US Pilots Labor Discussion 6/2- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES

[nic4us]

If a tree falls in the woods and ClearDirect is not around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Good question.

The better question would be...???...If a tree falls in the east woods, and ClearDirect is not there to hear it, does the fake "line crossing" union still file criminal RICO charges against him?...???...or do they simply change the name of their woods and break their contracts with the lumberjacks?

Hmmm...what a dilema...I bet being the unethical low life types, they would simply do both.

 

[Black Swan]

Try reading my post again.

I never said Parker would cite PENDING litigation, he is obligated to adhere to a TA signed with ALPA that USAPA must honor, part of that TA governs seniority integration and has been partially accomplished with the Companys acceptance of the submitted NIC list.

Parker need only cite he is following the Transition Agreement

He is not obligated to adhere to any agreement signed with ALPA. To do that would perpetuate the former bargaining agent. The Nicolau list has not been implemented. Did you really read what the 9th said? Because what I read clearly stated the Nic does not have to be the method of integration. I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Of course you don't think this is over. You have been sticking it in here forever, and most of what you say is way off the mark. Read the 9th again before you come in here spouting a bunch of half truths.

 

[Black Swan]

Try reading my post again.

I never said Parker would cite PENDING litigation, he is obligated to adhere to a TA signed with ALPA that USAPA must honor, part of that TA governs seniority integration and has been partially accomplished with the Companys acceptance of the submitted NIC list.

Parker need only cite he is following the Transition Agreement

Why don't you also read the RLA blog by Baptiste and Wilder. You have no clue how the RLA works.

 

[BoeingBoy]

You can refile AFTER we ratify a new FAIR contract.

Fair in whose eyes? Yours? USAPA's? An independent arbitrator? A judge?

Jim

 

[aquagreen73s]

It IS Done. Get over it.

This doesn't meet the requirements for en banc hearing. You can refile AFTER we ratify a new FAIR contract.

A significant federal question in a case of first impression likely to recur. All three prongs are met. The mandate won't issue until the en banc is resolved and even then, good luck getting Parler to voluntarily give up several hundred million a year. And even then, we'll do it again

It's gotta suck being at the end of a career and at the nadir of one's career earnings.

 

[Black Swan]

Try reading my post again.

I never said Parker would cite PENDING litigation, he is obligated to adhere to a TA signed with ALPA that USAPA must honor, part of that TA governs seniority integration and has been partially accomplished with the Companys acceptance of the submitted NIC list.

Parker need only cite he is following the Transition Agreement

This is absolutely not true. The seniority agreement could be changed tomorrow. Negotiated.

 

[aquagreen73s]

He is not obligated to adhere to any agreement signed with ALPA. To do that would perpetuate the former bargaining agent. The Nicolau list has not been implemented. Did you really read what the 9th said? Because what I read clearly stated the Nic does not have to be the method of integration. I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Of course you don't think this is over. You have been sticking it in here forever, and most of what you say is way off the mark. Read the 9th again before you come in here spouting a bunch of half truths.

Interesting you bring up that footnote. What the 9th said was that USAPA is free to deviate from the Nic as mujch as ALPA was. ALPA always was free to deviate from their obligations and that's exactly the way our laws work. For example, you are free to default on a mortgage, but you'll get a 1099 from the IRS and a deficiency judgment as a result. ALPA was free to deviate from the Nic at the risk of a DFR. Same goes for USAPA and that's exactly what the footnote is saying.

USAPA is welcome to go ahead and deviate. Nobody expects the hard core East pilots to have learned anything from this. We'll just do it again (if you ever get there). Either way, this drags on for years. Better pray for a successful snapback grievance fellas. The hair only gets more gray.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

He is not obligated to adhere to any agreement signed with ALPA. To do that would perpetuate the former bargaining agent. The Nicolau list has not been implemented. Did you really read what the 9th said? Because what I read clearly stated the Nic does not have to be the method of integration. I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Of course you don't think this is over. You have been sticking it in here forever, and most of what you say is way off the mark. Read the 9th again before you come in here spouting a bunch of half truths.

