Protocol Agreement Reached per USAPA
05-09-2014 | 07:06 AM
#161
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2014
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
From: 767 capt
Hey scumbag, the scum east has promised they will fucckkk every west pilot, that is a fact. I find it hilarious that the east scum now wants west help so they are the only ones to screw the west. Fcccckkk uuu u fuukin fccck, I will give the apa the sandpaper so they destroy your sphincter. I would rather be fccckddd by the apa than help any east scum, I'm fccckd either way.
05-09-2014 | 10:33 AM
#163
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
WOW, Capt. will you please post your flying schedule, because like most of us on the east that have not had a lot of input on what USAPA is doing. My family is east and travels on West metal and I don't want them to be subjected to your anger. Thank you sir. in advance. Will hate to be your first EAST F/O. He or she can take this post to H R if there is any problems. Good luck.
05-09-2014 | 10:35 AM
#164
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 0
My attitude against a bunch of degenerate scum that has cost me, my family and my coworkers $ millions? My attitude is nothing compared to what the east has done.
05-09-2014 | 11:17 AM
#165
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Well, If using foul language was a disqualifier for a medical certificate, 90% of airline pilots would be immediately grounded. Come to think of it, I'd bet a large percentage of AME's couldn't meet that standard.
05-09-2014 | 11:23 AM
#166
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Hey sport, I'm giving you credit for just that. I originally believed that the APA just jumped on the SCS bandwagon after Judge Silver ruled, but you have me thinking that was their plan all along. I did some research and found that they used it against TWA.
I can't find a link to the pdf article, but this has most of it and some good info. on MB:
Seniority integration and the McCaskill-Bond statute - Lexology
"Although unions and management were typically the parties in Section 13 arbitrations, other employee groups and individual employees could be granted party status or allowed to otherwise participate. See, e.g., Southern Emps. v. Republic/ALEA, 102 C.A.B. 616 (1983) (describing how seniority integration was negotiated by an "employee committee" established for that purpose without union involvement); Pan Am-TWA Route Exchange, Arbitration Award, 85 C.A.B. 2537 (1980) (noting that three individual engineers were parties to arbitration); NAA I, 95 C.A.B. at 584 (denying dissenting group "full party status" but noting that they'd been given the opportunity to participate in the LPP arbitration). Thus, as indicated by the language of the LPPs, unrepresented employees still had rights to fair and equitable seniority integration and binding arbitration to resolve integration disputes under the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs."
I can't find a link to the pdf article, but this has most of it and some good info. on MB:
Seniority integration and the McCaskill-Bond statute - Lexology
"Although unions and management were typically the parties in Section 13 arbitrations, other employee groups and individual employees could be granted party status or allowed to otherwise participate. See, e.g., Southern Emps. v. Republic/ALEA, 102 C.A.B. 616 (1983) (describing how seniority integration was negotiated by an "employee committee" established for that purpose without union involvement); Pan Am-TWA Route Exchange, Arbitration Award, 85 C.A.B. 2537 (1980) (noting that three individual engineers were parties to arbitration); NAA I, 95 C.A.B. at 584 (denying dissenting group "full party status" but noting that they'd been given the opportunity to participate in the LPP arbitration). Thus, as indicated by the language of the LPPs, unrepresented employees still had rights to fair and equitable seniority integration and binding arbitration to resolve integration disputes under the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs."
Wow, that's the nicest thing you've ever called me.
As far as what is up the APA's sleeve, that's anyones guess. Back then M-B wasn't in existence though and now it is and it's mentioned in the MOU itself. It would seem the goal here is to NOT do what occurred in the TWA asset acquisition and the resultant construction of the modified seniority list, but instead have neutral arbitrators ready to make the call. Again, a fair process is possible without USAPA and I think that's the primary goal of the MOU - representational castration of known obstructionists to ensure the process doesn't get bogged down for years.
05-09-2014 | 02:15 PM
#168
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,299
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
As far as what is up the APA's sleeve, that's anyones guess. Back then M-B wasn't in existence though and now it is and it's mentioned in the MOU itself. It would seem the goal here is to NOT do what occurred in the TWA asset acquisition and the resultant construction of the modified seniority list, but instead have neutral arbitrators ready to make the call. Again, a fair process is possible without USAPA and I think that's the primary goal of the MOU - representational castration of known obstructionists to ensure the process doesn't get bogged down for years.
Have you read the US reserve question thread? Those type posts and the TWA history don't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about them controlling the whole SLI.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
