2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
cactusboy53 said:
Seriously son....Get yourself some VERY much needed professional help. This really and truly just isn't 2005-2007 anymore. It's now actually 2016. Perhaps just mindlessly swimming around in circles while confined to the right seat of the "fishbowl" for a decade now has finally driven you completely insane. No matter really, but try to not damage yourself further against the bowl's boundaries for your own sake.
Phoenix
Veteran
Summary for the East Rebuttal:
The East spent the large majority of their time and witness list showcasing the effect each of the three proposals would produce on the three current lists, if the BOA were to adopt any of the three proposals. Rather than rebutting assumptions or premises of the other committees, the East primarily chose to contrast and compare the conclusions/outcomes/effects of the other proposals (largely LOS comparisons, throughout the whole seniority range) compared to the East proposal. A fair and equitable analysis of the proposed outcomes was the focus.
Some time for rebuttal addressed the LAA claims of superiority.
LAA and LAW objections and cross were essentially objections that the East should have accepted as their own the LAA and LAW assumptions, as the fair point of departure (i.e. LUS should have conceded abject inferiority on the one hand, and on the other they should have adopted a twice former union's SLI proposal).
It would have been a long boring three days to sit through. The rest of rebuttals will be just as boring. Peace out.
The East spent the large majority of their time and witness list showcasing the effect each of the three proposals would produce on the three current lists, if the BOA were to adopt any of the three proposals. Rather than rebutting assumptions or premises of the other committees, the East primarily chose to contrast and compare the conclusions/outcomes/effects of the other proposals (largely LOS comparisons, throughout the whole seniority range) compared to the East proposal. A fair and equitable analysis of the proposed outcomes was the focus.
Some time for rebuttal addressed the LAA claims of superiority.
LAA and LAW objections and cross were essentially objections that the East should have accepted as their own the LAA and LAW assumptions, as the fair point of departure (i.e. LUS should have conceded abject inferiority on the one hand, and on the other they should have adopted a twice former union's SLI proposal).
It would have been a long boring three days to sit through. The rest of rebuttals will be just as boring. Peace out.
cactusboy53
Veteran
- May 9, 2007
- 2,649
- 7,407
FYI...the name of esteemed George Nicolau has already been mentioned HUNDREDS of times, and will be mentioned HUNDREDS more.Phoenix said:
If that is what you gleaned from that snipet of testimony, you really don't get it Scott.
Prepare for the new list, because it's coming.
cactusboy53
Veteran
- May 9, 2007
- 2,649
- 7,407
Phoenix
Veteran
cactusboy53 said:
You still have a Scott fetish, and accuse others of "not getting it". In the words of Bugs Bunny, you are a maroon.. and your maroon-ness is on display almost everyday.
Prepare for the new list, because it's coming??? Of course its coming. We all got to vote for a new list... and the vote passed.. Duh.
cactusboy53
Veteran
- May 9, 2007
- 2,649
- 7,407
Oh, but we did.....eventually. That's the important part: USAPA is now know for a DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION violation. So...let's recap:Pi brat said:
- AAA purposfully walked away from a nearly completed contract...................................................VERIFIED
- Little Stevie and the Down-By-The-River gang promise the moon and deliver NOTHING.............CHECK
- USAPA wrongfully sues for RICO and is denied by the courts...TWICE!........................................VERIFIED
- USAPA spent over 10 Million dollars of dues money and got NOTHING........................................CHECK
[SIZE=12pt]The Board shall retain jurisdiction[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] in accordance with Section H. 5 .b. of the ALPA Merger Policy to resolve any disputes over the meaning or interpretation of this Award. This retention of jurisdiction shall terminate when all provisions of the Award have been satisfied. In the event the Chairman becomes unavailable or unwilling to serve to resolve such disputes, the Merger Committees will agree on a replacement Chairman or will select one by the alternate strike method from the most recent ALPA list of seniority integrations arbitrators. In the event one of the Pilot Neutrals becomes unable or unwilling to serve on the Arbitration Board to resolve such disputes, the Chairman, after consultation with the Parties, shall decide how to proceed. In any such arbitration, if there is a dispute between the methodology contained in the Award and the accompanying Integrated Seniority List or any other list purportedly using such methodology, the Seniority List prevails.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]George Nicolau, Mediator[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]AWA/AAA Opinion & Award; May 07, 2007[/SIZE]
cactusboy53
Veteran
- May 9, 2007
- 2,649
- 7,407
Phoenix
Veteran
cactusboy53 said:
The contract prevails. Just like last time, like always. (and its not necessary to write it in RED, because the truth needs no exclamation).
