|
Biggest problem with the Nic award is it put furloughed guys below new hires. Had that not happened and had it been slotted more fairly I think you'd have seen a JCBA between East-West.
Either way you split it, a decade ago the West guys were the Mesa of the majors flying clapped out equipment, they won the aviation lottery. They really should be ecstatic for anything and everything they are getting here. Same goes for the East guys, they were so beat down over the past 13 years +/- that this merger really kinda saved them and has allowed them to retire in a manner in which they should after spending decades as a major airline pilot. It's been such a positive for the East AND West I would hope folks don't ***** about the outcome. As for AA, from what I could tell they were slowly dying and shirking, Parker & CO hopefully will get us ALL back on track. We should be more worried about Spirit, Frontier, SWA, etc. than where we line up on the seniority list, because if things don't go our way we'll be back at the bottom of another one. |
Originally Posted by Nevets
(Post 1741094)
Did you personally agree to the Nic? No, but your bargaining agent did agree to binding arbitration on your behalf?
I don't know but did the process in the MOU specifically spell out binding arbitration to decide on whether the West get their own independent say in the SLI arbitration? Or did the mechanism in the MOU that allowed the parties to agree to this binding arbitration include the consent of the West's representative (was he over ruled by the majority of East representatives)? If so, I don't see any reasonable person believing that that amounts to agreeing to this binding arbitration but actually see it as others agreeing to this binding arbitration on their behalf, against their will. USAPA was to the west exactly what ALPA was to me-the legally elected CBA. I had NO vote in the ALPA merger policy, the selection of or merger committee or their plan. The MOU called for the process that led to the PA. It's that simple, the legally elected officials and the company came to an agreement. Had the west pilots voted no, the MOU would have failed. When I first read the MOU I didn't think the west would vote for it. They agreed to the status quo of seniority lists, without the right to represent themselves. THEY AGREED TO IT, then sued claiming it was illegal. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1740995)
At the very same time Horton was "floating" that possibility (early post bankruptcy in very early 2012), Hale was on record as saying he was exactly that same amount SHORT of pilots for the Summer 2012 schedule. .
Good afternoon, this is CA John Hale with the Flight Department Hotline for Friday June 1 Let me speak straight – our current term sheet calls for about 400 pilots to be furloughed in 2012, Read more here: Sky Talk: Talks between American, pilots union continue this week |
Originally Posted by FreighterGuyNow
(Post 1741334)
Good afternoon, this is CA John Hale with the Flight Department Hotline for Friday June 1
Let me speak straight – our current term sheet calls for about 400 pilots to be furloughed in 2012, Read more here: Sky Talk: Talks between American, pilots union continue this week |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1741453)
My gut says this unquantified hypothetical won't even make the radar screen.
|
Originally Posted by kingairip
(Post 1741582)
Lol! "Move along! Nothing to see here! Never mind our only other bankruptcy exit plan that outlined our pilots' career expectations! Mr Arbitrator, look over here in this other corner!" You are a riot, EagleFly guy.
If the arbitrators want to apply assumptions (not a single pilot was furloughed at AA during the 18 months prior to Parker) to their formula, so be it. In fact, Personally, I'd take that 400 furlough application to AA provided they also factor in US Airways hopelessly fragmented and even more tenuous future which in that case would be just as applicable. ;) Trust me. You want as little weight as possible applied to consideration of the pre-merger conditions of the respective carriers. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1741617)
Thanks ! :D
If the arbitrators want to apply assumptions (not a single pilot was furloughed at AA during the 18 months prior to Parker) to their formula, so be it. In fact, Personally, I'd take that 400 furlough application to AA provided they also factor in US Airways hopelessly fragmented and even more tenuous future which in that case would be just as applicable. ;) Trust me. You want as little weight as possible applied to consideration of the pre-merger conditions of the respective carriers. AA's bankruptcy was very publicly documented, including a POR that involved further transitions of mainline flying to the regionals and additional pilot reductions. |
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1741703)
Really? "Hopelessly fragmented and even more tenuous future"? Can you document that with any public statements or analyst statements? If so, I'll buy off on your argument. If not, I'm guessing that statement won't hold water in the arbitration.
