2015 Pilot Discussion.
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
- Status
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
Day 2 transcripts show where the company stands on the Eadt Committee after the 9th's ruling:
9 What we are looking to do is to preserve
10 the procedure and the timing that was established by
11 negotiated agreement in the protocol.
12 The second question that was asked is
13 whether, if there were a committee established or a
14 new committee established, what parameters would it
15 operate under?
16 Would it be bound by the Ninth Circuit
17 ruling?
18 And to ask that question is to perhaps
19 provide another insight into why such a committee
20 should not be -- a new committee should not be
21 created.
22 One has to ask why would there be a
1 suggestion for a new East committee following the
2 Ninth Circuit ruling, unless it was to create a
3 situation where a new East committee would assert or
4 could assert that it was not bound by the Court
5 opinion.
6 And why would we want to support that kind
7 of workaround on a federal court ruling?
8 Now, from the Company's perspective, we
9 were entirely neutral in the course of that DFR
10 litigation. We took no sides.
11 But having taken no sides, once we read
12 the injunction, and we have a -- or not the
13 injunction, but the Ninth Circuit ruling, we do not
14 favor attempting to maneuver or to create
15 workarounds on federal court decisions.
16 And if the purpose of suggesting a new
17 committee be formed is to then be able to assert
18 that the new East committee is not bound like the
19 prior East committee under the USAPA name, by the
20 Court decision, would be to ignore what the Ninth
21 Circuit has said. And we don't favor that.
22 So because of that complication, we think
that the second question turns back on the first
2 question.
3 There's no purpose in creating a new
4 committee if the answer to the second question is it
5 will have the same restrictions as the USAPA
6 Committee.
7 And any fair reading of the Ninth Circuit
8 decision says it would or it should.
So what we propose here is that it's a
10 fairly simple proposition. We propose that a fair
11 and equitable process for the Panel to adopt is the
12 one that the parties adopted in the Protocol
13 Agreement, and that that would be to proceed with
14 the hearing.
15 There is a committee that has been
16 appointed to represent the East pilots. There has
17 been no deprivation of such a committee. It has
18 been appointed. If it chooses not to participate,
19 then we suggest we have to move forward without its
20 participation.
9 What we are looking to do is to preserve
10 the procedure and the timing that was established by
11 negotiated agreement in the protocol.
12 The second question that was asked is
13 whether, if there were a committee established or a
14 new committee established, what parameters would it
15 operate under?
16 Would it be bound by the Ninth Circuit
17 ruling?
18 And to ask that question is to perhaps
19 provide another insight into why such a committee
20 should not be -- a new committee should not be
21 created.
22 One has to ask why would there be a
1 suggestion for a new East committee following the
2 Ninth Circuit ruling, unless it was to create a
3 situation where a new East committee would assert or
4 could assert that it was not bound by the Court
5 opinion.
6 And why would we want to support that kind
7 of workaround on a federal court ruling?
8 Now, from the Company's perspective, we
9 were entirely neutral in the course of that DFR
10 litigation. We took no sides.
11 But having taken no sides, once we read
12 the injunction, and we have a -- or not the
13 injunction, but the Ninth Circuit ruling, we do not
14 favor attempting to maneuver or to create
15 workarounds on federal court decisions.
16 And if the purpose of suggesting a new
17 committee be formed is to then be able to assert
18 that the new East committee is not bound like the
19 prior East committee under the USAPA name, by the
20 Court decision, would be to ignore what the Ninth
21 Circuit has said. And we don't favor that.
22 So because of that complication, we think
that the second question turns back on the first
2 question.
3 There's no purpose in creating a new
4 committee if the answer to the second question is it
5 will have the same restrictions as the USAPA
6 Committee.
7 And any fair reading of the Ninth Circuit
8 decision says it would or it should.
So what we propose here is that it's a
10 fairly simple proposition. We propose that a fair
11 and equitable process for the Panel to adopt is the
12 one that the parties adopted in the Protocol
13 Agreement, and that that would be to proceed with
14 the hearing.
15 There is a committee that has been
16 appointed to represent the East pilots. There has
17 been no deprivation of such a committee. It has
18 been appointed. If it chooses not to participate,
19 then we suggest we have to move forward without its
20 participation.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
luvthe9 said:
Why don't you get a life?
One that includes a brain.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
We took no sides.
