Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I won't try to respond point by point to your post since it is clear it struck an emotional chord. I will just point out a fragment of your post I responded to...
... and you say that I was the one who opened up the discussion about the SLI? Surely you can infer from that quote that you think the arbitrators in our SLI did not construct the list carefully and that you are not happy with it. Sometimes it is difficult when you take the most common sense understanding of someone's words, respond to that understanding and then hear "well I didn't say that." Carl is an expert at that tactic.
I will also infer that your belief (along with Carl and Nuguy) is that "any angle" is okay as long as it is legal. From that I will infer that you think there is no moral or ethical obligation for anyone to act in any manner other than what is spelled out in the legal code. You just want to observe who the winners are. I disagree in the strongest terms with that belief, whether or not that is actually what you ascribe to.
The East pilots have been around for a while, they have seen a bunch of mergers and they know how it goes. After merger policy was changed in 1991, the first pilot group to have a major integration was US Air and Trump Shuttle. The East pilots there demanded a "W-2" integration and argued vehemently against a date of hire integration. The arbitrator in that case ruled for a status and category integration basically just like the East pilots wanted. His name was George Nicolau.
Fast forward to 2007 and George Nicolau rules for a status and category integration with US Air and America West. When the ruling doesn't go their way, they attempt to use "every angle" to take away the rights from the West pilots. Every seniority integration involves two parties, each representing their interests. In this case, the East pilots want to usurp the rights of the West pilots to represent themselves and impose their own solution on them. In essence, they want to steal what they cannot win in a fair process. Every pilot I know has blasted this maneuver as lacking integrity and ethics. Yet you seem to defend their rights to use "every angle" as long as they haven't committed a criminal act. Carl and Nuguy say the same things. You are the only pilots I have seen that have taken this view other than East pilots themselves.
My inference (see, I am trying to protect myself here) is that you confuse your animosity with ALPA with this view of the East pilots' actions. You claim I ignore South pilots' attacks on ALPA just to discriminate against the North pilots. Balderdash. I regularly argue with them about ALPA matters and you know it. I just have never seen a Southie ever say anything supportive of the East pilots actions, other than they left ALPA. I am glad that the East pilots left ALPA, because they were a giant financial suck hole of my dues money. I don't care what they call their union, I just expect them to act in a manner that is both ethical and legal. Frankly, they are the definition of a DFR case, but the Ninth Circuit said, well you have to wait until they thrust the knife in, before you can accuse them of attempted murder. So yes they are legal for now, but their "angle" is to violate their duty to represent the West pilots. Remember, the West pilots had this representation forced on them, they are forced to pay dues, you would expect that their union has some ethical obligation to them, yet as long as there is "an angle" their actions seem OK with you, or at least that is the common sense understanding of what you wrote.
From the Roberts arbitrations, to the DAL/NWA SLI discussions, to the duty rig grievance, and in many other venues, I have observed from many North pilots that "having your day in court" seems to take precedence over actually obtaining the best outcome. That is my impression and it could be wrong, but that impression is not based on or two pilots' opinions but from many. I will never understand how anyone can endorse a subset of a pilot group trying to attack another subset of the same pilot group using "angles".
Alfa,
As much fun as an argument on semantics would be, I would like to try to avoid a Billy Clint, “it depends on what your definition of the word ‘is’ is” discussion. Simply put, I was not inviting an argument on the outcome of the NWA/DAL merger SLI. I was not complaining about the list. I was not implying that the arbitrators haphazardly put the list together. If I was, I would have said;
“Maybe it would have helped with our SLI.”
Instead, “It might have helped with our SLI,” to me means, [the litigation] might have helped our SLI.
As in, I was saying that it’s possible the litigation helped our SLI process. If you don’t understand that, then I guess you will just have to take my word that I was not trying to open up that can of worms.
