US Airways ALPA MEC Resolution

[EastUS]

WHEREAS, beating a dead horse will make it get up and take us to the Promised Land, and

WHEREAS, said dead horse has legs but no functioning brain, and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to beat said horse until it returns from the dead.

It is now RESOLVED.

Horses rise from the dead.

Beating a dead horse will achieve this result.

Lawyers get obscenely wealthy from beating dead horses.

People ardently believing in the resurrection of dead horses will blindly pay for said resurrection.

And then will rail eternally at the failure of rich lawyers to achieve the resurrection.

Hurrah, Hurrah, Hurrah.

Amen, and so forth.

Commendable thought..but, given that such is a resolution: No good hereabouts What's clearly needed is a purely subjective opinion of a single individual to solve everything Hey!..Come to think on it; I've got an individual and highly subjective opinion = Screw the St Nic "Award", whatever it takes to do so.

 

[Phoenix]

Commendable thought..but, given that such is a resolution: No Good. hereabouts What's clearly needed is a purely subjective opinion of a single individual to solve everything

I definitely have now engaged in what some would call "inappropriate bouts of laughter".

 

[EastUS]

I guess that is a little better than Gen O'ver.

We are the future. You had your's now it's our turn.

"We are the future"

That's nice sonny-boy...call us when you are "the Now"

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

1. It has nothing to do with trust. That is why ALPA merger policy has a process in place to settle seniority disputes. If negotiation and mediation fail, parties enter into BINDING ARBITRATION where all bets are off on the outcome. ALPA merger policy in itself is subjective and I think everyone except the east knew that going in. If the arbitrator defines career expectation as a correlation to age then that is what we end up with, period. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of what is at stake in arbitration.

2. Irrelevant

Yes, I have two.

1. Why should the parties involved trust the definition of a term not defined before the dispute?
2. Why should the parties involved trust the definition now proffered by someone who is not neutral to the outcome that is dependent on the definition of the term?

 

[EastUS]

1. It has nothing to do with trust. That is why ALPA merger policy has a process in place to settle seniority disputes.

Yup...Works great too, as we're seeing around campus here

Dump Alpo Now!!

 

[Phoenix]

1. It has nothing to do with trust. That is why ALPA merger policy has a process in place to settle seniority disputes. If negotiation and mediation fail, parties enter into BINDING ARBITRATION where all bets are off on the outcome. ALPA merger policy in itself is subjective and I think everyone except the east knew that going in. If the arbitrator defines career expectation as a correlation to age then that is what we end up with, period. There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of what is at stake in arbitration.

2. Irrelevant

2. You have offered a definition.

1. Trust has everything to do with it. If East was unaware that ALAP was not responsible for defining "Career expectations" and that ALPA had no responsability to provide representation in the enforcement of their merger policy then the East was mistaken (even mislead) in their trust that ALPA would be representing them. That is a problem. And it won't go away because someone who is prejudiced in the outcome decides to say that "it has nothing to do with trust."

I can't imagine how the cockpit will be if the merger ever really happens. B)

 

[Bear96]

Yes, I have two.

1. Why should the parties involved trust the definition of a term not defined before the dispute?
2. Why should the parties involved trust the definition now proffered by someone who is not neutral to the outcome that is dependent on the definition of the term?

1. Because they submitted the issue to binding arbitration and agreed to abide by the results.

2. Because they submitted the issue to binding arbitration and agreed to abide by the results.

 

[EastUS]

"it has nothing to do with trust."

I can't imagine how the cockpit will be if the merger ever really happens. B)

I can...shuddering appropriately. Hmmm...under Maritime Law: Can I still have subordinate crewmembers keel hauled?

 

[Phoenix]

1. Because they submitted the issue to binding arbitration and agreed to abide by the results.

2. Because they submitted the issue to binding arbitration and agreed to abide by the results.

So then ALPA divorced themself from being the representative "union" when the MECs entered into binding arbitration? And our Reps agreed to divorce us from ALPA and absolve ALPA from responsability of defining seniority?

Oh that makes sense now. ALPA should hand over the list forh with.

But wait, ALPA divorced themself so they don't have anything to do with it now. Right? It was binding arbitration and Nicolau is the final answer. Right?

 

[b737fo]

3) Hiring on to a third rate operation and "expecting" to gain transatlantic flying?.....etc?

Third rate operation? Really? What do you base that assessment on? If you look at traditional baseline operation numbers that measure airline performance in flight delays, mishandled bags, and consumer complaints since Jan. 2003 then that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Dog Wonder]

We are the world, we are the future.

 

[Callsign_Cactus]

Trust? In what context? Trust that ALPA will uphold its duty under the Merger and Fragmentation policy? If so, yes, I agree trust and expectation that ALPA will fulfill their obligation is extremely important. However, trust that the arbitrator will rule in line with your ideological view points is not only foolish, but reveals a lack of understanding of the laws governing arbitration.

The EC defined the role and jurisdiction of the seniority integration process very clearly in their last resolution. If your elected leaders have or had a misunderstanding of the merger process, well, that's called incompetence.

2. You have offered a definition.

1. Trust has everything to do with it. If East was unaware that ALAP was not responsible for defining "Career expectations" and that ALPA had no responsability to provide representation in the enforcement of their merger policy then the East was mistaken (even mislead) in their trust that ALPA would be representing them. That is a problem. And it won't go away because someone who is prejudiced in the outcome decides to say that "it has nothing to do with trust."

I can't imagine how the cockpit will be if the merger ever really happens. B)

 

[EastUS]

Third rate operation? Really? What do you base that assessment on? If you look at traditional baseline operation numbers that measure airline performance in flight delays, mishandled bags, and consumer complaints since Jan. 2003 then that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

"Third rate operation? Really? What do you base that assessment on?"

That's easy = reality. I need only think of the many airline folk within my old reserve squadron: NO ONE wanted to work for America Worst whenever ANYONE else was hiring...and it was fully cause for proper pity parties for those that had unfortunate interviews, or otherwise failed to make "The Majors", and even temporarilly ended up there...You do the math.

 

[BottomFeeder]

Yup...Works great too, as we're seeing around campus here

Dump Alpo Now!!

EastUs,

The West boys are slow learners but I think they are figuring out that the East is in the driver's seat.

They can b!tch all they want but with time they will get over it.

 

[Phoenix]

Trust? In what context? Trust that ALPA will uphold its duty under the Merger and Fragmentation policy? If so, yes, I agree trust and expectation that ALPA will fulfill their obligation is extremely important. However, trust that the arbitrator will rule in line with your ideological view points is not only foolish, but reveals a lack of understanding of the laws governing arbitration.

The EC defined the role and jurisdiction of the seniority integration process very clearly in their last resolution. If your elected leaders have or had a misunderstanding of the merger process, well, that's called incompetence.

The relevant point is that ALPA has the resonsability to define the terms that make up ALPA merger policy. The position that Nicolau is the end all be all of that policy doen't hold water or Nicolau would have delivered the list to the company directly and ALAP would have stepped back and allowed it to be delivered by Nicolau.

Personally I welcome ALPA's immediate delivery of the list to chugalug doug. Do it now. Get it over with.