11 But having taken no sides, once we read
12 the injunction, and we have a -- or not the
13 injunction, but the Ninth Circuit ruling, we do not
14 favor attempting to maneuver or to create
15 workarounds on federal court decisions.
16 And if the purpose of suggesting a new
17 committee be formed is to then be able to assert
18 that the new East committee is not bound like the
19 prior East committee under the USAPA name, by the
20 Court decision, would be to ignore what the Ninth
21 Circuit has said. And we don't favor that.
Everyone know's the name game USAPA is playing. Changing names does not give you an out.
11 But having taken no sides, once we read
12 the injunction, and we have a -- or not the
13 injunction, but the Ninth Circuit ruling, we do not
14 favor attempting to maneuver or to create
15 workarounds on federal court decisions.
16 And if the purpose of suggesting a new
17 committee be formed is to then be able to assert
18 that the new East committee is not bound like the
19 prior East committee under the USAPA name, by the
20 Court decision, would be to ignore what the Ninth
21 Circuit has said. And we don't favor that.
Everyone know's the name game USAPA is playing. Changing names does not give you an out.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
The company wants to keep the process moving without delay:
We simply think it has to be very
controlled. It has to be specified what dates are
going to be added, if necessary. We cannot have and
should not have open-ended delay at the whim of any
particular party, be it one that has removed itself
from the hearing or others that are still
participating.
We have a deal. And we want to stick to
the deal in the Protocol on the timing, subject to
the practical considerations of -- that the Panel
and other parties have, given the loss of this one
week in the agreed protocol that we have.
We simply think it has to be very
controlled. It has to be specified what dates are
going to be added, if necessary. We cannot have and
should not have open-ended delay at the whim of any
particular party, be it one that has removed itself
from the hearing or others that are still
participating.
We have a deal. And we want to stick to
the deal in the Protocol on the timing, subject to
the practical considerations of -- that the Panel
and other parties have, given the loss of this one
week in the agreed protocol that we have.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
The company is against changing procedures which causing delay:
But we will not, on the other hand, be
required to change our agreed procedures and to
delay them indefinitely because of the decision made
by the USAPA Merger Committee.
That is the definition of fair and
equitable. We will be very comfortable that, with
your guidance, we are complying with that standard
along the lines that I have just suggested.
And that's our position. Thank you.
ARBITRATOR EISCHEN: Thank you, very much
But we will not, on the other hand, be
required to change our agreed procedures and to
delay them indefinitely because of the decision made
by the USAPA Merger Committee.
That is the definition of fair and
equitable. We will be very comfortable that, with
your guidance, we are complying with that standard
along the lines that I have just suggested.
And that's our position. Thank you.
ARBITRATOR EISCHEN: Thank you, very much
snapthis said:
"and make an intelligent comment"..? Perhaps of the magnitude of this latest of yours? 😉 Hmm...methinks your knee-pads must be chafing a bit more than usual today. You can perhaps forgive those who aren't able to immediately and always lose sleep over whatever management's momentary whims are in the same way "you'se" do, especially when clearly detrimental to coworkers' interests.
snapthis said:
Sigh!...Allright genius; kindly explain to us all exactly why management's desire to move things along here should be of even the slightest concern to the employee groups involved? What even possible reason(s) for changing responses or strategies does your latest "bombshell" offer? Try not to coat your keyboord with an excess of spittle and drool in the process. Failing that; resume thumping your hollow chest and cranium.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
USAPA and the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
FREUND: Thank you, Mr. Eischen and
Panel.
I could almost say I join in virtually
every word that my colleague across the aisle said
in his oral argument and then spare you the need to
hear it again from me, but I'm not going to spare
you.
Bob described quite properly and in great
detail the way in which the Protocol Agreement was
established, the circumstances that led to its
establishment, the litigation underlying it, the
hard bargaining.
First of all, it's entirely unclear as we
sit here today whether the USAPA Merger Committee is
or is not participating in this proceeding.
I say that for the following reason.
The letters that you received yesterday
are in the record, and they are in conflict.
There's a letter from Bill Wilder saying that the
USAPA Merger Committee is not going to participate
any further in this proceeding.
MR. FREUND: There's also a letter from
Steven Bradford saying that they didn't have
authority to do that.