AA's bankruptcy was very publicly documented, including a POR that involved further transitions of mainline flying to the regionals and additional pilot reductions. There is just as much documentation that AA flush with over 6 billion in cash at time of filing was simply exercising a strategic bankruptcy to absolve themselves of undesirable labor debt and obligations as opposed to a purely financial one. Both Boeing and Airbus had zero problem inking deals with AA for close to 1000 aircraft orders and options 6 months prior to filing. A better question regarding US Airways fragmentation, is what was the expected timeline to combine the two separate operations ? After all, it is the only airline still not merged close to a decade after committing to do so with no end in sight. Call me crazy, but that seems pretty fragmented to me, but again, it matters little what we as individual pilots or even the Integration committees assert or claim. Just as in UAL-CAL, the panel will have little difficulty assessing those factors and discarding the subjective claims. Of all the complex issues involved in this SLI, pre-merger financial conditions present and future are among the easiest to quantify. It may be they place little emphasis on that aspect anyway, so try not to get too worked up over this issue. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1741722)
I was waiting for someone to demonstrate my point. Congrats......you're it. ;) The point was AA's pre-merger situation just as US Airways is speculative and subjective based on ones position and interests. Read the UAL-CAL SLI award and you'll see both those parties did the very same thing there too.
There is just as much documentation that AA flush with over 6 billion in cash at time of filing was simply exercising a strategic bankruptcy to absolve themselves of undesirable labor debt and obligations as opposed to a purely financial one. Both Boeing and Airbus had zero problem inking deals with AA for close to 1000 aircraft orders and options 6 months prior to filing. A better question regarding US Airways fragmentation, is what was the expected timeline to combine the two separate operations ? After all, it is the only airline still not merged close to a decade after committing to do so with no end in sight. Call me crazy, but that seems pretty fragmented to me, but again, it matters little what we as individual pilots or even the Integration committees assert or claim. Just as in UAL-CAL, the panel will have little difficulty assessing those factors and discarding the subjective claims. Of all the complex issues involved in this SLI, pre-merger financial conditions present and future are among the easiest to quantify. It may be they place little emphasis on that aspect anyway, so try not to get too worked up over this issue. As for dismissing subjective claims, one would hope so -- that's why they are called "neutral" arbitrators. Their "job" is to examine every aspect of the merger, based on precedent (which, by the way includes career expectations). Who knows how much weight they will place on these expectations -- 5%, 10%, 25%? Who knows. Anyone that claims that they know exactly how much it will be weighted is as crazy as anyone that claims it won't have any bearing at all. After all, if you read all of the most recent arbitration results, it was at least considered. You keep suggesting that the arbitrators will not undermine one of their own. Well, I would agree. Which is exactly why they will consider a myriad of things -- including career expectations. Their counterparts did just that in previous arbitrations. So why would it be any different this time? As for AA's 6 billion in cash and the suggestion that the bankruptcy was a means to shred the labor contracts, that doesn't hold up when compared to the current negotiated contracts. If they meant to reduce labor costs, we would not see agreements like the F/A's T/A or own MOU, restoring (even raising) those costs. I would argue that the BK was meant to shed more long-term debt and be used a leveraging tool to lower other costs, which we see maintained throughout the merger (i.e. reducing supplier costs, outsourcing more, etc.). It was a strategic bankruptcy meant to bring overall costs in-line with competitors. How would that have played out for you? I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet it would not have been good. The simple fact is that both airlines needed the merger equally -- the employees at AA to avoid additional outsourcing and layoffs, and US for increased revenue streams which ensure long-term survival. The question is, how will the arbitrators view those very different prospects? That is grounds for a beer (or bottle of rum) bet... |
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1741784)
I just re-read your post and have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say... I made your point by asking a simple question? -- and you still did not answer it. Every analyst article I can find seems to disprove your assertion that US was fragmented (in terms of financial performance). If anything, the fragmented pilot group made Wall Street quite happy (and rich). Happy Wall Street = long life.
