AOL update
03-24-2014, 11:58 PM
#2891
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by 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
Capt H
I would bet everyone ends up following the MB statute. And if the courts are not expeditious about resolving disputes reference MB requirements then this will drag on for a long time. Delay is in the APA's best interest as well as the East's, and probably in DUI's as well, to the extent that it continues disunity in the union.
03-25-2014, 07:18 AM
#2892
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by 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
Capt H
It would seem the East is being represented by certified idiots. If East pilots are so concerned about this, perhaps a better strategy would be East pilots suing USAPA for DFR (while they still exist) for agreeing to terms only someone congenitally insane or irretrievably stupid would agree to.
Hey, at least it's a shot, right ?
03-25-2014, 09:52 AM
#2893
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Position: Pitot heat, what's to eat?
Posts: 392
Originally Posted by eaglefly
The first thing USAPA needs to do for you is to explain in fine detail why they negotiated an MOU that provides for exactly that. Unless and until they can do that, they have no foundation to dispute the very provisions they negotiated and validated by their signing it.
It would seem the East is being represented by certified idiots. If East pilots are so concerned about this, perhaps a better strategy would be East pilots suing USAPA for DFR (while they still exist) for agreeing to terms only someone congenitally insane or irretrievably stupid would agree to.
Hey, at least it's a shot, right ?
It would seem the East is being represented by certified idiots. If East pilots are so concerned about this, perhaps a better strategy would be East pilots suing USAPA for DFR (while they still exist) for agreeing to terms only someone congenitally insane or irretrievably stupid would agree to.
Hey, at least it's a shot, right ?
It's been 90 days since the Effective Date, where's the panel of arbitrators?
10. a. A seniority integration process consistent with McCaskill-Bond shall begin as soon as possible after the Effective Date. If, on the date ninety (90) days following the Effective Date, direct negotiations have failed to result in a merged seniority list acceptable to the pilots at both airlines, a panel of three neutral arbitrators will be designated within fifteen (15) days to resolve the dispute, pursuant to the authority and requirements of McCaskill-Bond.....
e. The obligations contained in this Paragraph shall be specifically enforceable on an expedited basis before a System Board of Adjustment in accordance with Paragraph 20, provided that the obligations imposed by McCaskill-Bond may be enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction.
e. The obligations contained in this Paragraph shall be specifically enforceable on an expedited basis before a System Board of Adjustment in accordance with Paragraph 20, provided that the obligations imposed by McCaskill-Bond may be enforced in a court of competent jurisdiction.
03-25-2014, 11:06 AM
#2894
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by ackattacker
USAPA negotiated a document which said specifically that the integration will follow McCaskill-Bond with a few small modifications such as 3 arbitrators instead of 1 and a specific timeline (which the company and APA have made no effort to follow). It also is very specific that the obligations imposed by McCaskill-Bond are enforceable by a court. Which is exactly what USAPA is trying to do, enforce the McCaskill-Bond obligations. The Company and APA are trying to claim USAPA signed away all their rights under McCaskill-Bond, which is laughable when you read the MOU.
The only thing USAPA is trying to do is RE-WRITE the MOU to THEIR liking AFTER they got the pay raises and pension adjustments. The APA and company are claiming no such thing regarding USAPA's present rights. The MOU is explicit in that it will be in accordance with M-B, just as it is explicit about the possibility that APA will be the sole bargaining representative by the time of any actual arbitration. It's plain and clear right there in the document and it seems USAPA chooses to cherry-pick and reinvent, but haven't they been doing that since before they were USAPA both with the West and then in Silver's courtroom ?
Originally Posted by ackattacker
It's been 90 days since the Effective Date, where's the panel of arbitrators?
Now what we MAY have here is a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of this MOU in which case a System Board of Adjustment (see Paragraph 20.) would be the proper venue for resolution, but USAPA hasn't adhered to that MOU provision either because they are apparently choosing to outright nullify it through a courtroom and seeking injunctive relief until such a hearing (which could take months or years). I think you've allowed USAPA to twist your logic into knots.
