Ladies and Gentlemen:How do we best fix this mess?

[US1YFARE]

You seem to forget that binding arbitration was brought into use in lieu of using the court for settling differences. You agree to give up your right of appeal and agree to abide by the arbitrator's award. I has nothing to do with negotiations. You have left that phase behind when you agreed to binding arbitration.

I have not forgotten. I know a lot about arbitration and I almost always advise my clients against it. Still, no matter what the outcome is, depending on the type of leverage you have, there are ways to avoid the award. In this case, the pilots may or may not have a lot of leverage to avoid implementation of the award--i guess we'll see.

Oh, and I really didn't think you were so naive...negotiations NEVER end my friend--even with your worst enemies...

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

The award is the award and it speaks for itself. Getting around the award is a different story. That is what negotiations are all about--and there are different ways to negotiate--it is not blackmail--it is exercising your legal rights. It happens everyday--just because the jury awards $20M doesn't mean the defendant is going to pay it.

There can be binding and non-binding arbitration. A "binding" arbitration generally means that the winning party can take an arbitration award to a court of law and enforce it if the losing party does not comply with the terms of the decision.

West Pilots I suggest you get a lawyer and get ready to take the East Pilots to court...

The Law

 

[US1YFARE]

You obviously are not a lawyer...and if you are, you are not a litigator. 🙄

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

Oh, and I really didn't think you were so naive...negotiations NEVER end my friend--even with your worst enemies...

No I am not so naive but I think the West's leverage is so great there would be no need for them to negotiate. I didn't think you were so naive to think the West's case was so weak to have to negotiate anything.

You obviously are not a lawyer...and if you are, you are not a litigator. 🙄

Never claimed I was what is your excuse?

 

[US1YFARE]

No I am not so naive but I think the West's leverage is so great there would be no need for them to negotiate. I didn't think you were so naive to think the West's case was so weak to have to negotiate anything.

like i said above, In this case, the pilots may or may not have a lot of leverage to avoid implementation of the award--i guess we'll see.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

like i said above, In this case, the pilots may or may not have a lot of leverage to avoid implementation of the award--i guess we'll see.

Haha

Oh by the way on something you said earlier...Do you really think none of the threats made by some of the East Pilots on here could be considered blackmail or in other words something illegal?

 

[US1YFARE]

Never claimed I was what is your excuse?

🙄

 

[safety stud]

Haha

Tuna...

You are not even in the same league as US1

Your arrogance is ASStounding...

Keep posting, your funny...

 

[Piedmont1984]

The award is the award and it speaks for itself. Getting around the award is a different story. That is what negotiations are all about--and there are different ways to negotiate--it is not blackmail--it is exercising your legal rights. It happens everyday--just because the jury awards $20M doesn't mean the defendant is going to pay it.

I was just going to say that.

 

[CactusFlyr]

Don't be sorry We all have opinions and I can state mine just as anyone else can and I can hurt like anyone else. But I won't fall for your guilt trips.
That being said one thing I have been saying that is the truth and NOT an opinion and as you and everyone else knows is that both East and West used ALPA's Merger Policy to it's fullest extent and went together willfully into binding arbritration where an award was finally rendered. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinions are about that award whether they agree with it or not, whether they find it was a windfall or not or whether they think the arbitrator needed to follow and abide by the Merger Policy or not. The award is legally binding upon both parties plan and simple and the sooner you and everyone else gets over it and stop with the attempted blackmailing the better.

Well Said

 

[RowUnderDCA]

How is that a "windfall," if pre-merger the 20-yr U guy and the 3-yr AmericaWest guy were each holding the same seat on the same equipment?

I think you're right. THAT isn't the windfall. The windfall is the future attrition 'benefit' that has been transferred from east to west. I'd interpret that as a windfall, from a layman's perspective.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Don't be sorry We all have opinions and I can state mine just as anyone else can and I can hurt like anyone else. But I won't fall for your guilt trips.
That being said one thing I have been saying that is the truth and NOT an opinion and as you and everyone else knows is that both East and West used ALPA's Merger Policy to it's fullest extent and went together willfully into binding arbritration where an award was finally rendered. It doesn't matter what anyone's opinions are about that award whether they agree with it or not, whether they find it was a windfall or not or whether they think the arbitrator needed to follow and abide by the Merger Policy or not. The award is legally binding upon both parties plan and simple and the sooner you and everyone else gets over it and stop with the attempted blackmailing the better.

Whoa there, I am no lawyer, but if we can demonstrate that the arbitrator did not, in fact, adhere to ALPA merger policy, then I would think we have a case. He is not supposed to be adhering to Kazhakhstan Pilot merger policy.

And even today's watered down ALPA merger policy uses words
like fair, windfall, etc.

Whoa there, I am no lawyer, but if we can demonstrate that the arbitrator did not, in fact, adhere to ALPA merger policy, then I would think we have a case. He is not supposed to be adhering to Kazhakhstan Pilot merger policy.

And even today's watered down ALPA merger policy uses words
like fair, windfall, etc.

And regarding the Cactus call sign, I don't mind using it, I can be a prick at times. But the Frenchies and the Brits are sure going to have a good laugh at our expense.

 

[b737fo]

Here is a not to far fetched scenario that could easily come to pass.

1. US East Pilots grow a spine and begin a UA type "Summer of Hell" Job Action. Work to rule, sick calls, etc etc, causing a HUGE Q2 loss and record number of DOT Complaints triggering Congressional hearings.

2. US Airways tries in vain to get parties to the negotiating table to no avail. Q3 begins more of same during busy summer season, losses mount and US Airways is buried in a sea of negative publicity.

3. Q3 US is the only major to post a large loss for the quarter and for the first 9 months, BOD replaces Doug & Scott. New management team mentions Bankruptcy as a real possibility and urges the US East pilots to open negotiations for a single contract. US east pilots agree if all parties agree NOT to implement the Nicolau Award

4. West pilots reluctantly agree and negotiations begin on a combined contract. New COO being strong on Opperations begins to clean up the mess left by Kirby and an agreement is reached in Q1 of the next year. Due to the weakened state of the company the combined ALPA accepts a "Cost Neutral" contract with more emphasis on DOH and Fences at the HP Hubs.

This is NOT all that far fetched.

If you are going to burn down the company to get your way then I am not going to "reluctantly agree" to your wishes so that you won't keep holding the company's well being hostage. Those strong arm tactics will not bring me to your negotiating table. If you start the fire then I'll bring the marshmallows.

 

[Charlie_Tuna]

Whoa there, I am no lawyer, but if we can demonstrate that the arbitrator did not, in fact, adhere to ALPA merger policy, then I would think we have a case. He is not supposed to be adhering to Kazhakhstan Pilot merger policy.

Ok if you believe that can you give us a ref and caselaw to back that up? Can you show us where exactly it says the arbitrator had to (and I am not saying he didn't follow any.. that is in the eyes of the beholder) follow some required guidelines (I am not talking about the guidelines the Merger Committee had to follow). How about some caselaw showing us that happening before with binding arbitration where there was and wasn't explicite instuctions given to the arbitrator and then the award was reversed.

 

[Piedmont1984]

Ok if you believe that can you give us a ref and caselaw to back that up? Can you show us where exactly it says the arbitrator had to (and I am not saying he didn't follow any.. that is in the eyes of the beholder) follow some required guidelines (I am not talking about the guidelines the Merger Committee had to follow). How about some caselaw showing us that happening before with binding arbitration where there was and wasn't explicite instuctions given to the arbitrator and then the award was reversed.

Say what? I knew you were a lawyer.