August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[cactusboy53]

What part of "between the company and an employee group" do you not understand?

Nic had nothing to do with the company, it was between two pilot groups, in house, arbitration. Performed by an arbitrator, for the union. With no more legal "Binding" than a handshake....

If you do a handshake agreement, you had better make sure each side gets equally harmed or helped, not so one-sided as nic. Otherwise, the handshake gets voided....

Wrong. The company was the THIRD party to this merger. Just like the company is the THIRD party to the merger between USAPA, APA & the "company". You do realize that, right???

The COMPANY gave a directive of what the merged list could and could not do (flush & bump, cause multiple training events, etc.). You MIGHT even remember that Mr. Parker came out in December of 2007 with a letter thanking the OTHER PARTIES for a successful process, and that it stayed within the confines of the company's guidelines.

Good to know that if you and I ever make another deal, I will be sure to get in iron-clad legal documents (The last one was too. Your bargaining agent - ALPA, monitored the merged seniority list process. They accepted the list. They delivered the list. DONE.).

What part of "Final & Binding" do you not understand? Delay is all that you have won. Effectively a 6+ year fence.

Don't worry 'back, this should conclude with the successful merger with American. Rage on, my friend. Rage on.

 

[Phoenix]

Wrong. The company was the THIRD party to this merger. Just like the company is the THIRD party to the merger between USAPA, APA & the "company". You do realize that, right???

The COMPANY gave a directive of what the merged list could and could not do (flush & bump, cause multiple training events, etc.). You MIGHT even remember that Mr. Parker came out in December of 2007 with a letter thanking the OTHER PARTIES for a successful process, and that it stayed within the confines of the company's guidelines.

Good to know that if you and I ever make another deal, I will be sure to get in iron-clad legal documents (The last one was too. Your bargaining agent - ALPA, monitored the merged seniority list process. They accepted the list. They delivered the list. DONE.).

What part of "Final & Binding" do you not understand? Delay is all that you have won. Effectively a 6+ year fence.

Don't worry 'back, this should conclude with the successful merger with American. Rage on, my friend. Rage on.

"Final and binding" was a buzz phrase marketing device of a defunct and impotent union in an internal process. "Only If" is the narrow, strict requirement of the SCOTUS to prove a DFR. You pick which one Marty will find is indeed binding....

What part of "ONLY IF" are you guys missing... "(“[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’

 

[snapthis]

"Final and binding" was a buzz phrase marketing device of a defunct and impotent union in an internal process. "Only If" is the narrow, strict requirement of the SCOTUS to prove a DFR. You pick which one Marty will find is indeed binding....

What part of "ONLY IF" are you guys missing... "(“[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’

Let's cut to the chase.

Your side plays all kind of word games which boil down to finding a legal hole to slip through to avoid a previous agreement.

 

[Metroyet]

Let's cut to the chase.

Your side plays all kind of word games which boil down to finding a legal hole to slip through to avoid a previous agreement.

They haven't found the hole yet because it doesn't exist...unless forfeiting a billion dollars in pay to delay the inevitable is a hole.

 

[snapthis]

They haven't found the hole yet because it doesn't exist...unless forfeiting a billion dollars in pay to delay the inevitable is a hole.

Eventually, the mole gets whacked.

 

[mrbreeze]

Snap, can you give me the trial number for that jury decision. I try to pull it, and it keeps saying REMANDED. I would like to read that decision again. Thx.

😀 😀 😀

 

[Phoenix]

Let's cut to the chase.

Your side plays all kind of word games which boil down to finding a legal hole to slip through to avoid a previous agreement.

Negotiating positions change. That is just reality. Complaints happen. That is just reality. Proving a complaint is tough. Thats just reality.

Once again you try to avoid the responsibility of a plaintiff, and by the way I don't blame you for trying. Its a tough job being a plaintiff and that is why Marty has been avoiding it too.

We can all agree that USAPA is a dirtbag, good for nothing, scab outfit but that does nothing to prove a DFR to get you damages. There is a very narrow needle that Marty must thread to get a DFR guilty verdict. "ONLY IF" is very narrow and it was published by SCOTUS. Marty will ignore it at his own peril. Do your best to get around it and it will cost everyone more money in the end. OTOH, if Marty accepts reality and wins based on the SCOTUS standard then he wins faster, and wins final, leaving more moola for damages...

