELL within the scope and rights of the AAPSIC (prevent windfalls) whose theoretical duty is solely to pre-merger LAA pilots.
Clearly, the West is NOT the helpless victims being stripped of all their rights by a new tyrannical majority that they hope to convince others of. They cling to this position as they have no choice but to maintain their view of a pre-merger reality that did not exist as the goal is STILL the convincing of the arbitrators that such a reality SHOULD exist regardless of the collateral damage elsewhere and so I think if any audience was targeted with this latest blast, it is hoped it would be the arbitrators who might be sympathetic to supposed skinny-armed weaklings getting sand repeatedly kicked in their face (also no pun intended) by beach bullies they claim just about every other non West entity is. It also sounds as though they may be seeding their future of possible DFR against APA for not "including" their interests in building a future as THEY see fit as apparently, the 'tyranny of the weak' may just be the self-appointed future path for the West should the ISL not include a pure Nicolau component and for APA's refusal to agree to be the new USAPA retroactively inheriting all that was done in the past. It's a pretty myopic view and clearly one that will never be changed.
It would seem that in certain cases, extending the rights of pre-merger pilots described in their specific pre-merger CBA wouldn't be that much of an issue, but apparently the West wants to either apply rights that did not exist retroactively for their benefit (essentially adoption and inclusion of the Nicolau) or at a minimum prevent this occurring (because it is not in accordance with the Nicolau). Both of which would only give a desert camel (no pun intended) easier egress to insert its snout in the tent flap of a future DFR case based on the Nicolau. That's understandable as to look the other way wouldn't be defending their merger/integration position and could be seen by the arbitrators as passive acceptance of a position other then that involving the Nicolau. Perhaps, APA is upholding pre-merger (non-Nicolau) rights for the same reason in reverse, along with protecting themselves by maintaining consistent position and defense of pre-merger agreements ? It would seem to do that would be a more neutral position then awarding the West a theoretical Nicolau protection because it upholds pre-merger rights in accordance with the provisions of an actual CBA instead of one that did not exist on 12/9/2013. They also claim that APA has "wiped clean" the past regarding the LUS Nicolau conflict, when it would appear anything but that occurred. The West pilots WERE awarded the right to represent themselves in the integration hearings and were allowed to present any argument they saw fit. The West even gained traction in their Nicolau arguments when AAPSIC reversed themselves (incorrectly IMO) and actually validated it, although demonstrated that doing so required substantial alteration to minimize damage to pre-merger LAA pilots thus highlighting to all how destabilizing its inclusion would be based on the requirement to ensure no windfall would occur to the West, something WELL within the scope and rights of the AAPSIC (prevent windfalls) whose theoretical duty is solely to pre-merger LAA pilots.
Clearly, the West is NOT the helpless victims being stripped of all their rights by a new tyrannical majority that they hope to convince others of. They cling to this position as they have no choice but to maintain their view of a pre-merger reality that did not exist as the goal is STILL the convincing of the arbitrators that such a reality SHOULD exist regardless of the collateral damage elsewhere and so I think if any audience was targeted with this latest blast, it is hoped it would be the arbitrators who might be sympathetic to supposed skinny-armed weaklings getting sand repeatedly kicked in their face (also no pun intended) by beach bullies they claim just about every other non West entity is. It also sounds as though they may be seeding their future of possible DFR against APA for not "including" their interests in building a future as THEY see fit as apparently, the 'tyranny of the weak' may just be the self-appointed future path for the West should the ISL not include a pure Nicolau component and for APA's refusal to agree to be the new USAPA retroactively inheriting all that was done in the past. It's a pretty myopic view and clearly one that will never be changed.
The West is quickly going the way of Comair in becoming irrelevant in anything. The underdog thing is endearing at first, and then the reality of DFR really sets in. As you owe DFR to the minority position, you also owe DFR to the majority position and everything in between. 1-2 thousand pilots trying to take over the world of a seniority list over 10k ain't gonna happen.
Probably going to be true with the SLI as well. The large group is going to have to have appeasement in some form or another. It could come in several ways, but most likely with the preponderance of the wide body stove piping, along with the East somewhat. Longevity will probably be given weight as well to offset the AA furloughs. While the arbs may want to throw the NIC a bone, it will be tough to justify it without hammering the AA furloughed as well. Nt he West has claimed victory in their long missive, yet the implementation of the trophy still eludes them, STILL.
Irrelevance is a tough pill to swallow, I imagine.