The courts will always enforce the contract, regardless of how they personally feel. Even Buyme and Grabber wouldn't cross that line. The legal argument is over, except in your mind, and nearly everyone of your posts.
The courts have made their conclusion abundantly clear. No one is required to use the Nic for anything (<----- and that isn't in RED either). No one. That is the opposite of "binding". The BOA may use whatever they want to form a fair and equitable list, even the Nic (they might be idiots too).
Fair and equitable is the only standard now. Fair and equitable. No one has to write it in red. Black Top Pest productions doesn't have to make a video. No one has to scream, "Ya know why I hate youse guys". No one has to buy a $675 tie. No one has to make monthly Silver/Gold/Titanium donations. No one has to check to see if their name is included in the list of heroic Spartan donators. No one has to pay for Marty's grandkid's college. We already voted for fair and equitable. We will get fair and equitable soon, wether we like it or not.
You have been celebrating an eminent/imminent Nic list for nearly a decade now.
Your kazoo is befitting.
cactusboy53 said:
November 11, 2008 (Q&A in Phoenix with Doug Parker)
Pilot: . . . . My question though is I was at the hearing for the furloughed guys and one of the possibilities they were discussing is moving 190s to the west and can’t do that. You know why.
Parker: Why
Pilot: Binding arbitration. So the company believes in binding arbitration. We have a binding arbitration for seniority. Does the company believe in binding arbitration or not?
Parker: The binding arbitration you’re talking about I think – I’m pretty sure what you are talking about – that was an ALPA process that resulted in binding arbitration. That wasn’t a company process. That’s ALPA to ALPA seniority integration that says if you can’t get it resolved we go to binding arbitration is ALPA policy not company policy. If the company’s in binding arbitration, yea we believe in binding arbitration.
Kirby: We expect an AMR-US Airways merger to resolve our pilot seniority dispute
By Terry Maxon
[email protected]
11:36 am on May 17, 2012 | Permalink
comments (0)
US Airways president Scott Kirby said Thursday that the airline believes a merger with AMR and American Airlines will help US Airways resolve the prolonged seniority dispute of pilots at US Airways.
Responding to a question at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch conference, Kirby talked about the dispute between pilots of US Airways and America West Airlines after the 2005 merger about how they would combine their seniority lists.
Here is his answer at the conference.
“Yeah. It’s ironic but the solution to that issue at US Airways I think it’s probably because we’re able to get this deal done. The area that people focus on the most is USAPA, our pilots’ union. In this case there is a huge benefit for our pilots in getting the deal done. They can go to the new contract at American, which is a very large pay raise for the US Airways pilots. So as I fly around the system, as I talk to the union leadership at USAPA, they want the deal to happen and they want us to get it done and they are working cooperatively with us and with APA to get the deal done.
“As to the seniority integration issue, I think this is the way out of the box for them. For those of you that follow the industry, there has been this seniority fight between the former US Airways and the former America West pilots. And as long as that seniority dispute is happening and isn’t resolved by a court, they really can’t negotiate a single agreement with the company because they can’t agree on what’s going to happen with seniority. And they are waiting for a court to answer that question for them.
“This is a way to start over and — not start over completely, but at least have a fresh beginning. Today, you know what, the analogy I use is that they painted themselves into a corner into a room, and neither side can compromise. This is a way to start the process over in a new integration.
