eaglefly

What leads you to believe that the APA would "negotiate" with USAPA to produce a integrated seniority list going by DOH ?

That would simply be validating what is being carried around like a linus-style security blanket by a few of the east pilots. Any SLI of AA pilots and U pilots (again, likely represented by the Nic award) will not be a negotiated settlement between unions (one of which will not exist), it will be via arbitration.

Flyby1206

If APA and USAPA mutually agreed to staple the west pilots to the bottom of the combined list then wouldnt that be legal? I dont think it would be 'right' or probable of happening, but I also dont think DOH will happen.

LittleBoyBlew

Nope! It was a Federal arbitrator working as an independent, towards reaching a AW/US SLI under ALPA merger policy. If it was "binding" by federal law, such as Mac/Bond, it would have been indicated by the 9th COA ruling, pertaining to the Addincton case. In fact the 9th stated that ALPA was free to vacate the Nic. And stated that a AW/US CBA might in fact be UN-RATIFIABLE Nic inclusive.
So, how could the Nic be the US list if a joint CBA was NEVER achieved??

eaglefly

Staple the west ?

I don't see that happening, but I do see fences.

cactiboss

Wow, east fantasy's alive and well. Of course the 9th said no such things, but hey severing statements out of their full paragraphs as a tool to change the context is something the easties (and their lawyers) have been deservedly accused of by more than one federal judge.

LittleBoyBlew

So enlighten us oh mighty Cacti. Can you PLEAZE post the full 9th ruling? So we may ALL see how wrong we (east) are..
Un-edited or altered of course....

eaglefly

So you're saying U east pilots did not AGREE to "binding" arbitration and in effect, just approved a process of "suggestion" by some guy who was trying to help ?

OK, fine.

Be that as it may, it's my opinion that PRIOR to any SLI with AA pilots, U pilots will have a single seniority list in place. That means, if it's not the Nic, you'll have to invent one prior to any SLI with AA pilots or have one forced on you. Considering the fact USAPA will vaporize if there is any AA/U merger, I can't see any end-run mechanisms around any outcome you don't like in that merger SLI.

I'm all ears though to any schemes you think will allow the east minority to continue their 'bull in the china shop' philosophy.

LittleBoyBlew

The EAST pilots did agree to "binding arbitration" however, no one on the east or west could have predicted how LOPSIDED and un-fair to the east the Nic award would be. Therefore being that ALPA merger policy (and its process) failed to provide a FAIR and EQUITABLE SLI, were one pilot group would not benefit at the detriment of another, the east pilots have fought back a corrupted SLI award at great expense.
"bull in the china shop"? funny! I believe the new mechanism NOW in place Mac/Bond, will neuter the BULL. No more AA/TWA, or AW/US shenanigans.

cactiboss

First of all the Arbitration(TA) was a contract between west, east and the company, a contract that the east aims to change. All the 9th said is that it was not ripe until the list is in a contract because we won't know until then how much damage the west has suffered. Second, as of today the whole TA is in effect, not whatever parts usapa wishes to pick and choose, but the whole TA. It will remain in effect until it is modified by usapa and the company, you cannot dispute that. So if this merger happens, usapa will disappear and the APA will inherit the TA and DFR responsibility. The only thing keeping the Nic. from being implemented is the TA requirement of a single contract. How can the part requiring a single contract be "binding" and in effect yet the part saying the nicolau is the seniority list not be "binding"?

P.S. The 9th did not say that usapa was free to change the Nic. the 9th quoted judge wake's ruling which was " Usapa is as free as alpa was to change the Nic." So how free was alpa to change the Nic?

eaglefly

Actually, you DID NOT agree to binding arbitration. If you did, you'd have accepted the very fundemental foundation of the concept and the risk it may not turn out to your expectations. Thus, I believe the 'bull in the china shop' reference to be descriptively accurate.

As for the AA/TWA deal, I wasn't on the AA property then. What I do understand was that it was the acquisition of the assets of a TRULY bankrupt carrier (actually not its first) with approximately 2-3 months operating cash at its then current burn rate. As part of the acquisition, the acquiring carrier agreed to offer employment to the employees of the acquiree. The F/A's all got stapled, but although the AA contract efectively stipulated the same for pilots, the TWA pilots got a better deal with only about half being stapled (and many of them already on extended furlough).

That's an old and long squabble that will live on until all of us are taking a dirt nap. Many of those TWA pilots who were subsequently furloughed were given special consideration for American Eagle captains jobs at their TWA longevity scale (15-18 years). The Eagle pilots who paid for that with their captain seats at risk, subsequently lost their flow-thru rights (they took all the risk, but got none of the reward). A lot of pain to go around on that one. I see your mixing and matching of past conflict to stir the pot further, but the more you're arguing here, the worse you and the east look.

For pete's sake man, stop digging !