Why does USAPA not want to combine the lists?

Who knows for certain what lurks in the mind of a mad bull ? :confused:

I don't think it's that they don't want to not combine the lists, it's just that they want to be relevant as a bargaining representative for the two primary reasons of furthering a DOH-based agenda and controlling the abilities of the West and they will persue all avenues available until they are awarded that or the others capitulate. The flipside of that tack is that it takes time and if longer then 18-months especially, Parker moves ahead with his synergies anyway getting most of the flexibility he needs to realize competitive potential and shareholder value.

If innocents suffer, USAPA will blame Parker and APA and Parker and APA will blame USAPA. :cool:

I'm excited to be here but this is a HUGE black cloud over head that could really hurt the hundreds of guys getting hired now and into the future.

No one knows how USAPA's latest about face will impact the future. Clearly though, it looks like Parker expected problems from them and hedged his bets. We'll just have to wait and see how this all shakes out.

So as of right now, where does the process stand? It looks like the APA and USAPA were meeting regularly until Feb 18th/19th time frame. Looks like it was then that the APA insisted on a "significant change". No updates since. Also according to the timeline wasn't there supposed to be an arbitration panel in lieu of the two parties going back and forth to prevent this from happening?

Well, USAPA makes a lot of claims. I suppose the demand that they (as a certified union) have the right to remain throughout the SLI process could also be considered a "significant change". It could also be argued that any demand to halt the entire process until THIS aspect is resolved (a "hostage" situation) could too be considered a significant change. I don't think the "protocol" process is covered under McCaskill-Bond. It isn't about actual SLI negotiations, it's a pre-curser to establish HOW those negotiations will occur and with whom. The concept of "with whom" is already established by the MOU USAPA agreed to, but again, it is NOW they are choosing to reinterpret that.

From my understanding the JCBA process continues for now and barring anything unforeseen (like a judge granting USAPA a full injunction of all aspects of the MOU process) is to be completed this fall at the latest. The NMB will soon rule on single-carrier and then an operating certificate will be awarded (starts the 18-month clock previously described). That also triggers the continuation of the process of APA being declared the sole CBA, at least theoretically, but USAPA is suing and requesting an injunction on this whole business until the merits of its argument are heard (my understanding anyway).

When a judge rules on the injunction, I don't think anyone knows. If he grants it, then I suppose the parties can meet if they so choose to try and resolve the situation (or perhaps even before he rules). If not, then I guess not much happens, but I don't know. Not sure of what the scope of their injunction demands, but I can't see a judge depriving Parker of the flexibilities of Para. 8. Of course, I think USAPA wants to completely hamstring everyone and everything until they either capitulate or until the actual court date and ruling which could be years. USAPA knows Parker doesn't want this and that is the hope Parker and APA buckle and cry "uncle". It will be interesting to hear the story of USAPA in court telling the judge how they have the right to prosper by their own strategy of choosing to dispute the MOU AFTER they agreed to it, instead of not agreeing to it in the first place. One would think a sane judge would deny their injunction, but might allow them to continue to persue their SLI desires which just puts Parker in the position of pulling the trigger on Para. 8 and getting most of his synergy in the interim, albeit in a painful way for some. It will cost more then not, but I doubt he'll let USAPA slide into the driver's seat after his past relationship with them.

I guess we'll all have to wait and see is the obvious answer. If and when a judge dismisses their case for whatever reason, then I'm not sure what their next move is. Maybe they'd try to rally East pilots into some form of a show of defiance using hysterical doomsday tactics to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) ? Perhaps they'll amass along the borders of Centreport like what is happeneing at the border of Ukraine ? Oh well..........at any rate, it doesn't look like it will be boring anyway.

USAPA doesn't want to stop the SLI, it just doesn't want the APA in control of BOTH sides. That is not logical and does not follow MB. The APA took Judge Silver's ruling and ran with it. Why? I don't know. I have concerns about the APA, but I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that is for DFR reasons.

Eaglefly makes a lot of assumptions that are incorrect. He admitted that if there was a chance that USAPA could be the CBA, he wouldn't want them controlling both sides.

Did an US east pilot sleep with your significant other or something along those lines. I just can't get you.

He hates for USAPA/East pilots because:

1. He is terrified that the USAPA SLI proposal will not give him credit for his LOS at Eagle and will lose seniority to third list pilots who he feels should be below him.

2.He has West friends

But allowing Usapa to control both sides of the east/ west integration is logical?

Do you understand the word hypocrite?