Litigation news
09-20-2015, 06:43 AM
#141
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
I think it's still going according to Eaglefly's plan. I believe he said if they use the "undiluted NIC" then there will be a different method of feathering to preserve the AA equities. Looks like the method is to bring out the staple gun. His "head will explode" once the arbitration panel wholly rejects that nonsense.
You see, at this point in this twisted mess of an SLI, I don't think the arbitrators will hold ANY committee in personal disregard considering it is the opinion of many pilots IN each group pre-merger group that the arbitrators will disembowel the pilots in the other pre-merger groups for demanding too much (especially ONE group who is the one attempting to hijack the process).The arbitrators have ALREADY reviewed the previous initial proposals and certainly wont forget their salient points and positions prior to any forced tainting by the Nic. I think they will not only take all this in context, including whatever is argued in the future, but STILL make an equitable list despite that. They know the issues and again, it's likely MOST of their ideals have already been determined save for some minor adjustments. Again, I haven't read anything yet or even accessed it, so It will be a couple of days before I could even give my .02 on what it all means.
To do so now, would just be knee-jerk emotion based reaction and it sounds like there enough of that already occurring.
09-20-2015, 06:59 AM
#142
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 321
Fair enough Eagle...Take some time to digest the proposal. Put your thinking cap on.
Here's a teaser for you. Your proposal placed a significant group of US Airways East Group 2 Captains behind all AA pilots. Every single one. Not just active AA pilots but the entire lot of furloughed ones.
Give me a "W." Give me an "I." Give me a "N." Give me a "D." Give me a "F."..........
Here's a teaser for you. Your proposal placed a significant group of US Airways East Group 2 Captains behind all AA pilots. Every single one. Not just active AA pilots but the entire lot of furloughed ones.
Give me a "W." Give me an "I." Give me a "N." Give me a "D." Give me a "F."..........
09-20-2015, 08:06 AM
#143
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Fair enough Eagle...Take some time to digest the proposal. Put your thinking cap on.
Here's a teaser for you. Your proposal placed a significant group of US Airways East Group 2 Captains behind all AA pilots. Every single one. Not just active AA pilots but the entire lot of furloughed ones.
Give me a "W." Give me an "I." Give me a "N." Give me a "D." Give me a "F."..........
Here's a teaser for you. Your proposal placed a significant group of US Airways East Group 2 Captains behind all AA pilots. Every single one. Not just active AA pilots but the entire lot of furloughed ones.
Give me a "W." Give me an "I." Give me a "N." Give me a "D." Give me a "F."..........
).As for your point above, hey, it is YOU that is demanding the Nic, remember ?...... and this is the likely byproduct. Besides, no bump, no flush only means it may impede transition to GIV and even then, considering their ages, short fences for PMCE (yes, they had those too...........I'm sorry) could mitigate that.
Again, it's just another example that if the arbitrators are to meet the stated goals of M-B that being to provide an equitable result and arguably based on the foundations of past SLI's to maintain PMCE for all pilots based on pre-merger expectations and provide no W-I-N............well, you get the idea
, to any one group, the inclusion of a pure Nic looks like a disaster.It certainly sounds like that to me having not even looked at anything yet and just seeing the growling ad roaring, especially from the West that's occurring.
Again, if anything, I think an AAPSIC inclusion of the pure Nic only makes it LESS likely it will be used by the arbs as the more mayhem the model they are using because they in good faith feel that is what is necessary to maintain pre-merger LAA PMCE causes now, the more obvious it shouldn't be used to resolve whatever can be resolved of the Nic situation while still meeting the proper goals of this M-B based SLI.
Just my .02 anyway.............
09-20-2015, 01:30 PM
#145
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,294
Fair enough Eagle...Take some time to digest the proposal. Put your thinking cap on.
Here's a teaser for you. Your proposal placed a significant group of US Airways East Group 2 Captains behind all AA pilots. Every single one. Not just active AA pilots but the entire lot of furloughed ones.
Give me a "W." Give me an "I." Give me a "N." Give me a "D." Give me a "F."..........
Here's a teaser for you. Your proposal placed a significant group of US Airways East Group 2 Captains behind all AA pilots. Every single one. Not just active AA pilots but the entire lot of furloughed ones.
Give me a "W." Give me an "I." Give me a "N." Give me a "D." Give me a "F."..........
It's probably just trying to balance out the gains either side would get depending upon which seniority list is used on the LUS side. If you move younger West pilots up the seniority list LUS uses the overall list has to be pushed down. If not the LUS side(primarily West pilots) will experience undesired gains in the out years vs. the remaining AA pilots.
An AA friend posted that the East proposal put him behind every LUS Group II CA. He's currently a line holding AA Group II CA. He's singing the same song "Give me a 'W', give me a "I"....
09-21-2015, 03:20 PM
#146
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Food for thought for those who think the Nic will not be used . . .
Not using the Nic would be the legal equivalent of "vacating" a previous binding arbitration. It would, in effect, say: yes we know a previous arbitrator created a list but for - pick your reason(s) du jour - said list is null and void.
Just because the lawsuits surrounding the Nic dragged on and on for years does not mean they had merit. Neither the company nor the government had any reason to want to interfere in what they saw as petty Union politics. That delay should not give hope to anyone thinking that a fellow arbitrator will accept that a previous arbitration was not in fact BINDING.
Not gonna happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Plus . . . duh . . . two of the three interested parties are asking that it be used.
Really?? No Nic??
OK.
We'll see . . .
Not using the Nic would be the legal equivalent of "vacating" a previous binding arbitration. It would, in effect, say: yes we know a previous arbitrator created a list but for - pick your reason(s) du jour - said list is null and void.
Just because the lawsuits surrounding the Nic dragged on and on for years does not mean they had merit. Neither the company nor the government had any reason to want to interfere in what they saw as petty Union politics. That delay should not give hope to anyone thinking that a fellow arbitrator will accept that a previous arbitration was not in fact BINDING.
Not gonna happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Plus . . . duh . . . two of the three interested parties are asking that it be used.
Really?? No Nic??
OK.
We'll see . . .
09-21-2015, 03:25 PM
#147
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Just filed with Silver
(1) Predictably, in the Prehearing Position Statement of the US Airways (East) Seniority Integration Committee, the East Pilots, via their representatives at APA, have disregarded the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and repudiated the Nicolau Award. (See Ex. 1, excerpt of the Prehearing Position Statement of the US Airways (East) Seniority Integration Committee dated September 19, 2015, at pages 46-53.1)
(2) Contrary to US Airways’ objection here to a broad injunction consistent with Rule 65, in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2011 granting US Airways’ request for an injunction against USAPA in US Airways v. USAPA, 3:11-cv- 371–RJC–DCK, Judge Robert Conrad granted US Airways’ request for an injunction that applied to “USAPA and its members, agents, and employees, and all persons and organizations acting by, in concert with, through, or under it, or by and through its order...” (See Ex. 2, excerpt of Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2011 in US Airways v. USAPA, 3:11-cv-371–RJC–DCK (Western District of North Carolina.)
(3) The June 13, 2014 Order denying USAPA’s Motion to Vacate the September 28, 2011 injunction in US Airways v. USAPA, 3:11-cv-371–RJC–DCK, which issued after the MOU was signed and just prior to the commencement of the SLI process, demonstrates that, regardless what label may apply to the East Pilots, injunction language is broad enough to continue to apply to them.
(2) Contrary to US Airways’ objection here to a broad injunction consistent with Rule 65, in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2011 granting US Airways’ request for an injunction against USAPA in US Airways v. USAPA, 3:11-cv- 371–RJC–DCK, Judge Robert Conrad granted US Airways’ request for an injunction that applied to “USAPA and its members, agents, and employees, and all persons and organizations acting by, in concert with, through, or under it, or by and through its order...” (See Ex. 2, excerpt of Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 28, 2011 in US Airways v. USAPA, 3:11-cv-371–RJC–DCK (Western District of North Carolina.)
(3) The June 13, 2014 Order denying USAPA’s Motion to Vacate the September 28, 2011 injunction in US Airways v. USAPA, 3:11-cv-371–RJC–DCK, which issued after the MOU was signed and just prior to the commencement of the SLI process, demonstrates that, regardless what label may apply to the East Pilots, injunction language is broad enough to continue to apply to them.
09-21-2015, 04:38 PM
#149
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
The east committee asked for a delay in proceedings until Judge Silver ruled. The company and west wanted to move on, right? The west said that the east was free to advocate whatever they wanted, right?
09-21-2015, 04:39 PM
#150
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,294
Food for thought for those who think the Nic will not be used . . .
Not using the Nic would be the legal equivalent of "vacating" a previous binding arbitration. It would, in effect, say: yes we know a previous arbitrator created a list but for - pick your reason(s) du jour - said list is null and void.
Just because the lawsuits surrounding the Nic dragged on and on for years does not mean they had merit. Neither the company nor the government had any reason to want to interfere in what they saw as petty Union politics. That delay should not give hope to anyone thinking that a fellow arbitrator will accept that a previous arbitration was not in fact BINDING.
Not gonna happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Plus . . . duh . . . two of the three interested parties are asking that it be used.
Really?? No Nic??
OK.
We'll see . . .
Not using the Nic would be the legal equivalent of "vacating" a previous binding arbitration. It would, in effect, say: yes we know a previous arbitrator created a list but for - pick your reason(s) du jour - said list is null and void.
Just because the lawsuits surrounding the Nic dragged on and on for years does not mean they had merit. Neither the company nor the government had any reason to want to interfere in what they saw as petty Union politics. That delay should not give hope to anyone thinking that a fellow arbitrator will accept that a previous arbitration was not in fact BINDING.
Not gonna happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
Plus . . . duh . . . two of the three interested parties are asking that it be used.
Really?? No Nic??
OK.
We'll see . . .
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