This isn't an integration of Wall street players (or management). Of greater interest (and seemingly more relevant) is how any such corporate "financial performance" would have translated to the Pilots financial performance, namely the thickness of their wallets going forward separately vs. combined. It is my assertion that unlike UAL and CAL, the pilots of both East and West pre-merger compensation wallowed WELL below that of legacy standards and that was due to the FRAGMENTED operations of a single entity, yet operationally split carrier. You appear to assert AA was in collapse and AA pilots careers were in decline due to furloughs (that never occurred) and was saved by US Airways, I disagreed with that. The point was the subjectivity of opposing opinions and the fact they are essentially meaningless. If history is any teacher, the arbitrators almost universally consider that aspect (as per UAL-CAL), the only question is to what degree ? Again, my point was that there are multiple subjective pilot opinions on each carriers pre-merger status and future and none of ours counts. The arbitrators will determine that value, if any and so why work yourself into a lather ?
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1741784)
As for dismissing subjective claims, one would hope so -- that's why they are called "neutral" arbitrators. Their "job" is to examine every aspect of the merger, based on precedent (which, by the way includes career expectations). Who knows how much weight they will place on these expectations -- 5%, 10%, 25%? Who knows. Anyone that claims that they know exactly how much it will be weighted is as crazy as anyone that claims it won't have any bearing at all. After all, if you read all of the most recent arbitration results, it was at least considered.
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1741784)
You keep suggesting that the arbitrators will not undermine one of their own. Well, I would agree. Which is exactly why they will consider a myriad of things -- including career expectations. Their counterparts did just that in previous arbitrations. So why would it be any different this time?
Where have I said that and specifically WHO will they not "undermine" ?
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1741784)
As for AA's 6 billion in cash and the suggestion that the bankruptcy was a means to shred the labor contracts, that doesn't hold up when compared to the current negotiated contracts. If they meant to reduce labor costs, we would not see agreements like the F/A's T/A or own MOU, restoring (even raising) those costs. I would argue that the BK was meant to shed more long-term debt and be used a leveraging tool to lower other costs, which we see maintained throughout the merger (i.e. reducing supplier costs, outsourcing more, etc.). It was a strategic bankruptcy meant to bring overall costs in-line with competitors. How would that have played out for you? I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet it would not have been good.
Perhaps there is a bit of SELECTIVE interpretation going on, eh ?
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1741784)
The simple fact is that both airlines needed the merger equally -- the employees at AA to avoid additional outsourcing and layoffs, and US for increased revenue streams which ensure long-term survival. The question is, how will the arbitrators view those very different prospects? That is grounds for a beer (or bottle of rum) bet...
Will this panel come to the same conclusion that pre-merger US Airways was equal in all respects to pre-merger American Airlines ? Personally, I don't think so, but they might as anything is possible. If you want to believe they were, I'm not stopping you, but I'm sorry, I just can't agree with it. Perhaps the arbitrators will agree with you on this instead of me ? Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable they'll get this aspect of the SLI dead-bang on target. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1740705)
Isn't there more then one arbitrator ?
