What's new

US Pilots Labor Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have told you more than once to stop putting words in my mouth.
As tempting as it is given how you seem to constantly have your mouth hanging open in surpirse, I'm not. Show me one place in that post where I wrongly claimed what you said... :lol:

Jim
 
PID is a WEAK alpa policy.. nothing to do with it.
Section 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk order directs that when a dispute or controversy cannot be
settled by the affected parties within 20 days, either party may refer it to an arbitrator selected
from a panel of seven names furnished by the NMB.

Do you believe that there is not a PID in Allegheny-Mohawk policy too? Explain what that 20 day time limit is. What starts the 20 day clock?

Could it be a PID???
 
Name the court that has placed an injunction on the bargaining parties. Surely you have a link for us. 😛

Federal District Court for the 4th District in North Carolina.

ummm... that was easy...next usapa idiot!!!!!
 
On the topic of the 800 recalled and newhires.

Yeah right.....

I don't get it? their claim would be they were represented, and accounted for in the Nic, but in their opinion, they were not represented because of the fact that they were accounted for in the Nic??

Good luck with that one.
 
How is that Naugler case going? The one that is trying to get commuter pilots that were furloughed from mainline better seniority. Would some of those 800 be included in that dead law suit?

You see it has already been tried and killed. Those 800 have not case. All the judge has to ask is what was the PID.

Case closed.
 
Federal District Court for the 4th District in North Carolina.

ummm... that was easy...next usapa idiot!!!!!


If it was so easy why did you not provide a link? And do explain how it affects the bargaining positions of either side. No apology required. 😛
 
As tempting as it is given how you seem to constantly have your mouth hanging open in surpirse, I'm not. Show me one place in that post where I wrongly claimed what you said... :lol:

Jim

You're right, you just take my words and tell others what I'm missing, but don't address the point that Aquaman's WORDS were wrong.
 
How is that Naugler case going? The one that is trying to get commuter pilots that were furloughed from mainline better seniority. Would some of those 800 be included in that dead law suit?

You see it has already been tried and killed. Those 800 have not case. All the judge has to ask is what was the PID.

Case closed.
ARE YOU SURE! FACTS SAY DIFFERENT!
 
Not wrong, just obviously implied by the context of the TA. If you say you're going to a store, do feel it necessary to add that you'll get in the car, drive to the store, get out of the car, go inside, do whatever you went there to do, go back outside, get back into your car, drive home, get out of the car and walk back inside? Or is that understood from your statement that you're going to the store? You're arguing about the presence or lack thereof on a single word when the premise of the TA is that a SLI will be implemented when the 3 criteria specified are met. Given the company's reluctance to negotiate seniority without a legal liability waiver, it seems that the contract might be the final criteria met, so implementing the SLI will likely come from passage of a joint contract.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top