[SIZE=10pt]I do not like the Nicolau Award and I believe it's unfair, but that is my opinion and not a fact. I believe those who voted for USAPA created this problem because they did not listen to Mike Abram. I believe the creation of USAPA shifted the dispute from a moral argument, which could ahve been dealt with under ALPA, to a DFR argument and subsequent complaint(s). Do like this? No, of course not. But, I believe "final and binding" is "final and binding," otherwise; the entire dispute resolution process would become a mockery.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Separately, in my opinion, it's wrong for a voting majority to try to impose their will on a minority group to virtually staple a pre-merger pilot group to the bottom of the joint SL and for unemployed furloughed pilots to become senior to active Captains under the guise of C&Rs. I know many East pilots can accommodate their thoughts to justify their staple desires because of career disappointment, but from a moral perspective I believe that is wrong.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Far too many people are looking at the East vs. West pilot dispute from an emotional SLI perspective when the issue is all about DFR.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]And, USAPA has hurt hundreds of thousands of pilots, their families, and US Airways' customers by their illegal actions and inability to reach a JCBA with the company, even if that JCBA had only been the Kirby Proposal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Meanwhile, according to court filings the Company and APA are seeking West Pilot Class certification and the West pilot's having a seat at the M-B BOA table and for APA to appoint MCs, which is an interesting development. Why? DFR and liability.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]I saw two interesting posts on another board, They are:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"Remember that ever since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Addington I jury verdict and Judge Wake's injunction, the courts have deemed USAPA's DOH scheme to be an "unquestionably ripe DFR". Do you think that has fallen on deaf ears within the APA? Even Judge Silver's recent ruling said that the DFR violation was avoided on the slimmest of margins solely based on the fact that USAPA did not include an alternative list (DOH based because that's needed to comply with the USAPA C&BLs) for comparison to the Nicolau Award. What's different now is that the MOU spells out a definitive timeline to an SLI. The APA will be the CBA and the new list will be used for bidding purposes shortly after its release because it is preceded by a JCBA. Thus no "ripeness" issue is likely to delay any DFR violation claim as has been the case with USAPA's inability to secure a contract and implement a list."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]"To date, the East pilots have used their statistical majority to keep the question if the Nic is final & binding in abeyance. With this advantage (majority) soon to be lost, I expect the APA parsing through the subject rather quickly. If, under any circumstances, the APA inherits the same DFR liability for using a non-Nic list, I suspect that the APA will insure themselves. How? By allowing what USAPA refuses; a West voice from within the CBA to advocate for the Nic's inclusion moving forward. By allowing the West independent counsel and committee, the APA can do as ALPA does and remain neutral in SLI arbitrations. Once finalized, all the APA is responsible is to implement the award properly."[/SIZE]