03-08-2016, 06:15 AM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
In reading this latest manifesto, it's clear it is founded on the long-standing position of the West that the present and future is and should be anchored in the Nicolau award and that anyone who refuses to subscribe to that belief and act in accordance with that position is divisive, opportunistic and unfair. It even alludes that another committee (AAPSIC) who in their belief should not at any time have argued for any position that didn't not subscribe to the interests of West pilots, even to their own detriment. The AAPSIC (or any of the pre-merger integration committees) has no fiduciary duty to anyone other then their own pre-merger pilot group, period. It is not surprising then that the West will periodically reassert their position reinforcing a 'World according to Nicolau' reality until the Arbitrators reveal their position on that issue and use any development to do just that.
It would seem that in certain cases, extending the rights of pre-merger pilots described in their specific pre-merger CBA wouldn't be that much of an issue, but apparently the West wants to either apply rights that did not exist retroactively for their benefit (essentially adoption and inclusion of the Nicolau) or at a minimum prevent this occurring (because it is not in accordance with the Nicolau). Both of which would only give a desert camel (no pun intended) easier egress to insert its snout in the tent flap of a future DFR case based on the Nicolau. That's understandable as to look the other way wouldn't be defending their merger/integration position and could be seen by the arbitrators as passive acceptance of a position other then that involving the Nicolau. Perhaps, APA is upholding pre-merger (non-Nicolau) rights for the same reason in reverse, along with protecting themselves by maintaining consistent position and defense of pre-merger agreements ? It would seem to do that would be a more neutral position then awarding the West a theoretical Nicolau protection because it upholds pre-merger rights in accordance with the provisions of an actual CBA instead of one that did not exist on 12/9/2013. They also claim that APA has "wiped clean" the past regarding the LUS Nicolau conflict, when it would appear anything but that occurred. The West pilots WERE awarded the right to represent themselves in the integration hearings and were allowed to present any argument they saw fit. The West even gained traction in their Nicolau arguments when AAPSIC reversed themselves (incorrectly IMO) and actually validated it, although demonstrated that doing so required substantial alteration to minimize damage to pre-merger LAA pilots thus highlighting to all how destabilizing its inclusion would be based on the requirement to ensure no windfall would occur to the West, something WELL within the scope and rights of the AAPSIC (prevent windfalls) whose theoretical duty is solely to pre-merger LAA pilots.
Clearly, the West is NOT the helpless victims being stripped of all their rights by a new tyrannical majority that they hope to convince others of. They cling to this position as they have no choice but to maintain their view of a pre-merger reality that did not exist as the goal is STILL the convincing of the arbitrators that such a reality SHOULD exist regardless of the collateral damage elsewhere and so I think if any audience was targeted with this latest blast, it is hoped it would be the arbitrators who might be sympathetic to supposed skinny-armed weaklings getting sand repeatedly kicked in their face (also no pun intended) by beach bullies they claim just about every other non West entity is. It also sounds as though they may be seeding their future of possible DFR against APA for not "including" their interests in building a future as THEY see fit as apparently, the 'tyranny of the weak' may just be the self-appointed future path for the West should the ISL not include a pure Nicolau component and for APA's refusal to agree to be the new USAPA retroactively inheriting all that was done in the past. It's a pretty myopic view and clearly one that will never be changed.
It would seem that in certain cases, extending the rights of pre-merger pilots described in their specific pre-merger CBA wouldn't be that much of an issue, but apparently the West wants to either apply rights that did not exist retroactively for their benefit (essentially adoption and inclusion of the Nicolau) or at a minimum prevent this occurring (because it is not in accordance with the Nicolau). Both of which would only give a desert camel (no pun intended) easier egress to insert its snout in the tent flap of a future DFR case based on the Nicolau. That's understandable as to look the other way wouldn't be defending their merger/integration position and could be seen by the arbitrators as passive acceptance of a position other then that involving the Nicolau. Perhaps, APA is upholding pre-merger (non-Nicolau) rights for the same reason in reverse, along with protecting themselves by maintaining consistent position and defense of pre-merger agreements ? It would seem to do that would be a more neutral position then awarding the West a theoretical Nicolau protection because it upholds pre-merger rights in accordance with the provisions of an actual CBA instead of one that did not exist on 12/9/2013. They also claim that APA has "wiped clean" the past regarding the LUS Nicolau conflict, when it would appear anything but that occurred. The West pilots WERE awarded the right to represent themselves in the integration hearings and were allowed to present any argument they saw fit. The West even gained traction in their Nicolau arguments when AAPSIC reversed themselves (incorrectly IMO) and actually validated it, although demonstrated that doing so required substantial alteration to minimize damage to pre-merger LAA pilots thus highlighting to all how destabilizing its inclusion would be based on the requirement to ensure no windfall would occur to the West, something WELL within the scope and rights of the AAPSIC (prevent windfalls) whose theoretical duty is solely to pre-merger LAA pilots.