“There is also federal legislation, the McCaskill-Bond legislation, which will mandate binding arbitration. So the plan in this case is that our union and APA combined will have a joint contract, and we will have that hopefully on the day we close the merger, assuming we do.
“That contract will be in place and so there will be a joint contract in place. And then more than likely the seniority issue will go through a process and ultimately get to arbitration. But because we will already have a joint contract in place, that arbitration will be binding. It will just get implemented.
“In the US Airways – America West case, it went to binding arbitration but there was a requirement as part of that that the two unions negotiate a joint contract with the company, which wasn’t done yet.
“And because it wasn’t done yet, the side that didn’t like it could prevent a joint contract from getting done. And because of that, the seniority integration never happened.
By Terry Maxon
[email protected]
11:36 am on May 17, 2012 | Permalink
comments (0)
US Airways president Scott Kirby said Thursday that the airline believes a merger with AMR and American Airlines will help US Airways resolve the prolonged seniority dispute of pilots at US Airways.
Responding to a question at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch conference, Kirby talked about the dispute between pilots of US Airways and America West Airlines after the 2005 merger about how they would combine their seniority lists.
Here is his answer at the conference.
“Yeah. It’s ironic but the solution to that issue at US Airways I think it’s probably because we’re able to get this deal done. The area that people focus on the most is USAPA, our pilots’ union. In this case there is a huge benefit for our pilots in getting the deal done. They can go to the new contract at American, which is a very large pay raise for the US Airways pilots. So as I fly around the system, as I talk to the union leadership at USAPA, they want the deal to happen and they want us to get it done and they are working cooperatively with us and with APA to get the deal done.
“As to the seniority integration issue, I think this is the way out of the box for them. For those of you that follow the industry, there has been this seniority fight between the former US Airways and the former America West pilots. And as long as that seniority dispute is happening and isn’t resolved by a court, they really can’t negotiate a single agreement with the company because they can’t agree on what’s going to happen with seniority. And they are waiting for a court to answer that question for them.
“This is a way to start over and — not start over completely, but at least have a fresh beginning. Today, you know what, the analogy I use is that they painted themselves into a corner into a room, and neither side can compromise. This is a way to start the process over in a new integration.
“There is also federal legislation, the McCaskill-Bond legislation, which will mandate binding arbitration. So the plan in this case is that our union and APA combined will have a joint contract, and we will have that hopefully on the day we close the merger, assuming we do.
“That contract will be in place and so there will be a joint contract in place. And then more than likely the seniority issue will go through a process and ultimately get to arbitration. But because we will already have a joint contract in place, that arbitration will be binding. It will just get implemented.
“In the US Airways – America West case, it went to binding arbitration but there was a requirement as part of that that the two unions negotiate a joint contract with the company, which wasn’t done yet.
“And because it wasn’t done yet, the side that didn’t like it could prevent a joint contract from getting done. And because of that, the seniority integration never happened.
Your thoughts David Simmons?
Scott Kirby and Doug Parker hammer the point home with another big east bid today.
Meanwhile, the FISHBOWL water swirls tepidly........
Every day, the absurdity of the Nicolau Award is more and more evident. PHX is a cesspool/ fishbowl.
Every other base has huge upward movement.
Scott Kirby and Doug Parker hammer the point home with another big east bid today.
Meanwhile, the FISHBOWL water swirls tepidly........
Every day, the absurdity of the Nicolau Award is more and more evident. PHX is a cesspool/ fishbowl.
Every other base has huge upward movement.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
How to change passenger name on Emirates ticket?(# Toll Free No )
- Latest: Jamesmarkus102
-
How Can I change the Name on my Emirates ticket?(# Toll Free No )
- Latest: Jamesmarkus102
-
How Can I change my Name on a Emirates Flight ticket?(# Toll Free No)
- Latest: Jamesmarkus102
-
How can I change my Name on a Emirates ticket? (# Toll Free No )
- Latest: Jamesmarkus102