SO - Where's the SLI?
07-27-2016, 08:50 AM
#1122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
Eaglefly is correct. They didn't want the NIC it was a defensive strategy against Silver. Go find one naative line guy that says he or she wanted the NIC. You won't find one. So losing that was really a victory.
Did they expect 100% status/category? I don't think so. They knew it would be somewhere between CAL/UAL and their proposal. I have no idea what their "sweet spot" was but the East proposal with no NIC for West may not be to far off.
Where they lost significantly was receiving some adjustment for their perception for their better pre-merger contract, flying and aircraft. That was going to be the item that saved the bottom of their list. If they lost that argument (as rumored) then their junior pilots take the brunt of the integration for their side.
Your not missing anything. If you were furloughed you will be pushed back on the integrated list. So as a result if your junior to a previously furloughed pilot but you weren't furloughed you will face the domino effect of the pilot who was furloughed in front of you.
Why does everyone keep saying the LAA pilots got whacked and not the East and the West?
For the West. Most (besides the West group) did not see the fairness or rationale for using the NIC list in this merger. Frim their perspective they will feel they were whacked the worse.
For the East. Most expected them to get whacked for their years of dodging the NIC and their heavily loaded junior pilots with a lot of LOS. So without the NIC and weighting that gives their pilots some sense of a career it appears a huge victory even though their pilots with earlier DOH's will be junior to LAA pilots with a later DOH.
For LAA. They felt they had much more to lose than gain.
So when you look at the three groups through that prism (many of you will disagree) anything worse than where the LAA group was seeking appears they got whacked more than the others.
The truth is the LAA group's expectations were much grander than any arbitrator could have given them.
Did they expect 100% status/category? I don't think so. They knew it would be somewhere between CAL/UAL and their proposal. I have no idea what their "sweet spot" was but the East proposal with no NIC for West may not be to far off.
Where they lost significantly was receiving some adjustment for their perception for their better pre-merger contract, flying and aircraft. That was going to be the item that saved the bottom of their list. If they lost that argument (as rumored) then their junior pilots take the brunt of the integration for their side.
Your not missing anything. If you were furloughed you will be pushed back on the integrated list. So as a result if your junior to a previously furloughed pilot but you weren't furloughed you will face the domino effect of the pilot who was furloughed in front of you.
Why does everyone keep saying the LAA pilots got whacked and not the East and the West?
For the West. Most (besides the West group) did not see the fairness or rationale for using the NIC list in this merger. Frim their perspective they will feel they were whacked the worse.
For the East. Most expected them to get whacked for their years of dodging the NIC and their heavily loaded junior pilots with a lot of LOS. So without the NIC and weighting that gives their pilots some sense of a career it appears a huge victory even though their pilots with earlier DOH's will be junior to LAA pilots with a later DOH.
For LAA. They felt they had much more to lose than gain.
So when you look at the three groups through that prism (many of you will disagree) anything worse than where the LAA group was seeking appears they got whacked more than the others.
The truth is the LAA group's expectations were much grander than any arbitrator could have given them.
WD.
07-27-2016, 09:13 AM
#1123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Ok remember when I stated last week to Route 66 about opening Pandora's box and how MB has yet to be tested in the courts? The real question here is one that may very well need to be answered by a court. Does this panel possess the ability to go and retro actively change a previous arbitration ruling? Now if you do not posses a law degree there is really no need to answer because your answers would be more driven by wants and desire rather than law. If the panel posses this right the can of worms that exposes is enormous. On the LUS side alone Piedmont, Trump, MGM, PSA all could have a claim. If the panel does not posses that ability and they have made a retro active change here then one could expect a court appearance in the future. It's a very interesting subject.
WD.
WD.
Courts are in business to enforce contracts. Save your money, there were no limitations or contingencies placed on the BOA, or the parties to the arbitration.
Marty has already paid for his great grandkid's college. Isn't that enough.
07-27-2016, 09:24 AM
#1124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Ok remember when I stated last week to Route 66 about opening Pandora's box and how MB has yet to be tested in the courts? The real question here is one that may very well need to be answered by a court. Does this panel possess the ability to go and retro actively change a previous arbitration ruling? Now if you do not posses a law degree there is really no need to answer because your answers would be more driven by wants and desire rather than law. If the panel posses this right the can of worms that exposes is enormous. On the LUS side alone Piedmont, Trump, MGM, PSA all could have a claim. If the panel does not posses that ability and they have made a retro active change here then one could expect a court appearance in the future. It's a very interesting subject.
WD.
WD.