Clearly, the West is NOT the helpless victims being stripped of all their rights by a new tyrannical majority that they hope to convince others of. They cling to this position as they have no choice but to maintain their view of a pre-merger reality that did not exist as the goal is STILL the convincing of the arbitrators that such a reality SHOULD exist regardless of the collateral damage elsewhere and so I think if any audience was targeted with this latest blast, it is hoped it would be the arbitrators who might be sympathetic to supposed skinny-armed weaklings getting sand repeatedly kicked in their face (also no pun intended) by beach bullies they claim just about every other non West entity is. It also sounds as though they may be seeding their future of possible DFR against APA for not "including" their interests in building a future as THEY see fit as apparently, the 'tyranny of the weak' may just be the self-appointed future path for the West should the ISL not include a pure Nicolau component and for APA's refusal to agree to be the new USAPA retroactively inheriting all that was done in the past. It's a pretty myopic view and clearly one that will never be changed.
03-08-2016, 06:23 AM
#74
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
That was a nice post. It's funny that the west clung so hard to the NIC, while berating the East for the same strategy with DOH. Also interesting that aapsic reversed their position on the NIC. NIC is based in some part on BK airlines with furloughs bringing less to the table, and thus lower seniority. Perhaps they were also attempting to grab the wide body premium the NIC afforded on seniority. Both were serious misgivings in the NIC, IMO.
The West is quickly going the way of Comair in becoming irrelevant in anything. The underdog thing is endearing at first, and then the reality of DFR really sets in. As you owe DFR to the minority position, you also owe DFR to the majority position and everything in between. 1-2 thousand pilots trying to take over the world of a seniority list over 10k ain't gonna happen.
Probably going to be true with the SLI as well. The large group is going to have to have appeasement in some form or another. It could come in several ways, but most likely with the preponderance of the wide body stove piping, along with the East somewhat. Longevity will probably be given weight as well to offset the AA furloughs. While the arbs may want to throw the NIC a bone, it will be tough to justify it without hammering the AA furloughed as well. Nt he West has claimed victory in their long missive, yet the implementation of the trophy still eludes them, STILL.
Irrelevance is a tough pill to swallow, I imagine.
The West is quickly going the way of Comair in becoming irrelevant in anything. The underdog thing is endearing at first, and then the reality of DFR really sets in. As you owe DFR to the minority position, you also owe DFR to the majority position and everything in between. 1-2 thousand pilots trying to take over the world of a seniority list over 10k ain't gonna happen.
Probably going to be true with the SLI as well. The large group is going to have to have appeasement in some form or another. It could come in several ways, but most likely with the preponderance of the wide body stove piping, along with the East somewhat. Longevity will probably be given weight as well to offset the AA furloughs. While the arbs may want to throw the NIC a bone, it will be tough to justify it without hammering the AA furloughed as well. Nt he West has claimed victory in their long missive, yet the implementation of the trophy still eludes them, STILL.
Irrelevance is a tough pill to swallow, I imagine.
03-08-2016, 06:44 AM
#75
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
It sounds as though they extended a provision in the JCBA to minimize negative impact to a sub-segment of pilots. If anything, it would seem to strengthen pre-merger status quo conditions and I don't see what it has to do with fences going forward which are a function of balancing PMCE should another method not be as effective in doing that.
Perhaps you could elaborate further to help me understand where you're coming from on these points that you assert ?
03-08-2016, 07:37 AM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
Well, I must have missed something then. It's my understanding 17.E existed on the snapshot date as per the JCBA, so I don't get what you're saying. The West's own Letter above even describes this supposedly heinous act as "......extending JCBA 17.E......", so it would have seemed to exist. This provision expired in January and APA apparently agreed to a settlement of some conflict of the issue as a result of some impending action affecting one of the East's domiciles and upholding what East pilots were awarded post LUS/AWA merger and lost. The West apparently wants Nicolau inclusion and claims this simply doubles-down on what say is "ill-gotten gains" by the East, when it would be more accurate to see this as simply maintaining the status quo, something obviously the West committee opposes as it is not in accordance with what they believe to be their Nicolau rights.
How so ?
It sounds as though they extended a provision in the JCBA to minimize negative impact to a sub-segment of pilots. If anything, it would seem to strengthen pre-merger status quo conditions and I don't see what it has to do with fences going forward which are a function of balancing PMCE should another method not be as effective in doing that.
Perhaps you could elaborate further to help me understand where you're coming from on these points that you assert ?
How so ?
It sounds as though they extended a provision in the JCBA to minimize negative impact to a sub-segment of pilots. If anything, it would seem to strengthen pre-merger status quo conditions and I don't see what it has to do with fences going forward which are a function of balancing PMCE should another method not be as effective in doing that.
