Now, now, nostradamus. You are the predictable one. I thought you were going to avoid the whole "ALPA National controls all" routine.
What is predictable about you is that most of your topics either whistle in the dark about UAL problems or worse, badmouth companies in trouble then you salivate over their impending demise and talk about how Ual can take advantage of the spoils of a troubled company. You sound like a cowardly pirate. I would hate to be someone in a box at a funeral your were at because you would justify taking their boots off because you would feel that they no longer need them and did not deserve them in the first place because of your imperialistic thoughts.
Actually you are wrong again. Those facts come from Jack Stephan, US Airways MEC Chairman. Yes that's right folks! Those facts come from a USAirways pilot, not ALPA. You may not like it, and you may prefer to live in denial, but the majority of USAirways pilots do not share your view of the world.
Actually you are wrong again. Those facts come from Jack Stephan, US Airways MEC Chairman. Yes that's right folks! Those facts come from a USAirways pilot, not ALPA. You may not like it, and you may prefer to live in denial, but the majority of USAirways pilots do not share your view of the world.
Nice try though, spinmaster.
Nice try though, spinmaster.
It is. With the force of law nonetheless.
Once again, you're reasoning is upside down. It's called a waiver - a knowing and voluntary relinquishments of a right. Both elements of a waiver would be satisfied through the establishment of the steering committee, not to mention if there was a majority vote on the isse. But you're broaching an important issue for all West pilots to understand - the ONLY way to fully prosecute our remedies under the law is for usapa to get in. The record shows that ALPA has always favored the East and they'd do anything to hang the West out to dry. The reason that hasn't happened is because the West holds all the legal cards. But ALPA can tiptoe through the minefield by cajoling the West and "exploring mutually beneficial solutions," an absurd notion given that what we're talking about is a zero sum game. ALPA has to be careful but it is possible for them to maneuver through the JNC in order to placate the East without raising a serious risk of breach. I don't think many West pilots understand this. Despite the consternation from their own lawyers, ALPA has explored every avenue to mitigate Nicolau. They want this to go away. The problem is that the rights of the West pilots are so clear and so irrefutable. The ONLY possible way around is, like you unwittingly suggested, would be through the JNC with a ratification on the West - the ratification operating as a waiver. So contrary to what you would like to infer, the opposite is actually true. ALPA does have some wiggle room to mitigate Nicolau so long as the West consents and the West MEC has legal authority to speak for all West pilots. ALPA needs to proceed with extreme caution because courts do go behind the face of the waiver to examine the circumstances of the waiver. Trouble is, even the AWA MEC has been quite resolved in not opening this door and I suspect the reason is that everyone knows what will happen once the East is given a foothold - you'll try to take everything. What I take from the last year is that the West has demonstrated uncommon common sense.
You didn't miss anything.
Good to hear. My fear was that the West pilots would believe the ALPA rhetoric and mitigate Nic through the JNC. This would be insane in light of our rights - rights which will vest immediately against usapa if it becomes the successor in interest.
What's there to say, other than "You guys never learn!" You litigated in one forum and judging from the collective anger, that didn't go very well. That despite both parties being on equal legal ground. Now you're embarking on a course which will obviouly lead to another litigation except this time the law overwhelming disadvatages you. Let me give you some advice: judges don't care for anger or emotion in their courtrooms and to date, anger and emotion is all you have supporting your cause (who will ever forget the bussing to Herndon and 1960s style sit down protest!). There isn't one shred of legal authority which supports your goals. As the Abrams letter succinctly points out, usapa's cited authority is not only inapplicable but udermines your position. Furthermore, neither you or any other usapa poster nor has your counsel even addressed the fact that the particular provision at issue here was decided through a binding arbitration. Even if O'Neill and Rakestraw supported your position instead of undermining it, then you'd still have to address the arbitration because that is one fact that distinguishes this case with those two.
Until the next time you lose. . .
It's always good when you have a winning case, which is an understatement of the year for the West. You, however, must have a twisted sense of "good."
