2014 Pilot Discussion

[nic4us]

Court? Now that's funny.
USAPA: We disagree with the APA because they were complying with Judge Silver's ruling.

The other funny thing about the SCABs threatening to go to court is.......

After 8 ffederal judges in 4 districts have all called them SCABs...well they are just about out sympathy in the federal court system.

 

[nic4us]

Your group is a strange one. You remind us of kiwi.

Thanks for the compliment.

Now I suggest you pass the same compliment along to Kiwi in person!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Well, with no West participation at the SCAB union, looks like the only course of action will be to abide by the MOU, get single carrier status, have the APA be the bargaining rep, then enter into a MB SLI in which all "interested parties" are provide a voice to be heard.

My guess is the APA structures it so the east and West have separate reps, kinda like the TWA pilots got in the STL base closure grievance arbitration.

So, pretty much will be the Nic. once in front of an arbitration panel, and the parties to the Nic are there in front of the panel, and the SCABs have exactly ZERO reason why a never vacated, company accepted seniority list should now be rewritten to allow the to continue to SCAB jobs.

Oh you are funny, now the reason M/B legislation was created was because of what event?  Well again you will guess wrong, "interested parties" now that is funny!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

The parties to this agreement are USAPA, APA, and the Company. The MOU spells out the timeline for reaching a protocol agreement which was supposed to have been January 9. By mutual agreement, this date was extended by 30 days to February 9. We are working to reach agreement by that date.

Many of you are concerned about what will happen should we not reach a protocol agreement. Regarding one aspect of the protocol agreement, our latest pass to APA addresses the APA and USAPA Merger Committees and requires the continuation of these committees in the event of a single representative determination by the National Mediation Board. This is clearly what the McCaskill-Bond Amendment requires. We believe that any attempt by either the Company or APA to take control of the USAPA Merger Committee or to constitute other committees would clearly violate the McCaskill-Bond Amendment.

USAPA Merger Committee

 

[dca319]

So what will happen? They have a question that they fail to answer in that letter.

 

[dca319]

SECTION 4, OF THE MOU, "YOU GAVE UP THE NIC!" BUYERS REMORSE! GET OVER IT!


MM, we agreed to binding arbitration too. GET OVER IT!

 

[Piedmont1984]

The parties to the MB process are APA, USAPA and AAL/AAG. That process has already begun. Those parties are already at the table. A protocol agreement may be forthcoming in a week. A negotiated SLI could very well happen before SCS is awarded by the NMB.

Those of you hanging on Silver's every word as though it were established law bear in mind the following. She has, according to you, effectively rewritten MB. According to Silver, and contrary to the language and intent of the original legislation, she insinuates (rules according to the west, offers dicta according to the east) that one of the original parties can be forcibly removed midway through the process. Not only that, but arbitration will not take place. She has truncated the process.

I agree that the merger update implies things may not be going smoothly. But if APA is buying into this interpretation of how MB can be unilaterally modified or short circuited, then I would suggest this is something a higher court would be willing to clarify for everyone.

 

[dca319]

Sure.

And while we wait the process moves forward.

 

[Claxon]

Headed to court?
Who is suing? And for what?
Oh, and what happened to that lawsuit the east mec filed when the Nic came out?
Seriously MM, do you really believe that the SCAB union will be allowed to represent once it is decertified as the CBA?
Let me put it to you this way.....the West wants no part of uscaba, once decertified uscaba will have absolutely ZERO legal claim for any CBA function regarding the West, and the West would have the Mother of all lawsuits if forced to be represented by a FORMER bargaining agent already proven to be hostile toward it's West membership.

A west pilot giving legal advice. (Sarcasm). The west legal brain trust is a force to be reckoned with.

 

[prechilill]

The parties to the MB process are APA, USAPA and AAL/AAG. That process has already begun. Those parties are already at the table. A protocol agreement may be forthcoming in a week. A negotiated SLI could very well happen before SCS is awarded by the NMB.
 

Sure Kevin... Yeah, that's a possibility.  NOT!
 
USAPA is being USAPA'd, you wrote the book so you should know it pretty well.

 

[traderjake]

The parties to the MB process are APA, USAPA and AAL/AAG.

 
When APA replaces USAPA USAPA is no longer a party.
 
An APA MC representing former USAPA pilots is. 

 

[snapthis]

Sure Kevin... Yeah, that's a possibility.  NOT!
 
USAPA is being USAPA'd, you wrote the book so you should know it pretty well.

That is correct. East and West will be represented by our bargaining rep, the APA.

KV will come to his senses soon enough.

 

[Piedmont1984]

APA will be the CBA and responsible for insuring that the MB process is complied with and that the USAirways pilot group is adequately represented.

Not, APA will insure that Silver's opinions about USAPA and how things should transpire are made manifest.

But we are jumping the gun. Let's wait what happens next week.

 

[snapthis]

What a sorry waste of time. Get a life!

Somebody must have a hangover and is a bit grumpy.

I care enough to be involved and informed.

I beats being a minion who is uniformed.

😉

 

[Phoenix]

SECTION 4, OF THE MOU, "YOU GAVE UP THE NIC!" BUYERS REMORSE! GET OVER IT!


MM, we agreed to binding arbitration too. GET OVER IT!

 
 
A contract is a contract is a contract. 😀