""...He is not obligated to adhere to any agreement signed with ALPA....""

So he's not bound by the TA? ALPA signed your current CBA so I suppose he is free to ignore that too.

Its hypocritical of you to try to lecture me about the RLA when you are clearly ignorant of it.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

A significant federal question in a case of first impression likely to recur. All three prongs are met. The mandate won't issue until the en banc is resolved and even then, good luck getting Parler to voluntarily give up several hundred million a year. And even then, we'll do it again

It's gotta suck being at the end of a career and at the nadir of one's career earnings.

On a RIPENESS case? HA HA! Made me laugh! They would be stupider than Judge Wake!

Better save your sheckels. Mr Harper WILL be back for more! Greens fees are getting up there!

I've got just one thing to say about MY career: GEAR UP!

 

[Freighterguynow]

We'll just do it again (if you ever get there). Either way, this drags on for years.

And yet AOL repeated stated once the 9th ruled we'd be moving on ?

 

[aquagreen73s]

On a RIPENESS case? HA HA! Made me laugh! They would be stupider than Judge Wake!

Better save your sheckels. Mr Harper WILL be back for more! Greens fees are getting up there!

Well oldie, these are the realities. You got a technical victory but this is far from over. We'll stay with this for as long as it takes. You're the one running out of time.

And yet AOL repeated stated once the 9th ruled we'd be moving on ?

Can't speak for AOL but that probably assumed there was as decision on the merits. The 9th kicked everything down the road but the ripeness issue and even on that they just defaulted to the general rule without much insight. It's unfortunate as we're right back to where we started. The crux of our dispute is whether a binding arbitration can be ignored. That was not answered on Friday, but it will be at some point in the few years.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

Why don't you also read the RLA blog by Baptiste and Wilder. You have no clue how the RLA works.

Baptiste and Wilder???

Please spare me! I have a wonderful little opinion piece by Baptiste and Wilder claiming that simply changing bargaining agents entitles the new Union to a section six opener.

Thats a lie that was used to bring the IBT onto the property at UAL.

You'll forgive me if I don't value his "opinion" as highly as you do.

 

[luvthe9]

A significant federal question in a case of first impression likely to recur. All three prongs are met. The mandate won't issue until the en banc is resolved and even then, good luck getting Parler to voluntarily give up several hundred million a year. And even then, we'll do it again

It's gotta suck being at the end of a career and at the nadir of one's career earnings.

Gotta suck giving bad legal advice to a bunch of your fellow pilots, and then have them on the hook for 1.8 million. The sad part is you believed Wake and his histrionics would sit legally. The funniest part was the damage that never happened. You could have at least waited till the "damage."

 

[luvthe9]

Baptiste and Wilder???

Please spare me! I have a wonderful little opinion piece by Baptiste and Wilder claiming that simply changing bargaining agents entitles the new Union to a section six opener.

Thats a lie that was used to bring the IBT onto the property at UAL.

You'll forgive me if I don't value his "opinion" as highly as you do.

Who really cares what went on with the teamsters at UAL. As far as UAL goes, it is even worse than this place. I feel sorry for the Continental folks, getting dragged into your mess. Baptiste and Wilder were absolutely correct in their blog about Wake and his Kangaroo Court. They are the smartest bunch going.

 

[luvthe9]

Well oldie, these are the realities. You got a technical victory but this is far from over. We'll stay with this for as long as it takes. You're the one running out of time.

Can't speak for AOL but that probably assumed there was as decision on the merits. The 9th kicked everything down the road but the ripeness issue and even on that they just defaulted to the general rule without much insight. It's unfortunate as we're right back to where we started. The crux of our dispute is whether a binding arbitration can be ignored. That was not answered on Friday, but it will be at some point in the few years.

I think you can speak more about AOL than you care to admit.