With a strong desire to return to the discussion and my main purpose for posting on this thread, I present some things for you to consider: 1.) Maybe you are a little too trigger happy to shoot off a North v. South battle. See above paragraph. 2.) Not every North pilot was spanked by the arbitrator’s award, so every time one mentions it, it does not mean he is complaining. 3.) Pursuing something from “any angle” is not ok because I say so; it’s ok because it’s legal and that’s all I’m concerned with. 4.) When someone criticizes ALPA, it does not mean they have animosity towards the organization.
Alfa, everything does not have to turn into a Grant vs. Lee, Civil War, Shenandoah Valley, North v. South, campaign. Dude, the surrender at Appomattox has come and gone, except both sides won. It's like you didn't get the memo. I'm sorry, telegraph. For the life of me, I don't understand why you have to do this:
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I just have never seen a Southie ever say anything supportive of the East pilots actions, other than they left ALPA.
Or, this:
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
From the Roberts arbitrations, to the DAL/NWA SLI discussions, to the duty rig grievance, and in many other venues, I have observed from many North pilots that "having your day in court" seems to take precedence over actually obtaining the best outcome.
All on a forum about the US Airways litigation, AFTER I reiterated that I was not interested in a North v. South debate. Please, cease fire.
What should be made clear is that I am not sensitive to well-reasoned, thought out positions. What does strike an “emotional chord” with me is when people throw obvious insults around for no good reason. Sure, my response to yours was full of insults, but I tend to fight fire with fire, which I guess is the principle that you disagree with so much.
Before you throw grenades SLI-wise, you should know that every North pilot is not hanging around and still licking his wounds from the SLI process. Some were helped more than the others by the pull-plug method the arbitrators used. (That process is what I was alluding to in the point I was making, that you said “surely” inferred that I thought the list was not carefully put together.) The vast majority of the others are consummate professionals who have moved on and rarely mention the outcome of the SLI beyond what their number is. I can’t even remember the last time a guy complained about the SLI to me.
Another thing that should be pointed out is that I am not here to attach labels to the actions of the East pilots or West pilots. I try to keep my posted subjective views to a minimum. (I think the only onse you can find is where I said I thought the arbitrators list was unfair, or that ALPA failed us.) I’ll say it again, all I am trying to do is learn winning, legal strategies and tactics in this industry. Like: Do you know if the arbitrated seniority list is considered to be a service contract? When the DFR action becomes ripe, will the court award damages and/or injunctive relief? What culpability does the US Airways corporation have? Stuff like that. I’m not into the name-calling and character assessment on this one. If you want to say the East pilots are despicable, fine. If you want to figure out who has the correct and acceptable morals and values, go right ahead. I’m sure you know that litigating arbitration decisions is nothing new. Arbitrator’s awards are often litigated in federal court, so those are the only judges’ decisions I am concerned with.
I also think you are unnecessarily attaching my criticism of ALPA with some kind of deep seeded animosity towards the union that you think I must have. I don’t. In fact, most would say that what you call my “railings” are simple observations. As a profession, we have gotten our butts kicked over the past 10 years. ALPA needs to do better. ALPA needs to learn how to win.
Finally, just because you "cooperated" to get a better outcome than everyone else, does not mean it was the best outcome. It only means that you got a better outcome than everyone else. It's sort of like comparing two innocent guys who were framed for murder. One got the the death sentence and the other got life in prison because he cooperated and plead guilty. Sure, the lifer would thank his lucky stars and feel he was lucky to have gotten the best outcome. He could be headed to the electric chair, right? But, in reality he should have been free to begin with. He should be home with his family, retired at 60 with a full pension. But, somehow he got fooled into thinking his deal was the best he could get and now he's just happy with his life sentence.
The best outcome is always a moving target that can never be known. For you to suggest that you know for sure how to get there is misleading, to say it nicely.
How we get to the real “the best outcome,” should be explored from “every angle” all the time. That's what I pay my ALPA dues for.
New K Now