03-25-2014, 05:38 PM
#2895
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by eaglefly
The first thing USAPA needs to do for you is to explain in fine detail why they negotiated an MOU that provides for exactly that. Unless and until they can do that, they have no foundation to dispute the very provisions they negotiated and validated by their signing it.
It would seem the East is being represented by certified idiots. If East pilots are so concerned about this, perhaps a better strategy would be East pilots suing USAPA for DFR (while they still exist) for agreeing to terms only someone congenitally insane or irretrievably stupid would agree to.
Hey, at least it's a shot, right ?
It would seem the East is being represented by certified idiots. If East pilots are so concerned about this, perhaps a better strategy would be East pilots suing USAPA for DFR (while they still exist) for agreeing to terms only someone congenitally insane or irretrievably stupid would agree to.
Hey, at least it's a shot, right ?
Capt H
03-25-2014, 06:19 PM
#2896
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by Capt Hindsight
You didn't even come close to trying to answer my question, but instead merely said- FU, you signed the MOU. Which speaks volumes in and of itself.
Capt H
Capt H
One could argue USAPA (with the support of many East pilots) is adept at promoting and aggravating conflicts of interest or saying FU to others in furtherance of their interests, so you may want consider applying the same criticism of them as you do me.
03-25-2014, 06:40 PM
#2897
Flies With The Hat On
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Right of the Left Seat
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by 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.
Originally Posted by eaglefly
The MOU (specifically Paragraph 10.) requires that a seniority integration process begin "as soon as possible" after the effective date. The seniority integration has not been possible because all three parties have not agreed on a seniority protocol agreement. All parties are guilty here. I don't think it has. In order for a seniority integration PROCESS to begin, there has to be agreement on protocol on how that process should occur and THEN once that process has begun and "direct negotiations" on the actual integration occur and THEN fail, does the SLI dispute go to arbitration to a three person panel. "Direct seniority negotiations" (MOU 10.a) have not begun. USAPA is not attempting to arbitrate "seniority integration." Seniority integration arbitration is expressly prohibited by MOU 10.a prior to JCBA. Rather, USAPA is merely attempting to arbitrate a merger protocol agreement, which is allowed via McCaskill-Bond through it's provision of Allegheny-Mohawk LPP 13.a, which allows for "any dispute or controversy ... which cannot be settled by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises... to be referred by any party to an arbitrator." I don't think the intent of the MOU was to provide USAPA with an "end run" option of sabotaging the SLI at the protocol stage before they have technically begun just to use as a springboard for unilaterally nullifying the MOU itself so as to remain relevant in opposition to what they agreed to when they negotiated and signed this document, although considering their history, I can see why that desire and this tactic might be attractive. USAPA demanding that it's merger committee continue to represent legacy pilots as an independent sub-part of APA is not an end run. This is actually implied by the spirit of the CAB, MCB, and MOU.
The only thing USAPA is trying to do is RE-WRITE the MOU to THEIR liking AFTER they got the pay raises and pension adjustments. The APA and company are claiming no such thing regarding USAPA's present rights. The MOU is explicit in that it will be in accordance with M-B, just as it is explicit about the possibility that APA will be the sole bargaining representative by the time of any actual arbitration. It's plain and clear right there in the document and it seems USAPA chooses to cherry-pick and reinvent, but haven't they been doing that since before they were USAPA both with the West and then in Silver's courtroom ? The MOU's application of "in accordance with M-B" is as subjective as the statement "fair and equitable."