I don't think any single arbitrator will dominate. In reviewing the UAL-CAL award, Eischen didn't say "I" or "me", but instead along with Kaplan and Nolan said "we" and "our" in summarizing their closing to explain how they crafted their hybrid ISL from the various arguments. Although it's likely that there will be many similarities in our final ISL as the UAL-CAL model, I think the most important thing to glean from that award is THEIR position that "each case turns on its own facts". |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1741837)
*sigh*
This isn't an integration of Wall street players (or management). Of greater interest (and seemingly more relevant) is how any such corporate "financial performance" would have translated to the Pilots financial performance, namely the thickness of their wallets going forward separately vs. combined. It is my assertion that unlike UAL and CAL, the pilots of both East and West pre-merger compensation wallowed WELL below that of legacy standards and that was due to the FRAGMENTED operations of a single entity, yet operationally split carrier. You appear to assert AA was in collapse and AA pilots careers were in decline due to furloughs (that never occurred) and was saved by US Airways, I disagreed with that. The point was the subjectivity of opposing opinions and the fact they are essentially meaningless. If history is any teacher, the arbitrators almost universally consider that aspect (as per UAL-CAL), the only question is to what degree ? Again, my point was that there are multiple subjective pilot opinions on each carriers pre-merger status and future and none of ours counts. The arbitrators will determine that value, if any and so why work yourself into a lather ? Now it is me having no idea of what you are trying to say. On one hand, you're arguing the certainty of AA's pre-merger weakness in conjunction with US Airways lack of weakness and now based on the above you seem to agree on the subjectivity of it all and that was my point. Considering that, why have you not recognized yet that BOTH of our opposing opinions on this are meaningless ? I did ? :confused: Where have I said that and specifically WHO will they not "undermine" ? It DOES hold up because the team that orchestrated the destruction of AA pilots pensions and (hopefully) retiree medical (the two biggest financial benefits of AA's C11) was Horton's team, not Parker's. In fact, above you reiterate my contention is WAS a "strategic" bankruptcy and not one typical of a business that had little future as a going concern. But again, WHY are you asserting something you see as certainty and then diffuse that by highlighting the its subjectivity ? Perhaps there is a bit of SELECTIVE interpretation going on, eh ? No, it's YOUR assertion that both carriers needed the merger EQUALLY. Others can make a viable assertion that each carriers NEED of the other was NOT equal. That's not to say both benefitted from the merge, just that what was brought to the party was not one of absolute equality. I understand your desire to see this merger as one of equals, but I don't think the arbitrators will. If you read the UAL-CAL award, you'll note that in THAT case the committees demonstrated that each carrier had strengths and weaknesses, but overall neither was superior to the other. The considerations to assist them was information THEY quantified including not only economic background, including global alliances and hubs, but economic status and prospects at merger closing date including financial status, fleet compositions and pilot staffing. Will this panel come to the same conclusion that pre-merger US Airways was equal in all respects to pre-merger American Airlines ? Personally, I don't think so, but they might as anything is possible. If you want to believe they were, I'm not stopping you, but I'm sorry, I just can't agree with it. Perhaps the arbitrators will agree with you on this instead of me ? Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable they'll get this aspect of the SLI dead-bang on target. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1741837)
*sigh*
This isn't an integration of Wall street players (or management). Of greater interest (and seemingly more relevant) is how any such corporate "financial performance" would have translated to the Pilots financial performance, namely the thickness of their wallets going forward separately vs. combined[I]. You, on the other hand, would have been saddled with a bankruptcy contract, fleet reductions and (potentially) furloughs (in the range of 400), and an inept management team that intended to outsource some of your international flying to code-share partners and more of your domestic flying to regional partners. Your 1800 recalls would certainly not have been given the opportunity to come back, at least for a few more years. By your own admission, it was Parker (a benefit of the merger) that reversed that potential future. Nowhere did I even insinuate that AA was in their death throes and was saved by US Airways. Not even close. However, I will say that your growth, recalls, hiring, and substantial raises (from the proposed bankruptcy rates) came as a direct result of the merger with US Airways. Absent that merger, Horton would have continued driving the company into the dirt, like your last decade of management.
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1741837)
Now it is me having no idea of what you are trying to say. On one hand, you're arguing the certainty of AA's pre-merger weakness in conjunction with US Airways lack of weakness and now based on the above you seem to agree on the subjectivity of it all and that was my point. Considering that, why have you not recognized yet that BOTH of our opposing opinions on this are meaningless ?
I was merely refuting your ideas that the mighty AA came in and made everything better for us lowly aAquired folks, granting you the superior position in the SLI arbitration. And, I'll make you a beer bet, one junior guy to another -- I'll bet the very senior guys and the very junior guys are relatively happy, and all the middle guys are ****ed at the results. My prediction, in terms of how they weight the arbitration is +.5 AA (pay), +2 AA (widebody/narrowbody ratio), +1 US (Career Progression/Retirements), +.5 US (Relative Seniority -- meaning ability to hold widebody much junior). The outcome -- pretty close to relative seniority for very junior and very senior folks, and a slight advantage for the middle AA 50% or so. Want to bet a bottle of my favorite rum against your favorite case of beer? Just a friendly wager. If so, put up your completely speculative guesses, and we'll check on it in a year or so... |
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1742071)
Okay, let's only look at the pilot's wallets. Absent the merger, I would have continued making my paltry wide-body rates, with an expected upgrade to paltry command rates in the 3-6 year range (3 with separate East/West ops, but more realistically 6 with eventually getting a combined contract). Absent the merger, our expectations were to continue on, approximately the same size (at min fleet count, so reductions in those numbers would have required a contract with raises) but with substantial retirements. US Airways was profitable and would have continued to remain around for the forseable future.