Perhaps you could elaborate further to help me understand where you're coming from on these points that you assert ?
03-08-2016, 08:47 AM
#77
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
One answer : Because its in the West's best interests for all parties to validate the Nicolau or supporting aspects of it even if only by inaction.
The AAPSIC is asking the west be fenced into only Lus domiciles, this gives east pilots super seniority for vacancies, locking the west out of the very seats aapsic wants the west locked into. You think this move bolsters the aapsic position on fencing west off while blocking the seats? Read the sli transcripts, the east makes a big deal of not having reinstatement rights, the APA just blocked 330 positions for east only outside of MB sli provisions. The APA attorneys thought it important enough they notified the arb panel of these changes after the sli record was closed as they materially and negatively affect west pilots and reward the very group which gained those seats thru a DFR.
As for arbitral notification, one would think APA would WANT to notify the arbitrators of this situation so they may (if anything) make adjustments for that. To NOT notify them would seem to me, much, much worse and indeed a potential DFR landmine. One of the principles of McCaskill-Bond is the existence of a fair process and ensuring the arbitrators have all relevant information of any and all impacted issues is a core foundation of that. I would think (and hope) APA will have comment on this situation to explain their decisions on what and why they did what they did. I guess we shall see.
03-08-2016, 09:39 AM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 403
Except you forget the apa board just gave the east seniority rights they did not have on snap shot date, rights that by law only the arbitration board should award. You do realize that the APA board just torpedoed the aapsic position on fences and stand in stead rights in the sli?
Sure they did. Here is a question, if the Arb should know about this development and let it influence the outcome, shouldn't they also know about the settlement between USAPA and the West pilots? Wonder if that should also influence their thinking.
Last edited by brakechatter; 03-08-2016 at 09:58 AM.
03-08-2016, 10:44 AM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
But yet it is there. If this is/was such a big issue, why the outcry only about its extension years later ?
One answer : Because its in the West's best interests for all parties to validate the Nicolau or supporting aspects of it even if only by inaction.
...and the West committee is asking LAA pilots in essence to "take one for the team" by adopting ideals awarding pre-merger West pilots what amounts to a windfall (including no fences). Each side can argue the other is overreaching, but that is why they are committees and there is arbitration panel. I can only assume the East makes a big deal out of RR because unlike the West, in actuality (not unconsummated desire or theory), they brought wide body seats which is the crux of the issue for the West, i.e., the West believes those wide body seats are theirs too as per the Nicolau and that West pilots senior enough in the ISL should be able to get them before those who were previously bumped prior to ISL. LAA pilots have RR too, but I'm not sure if anyone in the West was displaced because........well, let's face it, there was nowhere to displace to except pre-merger East positions on a separate pre-merger seniority list.
As for arbitral notification, one would think APA would WANT to notify the arbitrators of this situation so they may (if anything) make adjustments for that. To NOT notify them would seem to me, much, much worse and indeed a potential DFR landmine. One of the principles of McCaskill-Bond is the existence of a fair process and ensuring the arbitrators have all relevant information of any and all impacted issues is a core foundation of that. I would think (and hope) APA will have comment on this situation to explain their decisions on what and why they did what they did. I guess we shall see.
One answer : Because its in the West's best interests for all parties to validate the Nicolau or supporting aspects of it even if only by inaction.
...and the West committee is asking LAA pilots in essence to "take one for the team" by adopting ideals awarding pre-merger West pilots what amounts to a windfall (including no fences). Each side can argue the other is overreaching, but that is why they are committees and there is arbitration panel. I can only assume the East makes a big deal out of RR because unlike the West, in actuality (not unconsummated desire or theory), they brought wide body seats which is the crux of the issue for the West, i.e., the West believes those wide body seats are theirs too as per the Nicolau and that West pilots senior enough in the ISL should be able to get them before those who were previously bumped prior to ISL. LAA pilots have RR too, but I'm not sure if anyone in the West was displaced because........well, let's face it, there was nowhere to displace to except pre-merger East positions on a separate pre-merger seniority list.
As for arbitral notification, one would think APA would WANT to notify the arbitrators of this situation so they may (if anything) make adjustments for that. To NOT notify them would seem to me, much, much worse and indeed a potential DFR landmine. One of the principles of McCaskill-Bond is the existence of a fair process and ensuring the arbitrators have all relevant information of any and all impacted issues is a core foundation of that. I would think (and hope) APA will have comment on this situation to explain their decisions on what and why they did what they did. I guess we shall see.
03-08-2016, 10:46 AM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
I hope they do hear about it, just another fact that shows the complete malfeasance of the east pilots.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
