Upsddown

How can I not like the answer? You never answered my question. You never answer questions.

In case you missed it (before we drift into your weeds) what illegal act or DFR did USAPA commit after the award of the NIC list and PRIOR (understand the intent of the caps?) to the drafting of the MOU for this MB covered merger?

Who said it was an illegal act?

You are correct (we agree on one thing), this arbitration will satisfy all the requirements of "this" merger not of the
AWA/LUS merger.

You seem to be one hard headed individual that doesn't seem capable of carrying on a legitimate exchange. Questions are usually followed by answers, which lead to other questions and answers from each other and then ultimately each individuals own conclusion. They don't have to be the same in the end.

esadof

I'm no going to keep discussing it with you as your "question" keeps changing. MB can't retroactively be applied o lus/Awa, we weren't a covered transaction. We had a agreed upon process to integrate that required a contract to implement the list, the union we were all forced to belong to (because we were one company not two) violated its duty by not implementing the nicolau. Period.

cactusboy53

Ahh... I understand now. First, thank you for attending meetings. I'd rather someone attend, than not do so and be completely uninformed.

You simply espouse a synopsis of what Stephan said and failed to do ANY research on your part. What a surprise. I'll tell you what. I make $165 an hour. If you PAY me that much an hour, I will dig out the FACTS, rather than take your "word for it".

On second thought... disregard. NO matter what I find, document, prove ...if I tell you the sky is blue...you will SCREAM it's green (or some other color of you choosing). Hang tight cupcake, the new SLI will be out soon.

Upsddown

Are you for real? Read posts 1923, 1924, 1929, 1931 and 1941. It's the same question about "your" bringing up DFR in our exchange. I didn't bring DFR up you did. I asked for clarification from you which you refuse to provide.

So now your saying what I'm saying that the MB can't apply to the AWA/US
merger? Why didn't you just say so in the first place.

The AWA/LUS merger had a list to be implemented once an agreed upon condition was met. It was never met. Once you answer my question correctly you will see that USAPA/East never was found guilty of any illegal act, DFR condition or ever legally ordered by a US court of law that the list must be implemented prior to THIS merger being developed. And the only one a court ordered was DFR.

You wrote MB can't retroactively go back to AWA/LUS merger. I agree.

So I see a list that was awarded under a none MB process. I see a list that was never implemented. I see where USAPA never was legally enjoined, or ordered to implement the NIC list or guilty of any DFR act UNTIL this merger process began. I see a process where all parties signed a PROCEDURAL GROUND RULES that refers to the Protocol agreement and the use of three lists. I see a process where three "separate" groups demanded representation to represent their "individual" interests. I see a DFR award from a judge that did not require the "implementation" of the NIC list. I see a MB process that can't go retroactively and address issues from a previous merger. I see a previous union that violated its DFR by including laguage, 2H, in the MOU in 2012, but no DFR up until that point.

Give me some more meat besides DFR. Are you saying your entire case and your expectation of receiving the NIC hinges on USAPA being found guilty of DFR by including language 2h in this covered merger? But they had never been found guilty of anything prior to this merger. Is that your case?

Once again I'm not saying whether the NIC will or will not be used I am just trying to understand the different views.

esadof

You see what you want to see. The 9th ruling stemmed from Silvers not finding usapa guilty of dfr over not including Nic in mou/pa, they reversed her, it's like going back in time and undoing her not guilty to guilty. So when you speak of protocol agreement requiring three lists you are ignoring what the 9th ordered usapa to do, show up with the Nic or don't show up at all.

Upsddown

OK we are now getting somewhere. Why didn't the 9th or Silver just require the NIC be implemented instead of finding them guilty of DFR which didn't require anything other than representation of the NIC?

Route66

What research? Remember the "Kirby" proposal. No, I thought not. Many sections of the agreement were T/Aed. But they were NOT the financial parts that made a big money difference. I'm not paying you out of my $236 per hour pay rate. In fact, your LIES are not even worth this. The little and shortlived walk-a-thon you guys had with Stephan in PHX were nothing more than a joke.

Yes, hang tight "cupcake". You're going to get yours soon enough and swimming in that cheap and dirty fishbowl for 10 years with your stained AOL ties will show everyone just how cheap and skanky you guys really are.

Again, for those of you that follow this from any and ALL airlines, this is what you get with these West pilots. Nothing more than tantrums and scorched earth policy. Gloom and doom.

We have a great airline now but listening to them you'd think their self-made pergatory has them swimming circles in their fishbowl.

I have to go to work now making my $236/hour as a senior CAPTAIN watching you spin CB53. Looking forward to the list coming out hopefully this week.

WAIT FOR IT!

esadof

Because the 9th deferred to the boa, the 9th couldn't tell aapsic what to propose (theoretically the aapsic could have had proposed rearrange of their own list or ours, that's how the law sees it) but they did tell the only legal representative we had at the time to show up with east/west pilots in nicolau order. The east being the east found a way around that ruling by changing their name once again and the boa bought it over even the company's streneous objections. So had usapa not changed its name would anyone propose anything other than Nic.? No they wouldn't, so where would your theory the arbs must start with 3 lists Stand if usapa hadn't changed its name? I tell you, our lawyers think Silver ****ed up again by not enjoining the epsic as well but it was determined that an appeal to the 9th would delay this process for at least another year. The boa is well aware of the damming 9ths ruling, the east walking out and changing its name etc. If they choose to reward you guys for what every court to look at it warned you was illegal behavior so be it.

esadof

Just to emphasize, had usapa stayed in the sli as was their duty, they would only bring 2 lists to the party, Nic and LAA. Again, your theory they MUST start from 3 lists holds no water.

PurpleTurtle

No court has ever required anyone to use the Nic. Never.

If any court had indeed required the Nic to be used by anybody for anything, then it would have been used. They never did, and they never will. Any pleadings to the court to force use of the Nic would be a waste of money, but I fully expect there will be some lawyers (Summit law school graduates) convincing some Westies to waste more money very soon.