That's not what I asked. There can be a lot of side roads to binding neutral arbitration. If on side is controlling the process, is it neutral? What gets presented to the arbitration panel can have a bit effect on the outcome.

I'll agree with this too.

Me too, as far as it goes, but it's not that simple.

How about my question to aa73. How do you feel about those and did you read the paper I provided a link to? Does it sound accurate?

I agree. Binding neutral arbitration... the only thing that makes arbitration "binding" is the provision of the legal instrument that makes it so...... the MB statute (mandatory) or a contract (negotiated).

It seems obvious at this point that the only way we are ever going to end up in binding arbitration is by a court order compelling it, regardless of what legal instrument they cite as dispositive.

R57,

I didn't read APA's protocol letter as "controlling the situation." Perhaps you did. All I interpreted from the letter is that APA is laying out a foundation that includes usapa, AA and USair on the road to arbitration. How is that "controlling the situation?"

I think it's great that APA has changed their mind about negotiating a protocol agreement. Maybe it will be possible to agree to start binding arbitration sooner than a court could get around to compelling it.

I read that letter the same way. It seems clear now USAPA has folded their arms and either its demands will be met or the legal kabuki dance will have to be enjoyed in its entirety. At this point, I think APA is better off standing behind the MOU and Hummels signature. Clearly, they seem very far apart in position. I do agree that binding arbitration with all sides choosing their own reps and making their own proposals or in failure of that, presenting their positions to arbitration is the best outcome. The realization of that goal doesn't require USAPA as a recognized entity and M-B doesn't require two unions to meet its protections, but USAPA will never go willingly even if that were offered.

One question for me, is what will Parkers response to any long delay in synergy realization be as what could be perhaps years roll by ?

The MOU offers a lot of flexibility there.

Another question for me is what ELSE does USAPA have up its sleeve ?

Considering the obvious reality that they planned all along to sabotage a process they agreed to, which is clear in its provisions for USAPA's dissolution at some point prior to SLI completion simply to first gain financial benefit, if they are then allowed to continue there must be another joker in their deck they intend to play further along in the game. I think any agreement now that USAPA would accept would only cancel out the previously played jokers, but they'd never agree to anything that prevents jokers still in their deck from future use. That's how USAPA plays cards and they want to stay at the table.

IMO, each capitulation to USAPA now only emboldens them to aggravate their defiant stance further and perhaps its best to let the legal process determine the path. It seems all but impossible for a compromise at this point.

USAPA would have to let the West have their own reps argue their own position at this point and we both know they'd NEVER willingly allow that. I think APA would believe they'd be in too much jeopardy if they allowed USAPA to steamroll the West like they claim they are preventing APA from doing to East pilots.

JCBA first though and then ?

There is plenty of finger pointing going on from all sides. Absent a willing participation and solution, the courts will have to compel arbitration. I really don't care which path we take.

What's the latest on Single-Carrier Status? Wasn't that supposed to be decided already?