Merger Committee Arbitration
12-05-2014, 07:36 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by eaglefly
No it won't and no you didn't get paid to do that. But, if the arbitrators rule in favor of the West, it would kinda lend at least a little credence that their argument in that respect wasn't just "thinly veiled mumbo jumbo".
Of course, I suppose in that case they could all be declared just as senile as Nicolau apparently was.
Of course, I suppose in that case they could all be declared just as senile as Nicolau apparently was.
By now you should realize Nic was not senile (but it was a clever attempt on your part at a straw man). His award was effective to the extent of the 2005TA, no more no less.
Contracts have driven and will continue to drive the SLI participants, to the chagrin of the west, and the elation of Marty.
12-06-2014, 05:02 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
If.. If.. If.. Always the hypothetical. You would make a good Westie!
By now you should realize Nic was not senile (but it was a clever attempt on your part at a straw man). His award was effective to the extent of the 2005TA, no more no less.
Contracts have driven and will continue to drive the SLI participants, to the chagrin of the west, and the elation of Marty.
By now you should realize Nic was not senile (but it was a clever attempt on your part at a straw man). His award was effective to the extent of the 2005TA, no more no less.
Contracts have driven and will continue to drive the SLI participants, to the chagrin of the west, and the elation of Marty.
Keep it up and you will have EF calling you an evil Usapian and not speaking to you.
12-06-2014, 05:54 AM
#33
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
If.. If.. If.. Always the hypothetical. You would make a good Westie!
By now you should realize Nic was not senile (but it was a clever attempt on your part at a straw man). His award was effective to the extent of the 2005TA, no more no less.
Contracts have driven and will continue to drive the SLI participants, to the chagrin of the west, and the elation of Marty.
By now you should realize Nic was not senile (but it was a clever attempt on your part at a straw man). His award was effective to the extent of the 2005TA, no more no less.
Contracts have driven and will continue to drive the SLI participants, to the chagrin of the west, and the elation of Marty.
I HAVE come to understand that when it comes to any interpretations NOT consistent with USAPA's version and view of reality, it's usually considered a "hypothetical". For example, some of the provisions of the MOU were undoubtedly considered hypothetical as was Nicolau's ruling itself. 
It's good we can agree to disagree with civility though. I have no intention of leveling personal insults against YOU and assume unlike "others" here, you'll not respond in like kind. I expect plenty more to discuss in the future and it would be unfortunate to run out of worthy opponents to disagree with.
12-06-2014, 06:05 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by CaptainBigWood
USAPA's cash defending West law suits will eat up the $13M bank account that USAPA is holding. I do not expect a refund from USAPA. Just like ALPA in that respect, all the money gets spent.
12-06-2014, 06:49 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Never met the man. My statement of Nic's supposed senility was based on USAPA's inferred or possibly even stated position that his age had something to do with his ruling, so if any straw was involved, I obtained it from USAPA's barn near Charlotte. I HAVE come to understand that when it comes to any interpretations NOT consistent with USAPA's version and view of reality, it's usually considered a "hypothetical". For example, some of the provisions of the MOU were undoubtedly considered hypothetical as was Nicolau's ruling itself.
It's good we can agree to disagree with civility though. I have no intention of leveling personal insults against YOU and assume unlike "others" here, you'll not respond in like kind. I expect plenty more to discuss in the future and it would be unfortunate to run out of worthy opponents to disagree with.
I HAVE come to understand that when it comes to any interpretations NOT consistent with USAPA's version and view of reality, it's usually considered a "hypothetical". For example, some of the provisions of the MOU were undoubtedly considered hypothetical as was Nicolau's ruling itself.It's good we can agree to disagree with civility though. I have no intention of leveling personal insults against YOU and assume unlike "others" here, you'll not respond in like kind. I expect plenty more to discuss in the future and it would be unfortunate to run out of worthy opponents to disagree with.
The board "shall grant or deny", is not an interpretation. It's an imperative.
12-06-2014, 06:54 AM
#36
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by eaglefly
It's a simple question and the "basis" for asking it is irrelevant just as answering a question with a question isn't an answer. OK, I'll break it down;
1. Do you believe that "the law" or the "facts" of any contracts prevents the preliminary arbitration panel from affirming APA's right to appoint a West merger committee and if so, specifically why ?
2. Do you believe that "the law" or the "facts" of any contracts prevents the preliminary arbitration panel from appointing a West merger committee unilaterally and if so, specifically why ?
These are NOT "hypothetical" questions, they are specifically relevant based to any such argument to the contrary and one that you appear to be making. In essence, if you believe the answers to one or both SPECIFIC non-hypothetical questions is "yes", then defend that assertion with specifics.
1. Do you believe that "the law" or the "facts" of any contracts prevents the preliminary arbitration panel from affirming APA's right to appoint a West merger committee and if so, specifically why ?
2. Do you believe that "the law" or the "facts" of any contracts prevents the preliminary arbitration panel from appointing a West merger committee unilaterally and if so, specifically why ?
These are NOT "hypothetical" questions, they are specifically relevant based to any such argument to the contrary and one that you appear to be making. In essence, if you believe the answers to one or both SPECIFIC non-hypothetical questions is "yes", then defend that assertion with specifics.
The "if" part involves only the explanation of a "yes" answer. Bill Clinton would be proud, by the way. IMO, the board will grant the APA the right to appoint a West committee and the APA will do just that. See ? taking a position isn't so hard.
12-06-2014, 07:12 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by sailingfun
Funny, I have received multiple dues refunds from ALPA over the years.
12-06-2014, 07:12 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by eaglefly
No hypotheticals here, only straight questions with no answers. The "if" part involves only the explanation of a "yes" answer. Bill Clinton would be proud, by the way. IMO, the board will grant the APA the right to appoint a West committee and the APA will do just that. See ? taking a position isn't so hard.
The "if" part involves only the explanation of a "yes" answer. Bill Clinton would be proud, by the way. IMO, the board will grant the APA the right to appoint a West committee and the APA will do just that. See ? taking a position isn't so hard. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