07-27-2016, 10:03 AM
#1125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
Purple this is not about Mr. Harper or his fees. The question, legally speaking is does the panel posses the power to retro actively change a previous award?
WD
07-27-2016, 10:18 AM
#1126
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Is this your legal opinion or personal? Legally I'm not so sure it's really that simple. I realize you are hanging on the fact that the conditions were never met but a court may ask why and if they do that answer is really a simple one. I'm not saying that there would be any action only that there could be. I don't really understand your statement above regarding seniority list.
Purple this is not about Mr. Harper or his fees. The question, legally speaking is does the panel posses the power to retro actively change a previous award?
WD
Purple this is not about Mr. Harper or his fees. The question, legally speaking is does the panel posses the power to retro actively change a previous award?
WD
No one ever had any contractual seniority rights pursuant to the Nicolau list.
Your question that you pose implicitly assumes a contractual right to the Nic. The West's legal strategy has always implicitly assumed a contractual right to the Nic. No court ever found or invented a West contractual right to the Nic. Maybe, just maybe they yet will, if you guys keep trying.
07-27-2016, 10:34 AM
#1127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
It's all about seniority rights pursuant to a contract. We all have contractual seniority rights on our three respective seniority lists. When the BOA publishes the list we will each have new contractual seniority rights.
No one ever had any contractual seniority rights pursuant to the Nicolau list.
Your question that you pose implicitly assumes a contractual right to the Nic. The West's legal strategy has always implicitly assumed a contractual right to the Nic. No court ever found or invented a West contractual right to the Nic. Maybe, just maybe they yet will, if you guys keep trying.
No one ever had any contractual seniority rights pursuant to the Nicolau list.
Your question that you pose implicitly assumes a contractual right to the Nic. The West's legal strategy has always implicitly assumed a contractual right to the Nic. No court ever found or invented a West contractual right to the Nic. Maybe, just maybe they yet will, if you guys keep trying.
WD
07-27-2016, 11:00 AM
#1128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
I think you keep missing what I am saying here. This is not about a contractual right even though you keep saying that. The question I am asking is really very simple, does the panel have the power to retro actively change a previous award. Again I am not saying that there will be more litigation only that there could be based on the question I just asked. I distinctly remembering one court the 9th saying that not using the award may not play into the fears of the west pilots. So in just a short time we will be able to see if those fears are real or not.
WD
WD
Your question is irrelevant. Such a legal question would be immediately dismissed, if even entertained.
The BOA has no jurisdiction over the Nicolau award. To the extent that you assert failure to use the Nic would be changing it, your question is inherently a false accusation.
07-27-2016, 11:14 AM
#1129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 1,353
"The question I am asking is really very simple, does the panel have the power to retro actively change a previous award."
Your question is irrelevant. Such a legal question would be immediately dismissed, if even entertained.
The BOA has no jurisdiction over the Nicolau award. To the extent that you assert failure to use the Nic would be changing it, your question is inherently a false accusation.
Your question is irrelevant. Such a legal question would be immediately dismissed, if even entertained.
The BOA has no jurisdiction over the Nicolau award. To the extent that you assert failure to use the Nic would be changing it, your question is inherently a false accusation.
Ok and why do you think it would be dismissed? Based upon on what law(s) and since I really enjoy reading please provide me with some cases to support your claim?
The fact of the matter here is that you are making no sense in your comments. There is no accusation here only a question. The failure to use would fall under the 9th's ruling on usapa and if could be proven that usapa and the east are one and the same. Not a long reach there as it was in deed born in the east parented by the east.
AGAIN, not saying there will be any form of litigation only that there resides the possibility.
WD
07-27-2016, 11:36 AM
#1130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Ok and why do you think it would be dismissed? Based upon on what law(s) and since I really enjoy reading please provide me with some cases to support your claim?
The fact of the matter here is that you are making no sense in your comments. There is no accusation here only a question. The failure to use would fall under the 9th's ruling on usapa and if could be proven that usapa and the east are one and the same. Not a long reach there as it was in deed born in the east parented by the east.
AGAIN, not saying there will be any form of litigation only that there resides the possibility.
WD
The fact of the matter here is that you are making no sense in your comments. There is no accusation here only a question. The failure to use would fall under the 9th's ruling on usapa and if could be proven that usapa and the east are one and the same. Not a long reach there as it was in deed born in the east parented by the east.
AGAIN, not saying there will be any form of litigation only that there resides the possibility.
WD
Ok, if you say so... If no one accuses someone of some wrongdoing then there is no litigation.
Dial 411 if you want to just "ask a question".
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
