AOL update
04-30-2014, 07:09 AM
#3041
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
It's nothing to do with integrity. It just negotiating tactics. Accusations about integrity are just one more tactic among many. All is fair in love and war. There is no war in labor greater than when unions collide over SLI. 
04-30-2014, 07:29 AM
#3043
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by eaglefly
So USAPA has declared war on APA ?
APA is unable to cut up a federal statute, but they will give it a valiant try. Delay is good for them too.
04-30-2014, 08:01 AM
#3044
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
No. USAPA has declared the terms of peace and sent messengers. MB protections are not for sale. I fully expect the APA to cut the USAPA messengers up into little pieces and then send them back in baskets.
APA is unable to cut up a federal statute, but they will give it a valiant try. Delay is good for them too.
APA is unable to cut up a federal statute, but they will give it a valiant try. Delay is good for them too.
Gotcha.
Wouldn't this be also termed an "ultimatum" ? USAPA certainly has a proud history of making declarations, I'll give them that.
As for M-B, that hasn't been triggered yet as there hasn't been any formal discussions about SLI positions, only a delay in the informal process of pre-SLI protocol (and pre M-B applicability). Not sure that is "ripe" yet anyway and if anyone should know about ripeness, it's USAPA. According to APA, the JCBA completion efforts are moving forward despite USAPA's attempts to halt the MOU process they agreed to.It's interesting you note USAPA's latest "declaration" of self-approving the so-called original protocol agreement that they claim APA MC originally agreed to. It sounds as though you claim they will attempt to present that in court. I suppose they could indeed go into court attempting to convince a judge to force that in as after all, they could claim the APA agreed to it. Of course, just after USAPA does that, APA holds up the MOU and makes the same claim about USAPA re the MOU as USAPA might make against APA re the protocol agreement.
Of course, the only difference is one has valid signatures and the other wouldn't, just backed up with a "declaration". It certainly should be good for entertainment anyway. Cheese, crackers and Pinot Grigio on standby here.
Last edited by eaglefly; 04-30-2014 at 08:15 AM.
04-30-2014, 09:01 AM
#3046
Flies With The Hat On
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Right of the Left Seat
Posts: 1,339
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
No. USAPA has declared the terms of peace and sent messengers. MB protections are not for sale. I fully expect the APA to cut the USAPA messengers up into little pieces and then send them back in baskets.
APA is unable to cut up a federal statute, but they will give it a valiant try. Delay is good for them too.
Oh.....so USAPA has declared "the terms of peace" ?
Gotcha.
Wouldn't this be also termed an "ultimatum" ? USAPA certainly has a proud history of making declarations, I'll give them that. As for M-B, that hasn't been triggered yet as there hasn't been any formal discussions about SLI positions, only a delay in the informal process of pre-SLI protocol (and pre M-B applicability). Not sure that is "ripe" yet anyway and if anyone should know about ripeness, it's USAPA. According to APA, the JCBA completion efforts are moving forward despite USAPA's attempts to halt the MOU process they agreed to.
It's interesting you note USAPA's latest "declaration" of self-approving the so-called original protocol agreement that they claim APA MC originally agreed to. It sounds as though you claim they will attempt to present that in court. I suppose they could indeed go into court attempting to convince a judge to force that in as after all, they could claim the APA agreed to it. Of course, just after USAPA does that, APA holds up the MOU and makes the same claim about USAPA re the MOU as USAPA might make against APA re the protocol agreement.
Of course, the only difference is one has valid signatures and the other wouldn't, just backed up with a "declaration". It certainly should be good for entertainment anyway. Cheese, crackers and Pinot Grigio on standby here.
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
No. USAPA has declared the terms of peace and sent messengers. MB protections are not for sale. I fully expect the APA to cut the USAPA messengers up into little pieces and then send them back in baskets.
APA is unable to cut up a federal statute, but they will give it a valiant try. Delay is good for them too.
Oh.....so USAPA has declared "the terms of peace" ?
Gotcha.
Wouldn't this be also termed an "ultimatum" ? USAPA certainly has a proud history of making declarations, I'll give them that. As for M-B, that hasn't been triggered yet as there hasn't been any formal discussions about SLI positions, only a delay in the informal process of pre-SLI protocol (and pre M-B applicability). Not sure that is "ripe" yet anyway and if anyone should know about ripeness, it's USAPA. According to APA, the JCBA completion efforts are moving forward despite USAPA's attempts to halt the MOU process they agreed to.
It's interesting you note USAPA's latest "declaration" of self-approving the so-called original protocol agreement that they claim APA MC originally agreed to. It sounds as though you claim they will attempt to present that in court. I suppose they could indeed go into court attempting to convince a judge to force that in as after all, they could claim the APA agreed to it. Of course, just after USAPA does that, APA holds up the MOU and makes the same claim about USAPA re the MOU as USAPA might make against APA re the protocol agreement.
Of course, the only difference is one has valid signatures and the other wouldn't, just backed up with a "declaration". It certainly should be good for entertainment anyway. Cheese, crackers and Pinot Grigio on standby here.
USAPA retained the authors of MCB, and I'm sure they'll have something to say about this, and many of APA's other assertions about their document.
04-30-2014, 09:07 AM
#3047
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by flybywire44
Don't kid yourself. There is nothing informal about a merger protocol agreement that controls the entire process.
USAPA retained the authors of MCB, and I'm sure they'll have something to say about this, and many of APA's other assertions about their document.
USAPA retained the authors of MCB, and I'm sure they'll have something to say about this, and many of APA's other assertions about their document.
04-30-2014, 11:44 AM
#3049
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: A320
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
If only the APA had not precipitated the MB statute... 
04-30-2014, 12:17 PM
#3050
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by GrapeNuts
The APA didn't precipitate McCaskill Bond, it was the APFA. But please, don't let facts get in the way of your story here, or any story you tell here because you are a very funny poster.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