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1742071)
You, on the other hand, would have been saddled with a bankruptcy contract, fleet reductions and (potentially) furloughs (in the range of 400), and an inept management team that intended to outsource some of your international flying to code-share partners and more of your domestic flying to regional partners. Your 1800 recalls would certainly not have been given the opportunity to come back, at least for a few more years. By your own admission, it was Parker (a benefit of the merger) that reversed that potential future.
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1742071)
Nowhere did I even insinuate that AA was in their death throes and was saved by US Airways. Not even close.
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1742071)
However, I will say that your growth, recalls, hiring, and substantial raises (from the proposed bankruptcy rates) came as a direct result of the merger with US Airways. Absent that merger, Horton would have continued driving the company into the dirt, like your last decade of management.
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1742071)
This was exactly the point I was trying to make. Nothing you say nor anything I say will make a difference. You're a worthless flow-through guy that didn't even interview for your job, and I'm a worthless third-lister, that after 7 years with my company am still not considered a "real" US Airways pilot by most of our senior guys. We're both far too junior to have any real impact on the process.
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1742071)
I was merely refuting your ideas that the mighty AA came in and made everything better for us lowly aAquired folks, granting you the superior position in the SLI arbitration. And, I'll make you a beer bet, one junior guy to another -- I'll bet the very senior guys and the very junior guys are relatively happy, and all the middle guys are ****ed at the results.
My prediction, in terms of how they weight the arbitration is +.5 AA (pay), +2 AA (widebody/narrowbody ratio), +1 US (Career Progression/Retirements), +.5 US (Relative Seniority -- meaning ability to hold widebody much junior). The outcome -- pretty close to relative seniority for very junior and very senior folks, and a slight advantage for the middle AA 50% or so. Want to bet a bottle of my favorite rum against your favorite case of beer? Just a friendly wager. If so, put up your completely speculative guesses, and we'll check on it in a year or so... IMO, the only things I'm confident of is that DOH won't be used, the Nic in its pure form (the awarded Nic) will not be used and for financial purposes, both carriers will be correctly evaluated and their pre-merger state correctly applied to any result, so as to maximize pre-merger career expectations of each group. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1742415)
Yes, I do see what you're saying here, i.e., you had a rock-solid future of advancement and stability and I also see what you're saying......
....here, i.e., that I had a marginal future because of....., etc., etc. Then you say this which seems to have substantial contradiction to the above. :confused: Again, that is subjective and I fully understand (and expect) that assertion. Both the UAL and CAL committees did the same thing in that SLI and most certainly assertions of the financial future of each pre-merger carrier will be brought forward in arbitration. Likewise, the West will make similar comparators on how they were screwed out of the boons you assert US Airways East had. The arbitrators will decide that and in the end, all we have is our opinions. Perhaps it's time to stop making these points and let them rest where it matters ? Don't worry........there's always more time to revist it post award. Heck, former TWA pilots and natives have been debating the pre-acquisition viability of TWA for well over a decade. :rolleyes: I have no problem with you disagreeing with me and I wasn't insuating we saved you or that you brought nothing to the table. That's ridiculous, but not all mergers are of exact equals and I don't believe THIS merger to be of exact equals. We confidently disagree, so then should both be comfortable in how this aspect applies to the final ISL, but anyone who knows arbitrations would never bet on one. USAPA went to seniority arbitration with AWA and look how that turned out. ;) IMO, the only things I'm confident of is that DOH won't be used, the Nic in its pure form (the awarded Nic) will not be used and for financial purposes, both carriers will be correctly evaluated and their pre-merger state correctly applied to any result, so as to maximize pre-merger career expectations of each group. But if I had to guess, I wouldn't bet on the Nic (or some form of it) to not being used. And as far as DOH.. well, I don't see any reason why that couldn't be considered for anyone hired from 2007 - present. There isn't any huge disparity for those in that range with either carrier. |
Originally Posted by JetMonkey
(Post 1742609)
One thing I would not be (anymore) is "confident" about anything. We've been burned several times now for feeling that way so I know I speak for others when I say, no more.
