APA Protocol Agreement proposal
06-21-2014 | 11:59 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 0
From: Right Seat
06-21-2014 | 11:59 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 9
Correct... and thus my statement that the posturing between both unions is pretty much worthless. I don't see any "land grab" statements by APA, and usapa seems to be in quit a big hurry to do the SLI. In the end we need to allow the full process to run its course, and that's going to include plenty of posturing between both sides. Just the nature of the beast.
Edit: I was answering R57's post, not texaspilot.
Edit: I was answering R57's post, not texaspilot.
06-21-2014 | 01:42 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
If and when they do and it's not to USAPA's liking, will they accept it ?
We both know they won't.
USAPA never negotiates (although they're masters of creating that illusion), they dictate and they've alienated almost everyone they've ever had contact with including other labor groups, arbitrators, airline executives, judges and even some of their own who haven't fallen down your rabbit hole.
It sounds as though you think the possibility of USAPA being handed its hat is out of the question. Confidence is a good thing in moderation.
Of course the day may come when you ask yourself, "why, oh why, didn't I take the red pill ?".
We both know they won't.
USAPA never negotiates (although they're masters of creating that illusion), they dictate and they've alienated almost everyone they've ever had contact with including other labor groups, arbitrators, airline executives, judges and even some of their own who haven't fallen down your rabbit hole. It sounds as though you think the possibility of USAPA being handed its hat is out of the question. Confidence is a good thing in moderation.
Of course the day may come when you ask yourself, "why, oh why, didn't I take the red pill ?".
06-21-2014 | 02:03 PM
#55
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Why more of the same, of course. Obstruction, impedance, intransigence, demands and dictation. You can be absolutely sure USAPA has their next move in the spirit of those principles planned should the court deny USAPA's injunction.
06-22-2014 | 04:07 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 5,299
Likes: 0
From: A320 Capt
Correct... and thus my statement that the posturing between both unions is pretty much worthless. I don't see any "land grab" statements by APA, and usapa seems to be in quit a big hurry to do the SLI. In the end we need to allow the full process to run its course, and that's going to include plenty of posturing between both sides. Just the nature of the beast.
Edit: I was answering R57's post, not texaspilot.
Edit: I was answering R57's post, not texaspilot.
Have you read Judge Silver's ruling in Addington II? The APA is leaning it pretty heavily, would you agree? We'll here is a note from the transcript:
"The parties have not explained how the process contemplated by the MOU could
ever take effect. The MOU contemplates the need for arbitration but also requires the post- merger carrier remain neutral. Under the Court’s reading of McCaskill-Bond, there will be no need for arbitration because, based on explicit language in the MOU, prior to the arbitration, there will have been an election and there will be only one certified representative for all pilots. Simply put, with the carrier having promised neutrality, there will not be two parties to go to arbitration."
See why we might worry? Fly likes to claim that the MOU is clear, but a federal judge had problems with it.
06-22-2014 | 05:03 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Both the APA and USAPA negotiating committees saw this as an opportunity to fix some of the ills of the Reserve system during these settlement discussions and to that end, members of both committees spent the last couple weeks working on the document.
Once the contract language is written, the MTA will be updated to reflect the changes.
USAPA Negotiating Advisory Committee
06-22-2014 | 05:33 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
USAPA is playing with the concepts of "fact" and "interpretation". The FACT is the MOU REQUIRES completion of JCBA first and then SLI. USAPA is seeking to force seniority integration immediately in reverse order using its INTERPRETATION that McCaskill-Bond requires almost immediate arbitration of SLI issues now while they are A. still relevant and B. while they have the power to muzzle the West and as a result of a strategy they orchestrated to allow exactly this at exactly this early stage in SLI and pre-JCBA. Turning the timeline of the very foundation of the MOU on its head by unilaterally dissolving its fundamental path IS a nullification of its provisions, Q.E.D.
In the interim, USAPA is seeking injunctive relief until its demands are ruled on, are they not ?
They want to stop (nullify) the ENTIRE process because they want to do SLI arbitration now, while they are still relevant and in control of the West. I do accept this is falling on deaf ears as it's more then obvious USAPA has successfully filled a lot of gullible minds with emotion-filled sap.
In the interim, USAPA is seeking injunctive relief until its demands are ruled on, are they not ?
They want to stop (nullify) the ENTIRE process because they want to do SLI arbitration now, while they are still relevant and in control of the West. I do accept this is falling on deaf ears as it's more then obvious USAPA has successfully filled a lot of gullible minds with emotion-filled sap.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Issue an injunction permanently prohibiting APA, American and US Airways from attempting to resolve the seniority list integration dispute arising from the merger of American and US Airways through any process other than that provided by the McCaskill-Bond Amendment
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
