NMB ruling
08-08-2014, 11:31 AM
#21
Weekend workaholic
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
AOL prevented any movement on SLI by suing about a contingent contract. Their case lasted years and didn't have a legal premise aside from "implicit assumption." .... and now they think APA will wrap everything up in a jiffy? 
And they think APA has their back?
And they think APA has their back?
So no, I'm not suggesting that APA will "have my back". But considering USAPA's idea of having my backing seems to require me to bend over and them to try to fondle my prostate, I'll take APA.
08-08-2014, 11:37 AM
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by cactiboss
You would expect that wouldn't you? It won't happen. Just like we were told an SCS would be declared in 8 weeks from filing ( like our fa's and gate agents) and it took 8 months. See Eagle, usapa has a friend at the NMB, no so much a friend but someone who despises the APA. Former TWA pilot and now NMB chairman Hoglander has interjected himself into the process basically demanding arbitration before allowing the SCS to be declared. Mind you, this is highly unethical and not within the charter if the NMB. What else is Mr. Hoglander up to? Oh yes, even though our case easily meets the scenario where the apa be declared bargaining agent at the end of the 30 days, Mr. Hoglander is behind the scenes as we speak demanding an election be held.
How long did it take for SCS to be declared for pilots in the other two similar mergers ? I think it was a lot longer then 2 months and closer to this result. It would seem Mr. Hoglander would be only announcing his bias and manipulation within NMB to demand an election where none is clearly warranted. I think the NMB wouldn't want that scrutiny, criticism or heat from such a revealing act, yes ?
We know the NMB is........ahem, questionable in their decisions, but it would seem this would too obvious for those who prefer to scurry along the baseboards unnoticed.
08-08-2014, 11:41 AM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by flyinawa
Absolutely fictitious. USAPA inherited a seniority list that lacked a contract to trigger its implementation. USAPA has held the process hostage in a delay effort to obtain all growth and upgrades before the inevitable Nic occurred. AOL was founded to insure that the legal obligations of the East were met. From their creation until the AA/US merger announcement, USAPA and the East faithful were still touting the "unions are a democracy and the majority (not legal obligation) rule" line. Remarkable how quickly they've changed their tune.
So no, I'm not suggesting that APA will "have my back". But considering USAPA's idea of having my backing seems to require me to bend over and them to try to fondle my prostate, I'll take APA.
So no, I'm not suggesting that APA will "have my back". But considering USAPA's idea of having my backing seems to require me to bend over and them to try to fondle my prostate, I'll take APA.
08-08-2014, 11:51 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by flyinawa
Absolutely fictitious. USAPA inherited a seniority list that lacked a contract to trigger its implementation. USAPA has held the process hostage in a delay effort to obtain all growth and upgrades before the inevitable Nic occurred. AOL was founded to insure that the legal obligations of the East were met. From their creation until the AA/US merger announcement, USAPA and the East faithful were still touting the "unions are a democracy and the majority (not legal obligation) rule" line. Remarkable how quickly they've changed their tune.
So no, I'm not suggesting that APA will "have my back". But considering USAPA's idea of having my backing seems to require me to bend over and them to try to fondle my prostate, I'll take APA.
So no, I'm not suggesting that APA will "have my back". But considering USAPA's idea of having my backing seems to require me to bend over and them to try to fondle my prostate, I'll take APA.
08-08-2014, 11:57 AM
#25
Weekend workaholic
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 669
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Well, let's just say APA isn't likely to add to any of the knives inserted into your back by USAPA (formerly East ALPA). Personally, I don't think the arbitrators result will include a pure Nic insertion though.
08-08-2014, 12:37 PM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Perhaps, but dragging SCS out seems a bit easier then successfully demanding an election when 2/3 of the pilots involved already belong to APA and most of another 1500 or so would rather be represented by the Manson family.
How long did it take for SCS to be declared for pilots in the other two similar mergers ? I think it was a lot longer then 2 months and closer to this result. It would seem Mr. Hoglander would be only announcing his bias and manipulation within NMB to demand an election where none is clearly warranted. I think the NMB wouldn't want that scrutiny, criticism or heat from such a revealing act, yes ?
We know the NMB is........ahem, questionable in their decisions, but it would seem this would too obvious for those who prefer to scurry along the baseboards unnoticed.
How long did it take for SCS to be declared for pilots in the other two similar mergers ? I think it was a lot longer then 2 months and closer to this result. It would seem Mr. Hoglander would be only announcing his bias and manipulation within NMB to demand an election where none is clearly warranted. I think the NMB wouldn't want that scrutiny, criticism or heat from such a revealing act, yes ?
We know the NMB is........ahem, questionable in their decisions, but it would seem this would too obvious for those who prefer to scurry along the baseboards unnoticed.
08-08-2014, 01:03 PM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by cactiboss
It took 8 weeks for dal/nwa and cal/ual from date of filing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