My point is that, in the context of these
various documents, and the incredibly unclear
circumstances that -- with respect to the USAPA
Merger Committee's status in this proceeding, or its
decisions with regard to its status in this
proceeding, the notion that APA should be going out
and soliciting, yet again, another group of pilots
to represent the East pilots seems to me to be
fraught with incredible mischief
Now, here is the key sentence.
"Nothing in this Protocol Agreement shall
be deemed to modify or supersede any provision of
the governing documents of any party existing as of
the effective date of this Seniority Integration
Protocol Agreement that governs the relationship
between the party and a Merger Committee which it
has established."
ARBITRATOR EISCHEN: Record reference 8.a
of the Protocol Agreement.
FREUND: Thank you, Mr. Eischen and
Panel.
I could almost say I join in virtually
every word that my colleague across the aisle said
in his oral argument and then spare you the need to
hear it again from me, but I'm not going to spare
you.
Bob described quite properly and in great
detail the way in which the Protocol Agreement was
established, the circumstances that led to its
establishment, the litigation underlying it, the
hard bargaining.
First of all, it's entirely unclear as we
sit here today whether the USAPA Merger Committee is
or is not participating in this proceeding.
I say that for the following reason.
The letters that you received yesterday
are in the record, and they are in conflict.
There's a letter from Bill Wilder saying that the
USAPA Merger Committee is not going to participate
any further in this proceeding.
MR. FREUND: There's also a letter from
Steven Bradford saying that they didn't have
authority to do that.
My point is that, in the context of these
various documents, and the incredibly unclear
circumstances that -- with respect to the USAPA
Merger Committee's status in this proceeding, or its
decisions with regard to its status in this
proceeding, the notion that APA should be going out
and soliciting, yet again, another group of pilots
to represent the East pilots seems to me to be
fraught with incredible mischief
Now, here is the key sentence.
"Nothing in this Protocol Agreement shall
be deemed to modify or supersede any provision of
the governing documents of any party existing as of
the effective date of this Seniority Integration
Protocol Agreement that governs the relationship
between the party and a Merger Committee which it
has established."
ARBITRATOR EISCHEN: Record reference 8.a
of the Protocol Agreement.
snapthis
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 4,236
- Reaction score
- 6,907
If you think by pulling out of the arbitration makes the Nic go away and the process halts, think again:
But we do have -- we do have a hearing
week set for the week after the following, and I'm
prepared to go forward on that day.
Now, Wes has said he has to redo his
entire case in light of USAPA's decision to leave
the field.
I don't agree with him. He can choose to
do that, but he's totally free to take whatever
position he thinks is appropriate on behalf of the
pilots that he represents.
knowing that the question of whether
the starting point of a seniority integration for
this pilot group, collectively, that the question of
whether it should be the Nicolau Award or shouldn't
be the Nicolau Award was in play. And I regard it
as still in play, although, albeit that there isn't
going to be an East committee to argue that point.
So what I'm suggesting is that we begin
with our case on the next Monday regularly scheduled
for the hearing.
The 13th?
ARBITRATOR JAFFE: Yeah.
MR. FREUND: Monday, July 13
But we do have -- we do have a hearing
week set for the week after the following, and I'm
prepared to go forward on that day.
Now, Wes has said he has to redo his
entire case in light of USAPA's decision to leave
the field.
I don't agree with him. He can choose to
do that, but he's totally free to take whatever
position he thinks is appropriate on behalf of the
pilots that he represents.
knowing that the question of whether
the starting point of a seniority integration for
this pilot group, collectively, that the question of
whether it should be the Nicolau Award or shouldn't
be the Nicolau Award was in play. And I regard it
as still in play, although, albeit that there isn't
going to be an East committee to argue that point.
So what I'm suggesting is that we begin
with our case on the next Monday regularly scheduled
for the hearing.
The 13th?
ARBITRATOR JAFFE: Yeah.
MR. FREUND: Monday, July 13
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
Wow...train rifling down the track, and your on the track saying "Train, I don't see/hear a train."luvthe9 said:
No desperation there, right?
cactusboy53
Veteran
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,649
- Reaction score
- 7,407
Well, there's a leak in your head (clearly). Ever hear of Pacer? That's where you get immediate court documents when they are published. Of course you must have the desire to become INFORMED and READ all documents.luvthe9 said:
Or maybe Bobby sneaked a peak & shared. Big party in the desert soon! Come on out. We're serving a chilled Cactus Juice.
Big smiles, boys. Big smiles!
- Status
Similar threads
