PurpleTurtle

The APA has asked USAPA to give up their MB protections, and are all too happy to argue the MB protections don't apply anyway after single carrier....

Kinda funny how the West used to argue to their dying breath that MB does not apply to them and they don't have any legal ability to negotiate.

They change their argument as it suits themselves and yet claim to be righteous. I don't begrudge them the right to form their own arguments. They are free to be hypocrites! And they can buy a $675 tie from any vendor of their choice.

eaglefly

Not necessarily. I don't think APA can or will agree to a process arbitration supposedly doesn't allow, that being separate non-union groups argue directly to the "neutral" arbitrators. Instead, allowing separate groups to include information for APA to present to the neutral arbitration. This would be after negotiation fail or possibly not even occur if East pilots don't agree to reengagement in the SLI process and of course after their frivolous and obstructionist strategies run their course.

eaglefly

Don't to forget to include yourself who deliberately misrepresented his identity as an East pilot when debating issues with a west pilot. If one is going to demand others wake up to dubious conduct, one should be free of it themselves and if not, then acknowledge it.

cactiboss

That's not how the company sees it. They specifically say the apa envisions appointing independent committees in their court filings.

eaglefly

To what end ?

Are you saying they can demand arbitration if they disagree with the arbitrators final SLI ?

Is that part of the M-B process ?

If course not.

USAPA not only negotiated the MOU, but they agreed to its provisions by signing it. ALL of the provisions, not just the timeline or the order of occurrence. They cannot cherry pick what aspects within they like and toss that which they don't, although that appears exactly what they demand to do. From a legal position, they own the MOU in its entirety. They want to hold the JCBA portion hostage so they can remain relevant throughout the entire SLI process. Even if for some reason the other parties allow an arbitration to rule on the protocol disagreements, that doesn't (and shouldn't) allow USAPA rights the MOU doesn't support or what they agreed otherwise.

So, if for some reason protocol is resolved, negotiations can then fail if APA isn't willing to support USAPA's hijacking of the US Airways pilots representation by doing to the west what they don't want APA to do to them (make them disappear) and we end up back to arbitration for the final SLI. The only difference is the MOU will be followed, the JCBA will be completed first, almost certainly a STS will be declared and USAPA will disappear like a fart in the wind prior to final arbitration and we are then back to where we would be anyway, that being APA representing all pilots and the only labor party directly interacting with the arbitrators and deciding what is submitted for their consideration, this last aspect being where their DFR duty exists and the crux of their jeopardy.

eaglefly

It wasn't just the APA who decided USAPA (as a recognized bargaining agent) wouldn't likely participate in any final SLI arbitration it was USAPA as well. East pilots "interests" aren't going to be "excluded" from the arbitration and certainly not in their entirety. USAPA will though as they won't exist. APA would face DFR jeopardy if that happened and they will bear that burden. It will be APA responsibility that any and all relevant positions be included in what they present to the arbitrators.

eaglefly

Directly to the arbitration panel ?

Well, they may or may not "envision that" (if that is what the COMPANY says), but that will be APA's discretion.

cactiboss

If you think about it makes most sense and is a strong protection against dfr suit.

eaglefly

I certainly have no problem with it. USAPA wants to remain relevant to both promote the agenda that maximizes their interests (DOH supported integration) and muzzle you so the Nic isn't considered.

It kills two birds with one stone and gumming up the process to streamline and integrate the three carriers is the method to hopefully obtain that leverage.

Capt Hindsight

Doesn't it sound like a huge conflict of interest to have one of the principles in the arbitration (APA) in control of all the information from all other participants (USAPA, maybe West)? Sorry, but a long, protracted DFR suit is just not a suitable deterrent to potential APA "misrepresentation."

Capt H