2015 Pilot Discussion.

[cactusboy53]

Hey cb53. You're  good at quoting things . Can you show us where the west was guaranteed that you would keep your rigs until final integration? I've asked several people with no, or vague response. Thanks.

 
Sorry.  A bit busy the last several days.  If it's there, we WILL find it.  If it's not, we will take it at face value and follow the contract to a T.  It's pretty simple....just like FINAL & BINDING ARBITRATION. 

 

[cactusboy53]

[SIZE=12pt]The National Mediation Board on the subject of contract continuity:[/SIZE]
 

[SIZE=12pt]"When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does NOT ALTER OR CANCEL ANY EXISTING AGREEMENT [/SIZE]made on behalf of the employees by the previous representatives.  The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement”

 

[cactusboy53]

[SIZE=12pt]From “A Conversation with an Attorney” - between Bradford &  Chris Katzenbach of Katzenbach and Khitikan, a labor law firm (Chris Katzenbach point):  “Don't give the other side a large body of evidence that the sole reason for the new union is to abrogate an arbitration, the Nicolau award, that in the opinions of most judges, should be allowed to stand due to no gross negligence or fraud.” [/SIZE]
 

[SIZE=12pt]This in response to Bradford saying the following:  “I next specifically asked him about the formation of a new bargaining agent as an avenue of advance to get around this award…”[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]Thanks Steven.  You've been a tremendous help![/SIZE]

 

[cactusboy53]

I wonder.....could it be this simple IF enbanc is denied / voted down and the case is sent to Judge Silver for remand.....?
 
[SIZE=12pt]From a letter sent by Doug Parker:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“We have determined that the list submitted meets these criteria, so the company will accept the submitted list.”[/SIZE]

 

[cactusboy53]

A special "shout out" to Capt. Mike Cleary!
 
[SIZE=12pt]“…The Arbitration Board conducts an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses, evidence and a stenographic transcript. The Board’s Opinion and Award are to be issued simultaneously, within 150 days following the PID, unless both pilot groups and ALPA’s President agree to an extension. The Merger Policy provides, “The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA.” No ALPA seniority integration arbitration result has ever been set aside by the courts although some dissatisfied pilots have challenged the award before administrative agencies and the courts.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]US Airwaves June/July 2000[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]US Air Merger Committee Members: Todd Cardoza (PIT), Mike Cleary (BOS),Randy Mowery (PIT)[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]Pretty simple.  Even an Eastie could get it (since one wrote that it's final & binding).[/SIZE]

 

[cactusboy53]

Desperate? No.  I put the computer away for a few days and only had the phone available, thus my saved quoted material was not available. 
 
I'm a bit more energized now, and will continue my search for factual documents to try and instruct "you'se" on what your obligation and duty are.  I hope against hope that you will see the error of your ways, acquiesce to what you are bound to, and of course ask for forgivness for the persecusion that you have flooded us with in an attempt to break our spirit.
 
Have a glorious and blessed day, gentlemen.

 

[Pi brat]

 
Sorry.  A bit busy the last several days.  If it's there, we WILL find it.  If it's not, we will take it at face value and follow the contract to a T.  It's pretty simple....just like FINAL & BINDING ARBITRATION. 

Oh, so you're saying that the PHX reps said that in their letter without having proof? Gotcha. Say it, then support your theory later. Sounds about right.

 

[Pi brat]

 
Sorry.  A bit busy the last several days.  If it's there, we WILL find it.  If it's not, we will take it at face value and follow the contract to a T.  It's pretty simple....just like FINAL & BINDING ARBITRATION. 

You left out the * behind "we will take it at face value and follow the contract to a T", to add "Except the MOU, we gamed that one!"

 

 

[cactusboy53]

Oh, so you're saying that the PHX reps said that in their letter without having proof? Gotcha. Say it, then support your theory later. Sounds about right.

No dumba$$. I read the update, and have not had a chance to look over the information.  GOTCHA!  I didn't write any portion of this update, BUT knowing the authors well, I would be VERY SURPRISED to find that it was simply manufactured.
 
READY, FIRE!, AIM....

 

[nevergiveup]

 
[SIZE=12pt]“….The Court’s patience with USAPA has run out.  USAPA avoided liability on the DFR claim by the slimmest of margins and the Court has serious doubts that USAPA will fairly and adequately represent all of its members while it remains a certified representative.  But all the Court can do at this stage is implore USAPA to, in the words of CAB, “make every effort to see that [the West Pilots’] are given extensive consideration, and that their interests are fairly and fully represented” during seniority integration…”[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]Judge Roslyn O. Silver, Chief United States District Judge[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS   Document 298   Filed 01/10/14[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=12pt]Gee.  If the case is ultimately remanded to Judge Silver, I wonder just how she view her duty to the harmed party?  I wonder if we could gleen an idea from what you fellas deemed as useless dicta?  Things that make you go hmmmmmm......[/SIZE]

 

I truly think you deserve your doh!

 

[Phoenix]

WRONG, in fact another LIE.  Here's what the 9th said LIAR:
 
We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor (HINT: Niether ALPA or USAPA were "free" to abandon a FINAL & BINDING agreement), ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA.
 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

Case: 09-16564 06/04/2010
 
So, AGAIN, they don't address the thorny question (back in 2010).  NOW, USAPA has been found GUILTY.  It will be remanded to Judge Silver (unless USAPA wins an enbanc plea). 

You seem a bit agitated...

Why are you quoting something from the Addington 1 trial? That trial has no relevance now.

The new 9th (the one that is relevant, that even a caveman would know is the one I referred to) specially declined to make the Nic final and binding on anyone at all.

No need to apologize to recover your credibility. It was shot long ago.

 

[Phoenix]

Funny.  At the PHX union (you know, a REAL union) meeting, the company guest espoused how very pleased he was with Phoenix's preformance and professionalism.  While Phoenix may be a "fishbowl", he still holds our record of performance and safety in high regard. 
 
It's funny that you keep referring to Parker & Kirby at crew news events.  Largely, we have stopped attending those for a miriad of reasons.
 
Keep smiling.  It will make the pain that much more bearable.

Are you kidding? Stopped attending? You better pass the word to Mr. Leetogation.... Mr. Leetogation gave a star performance at crewnews.. fingerpointing and pointed demands for pay protection and back pay... directed at a man who owns at least one $10M house..

Mr. Leetogation is the poster boy of goldfish in the fishbowl. Even the LAA guys took notice of the fishbowl performance.. Why stop now?

 

[luvthe9]

You seem a bit agitated....

Dave if you are agitated try a extra big smile

 

[Phoenix]

The National Mediation Board on the subject of contract continuity:
 

"When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does NOT ALTER OR CANCEL ANY EXISTING AGREEMENT made on behalf of the employees by the previous representatives.  The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement”

You pay Marty for advice... Ask Marty if the NMB understands the word "nullity" ...when used in a contract, of course.

 

[Claxon]

You seem a bit agitated...
Why are you quoting something from the Addington 1 trial? That trial has no relevance now.
The new 9th (the one that is relevant, that even a caveman would know is the one I referred to) specially declined to make the Nic final and binding on anyone at all.
No need to apologize to recover your credibility. It was shot long ago.

Lay off the energy drinks Dave, you seem about to blow.