Originally Posted by
R57 relay
Oh Ginger.
Let me try again. You claim that USAPA is trying to change things after the fact, I show you evidence where the APA has done just that in another area, and why I don't trust them.
Oh Fred, you silly alpha males still don't get it. The JCBA (work rules, etc.) is SUBJECT to change vs. the present MTA. We should EXPECT changes in that. That's not the same thing as believing APA can control what your reps argue in SLI negotiations or in the failure of that, what they present to the arbitrators. It's also not the same thing as what the ARBITRATORS decide regarding SLI (not APA).
Originally Posted by
R57 relay
You make this big issue of USAPA agreeing to SCS. It's not a big deal and as a matter of fact, it's irrelevant. SCS has to happen and with the numbers, it will be the APA. So yeah, USAPA agreed to the obvious, it just didn't agree to waive it's rights under a federal statute as the APA is claiming, using Judge Silver's dicta.
I don't recall making a "big deal" about that. It is simply one of the required benchmarks on the way to USAPA's dissolution. USAPA didn't agree to waive its rights, they agreed to waive their EXISTENCE. The MOU wasn't overseen by Silver and was not only agreed to by USAPA, its provisions were NEGOTIATED by them. It's the MOU that defines the process, timeline and order.
Originally Posted by
R57 relay
So, the MOU and it's terms are in dispute. USAPA decided to go one way to settle the dispute, the company and the APA say that it has to be settled another way. We'll see.
Yep. USAPA is disputing the terms they negotiated and agreed to with Hummel's signature. That about boils it down into its pure form.
Originally Posted by
R57 relay
You yourself said that the only reason you support the APA's interpretation is because they will be the CBA. You said that if there was a chance that USAPA could be the CBA, then you wouldn't support them running the whole show. I think you actually see the absurdity of one group coming in and taking over the whole process, and are a hypocrite.
Hogwash. It's no wonder some of you guys get so worked up about what I say. You don't understand a thing I say at all and seem to instead insert your own error and bias in interpreting it. I never said I would "support" anything from APA......they may become my worst enemy for Christ's sake ! What I have essentially stated is that there is no "interpretation" necessary regarding USAPA's existence because the MOU clearly spells it out and when. USAPA negotiated that and agreed to it. I've stated since it is clear, there should be no dispute about it and normally there wouldn't be, but most of those on planet Earth know what USAPA does and usually it's AFTER they either dislike a result or AFTER they get a benefit. I wouldn't support USAPA on the basis they weren't my present union, I'd refuse to support them on the basis I believe they are hopelessly corrupt. It's a foundational position, not a representational one.
I don't care WHO the technical "union" is, as long as on this issue, all relevant sides get to fairly present their interests before neutral arbitrators and that includes the East (as well as those other guys flying on your seniority list who apparently aren't East pilots
). As long as that occurs, it doesn't matter who the union is, because it will be neutral arbitrators that decide the merits of each position and argument and who will weigh what is argued or asserted before them.