The "panel" of arbitrators you are talking about (and that USAPA wants) are for actual arbitration of the integration and the process hasn't even begun yet. It is THEY that want to change the process by rearranging the order of the process and claiming the SLI portion of the process has failed when in actuality it hasn't really started yet. The "process" is to begin as soon as "possible" (and in no case is arbitration to occur PRIOR to JCBA completion). Incorrect. MCB, as a federal law, making arbitration available for the protocol agreement after 20 days of disagreement. The MOU denies arbitration until after JCBA. USAPA is actually doing more to progress the timeline than APA by refusing to agree to a merger protocol agreement. USAPA launched their torpedo before the process could start and so, it's in limbo. Since the JCBA will take many months and the SLI portion of the process cannot start with USAPA's legal actions and negotiating tactics gumming up the show, THAT arbitration panel is premature and inappropriate. Incorrect. USAPA waited in excess of 20 days before filing in accordance of MCB. APA could take the MOU timeline out of limbo by guaranteeing the longevity of the USAPA merger committee as a collective bargaining agent after single carrier status until the final seniority list is awarded.
Now what we MAY have here is a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of this MOU in which case a System Board of Adjustment (see Paragraph 20.) would be the proper venue for resolution, but USAPA hasn't adhered to that MOU provision either because they are apparently choosing to outright nullify it through a courtroom and seeking injunctive relief until such a hearing (which could take months or years). I think you've allowed USAPA to twist your logic into knots. I respect your opinion here, but it seems that unless APA accepts the simple concept than USAPA's merger committee should continue to represent legacy US Airways pilots post-Single Transportation System as a Collective Bargaining Agent limited in scope to seniority integration only than USAPA will drag this process out and fully litigate MCB. I would also count on them going to a System Board of Adjustment to further litigate this process if necessary. This process can become substantially drawn-out.
The only thing USAPA is trying to do is RE-WRITE the MOU to THEIR liking AFTER they got the pay raises and pension adjustments. The APA and company are claiming no such thing regarding USAPA's present rights. The MOU is explicit in that it will be in accordance with M-B, just as it is explicit about the possibility that APA will be the sole bargaining representative by the time of any actual arbitration. It's plain and clear right there in the document and it seems USAPA chooses to cherry-pick and reinvent, but haven't they been doing that since before they were USAPA both with the West and then in Silver's courtroom ? The MOU's application of "in accordance with M-B" is as subjective as the statement "fair and equitable."
The "panel" of arbitrators you are talking about (and that USAPA wants) are for actual arbitration of the integration and the process hasn't even begun yet. It is THEY that want to change the process by rearranging the order of the process and claiming the SLI portion of the process has failed when in actuality it hasn't really started yet. The "process" is to begin as soon as "possible" (and in no case is arbitration to occur PRIOR to JCBA completion). Incorrect. MCB, as a federal law, making arbitration available for the protocol agreement after 20 days of disagreement. The MOU denies arbitration until after JCBA. USAPA is actually doing more to progress the timeline than APA by refusing to agree to a merger protocol agreement. USAPA launched their torpedo before the process could start and so, it's in limbo. Since the JCBA will take many months and the SLI portion of the process cannot start with USAPA's legal actions and negotiating tactics gumming up the show, THAT arbitration panel is premature and inappropriate. Incorrect. USAPA waited in excess of 20 days before filing in accordance of MCB. APA could take the MOU timeline out of limbo by guaranteeing the longevity of the USAPA merger committee as a collective bargaining agent after single carrier status until the final seniority list is awarded.
Now what we MAY have here is a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of this MOU in which case a System Board of Adjustment (see Paragraph 20.) would be the proper venue for resolution, but USAPA hasn't adhered to that MOU provision either because they are apparently choosing to outright nullify it through a courtroom and seeking injunctive relief until such a hearing (which could take months or years). I think you've allowed USAPA to twist your logic into knots. I respect your opinion here, but it seems that unless APA accepts the simple concept than USAPA's merger committee should continue to represent legacy US Airways pilots post-Single Transportation System as a Collective Bargaining Agent limited in scope to seniority integration only than USAPA will drag this process out and fully litigate MCB. I would also count on them going to a System Board of Adjustment to further litigate this process if necessary. This process can become substantially drawn-out.
Originally Posted by eaglefly
To what end ?
Are you saying they can demand arbitration if they disagree with the arbitrators final SLI ?
