What's new

April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, that's a ripe, BB.

False RICO charges, false ID theft charges, stolen elections, laptops with legs, an assault, on and on.

All associated with USAPA.
You forgot the part about nullifying the Nic award.

And, winning some grievances on the west's behalf, but let's not cloud the issue with facts.
 
That is because you must be blind or ignorant. So the change to three arbitrators is not a big change? Did you miss the part about longevity too?

Nope did not miss either, I said the " biggest" change, meaning the most significant.

Also, LOS and/or longevity was considered in the Nic, see the dissenting opinion and more importantly the response to the dissenting opinion in which Nic addresses the longevity issue.

If our merger took place today with the same fact set in 2005, under present ALPA merger policy, we would end up with the same award....but the BIGGEST difference would be the company would implement upon acceptance and ruling, and no clause for the east to renege, as the rest of the JCBA would have been completed prior.
 
Nope did not miss either, I said the " biggest" change, meaning the most significant.

Also, LOS and/or longevity was considered in the Nic, see the dissenting opinion and more importantly the response to the dissenting opinion in which Nic addresses the longevity issue.

If our merger took place today with the same fact set in 2005, under present ALPA merger policy, we would end up with the same award....but the BIGGEST difference would be the company would implement upon acceptance and ruling, and no clause for the east to renege, as the rest of the JCBA would have been completed prior.
All water over the dam. It's the MOU method now, preferred by the west!
 
All water over the dam. It's the MOU method now, preferred by the west!

correct....!!

Which BTW, the MOU method is MB for the integration of the AMR pilots and LCC pilots.

Did you happen to notice that MB specifically states it does not apply to mergers that happened prior to it's becoming enacted? Hmmmm...the LCC merger happened prior to MB, so it cannot apply to the LCC merger or the ranking of pilots at LCC, whom BTW usapa inherited a DFR and a final and binding arbitrated list, that would also BTW comply with all the tenants of MB had the law been enacted prior.
 
correct....!!

Which BTW, the MOU method is MB for the integration of the AMR pilots and LCC pilots.

Did you happen to notice that MB specifically states it does not apply to mergers that happened prior to it's becoming enacted? Hmmmm...the LCC merger happened prior to MB, so it cannot apply to the LCC merger or the ranking of pilots at LCC, whom BTW usapa inherited a DFR and a final and binding arbitrated list, that would also BTW comply with all the tenants of MB had the law been enacted prior.
The nic, not operationally usable to this day and to the future as well, per the transition agreement that will soon be gone, as voted so strongly for by the west.
 
You forgot the part about nullifying the Nic award.

And, winning some grievances on the west's behalf, but let's not cloud the issue with facts.

Nullifying the Nic?

Seham could not do it, you expect Pat to have any better results?

Good luck.

P.S. What happened between U and Seham anyway? I hear your relationship is over.
 
Nullifying the Nic?

Seham could not do it, you expect Pat to have any better results?

Good luck.

P.S. What happened between U and Seham anyway? I hear your relationship is over.
Don't worry. Judge Silver will set you straight, AGAIN.

USAPA will make sure you don't get screwed. You'll get your DOH, or at least LOS.

Don't know the guy. He did some great work for USAPA. Worth every penny. You won't be saying the same about Marty and the Doc soon.
 
Nullifying the Nic?

Seham could not do it, you expect Pat to have any better results?

Good luck.

P.S. What happened between U and Seham anyway? I hear your relationship is over.
The AMR creditors called your lawyer, Marty Harper, a liar in legal speak.

"At the time of the status
conference, Debtors believed that the seemingly unequivocal statements of counsel for the West

Pilots’ counsel disclaiming any interest in interfering with the merger would provide adequate comfort that they intended, and desired, no such interference.
It is now clear, however, that counsel for the West Pilots intended to provide much less comfort than was understood at the time. The West Pilots have made it clear, in fact, that they
intend to seek injunctive relief to prevent the merger-related seniority integration process from
proceeding — to prevent the parties to the MOU from complying with their contractual
commitments — if the West Pilots have not fully and finally prevailed on the claims they have
asserted in the Arizona Action when that MOU seniority integration process begins."
 
correct....!!

Which BTW, the MOU method is MB for the integration of the AMR pilots and LCC pilots.

Did you happen to notice that MB specifically states it does not apply to mergers that happened prior to it's becoming enacted? Hmmmm...the LCC merger happened prior to MB, so it cannot apply to the LCC merger or the ranking of pilots at LCC, whom BTW usapa inherited a DFR and a final and binding arbitrated list, that would also BTW comply with all the tenants of MB had the law been enacted prior.
Absent a JCBA "NO LIST" and pure speculation on your part about one completed, JUDGE SILVER, and the 9th told USAPA they are free to negotiate their "own internal policy" imagine that!
 
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at the covered air carrier, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supercede the requirements of this section; and

(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of the covered air carrier shall also not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section, so long as those provisions supply at least the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions
 
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at the covered air carrier, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supercede the requirements of this section; and

(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of the covered air carrier shall also not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section, so long as those provisions supply at least the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions

I say that this counters nic4us' claim that MB cannot be used to merge east and west as we agreed to do just that in the MOU. Is that what you are getting at?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top