Or keep looking for other ways to get around the burden of proof and tell us more about your integrity. 🙂

 

[nic4us]

What part of "between the company and an employee group" do you not understand?

Nic had nothing to do with the company, it was between two pilot groups, in house, arbitration. Performed by an arbitrator, for the union. With no more legal "Binding" than a handshake....

If you do a handshake agreement, you had better make sure each side gets equally harmed or helped, not so one-sided as nic. Otherwise, the handshake gets voided....

Actually, quite a bit more binding than a handshake. Although verbal (handshake) contracts are quite enforceable, having an arbitrated result, well that is, mildly put, powerful evidence.

Also, how is the Nic, "one sided"...as you say?

Other than he gave the east way more than they deserved?

 

[nic4us]

Nic4us is very much like the other knee pad wearer, Cleardirect.
That one literally made Scott Kirby nervous with that creepy demeanor.

I guess you are referring to captain Gay, and the "no" statement again?

What really made the company nervous was having a complete idiot i.e. "you are furloughing as a negotiating tactic", and "Mike, you are making a complete fool of yourself" as uscaba president. I mean, after all, he could do something really stupid like endorse an illegal job action and force the company to sue for an injunction....and win in record time against the reneging malcontent SCAB union!

 

[snapthis]

Negotiating positions change. That is just reality. Complaints happen. That is just reality. Proving a complaint is tough. Thats just reality.

Once again you try to avoid the responsibility of a plaintiff, and by the way I don't blame you for trying. Its a tough job being a plaintiff and that is why Marty has been avoiding it too.

We can all agree that USAPA is a dirtbag, good for nothing, scab outfit but that does nothing to prove a DFR to get you damages. There is a very narrow needle that Marty must thread to get a DFR guilty verdict. "ONLY IF" is very narrow and it was published by SCOTUS. Marty will ignore it at his own peril. Do your best to get around it and it will cost everyone more money in the end. OTOH, if Marty accepts reality and wins based on the SCOTUS standard then he wins faster, and wins final, leaving more moola for damages...

Or keep looking for other ways to get around the burden of proof and tell us more about your integrity. 🙂

Quite convenient for a position to change after the result is revealed. I can't put my chips on the table and take them off after the hand is played.

The way I was raised, when you shake a man's hand it meant something.

 

[nic4us]

What part of "ONLY IF" are you guys missing... "(“[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’

ONLY IF.....


Well, once again you fail to read.

The scab unions action are wholly irrational and arbitrary.

So, only if....does apply, and the scab unions actions do fall outside a wide range of reasonableness.

No biggy on this latest DJ request. ONLY IF AOL is unsuccessful will they have to suefor an injunction stopping any other future antics by the scabs.

 

[Phoenix]

Actually, quite a bit more binding than a handshake. ....

Yes, more than a handshake.

The TA is binding on USAPA. Judge Silver made that clear. And she explained how binding it is.

 

[EastUS1]

Delay is all that you have won. Effectively a 6+ year fence.

............Rage on, my friend. Rage on.

"Effectively a 6+ year fence." Hmm....That's really not too bad, for starters. For purely the purpose of your providing yet more chuckles for all present: Would you be so kind as to list, in it's entirety "all that you have won."? Yup, "you'se" guyz is reeley, rilly, shmurt....jess' axe yuuze. 🙂

".....Rage on, my friend. Rage on." For what possible reason? Methinks that's best left to seasoned whiners and far more experienced "professionals", such as yourself and your fellow "spartans". 😉

PS: It might well be time for you to post yet another "heroic" video of "King Leonidas" roaring "This...Is...SPARTA!", don't you think? 🙂

 

[Phoenix]

ONLY IF.....


Well, once again you fail to read.

The scab unions action are wholly irrational and arbitrary.

So, only if....does apply, and the scab unions actions do fall outside a wide range of reasonableness.
...

I congratulate you for using the proper terms. But you might want to read the SCOTUS again because you jumped right into your own version of a circular argument.

(“[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’ that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’ ”

You assumed the SCOTUS conclusion as your premise. Circular argument. Where is my link to donate to Marty?

 

[end_of_alpa]

Quite convenient for a position to change after the result is revealed. I can't put my chips on the table and take them off after the hand is played.

The way I was raised, when you shake a man's hand it meant something.

When did any of us "shake your hand"?