I don't think the APA will be presenting our case, or yours. Not sure them suggesting one would help. Of course you guys can suggest the Nic, just like we could suggest DOH, all widebodies on our side and no distinction between 3rd listers and the rest. You will have someone on the other side with the court rulings, and agreed to contracts.

It's got his name on it, and he created the disaster. Saying the east caused it is like saying those pesky Yankees caused the American Revolution because they didn't just go along.

We only have a little over a year to see what happens.

 

The court rulings? Man I sure hope your side brings them up, especially the "unquestionably ripe" part.

 

Yes or No

Did the East do something illegal?

Spare me the extraneous verbiage.

 

"Legitimate Purpose for MOU Provision
Turning to the present case, the West Pilots claim USAPA breached its duty of fair representation by “abandoning the existing obligation to use the Nicolau Award.” For present purposes, the Court will assume such an obligation existed. Therefore, the question is whether USAPA had a legitimate union purpose for that abandonment. As mentioned earlier, this would be an easier inquiry if USAPA had abandoned the Nicolau
Award in favor of a different seniority regime. The Court could then compare the Nicolau Award to the new seniority regime and evaluate USAPA’s reasons for adopting the new regime. But the complicated state of affairs means that, at present, there is no new seniority regime directly comparable to the Nicolau Award. And, in fact, there never will be. The
merger with American Airlines, combined with the terms of the MOU, means a new seniority regime will exist only after the McCaskill-Bond process is complete. That new seniority regime will include the thousands of pilots from American Airlines and it will be difficult to compare that regime to the Nicolau Award. Thus, the only question the Court can answer
at this time is whether USAPA had a legitimate union purpose for entering into the MOU.
It did."

Cacti, you have to admit that your legal team hasn't been right in a long, long time. I guess you could lean on the blind squirrel thing.

 

Not according to the courts, but only because they never put a different list in a contract. Delay and avoid getting a contract indefinitely, usapa's founding principles

 

So you agree with Silver that the seniority order that usairways pilots are integrated with American pilots will be "difficult" to compare with the order they were in the Nicolau award? I know the name and employee number of the east guy in front and behind me, heck My 7 year old could compare every pilot on the list in half an hour, the arbitrators won't be as ignorant as Silver was on seniority matters. What you post just shows Silvers ignorance of pilot seniority issues.

 

I'll take that as a NO.




Yes or No again

You feel every West pilot at your shrinking PHX base should come East and be a captain?

 

That's apples and oranges cacti. She was saying why HER case was unquestionably ripe,that the MOU abandoned the Nic and that wasn't a DFR failure. The next panel won't be deciding legalities. If, after it's done, your 7 year old figures you were harmed, sue!

The next panel is going to have the MOU(that you correctly said abandoned the Nic), Silver's ruling that said that was okay, and the PA. If the panel overlooks all of that to punish us mean old easties, then yeah, it might be in Nic order. Otherwise, using other SLIs, could you possibly see a result that would come out "Nic like"?

 

Yes, I actually personally believe the west should make the case for better than Nic. Seniority to compensate for what the east has done.

 

So your are going to tell the board to ignore that little transition agreement that you guys wanted?

Hey, here's a golden oldie for ya. You remember when you guys thought the MOU completed they TA and you would be bidding with us? That was a good one! Took a lot of ties to pay for that fine legal opinion!

Thanks cacti, you cured my insomnia. Bedtime story:

"Any change in seniority “must rationally
promote the aggregate welfare of employees in the bargaining unit.” Id. This low standard
means that so long as a Court can find some legitimate union purpose motivating a seniority
change, the union has not breached its duty of fair representation."