I never said that. An arbitrators ruling is powerful evidence of a fair and equitable SLI.
Is that part of the M-B process ?
If course not.
I here by christen you Captain Obvious!
USAPA not only negotiated the MOU, but they agreed to its provisions by signing it. You are obviously correct Captain. 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. Incorrect. MCB affords USAPA this right, and I have already explained this above.
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. Incorrect. Once a seniority protocol agreement is secure than there won't be any remaining items that MCB controls. The MOU inderectly supersedes after the merger protocol agreement. Besides, APA is not in a position to dispense ad-hoc justice in review of America West pilot treatment. Two wrongs don't make a right Eagle. APA may have disadvantaged TWA, and USAPA may have disadvantaged America West. It would seem that both unions come to the table as equals. 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.
Are you saying they can demand arbitration if they disagree with the arbitrators final SLI ?
I never said that. An arbitrators ruling is powerful evidence of a fair and equitable SLI.
Is that part of the M-B process ?
If course not.
I here by christen you Captain Obvious!
USAPA not only negotiated the MOU, but they agreed to its provisions by signing it. You are obviously correct Captain. 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. Incorrect. MCB affords USAPA this right, and I have already explained this above.
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. Incorrect. Once a seniority protocol agreement is secure than there won't be any remaining items that MCB controls. The MOU inderectly supersedes after the merger protocol agreement. Besides, APA is not in a position to dispense ad-hoc justice in review of America West pilot treatment. Two wrongs don't make a right Eagle. APA may have disadvantaged TWA, and USAPA may have disadvantaged America West. It would seem that both unions come to the table as equals. 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.
Originally Posted by 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.
Originally Posted by eaglefly
The MOU (specifically Paragraph 10.) requires that a seniority integration process begin "as soon as possible" after the effective date. The seniority integration has not been possible because all three parties have not agreed on a seniority protocol agreement. All parties are guilty here. I don't think it has. In order for a seniority integration PROCESS to begin, there has to be agreement on protocol on how that process should occur and THEN once that process has begun and "direct negotiations" on the actual integration occur and THEN fail, does the SLI dispute go to arbitration to a three person panel. "Direct seniority negotiations" (MOU 10.a) have not begun. USAPA is not attempting to arbitrate "seniority integration." Seniority integration arbitration is expressly prohibited by MOU 10.a prior to JCBA. Rather, USAPA is merely attempting to arbitrate a merger protocol agreement, which is allowed via McCaskill-Bond through it's provision of Allegheny-Mohawk LPP 13.a, which allows for "any dispute or controversy ... which cannot be settled by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises... to be referred by any party to an arbitrator." I don't think the intent of the MOU was to provide USAPA with an "end run" option of sabotaging the SLI at the protocol stage before they have technically begun just to use as a springboard for unilaterally nullifying the MOU itself so as to remain relevant in opposition to what they agreed to when they negotiated and signed this document, although considering their history, I can see why that desire and this tactic might be attractive. USAPA demanding that it's merger committee continue to represent legacy pilots as an independent sub-part of APA is not an end run. This is actually implied by the spirit of the CAB, MCB, and MOU.
The only thing USAPA is trying to do is RE-WRITE the MOU to THEIR liking AFTER they got the pay raises and pension adjustments. The APA and company are claiming no such thing regarding USAPA's present rights. The MOU is explicit in that it will be in accordance with M-B, just as it is explicit about the possibility that APA will be the sole bargaining representative by the time of any actual arbitration. It's plain and clear right there in the document and it seems USAPA chooses to cherry-pick and reinvent, but haven't they been doing that since before they were USAPA both with the West and then in Silver's courtroom ? The MOU's application of "in accordance with M-B" is as subjective as the statement "fair and equitable."
