SO - Where's the SLI?
09-02-2016, 04:43 PM
#1911
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 CAPT
Posts: 93
Again you are a LIAR. the negotiating committee was asking for so much more that the spread on the meat and potatoes parts were FAR APART. I have the documents as well. The Company would have GONE as high as 11% but that was just wages, it wasn't close to what WE were asking for and that is ONLY the wage part, not the rest.
You are still full of it. You and Hillary would make great company in a jail cell.
You are still full of it. You and Hillary would make great company in a jail cell.
09-02-2016, 04:45 PM
#1912
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
That's right, you know what else is right? A MB like process was used to integrate the lus/AWA pilots, the result was accepted by the company. Now you remember why it was never implemented? DFR ring a bell? A Dfr ruling that ordered the east to show up with the Nicolau award. It's laughable to suggest that using the Nic to integrate pilots from a non covered transaction is somehow against the MB statued
Your emotion is very apparent. I'm trying to understand. You for some reason go off on emotional tangents.
Just respond to legitimate questions. Emotions take no one anywhere.
Your latest. "Like" process is not the MB process. DFR did not require the NIC to be implemented. The "East" was not ordered. "USAPA" was.
We will find out how laughable it is at some point. But no one, and based on your responses, particularly you, cannot provide any convincing language from the MB statute that nails down the answer one way or another.
Would be more than happy to engage in a reasonable interaction even if some of it is based on your personal conclusions but your emotional responses add zero value.
09-02-2016, 05:53 PM
#1913
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 737 CA MIA
Posts: 1,042
How do I know? Because I was the only sponsor in MIA and sometimes called/emailed the majority of recallees and flow thrus that come to MIA.
So you're saying AA had flow thrus out of order/seniority flow? Because of TWA recallees.
Are you a pilot for AA or still at Envoy?
09-02-2016, 07:45 PM
#1914
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Posts: 440
Occasional lurker with no dog in this fight...and not sure who "Cacti" is, but.... the rest of us on the outside world know that USAPA and the rest of the dirt bags that agreed to binding arbitration before the findings came out and then didn't agree so much, well, we thank our lucky stars and the good lord above we don't have to inhabit your ecosystem, the slime must be suffocating.
09-02-2016, 10:14 PM
#1915
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
Using the Nicolau is not against the MB, not saying it will be used just that it's use is not illegal. Are you of the opinion the 9th ordered usapa to do something illegal as a consequence of usapa violating their dfr to the west?
09-03-2016, 12:26 AM
#1916
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
The 9th placed a contingent injunction on USAPA, in which USAPA was completely free to do nothing at all, and especially nothing at all with the Nic... The BOA is also free to do nothing with the Nic. We'll see.
09-03-2016, 01:43 AM
#1917
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,238
Sure...if you say so...it must be true (not really). BTW... you are still wrong. Further there was a distinct concern that IF a contract had gone out to the membership for ratification... it may have well passed. USAPA did exactly what its founders intended.... a delay of the Nicolau List in order to capture attrition (at least). It still is utter douche-baggery, and everyone in the industry and court systems know it.
09-03-2016, 01:46 AM
#1918
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,238
Occasional lurker with no dog in this fight...and not sure who "Cacti" is, but.... the rest of us on the outside world know that USAPA and the rest of the dirt bags that agreed to binding arbitration before the findings came out and then didn't agree so much, well, we thank our lucky stars and the good lord above we don't have to inhabit your ecosystem, the slime must be suffocating.
09-03-2016, 05:03 AM
#1919
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 90
Holy cow, for a while there you guys were having some productive conversation 
Probably because I wasn't here haha. Anyway, so I have questions:
Western peeps: Do you think that because you weren't signatories on the original Protocol Agreement, that you aren't now bound by it? In other words, are you the only party allowed to participate in these proceedings that isn't bound by the framework?
Also, is it your opinion that we have three parties at the table, but only two pools of equities being divided? Seems like we have two parties trying to keep as much of what they had on 12/9/13, and one party who is trying to secure much, much more. And before this goes off the rails, I totally understand what's happened since 2005, but this merger was crafted by management as a way forward. The point I'm making and throwing out for discussion is: When there were two parties trying to divide two pools of equities, that made sense. A third party is formed, but it doesn't appear that they want to be treated in a manner commensurate with the reality of their actual operation. Thoughts?
Probably because I wasn't here haha. Anyway, so I have questions:Western peeps: Do you think that because you weren't signatories on the original Protocol Agreement, that you aren't now bound by it? In other words, are you the only party allowed to participate in these proceedings that isn't bound by the framework?
Also, is it your opinion that we have three parties at the table, but only two pools of equities being divided? Seems like we have two parties trying to keep as much of what they had on 12/9/13, and one party who is trying to secure much, much more. And before this goes off the rails, I totally understand what's happened since 2005, but this merger was crafted by management as a way forward. The point I'm making and throwing out for discussion is: When there were two parties trying to divide two pools of equities, that made sense. A third party is formed, but it doesn't appear that they want to be treated in a manner commensurate with the reality of their actual operation. Thoughts?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
