In the end I believe the pilots will have a 3/4 way M-B ISL arbitration (with a West MC) if USAPA loses its NMB request/M-B lawsuit following SCC per AAG and APA’s desire. In the interest of brevity I will not discuss my thoughts with my usual technique of providing exact factual quotes to support my position, but instead use bullet points:#1: Judge Silver ruled in the Addington DFR II trial USAPA must cease all M-B ISL work following SCC when APA becomes the union for all New American pilots because of the new contract language negotiated by USAPA, APA, and the Company. This decision created USAPA’s Judicial Estoppel problem. #2: USAPA, APA, and AAG failed to reach a Protocol Agreement (PA) largely in part because USAPA would not agree to a 3/4-way M-B arbitration, if held. USAPA wants a 2/3-way ISL arbitration where APA, USAPA, and AAG are the only participants. USAPA will not voluntarily agree to allow a West MC to participate in M-B, which is AAG and APA's desire to prevent being sued by AOL. This point led to the PA impasse. The only way we as line pilots found out about the real reason for the impasse was by reading US Airways' Motion to Reconsider, the Company's exhibits, and both APA and AAG's Reply and Counterclaim to USAPA's M-B lawsuit. For whatever reason the BPR has hid this information from the pilots. I wonder why? #3: While simultaneously negotiating the PA USAPA was preparing its NMB filing seeking a single versus 3-panel arbitration. In their Reply and Counterclaims to USAPA's M-B lawsuit both APA and AAG have accused USAPA of “bad faith” bargaining. In my opinion, USAPA's filing violates our contract that requires a 3-panel BOA for the M-B arbitration. And, USAPA is asking the NMB to authorize a proceeding outside of the pilot's contract. Will the NMB do that?#4: Shortly after filing its request with the NMB USAPA filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against both APA and AAG asking the court to permit USAPA to act like an independent union for M-BI SL purposes following SCC. The challenge for USAPA is their petition violates the RLA, the pilot's contract, and federal law. In particular, those of us who do not fully understand the law just found out that USAPA is also violating the Judicial Estoppel legal standard because Pat Szymanski successfully argued against US Airways’ Summary Judgment petition. Szymanski convinced the court that the West pilots could not represent them self as part of a union in the M-B ISL arbitration, if held. For review, Judicial Estoppel “in the practice of law, (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions) is an estoppel which precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings. It is generally agreed that it can only be cited if the party in question successfully maintained its position in the earlier proceedings and benefited from it.” Because USAPA argued the West pilots cannot represent them self in the M-B arbitration, if held, it cannot change its position and now argue it can argue it can represent the US Airways pilots in the M-B arbitration, if held, after SCC and USAPA ceases to exist per Judicial Estoppel. To compound that problem USAPA now has a court order stating USAPA cannot represent the US Airways pilots after APA is certified as the union for all New American pilots.#5: In response to USAPA’s petition filed in D.C federal court both APA and AAG filed their Reply and then sued USAPA with their Counterclaims, which are virtually identical petitions. Why is that? Collusion, a strategic alliance, or a common view of the law? However, the only way line pilots found out these facts was by reading US Airways’ Motion to Correct and the APA/AAG Reply and Counterclaims because USAPA has not provided the pilots this important information. Unfortunately, if a line pilot does not take the time to research and read all of these legal documents he or she is in the dark regarding USAPA's intent/action. USAPA and the BPR members have indicated they’re not telling us the whole story because it could place their legal strategy at risk. However, how many times have the pilots heard that before because the union’s hardliners believe the rank-and-file will make the wrong decision? For example, why were the pilots not told by the union’s hardline leaders the company offered to freeze our DB Plan twice before the plan was terminated and the MEC said “no” to Seth Schofield's offer? Or how about the pilots not being told the facts regarding LOA 93, the LOA 93 grievance, 3% grievance, PIC investigation, and AWA-US Airways SLI proceeding because of the union's strategy? History is a great teacher and I’m very suspicious of why USAPA is not informing the pilots of the facts regarding the current state of affairs in regard to the US Airways pilots SL integration with AA’s pilots. Now that I have listed key facts let me say this is uncharted territory and I truly don’t know how it will proceed. Here’s my bottom line point. USAPA seems to be focusing primarily on the Nicolau Award and the SLI of 5,000 pilots versus the SLI of 15,000 pilots.I’m concerned that this approach could fail because it appears to me USAPA is asking the NMB to set aside a part of the pilot's contract that USAPA does not agree with and I’m not sure the NMB has the authority to do so. USAPA is asking the NMB to order a single arbitrator M-B ISL arbitration, if held, versus the 3-arbitrator panel as required by the pilot's joint contract (MOU).In addition, USAPA is asking a federal judge to violate the RLA, the pilot's joint contract (MOU), and Judge Silver’s order to permit USAPA to act like an independent union after SCC even when USAPA will have no legal standing. Furthermore, USAPA has a severe credibility issue because of the Judicial Estoppel doctrine, which compounds its problem.My question is would it be better for USAPA to obtain a guaranteed seat at the M-B ISL table where it can have its own funding and counsel by agreeing to AAG and APA’s demand that the West Pilot Class has their own MC, funding and counsel -- or risk an adverse NMB and M-B injunction decision where APA takes total control of the SLI process and decides how the AA and US Airways seniority integration and proceeding will move forward?