But if I had to guess, I wouldn't bet on the Nic (or some form of it) to not being used. And as far as DOH.. well, I don't see any reason why that couldn't be considered for anyone hired from 2007 - present. There isn't any huge disparity for those in that range with either carrier. |
Originally Posted by encore
(Post 1740619)
3 lists means 3 lists. 3 list means 3 list. |
Wasn't one aspect of the MOU sales pitch that both LAA and LUS would enter the SLI process under the same compensation structure? Neither group would have the advantage of being paid more than the other since we are all under the same pay rates from the onset of the merger. At least it was presented that way at the road show I attended.
|
Originally Posted by ATRCA
(Post 1745303)
Wasn't one aspect of the MOU sales pitch that both LAA and LUS would enter the SLI process under the same compensation structure? Neither group would have the advantage of being paid more than the other since we are all under the same pay rates from the onset of the merger. At least it was presented that way at the road show I attended.
|
Originally Posted by DCA A321 FO
(Post 1743595)
Additionally, if AA wants fences against the East and West list, why shouldn't the East have fences against AA and West, and the West fences against AA and East. Wide body speaking.
3 list means 3 list. |
Originally Posted by JetMonkey
(Post 1745411)
2 airlines means 2 airlines.
|
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
(Post 1745760)
One will find meaningless any and all implicit assumptions that are inconsistent with the Protocol Agreement.
|
Originally Posted by JetMonkey
(Post 1746525)
Arbitrators can do as they wish. I know turtles are slow.. but come on, man!
|
Originally Posted by JetMonkey
(Post 1746525)
Arbitrators can do as they wish. I know turtles are slow.. but come on, man!
|
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
(Post 1740537)
Interesting but...
No points for AC orders unless they are purely growth. New replacement aircraft mean zero. Delta/NW has something similar, but they had a 100% status and category merger and United/CAL used S&C and longevity. Good luck to everyone over there. |
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
(Post 1742065)
I'm very comfortable the arbitration panel will get every aspect of the new SLI dead-bang on target, because in the eyes of the law it will be fair, equitable, and implemented... Correct and complete. Anyone who attempts to argue otherwise will waste emotions and money.
|
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
(Post 1746528)
That is premised upon an implicit assumption, and false.
|
Originally Posted by Seaslap8
(Post 1754864)
Which of course begs the question yet again...if ultimately you and your ilk determine that the arbitration panel didn't get it "dead-bang on target" (or at least to your liking), what then? USAPA redux?
"If" Wake's order stands, what will the east do? "If" the 9th rules against USAPA what will the East do? "If" Silver rules in the DJ against USAPA what will the East do? "If" Silver finds a DFR what will USAPA do? If, if, if, if... always assuming bad things will happen to the "ilk" and then wanting to know what the "ilk" will do. Once the SLI comes out I will buy a bargain basement discounted clearance Liberty Tie. :cool: |
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
(Post 1754914)
Presenting a hypothetical and then squealing about unanswered questions... that's rich with irony.
"If" Wake's order stands, what will the east do? "If" the 9th rules against USAPA what will the East do? "If" Silver rules in the DJ against USAPA what will the East do? "If" Silver finds a DFR what will USAPA do? If, if, if, if... always assuming bad things will happen to the "ilk" and then wanting to know what the "ilk" will do. Once the SLI comes out I will buy a bargain basement discounted clearance Liberty Tie. :cool: |
|
A West DFR case is kinda comical. The only thing they have left is an appeal at the 9th of their DFR loss at Silver's court. The appeal is costly, time consuming, and futile. Moreover, it will be dismissed in the highly likely event that they receive a west merger committee in the SLI arbitration.
