Nic ...
#561
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
#562
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
That has been my point all along, not only the APa remain neutral but the ApA merger committee will remain neutral on how the usairways pilots are ordered within their own list. Of course neither the APA or company are neutral on the preliminary arb.
#563
Wanted him as an arbitrator for what? For the arbitration of whether or not the West gets a seat, or the SLI? Source? Do you know how the arbitrators are "chosen?"
#564
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Wanted him for us/aa seniority arb. usapA struck him. Eaglefly believes that APA putting his name on the list of arb's was a clever ploy to make the west feel good while not really wanting him on the list.
#565
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 449
At this point reading the past few cactibosses post, It becomes abundantly clear, It's not worth the time even attempting to debate.
Really?!? With his explanations he's asking if anyone has been involved in arbitration and can't through his head the idea that apa would put a name in there they would KNOW would get struck, to increase the odds of their other choices surviving. Instead he proclaims. Apa wanted him on board. Ya ok. Whatever
Carry on
Really?!? With his explanations he's asking if anyone has been involved in arbitration and can't through his head the idea that apa would put a name in there they would KNOW would get struck, to increase the odds of their other choices surviving. Instead he proclaims. Apa wanted him on board. Ya ok. Whatever
Carry on
#566
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
The APA as an entity must be neutral about the issue (in addition to remaining autonomous) because it now represents all three groups, but our committee bears no such burden. Our MC has no DFR whatsoever to either the East or West. The APA's DFR is to ensure a fair and equitable process in accordance with M-B and that's why there is a PAB. On that position they are indeed neutral and AAG's involvement in any portion of the process must conform to limitations within the MOU.
#567
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
At this point reading the past few cactibosses post, It becomes abundantly clear, It's not worth the time even attempting to debate.
Really?!? With his explanations he's asking if anyone has been involved in arbitration and can't through his head the idea that apa would put a name in there they would KNOW would get struck, to increase the odds of their other choices surviving. Instead he proclaims. Apa wanted him on board. Ya ok. Whatever
Carry on
Really?!? With his explanations he's asking if anyone has been involved in arbitration and can't through his head the idea that apa would put a name in there they would KNOW would get struck, to increase the odds of their other choices surviving. Instead he proclaims. Apa wanted him on board. Ya ok. Whatever
Carry on
#568
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Their primary focus was acting in their best interest as to opposing yours. The two concepts can be separate, yet still related. No tinfoil hat here.
#569
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
In most cases, yes, but putting up Nicolau was a no-brainer. Charles Manson would have a better chance of becoming an arbitrator anywhere in this SLI then Nic and that would be more apt to indicate that including Nicolau ensured the make-up of the arbitration panel was closer to their desired result. Nobody got "played", it's just that the Nic legacy gave the APA and extra ace card to better capitalize on the arbitrators they want. The Nic is a gift that keeps on giving, whether one like the gift or not.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post