R57 relay

I can't remember how long you have been on this board, but you need to remember that WD has never met a looney theory that he didn't adore and adopt.

You bring up a good point and one that I've wondered about. We all agreed to the PA, so does agreeing to allow the arbitration panel to decide this let them ignore the Judge Silver's legal ruling? It seems that the APA's question is framed on fairness and USAPA's on legality. What will the board have to consider?

eaglefly

Well, we have to remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Previously it was USAPA that questioned the validity and fairness of the MOU after they agreed to its provisions and then filed suit seeking BOTH declaratory and injunctive relief from its clearly stated provisions and intentions. The provisions and intentions spelled out the potential (actually intention) for the dissolution of USAPA not only at some point prior to the completion of the SLI process, but even as early as some point in the JCBA process.

USAPA filed suit that would very likely delay the MOU timeline until well after its termination, but agreement was made by the parties to avoid that. The NEW provisions require a preliminary arbitration to decide if the West is entitled to a merger committee. Considering USAPA used as a primary foundation the belief that to truly achieve a fair and equitable SLI, the provisions of McCaskill-Bond (as they interpreted) prevent anyone from dissolving their right to self-representation in the SLI process even using the TWA integration situation as their example. USAPA essentially attempted to nullify the MOU (or at least the clearly spelled out provisions that provided for their likely elimination) and so I suppose Leonidas could then too use the very same argument and interpretation of McCaskill-Bond.

As it stands now though, it would appear the West class of pilots has agreed to the arbitral process to decide if they are entitled to separate representation and if they were considering throwing their own wrench in the process just as USAPA did, they'd have to do it prior to that process. Once arbitration rules and should it go against the West, I find it difficult to see how a valid suit could be won declaring the MOU (and thus the arbitration they accepted) to be invalid and perhaps a foundation for their own claim of violation of McCaskill-Bond. Now, that's not to say Leonidas couldn't file a suit after that in the hope creating delay will force others to capitulate to their desires (at least until a judge ruled to dismiss their suit) since it worked for USAPA. In that case, all that I think would happen though would be delay until any such suit was dismissed, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if they did that should the preliminary arbitration go against them.

When USAPA signed the MOU, it also was then a "governing document" (with CLEARLY spelled out provisions). USAPA acknowledged as much when they too signed it, but that didn't stop them from then disputing it after that when it suited their interests to do so. As such, the West could simply do the same thing, although by acceptance of a neutral process to decide any McCaskill-Bond related fairness claims, it would seem to make it MUCH more difficult to gain anything except the satisfaction of throwing their own wrench into the process to at least get delay. Considering the growth slated for AA legacy and US Airways East ops as opposed to PHX ops, that would seem to hurt them more then help them and would simply make them guilty of the same flawed logic that USAPA used to when financially shooting their toes of one at a time once a year simply to maintain control of the seniority list ankle bracelet they had during the years of dispute at US Airways prior to the AA merge.

As I've stated before, IMO the West WILL get separate representation as a result of the preliminary arbitration, but ultimately the Nic will not be used. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see in APA's briefs to the preliminary arbitration to include additional integration delay as a possible byproduct of denying the West representation, but without taking a stance on that.

PurpleTurtle

Yes USAPA sued regarding the MOU, and in case you missed it the APA and USAPA agreed to drop the lawsuit with stipulated prejudice in favor of the PA.

If the west thinks they can invalidate the PA and replace it with something else they better quit relying on it, and get busy replacing it.

P.S. The west legal team is always at least two steps behind..

PurpleTurtle

There is plenty of legal precedent that court orders are binding on arbitrations.

eaglefly

Agreed....well, kinda. The Nicolau arbitration proved an award can occur, but there are options to in effect nullify such awards using the tool of delay. But in this case, once that has occurred their options are extremely limited and all that would result is delay in the time it would take to remove their legal wrench (months, even years ?). If they were to do something prior to arbitration, they may be actually placing their best odds of relevance in jeopardy, so it's a risky move to shoot craps now on rejecting arbitration. I suppose if they were inclined to throw their own wrench, the best time would be sometime DURING the arbitration if they concluded for some reason they were losing the argument and elected to throw the delay dice and they were willing to suffer the consequences of potentially being isolated from any growth or expansion for an extended period.

PurpleTurtle

I don't think I was clear. The arbitration that is now in full swing must not presume to overturn or contradict court orders (that already exist).

In addition arbitrators may not presume to formulate their own question to arbitrate... The question before the arb panel is contained in the PA, and is very precise, notwithstanding anyone's attempt to obscure it.

The west legal team has never been good at reading details, or perhaps they just like the money. To be sure, west pilots as a whole make implicit assumptions and don't care for details. The PA has set a course that they still do not understand, and when they eventually do many will simply be in denial. Think of donations and ties as consolation prizes!

PurpleTurtle

A1: The arbitration panel is not at liberty to contradict courts that have ruled on identical issues.

A2: From the PA... "The Preliminary Arbitration Board shall issue an order granting or denying any such requests..." (i.e. "requests that a Merger Committee be designated to represent the interests of such pilots for purposes of this Seniority Integration Protocol."... That is the west request for a committee.)

So a straightforward reading of the PA will show that the question or issue before the arb panel is NOT whether or not APA has the authority to designate a separate committee for the West, rather the issue before the panel (as a matter of contract and law pursuant to the PA and MB) is shall the west request for a separate committee be granted or denied by the panel.

Arguments based upon other premises will be irrelevant.

eaglefly

Just so we're clear, are you saying your belief is that the preliminary arbitration panel has no legal right to answer any "request" by APA that THEY have the right to grant the West separate representation status and that since the ONLY question they can legally answer is whether the Arbitration panel ITSELF has that right and also since that question has (supposedly) already been answered in legal court ruling that they can't overrule (a catch-22), the West cannot legally obtain separate representational status in the preliminary arbitration ?

If so, I can see where that will go. In effect, that would mean USAPA agreed to a new process that (in their belief) is an inherent legal catch-22 that essentially invalidates the preliminary arbitration itself and I suspect that should the panel answer the "request" of the APA's ability to grant the West separate representational status in the affirmative, they will file another lawsuit (a delay wrench) claiming it violates the East's rights to McCaskill-Bond or that should the arbitration panel itself grant the West separate representational status directly, they'll file a lawsuit claiming the arbitrators illegally overstepped the scope of their abilities in doing so.

Am I reading you correctly ?

PurpleTurtle

The PA is a contract.

You are asking hypothetical questions. On what do you base your premises?

eaglefly

On what basis ?

Well, it was just as much a contract as the MOU and that was deemed to be invalid by USAPA. It would seem there really is no such thing as "reality" in contracts and arbitrations even when reinforced by the printed word, simply different perceptions of what reality is. My original question still stands though.

Is my interpretation of your position on the West's representational abilities and the validity of the preliminary arbitration panel correct and if not, why not ?