The "panel" of arbitrators you are talking about (and that USAPA wants) are for actual arbitration of the integration and the process hasn't even begun yet. It is THEY that want to change the process by rearranging the order of the process and claiming the SLI portion of the process has failed when in actuality it hasn't really started yet. The "process" is to begin as soon as "possible" (and in no case is arbitration to occur PRIOR to JCBA completion). Incorrect. MCB, as a federal law, making arbitration available for the protocol agreement after 20 days of disagreement. The MOU denies arbitration until after JCBA. USAPA is actually doing more to progress the timeline than APA by refusing to agree to a merger protocol agreement. USAPA launched their torpedo before the process could start and so, it's in limbo. Since the JCBA will take many months and the SLI portion of the process cannot start with USAPA's legal actions and negotiating tactics gumming up the show, THAT arbitration panel is premature and inappropriate. Incorrect. USAPA waited in excess of 20 days before filing in accordance of MCB. APA could take the MOU timeline out of limbo by guaranteeing the longevity of the USAPA merger committee as a collective bargaining agent after single carrier status until the final seniority list is awarded.
Now what we MAY have here is a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of this MOU in which case a System Board of Adjustment (see Paragraph 20.) would be the proper venue for resolution, but USAPA hasn't adhered to that MOU provision either because they are apparently choosing to outright nullify it through a courtroom and seeking injunctive relief until such a hearing (which could take months or years). I think you've allowed USAPA to twist your logic into knots. I respect your opinion here, but it seems that unless APA accepts the simple concept than USAPA's merger committee should continue to represent legacy US Airways pilots post-Single Transportation System as a Collective Bargaining Agent limited in scope to seniority integration only than USAPA will drag this process out and fully litigate MCB. I would also count on them going to a System Board of Adjustment to further litigate this process if necessary. This process can become substantially drawn-out.
The only thing USAPA is trying to do is RE-WRITE the MOU to THEIR liking AFTER they got the pay raises and pension adjustments. The APA and company are claiming no such thing regarding USAPA's present rights. The MOU is explicit in that it will be in accordance with M-B, just as it is explicit about the possibility that APA will be the sole bargaining representative by the time of any actual arbitration. It's plain and clear right there in the document and it seems USAPA chooses to cherry-pick and reinvent, but haven't they been doing that since before they were USAPA both with the West and then in Silver's courtroom ? The MOU's application of "in accordance with M-B" is as subjective as the statement "fair and equitable."
The "panel" of arbitrators you are talking about (and that USAPA wants) are for actual arbitration of the integration and the process hasn't even begun yet. It is THEY that want to change the process by rearranging the order of the process and claiming the SLI portion of the process has failed when in actuality it hasn't really started yet. The "process" is to begin as soon as "possible" (and in no case is arbitration to occur PRIOR to JCBA completion). Incorrect. MCB, as a federal law, making arbitration available for the protocol agreement after 20 days of disagreement. The MOU denies arbitration until after JCBA. USAPA is actually doing more to progress the timeline than APA by refusing to agree to a merger protocol agreement. USAPA launched their torpedo before the process could start and so, it's in limbo. Since the JCBA will take many months and the SLI portion of the process cannot start with USAPA's legal actions and negotiating tactics gumming up the show, THAT arbitration panel is premature and inappropriate. Incorrect. USAPA waited in excess of 20 days before filing in accordance of MCB. APA could take the MOU timeline out of limbo by guaranteeing the longevity of the USAPA merger committee as a collective bargaining agent after single carrier status until the final seniority list is awarded.
Now what we MAY have here is a dispute regarding the interpretation or application of this MOU in which case a System Board of Adjustment (see Paragraph 20.) would be the proper venue for resolution, but USAPA hasn't adhered to that MOU provision either because they are apparently choosing to outright nullify it through a courtroom and seeking injunctive relief until such a hearing (which could take months or years). I think you've allowed USAPA to twist your logic into knots. I respect your opinion here, but it seems that unless APA accepts the simple concept than USAPA's merger committee should continue to represent legacy US Airways pilots post-Single Transportation System as a Collective Bargaining Agent limited in scope to seniority integration only than USAPA will drag this process out and fully litigate MCB. I would also count on them going to a System Board of Adjustment to further litigate this process if necessary. This process can become substantially drawn-out.
