Like maybe the APA?

I actually agree with you about the name on the door, it doesn't matter. It's the people inside.

Will you agree with me on one FACT? The transition agreement, that the west helped write and wanted because they thought they would need the protection, came first and allowed this mess. I don't understand why that is lost on so many people.

Bingo. A contract is a contract, and that is exactly what everybody has followed/will follow despite all the political blustering and posturing.

Wasn't this mess started when a group of East pilots with significant support from the East pilot group reneged on their agreement to abide by binding arbitration and then devised the only method they knew of to circumvent an arbitration awards results, i.e., forming a new union ?

Didn't this occur years ago before AA was even a twinkle in Parker's eye ?

No, this mess was started when Nicolau came out with a ludicrous award......

A contract is simply an agreement between 2 parties. So is the acceptance of binding arbitration. You can stand behind one while belittling the other as in principle, they are identical.

Well, maybe on the planet USAPA. :cool:

Now, according to APA, USAPA is trying to rewrite the MOU, just like the Nicolau arbitration. These clowns wouldn't know honor or integrity if it ran up, kicked them in the ass and stuck its tongue out at them when they spun around to look at it.

........... that the East had already agreed to be BINDING!

Let's try this another way for you on planet fly.

Let's say you need a car and you and your wife want a Corvette. You have a job lined up that will pay you much more and you will be able to pay for the Corvette, IF you actually get the job. You sign a contract with the dealer to buy the vette, with a condition-that you actually get the job and start work. The contract has a clause in it that says you can renegotiate it at any time, with the consent of the dealer. Well, the company you are supposed to go to work for has some issues and they decide to rescind their employment offer. Plus, in the mean time you realize that the vette would be a stupid deal. You still need a car, so you go back to the deal and renegotiate for a Cruze. You wife doesn't want to renegotiate and really, really wants the vette, but she goes along and signs the new contract, thinking she can force you into the vette anyway through, uh, other means. Did you break your contract? Can your wife sue you because she isn't riding around in the Corvette?

That's more like it.

But wasn't until a JCBA was reached, which never was. Then the deal was renegotiated. See the example above and try to keep up.

But you are missing it. See Binding in the east only means binding when the benefits for them are enormous. Binding means the entire process of arbitration is just a proposal when the east doesn't favor the outcome.

You really need to learn how to think east if you expect to survive around here.;)

WD at AWA

Arbitration does not ever occur without a contract stipulating the parties, process, and power of any arbitrated result.

Judgement in favor of USAPA and the company. No breach of contract or DFR. :D