That was angry nut's bait cacti. Run along and fly your 767(on flight sim).

 

Wow! Great to see you admitting this. So, what date would you like to use for your "PID"?

 

This is the way it has been done previously. I would guess things may change at AA as far as their seniority assignments being given when training is finished.

 

M-B doesn't require two unions. The MOU was crafted by both APA and USAPA to include two concepts. First, that at some point in the process USAPA would cease to be the collective bargaining agent for US Airways pilots and second, once that occurred the provisions and protections of M-B would still apply, i.e., separate representatives would still negotiate and if necessary, arbitrate the SLI.

The fact that USAPA technically doesn't exist doesn't prevent the M-B process, nor impede the SLI. I think the MOU was crafted that way to prevent USAPA from engaging in their obstructionist and self-serving tactics which are known throughout the solar system. USAPA agreed to this, but as usual, Hummel had his fingers crossed behind his back when he signed it and here we are.

 

You still haven't shown me where the MOU says this. But, you may be right. Maybe that was the APA's intent all along, to use SCS to control the process. That is contrary to the spirit of MB. I'm begining to think that this might be the most drawn out SLI in history, ending up in the Supreme Court.

 

It's hopeless convincing you of anything you don't want to believe, I've finally learned that regarding the few of you who are out where the buses don't run. I think it's best you continue your enjoyment of the beach and believing what you wish. It seems that's the most peaceful place for both of us. Your claim of APA doing whatever conveniently forgets USAPA willingly signed the MOU and likewise your belief of the "spirit" of M-B is simply one persons subjective opinion. M-B does not require two unions, only a fair process that involves NEUTRAL decision in the event of a failure of agreement.

Of course, I can see your panic regarding neutral decisions. Considering the East reps last actions in that regard, they don't recognize neutral decisions, only THEIR decisions. Perhaps THAT is why Parker and APA crafted the MOU the way they did.

Again, the real question then, is why did USAPA agree to it if it was so distasteful ?

Answer: It was a scheme all along to first get the pay and pension increases BEFORE they did what they planned to do all along.

I'm not too concerned with all that much delay. I think the interests of big business will steamroll over this like a small speed bump. Supreme Court ?

Ahh, well O.K. Normally I'd say, a decade from now let me know what they say, but realistically, that would be snuffed long before a single brief ever hit their desks.

 

No bait, your douchebaggery knows no bounds. The facts are clear, we have been a single company for 8 years yet you want to treat the west as we never merged.

 

That about sums it up.

 

We have been a single union since 2007 and since then the West has argued that MB could not apply. They have always refused to negotiate because the West had no representatives to legally negotiate. But ever since the merger with American they now want to have a negotiating committee and they miraculously want that authority under MB (which Silver ruled they are not entitled to).

Frankly I don't blame the West for arguing every which way they can legally think of that might work in every different situation. But the West are hypocrites that live in glass houses.

Good luck, and enjoy your day! Really.

 

Why are we a single union if we never merged? The fact you scumbags are absolutely terrified out of your minds for the west to show the arbitrators what you have done is very telling.