Originally Posted by eaglefly
To what end ?
Are you saying they can demand arbitration if they disagree with the arbitrators final SLI ?
I never said that. An arbitrators ruling is powerful evidence of a fair and equitable SLI.
Is that part of the M-B process ?
If course not.
I here by christen you Captain Obvious!
USAPA not only negotiated the MOU, but they agreed to its provisions by signing it. You are obviously correct Captain. 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. Incorrect. MCB affords USAPA this right, and I have already explained this above.
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. Incorrect. Once a seniority protocol agreement is secure than there won't be any remaining items that MCB controls. The MOU inderectly supersedes after the merger protocol agreement. Besides, APA is not in a position to dispense ad-hoc justice in review of America West pilot treatment. Two wrongs don't make a right Eagle. APA may have disadvantaged TWA, and USAPA may have disadvantaged America West. It would seem that both unions come to the table as equals. 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.
Are you saying they can demand arbitration if they disagree with the arbitrators final SLI ?
I never said that. An arbitrators ruling is powerful evidence of a fair and equitable SLI.
Is that part of the M-B process ?
If course not.
I here by christen you Captain Obvious!
USAPA not only negotiated the MOU, but they agreed to its provisions by signing it. You are obviously correct Captain. 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. Incorrect. MCB affords USAPA this right, and I have already explained this above.
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. Incorrect. Once a seniority protocol agreement is secure than there won't be any remaining items that MCB controls. The MOU inderectly supersedes after the merger protocol agreement. Besides, APA is not in a position to dispense ad-hoc justice in review of America West pilot treatment. Two wrongs don't make a right Eagle. APA may have disadvantaged TWA, and USAPA may have disadvantaged America West. It would seem that both unions come to the table as equals. 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.
Eagle, this is not a personal subject for me. While I enjoy discussing possibilities, I also recognize that I have absolutely no control over the outcomes of this merger integration process and it's SLI. Whatever happens...happens, and I am very sorry that we are in this situation as it seems APA and USAPA both suffer from weak leadership lacking cooperative spirit.
Good luck to everyone.
03-25-2014, 07:25 PM
#2898
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 109
Originally Posted by eaglefly
But to answer your question, it isn't a given that East pilots position on the SLI will be muzzled by APA, only that almost certainly it won't be USAPA that presents it, so the dissolution of USAPA in this process isn't necessarily a conflict of interest, it's simply an excuse they are using to remain relevant.
Cheers,
Capt H
03-25-2014, 07:40 PM
#2899
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by flybywire44
This is not true. I am a Third-List pilots on the US Airways East seniority list. Please cite your accusation.
Originally Posted by flybywire44
Eagle, this is not a personal subject for me. While I enjoy discussing possibilities, I also recognize that I have absolutely no control over the outcomes of this merger integration process and it's SLI. Whatever happens...happens, and I am very sorry that we are in this situation as it seems APA and USAPA both suffer from weak leadership lacking cooperative spirit.
Good luck to everyone.
Good luck to everyone.
"An arbitrators ruling is powerful evidence of a fair and equitable SLI"
Well, Nicolau was an arbitrator who ruled and yet USAPA doesn't agree with your statement, yet you claim that standard NOW has validity when it suits you and USAPA's interests. Sorry, but I can't buy your arguments and considering your past misrepresentation, your credibility either. Nothing personal though, otherwise I'd christen you something else.
Last edited by eaglefly; 03-25-2014 at 07:54 PM.
03-25-2014, 07:51 PM
#2900
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by Capt Hindsight
So you would feel comfortable if the situation was reversed? I bet not. Look, everybody gets that USAPA is going away. I don't agree with the simplistic notion that they are doing what they're doing solely to prolong their existence. I believe their last, legitimate purpose is to properly look after the US pilots during the SLI process. And no, I don't trust the APA to do so for the US pilots and I don't think you would either.
Cheers,
Capt H
Cheers,
Capt H
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
