fifi,
My point in the questions to the west guys is that I see them making some of the same mistakes that I have witnessed the east making for 20+ years. It's not necessarily what CAN be done, but what should be done. I'd like to see more pragmatism from both sides.
With the west candidates I just don't believe their plan will work with level of alienation on the east. Just like the east's hasn't worked with the level of alienation on the west. We should learn that just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should. But, we don't. That's pretty much it. The west candidates have only heard me a little, the poor east guys have had me as a thorn in their side for years. They don't listen to me either.
But to completely honest, I've given up. I've been really frustrated with a lot of my ALPA loyalist friends that have refused to join and are watching from the sidelines, but I'm beginning to believe they got it right. We are in an impossible situation and the place will have to burn to the ground. Maybe there will be something left to rebuild with. We are going to get to the same place and they have saved themselves a lot of aggravation.
I wish the winners of the election luck. If the west team wins, I hope I'm wrong and in the next year or so I'm on here to tell them good luck and that I am enjoying my new industry leading contract and place and XX's seniority list.
Good luck to all of us, I think we are going to need it.
Your belief in the value of pragmatism is noted and commendable. However, I think your desire to see a pragmatic solution, by your definition of what defines pragmatic, has clouded your objectivity in this matter. IMO, of the three parties involved the west pilots and the Company are being pragmatic, but the east-controlled USAPA power base is not being pragmatic at all.
The west is being pragmatic because they see the options laid before them rather clearly. That is, if they let the east run unchecked with a DOH scheme, then that places their current (not future expectation) careers in peril in terms of a real threat to losing their ability to hold the same position they are in now and/or the position they had at the time of the merger. The cost of that is remaining in separate ops under C2004 and funding both USAPA and AOL to fight this battle in the courts. With all that has transpired in Wake's and in Silver's courtrooms, there is no reason to think that the west would not have a very reasonable expectation of preserving their righhts going forward as opposed to the nepharious plans of the east. Furthermore, the west pragmatically understands that with the elimination of the west as a separately represented group, that there no longer remains an opportunity for a new, renegotiated solution even if a majority of west pilots wanted to "be reasonable" and compromise on the NIC award, which is already a compromise. That possibility was stripped away when USAPA was certified and any reasonable, rational and pragmatic person should be able to affirm the truth of that.
The Company is also being pragmatic. They have held the position all along that seniority is a pilot issue to work out. The have no authority to step in and broker a solution that would in any way violate the terms of the TA. That approach was pragmatic and reasonable until both the east and west pilots placed the Comapny in legal jeopardy over the seniority issue by threatening harm over two opposing viewpoints and interpretations of the law. So, it was pragmatic and reasonable for the Comapny to file a DJ lawsuit to determine their rights and duties under the RLA as it relates to the internal dispute between the pilots.
As for the east, is it pragmatic to try and overturn a binding arbitration award? Never been done before unless there was some sort of fraud involving the arbitrator which has never been claimed in this case. Is it pragmatic to file an MTD when the only reasonable hope towards a resolution is throttle courts and through the Company's DJ since there will be no "unquestionably ripe" JCBA if the Company believes that it is illegal to proceed with USAPA's proposed list?
If pragmatism was desired, and it's way too late now for this approach to work, then the east MEC should have come to the west MEC after May 1, 2007 and said something along the lines of, "we know you have the right to demand that the award be implemented as-is without modification, but we would like to know if you would be open to making modest adjustments to the award that may have a small impact on west pilots but would be a tremendous help to some east pilots. In our opinion slight modifications mit make for a more unified pilot group and should lead to a faster JCBA with improvements for both grouos. If you are willing to discuss, then we would like to extend this offer. Otherwise, we will plan to move forward with the NIC and risk multiple ratification failures votes if that's what the majority prefer." would that have worked, I don't know, but that would certainly have been pragmatic. If course that could never happen now because the east have destroyed all sense of credibility at the negotiating table and have also eliminated the west representation needed to make such a bargain with.
The only rational thing left now is for the east to accept the NIC and move on to closing out a TA for a vote.
And one of your arguments was that "You get to make your argument under the USAPA CBL and that's it." That's it? Law doesn't matter?