As to them being liable for anything... I doubt it. The only ones they are hurting at this point are themselves. |
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
(Post 1755586)
A West DFR case is kinda comical. The only thing they have left is an appeal at the 9th of their DFR loss at Silver's court. The appeal is costly, time consuming, and futile. Moreover, it will be dismissed in the highly likely event that they receive a west merger committee in the SLI arbitration.
As to them being liable for anything... I doubt it. The only ones they are hurting at this point are themselves. |
Originally Posted by flyinawa
(Post 1756035)
Thanks for your "expert" legal advice. Go back and sit down at the children's table.
It sure is quiet around here. I go away a couple of months and everyone stops posting. What the hell is wrong with the USAPA? I did not think APA would allow USAPA on the property. Why did they agree to allow USAPA to continue? Clear as can be they are using you against yourselves. APA wants the best for their pilot group. What better way than to distract USAPA with East/West friction? Using your disagreeable behavior to their advantage you guys are doing them a huge favor. If the leadership of USAPA had any sense they would have disbursed that money to the West and played nice because the big show is not East/West. The big show is SLI against APA. You are going to lose. You are fragmented and still in conflict after all these years and it will hurt you in arbitration. APA will submit your group would still be on LOA93 and a bleak future as regional paid pilots "see they were still fighting after MOU" if not merging. I predicted a similar outcome to UAL/CAL. I think now it is going to be worse than that. APA is going to win big. You will be on the bottom looking up. |
"...in the opinion of APA’s General Counsel, the “Nicolai award” is NOT legally binding."
|
Originally Posted by SewerPipeDvr
(Post 1756650)
If I may. None at all. It would only happen if it could be proven frivolous. That won't happen as Judges have already found DFR, BUT not ripe. The DFR is "in process", ie nothing is settled legally. If it had been found frivolous the East could sue for cost and damages. As it is, each side are responsible for their own legal fees and cost.
It sure is quiet around here. I go away a couple of months and everyone stops posting. What the hell is wrong with the USAPA? I did not think APA would allow USAPA on the property. Why did they agree to allow USAPA to continue? Clear as can be they are using you against yourselves. APA wants the best for their pilot group. What better way than to distract USAPA with East/West friction? Using your disagreeable behavior to their advantage you guys are doing them a huge favor. If the leadership of USAPA had any sense they would have disbursed that money to the West and played nice because the big show is not East/West. The big show is SLI against APA. You are going to lose. You are fragmented and still in conflict after all these years and it will hurt you in arbitration. APA will submit your group would still be on LOA93 and a bleak future as regional paid pilots "see they were still fighting after MOU" if not merging. I predicted a similar outcome to UAL/CAL. I think now it is going to be worse than that. APA is going to win big. You will be on the bottom looking up. The "fix" isn't in and there is no moustache twisting going on......at least in that respect. |
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
(Post 1756739)
"...in the opinion of APA’s General Counsel, the “Nicolai award” is NOT legally binding."
|
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
(Post 1755586)
A West DFR case is kinda comical. The only thing they have left is an appeal at the 9th of their DFR loss at Silver's court. The appeal is costly, time consuming, and futile. Moreover, it will be dismissed in the highly likely event that they receive a west merger committee in the SLI arbitration.
As to them being liable for anything... I doubt it. The only ones they are hurting at this point are themselves. Was the creation of a West class also a payment mechanism for attorneys representing AOL? ie. Can a judge issue an order that a class of people pay outstanding balances if any? Can attorneys turn around and garnish wages on this basis? I would think not. Correct? |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1756796)
It's NicolaU.
|
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
(Post 1756939)
Of course it is. It was a cut and paste quote, and the content is much more relevant than the spelling. :)
It would seem to bring more question to the content (his assessment and position), then validation. I mean, if he can't even master the basics of the arbitrators name, how valid could his assessment be of the validity of the award itself ? Just a thought. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1757118)
In that case, how would the misspelling of the arbitrators name validate the content ?
.... Or just implicitly assume that they didn't based on a BOD member's inability to transcribe what he heard into a perfectly spelled account. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:52 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands