Litigation news
09-14-2015, 06:05 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Posts: 224
Litigation news
Looks like APA opposes injunction against APA (no surprise). They also oppose injunction against east merger committee.
US Airways also opposed injunction against APA.
Wonder if west might need to focus on just the east merger committee? That seems a more reasonable position - just focus on east's history and see if they can get a narrowly drawn injunction against east.
US Airways also opposed injunction against APA.
Wonder if west might need to focus on just the east merger committee? That seems a more reasonable position - just focus on east's history and see if they can get a narrowly drawn injunction against east.
09-14-2015, 06:20 PM
#2
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by dynap09
Looks like APA opposes injunction against APA (no surprise). They also oppose injunction against east merger committee.
US Airways also opposed injunction against APA.
Wonder if west might need to focus on just the east merger committee? That seems a more reasonable position - just focus on east's history and see if they can get a narrowly drawn injunction against east.
US Airways also opposed injunction against APA.
Wonder if west might need to focus on just the east merger committee? That seems a more reasonable position - just focus on east's history and see if they can get a narrowly drawn injunction against east.
09-14-2015, 07:27 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Airbus button pusher
Posts: 2,447
Originally Posted by cactiboss
The apa is just doing smart thing here. This is to protect themselves from the lawsuit the east is going to file, what can the east sue over now after they have taken their side in front of a federal judge? The company is being the company, they are as guilty as the east for this fiasco.
09-15-2015, 05:47 AM
#4
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
All parties supposedly say they are willing to let the arbitrators decide this SLI and the arbitrators assert their right to do just that in accordance with M-B. The Nic is already as relevant and front and center as it could ever be if that standard is truly in control. The West WILL base their proposed integration model on a pure Nic and will argue for such. Therefore, if the arbitrators have all the information regarding the Nic's history and the positions, it would be unnecessary for anyone else to argue for it for to do so really won't change the arbitrators position on its validity.
The REALITY of the status quo was that this merger was consummated with THREE separate seniority lists and the APA ensured a fair chance for all THREE appointed committees the ability to make their case. That would be the fair process to meet the McCaskill-Bond requirements. That process should not be subverted to allow one party to engineer a strategy to essentially hijack the process by obtaining the ability to control others including requiring a supposedly neutral union governing body to no longer remain neutral.
Hopefully Silver will grant the three pre-merger committees free reign to argue their positions in accordance with M-B and not require any position on anything of APA other then meeting their responsibility under M-B to ensure a fair process. The arbitrators are well aware of all the Nic issues and history, that everyone can be sure of and they probably have already come to some conclusion on what they plan to do with that aspect of the integration in crafting their final ISL.
The REALITY of the status quo was that this merger was consummated with THREE separate seniority lists and the APA ensured a fair chance for all THREE appointed committees the ability to make their case. That would be the fair process to meet the McCaskill-Bond requirements. That process should not be subverted to allow one party to engineer a strategy to essentially hijack the process by obtaining the ability to control others including requiring a supposedly neutral union governing body to no longer remain neutral.
Hopefully Silver will grant the three pre-merger committees free reign to argue their positions in accordance with M-B and not require any position on anything of APA other then meeting their responsibility under M-B to ensure a fair process. The arbitrators are well aware of all the Nic issues and history, that everyone can be sure of and they probably have already come to some conclusion on what they plan to do with that aspect of the integration in crafting their final ISL.
09-15-2015, 07:05 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 337
09-15-2015, 07:31 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Position: Captain B-737
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by eaglefly
All parties supposedly say they are willing to let the arbitrators decide this SLI and the arbitrators assert their right to do just that in accordance with M-B. The Nic is already as relevant and front and center as it could ever be if that standard is truly in control. The West WILL base their proposed integration model on a pure Nic and will argue for such. Therefore, if the arbitrators have all the information regarding the Nic's history and the positions, it would be unnecessary for anyone else to argue for it for to do so really won't change the arbitrators position on its validity.
The REALITY of the status quo was that this merger was consummated with THREE separate seniority lists and the APA ensured a fair chance for all THREE appointed committees the ability to make their case. That would be the fair process to meet the McCaskill-Bond requirements. That process should not be subverted to allow one party to engineer a strategy to essentially hijack the process by obtaining the ability to control others including requiring a supposedly neutral union governing body to no longer remain neutral.
Hopefully Silver will grant the three pre-merger committees free reign to argue their positions in accordance with M-B and not require any position on anything of APA other then meeting their responsibility under M-B to ensure a fair process. The arbitrators are well aware of all the Nic issues and history, that everyone can be sure of and they probably have already come to some conclusion on what they plan to do with that aspect of the integration in crafting their final ISL.
The REALITY of the status quo was that this merger was consummated with THREE separate seniority lists and the APA ensured a fair chance for all THREE appointed committees the ability to make their case. That would be the fair process to meet the McCaskill-Bond requirements. That process should not be subverted to allow one party to engineer a strategy to essentially hijack the process by obtaining the ability to control others including requiring a supposedly neutral union governing body to no longer remain neutral.
Hopefully Silver will grant the three pre-merger committees free reign to argue their positions in accordance with M-B and not require any position on anything of APA other then meeting their responsibility under M-B to ensure a fair process. The arbitrators are well aware of all the Nic issues and history, that everyone can be sure of and they probably have already come to some conclusion on what they plan to do with that aspect of the integration in crafting their final ISL.
There are going to be a certain number of LUS slots sandwiched through out the integrated list. Why do you care who's LUS name is filled in that slot? I'm guessing the average age of the West pilots is what's causing you some concern there. You're Altruism is duly noted.
09-15-2015, 07:38 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by EskimoJoe
I'm guessing the average age of the West pilots is what's causing you some concern there. You're Altruism is duly noted.
09-15-2015, 08:29 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2014
Position: Captain B-737
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by Sliceback
Do you think the average age of the West pilots should gain them additional seniority, due to the merger with the American Airlines seniority list, if the NIC is used as a baseline?
09-15-2015, 08:41 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2012
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by dynap09
Looks like APA opposes injunction against APA (no surprise). They also oppose injunction against east merger committee.
US Airways also opposed injunction against APA.
Wonder if west might need to focus on just the east merger committee? That seems a more reasonable position - just focus on east's history and see if they can get a narrowly drawn injunction against east.
US Airways also opposed injunction against APA.
Wonder if west might need to focus on just the east merger committee? That seems a more reasonable position - just focus on east's history and see if they can get a narrowly drawn injunction against east.
What would give me pause as a west pilot though is the company's response. In the past they've been pretty spot on. If you choose to listen to what they say, the choice is: drop the injunction and let things proceed, the west has a seat at the table, or risk years of delay. Hmmmmmm, just something to think about......not that anyone gives a $%^& about what I think (east, LAA, or west).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
