April/May 2013 Pilot Discussion

[cactusboy53]

[font="Times New Roman""]The Board shall retain jurisdiction[/font][font="Times New Roman""] in accordance with Section H. 5 .b. of the ALPA Merger Policy to resolve any disputes over the meaning or interpretation of this Award. This retention of jurisdiction shall terminate when all provisions of the Award have been satisfied. In the event the Chairman becomes unavailable or unwilling to serve to resolve such disputes, the Merger Committees will agree on a replacement Chairman or will select one by the alternate strike method from the most recent ALPA list of seniority integrations arbitrators. In the event one of the Pilot Neutrals becomes unable or unwilling to serve on the Arbitration Board to resolve such disputes, the Chairman, after consultation with the Parties, shall decide how to proceed. In any such arbitration, if there is a dispute between the methodology contained in the Award and the accompanying Integrated Seniority List or any other list purportedly using such methodology, the Seniority List prevails.[/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]George Nicolau, Mediator[/font]

[font="Times New Roman""]AWA/AAA Opinion & Award; May 07, 2007[/font]

 

[Bill Brasky]

Trying to convince yourself of something?

 

[nevergiveup]

The only thing silver made abundantly clear on the 14th was the fact she understood the MOU was neutral on this dispute. Just like your fake union said BEFORE the vote only to claim otherwise AFTER its ratification. Changing your minds AFTER THE FACT seems to be a rather Eastly trait.

Um...the MOU was neutral as it did not create a seniority list, but only laid out the process to create one. Hope this helps!

 

[mrbreeze]

[font=Times New Roman"]The Board shall retain jurisdiction[/font][font=Times New Roman"] in accordance with Section H. 5 .b. of the ALPA Merger Policy to resolve any disputes over the meaning or interpretation of this Award. This retention of jurisdiction shall terminate when all provisions of the Award have been satisfied. In the event the Chairman becomes unavailable or unwilling to serve to resolve such disputes, the Merger Committees will agree on a replacement Chairman or will select one by the alternate strike method from the most recent ALPA list of seniority integrations arbitrators. In the event one of the Pilot Neutrals becomes unable or unwilling to serve on the Arbitration Board to resolve such disputes, the Chairman, after consultation with the Parties, shall decide how to proceed. In any such arbitration, if there is a dispute between the methodology contained in the Award and the accompanying Integrated Seniority List or any other list purportedly using such methodology, the Seniority List prevails.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]George Nicolau, Mediator[/font]

[font=Times New Roman"]AWA/AAA Opinion & Award; May 07, 2007[/font]

You appear to be grasping at straws again Dave, posting all this old stuff. How many times on the 14th did Silver state that we are not looking back but are looking forward in regards to her approach in settling this dispute?
breeze

 

[Phoenix]

Yawn.

 

[Pi brat]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana; Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1,

Absolutely, but it should be relevant. Didn't you catch Judge Silver's comments on LUP?

 

[Pi brat]

THE COURT: Well, I guess if they don't promulgate a list the failure to act certainly is often deemed to be a decision, right, that's the way the government is often viewed under the Administrative Procedures Act is you can either make a decision and somebody says it's arbitrary and capricious or your failure to make a decision, which essentially a decision in and of itself is arbitrary and capricious.

Judge Sean H. Lane, US Bankruptcy Judge

US Bankruptcy Court Transcripts: April 3, 2013

He also said our dispute has lasted 13 years....

 

[Metroyet]

Doc. 106

Checkmate.

 

[flyer63]

The Board shall retain jurisdiction in accordance with Section H. 5 .b. of the ALPA Merger Policy to resolve any disputes over the meaning or interpretation of this Award. This retention of jurisdiction shall terminate when all provisions of the Award have been satisfied. In the event the Chairman becomes unavailable or unwilling to serve to resolve such disputes, the Merger Committees will agree on a replacement Chairman or will select one by the alternate strike method from the most recent ALPA list of seniority integrations arbitrators. In the event one of the Pilot Neutrals becomes unable or unwilling to serve on the Arbitration Board to resolve such disputes, the Chairman, after consultation with the Parties, shall decide how to proceed. In any such arbitration, if there is a dispute between the methodology contained in the Award and the accompanying Integrated Seniority List or any other list purportedly using such methodology, the Seniority List prevails.

George Nicolau, Mediator

AWA/AAA Opinion & Award; May 07, 2007

You are so full of crap it's coming out your ears

 

[Pi brat]

You are so full of crap it's coming out your ears

He didn't underline "in accordance with ALPA merger policy...."

 

[mrbreeze]

Doc. 106

Checkmate.

Sure....that's the ticket!
Doc 106 is irrelevant and deals with the past, which Silver is not interested in rehashing. Also, it's submitted by Seigel who is trying to influence the court, since Silver has admitted her inexperience in this area. His statement about ripeness and also, his statement about the CAB allowing a separate party a chance to be heard during arbitration, especially while represented by the same union are totally false and will be proven as Judge Silver gets deeper into the case.

The 9th set the precedence on ripeness and the CAB has never, ever allowed a 3rd party a seat at an arbitration while being represented by the union involved.

Check mate my ###.
breeze

 

[Walmartgreeter]

Doc. 106

Checkmate.

As expected. NIC or nothing. Thanks for that. Expected and appreciated.

Good luck getting anything from the Wake trial into evidence, and good luck if you prevail when it goes to the Ninth.

Judge Silver may finally get it. She cannot cause a settlement on the seniority issue East/West

She can say ripe, and impose the NIC for the intrem, before appeal.

She can properly say "not ripe."

She can say ripe and dismiss

Which action(s) moves the merger along? Which action gets her "done" with this?

Just like Wye River, you all just missed a chance to capture widebody flying you never had, and even seniority you never had...all with a few simple compromises.

So sad (for you.) Maybe we won't have to spend the entire 100k.

Greeter

 

[Metroyet]

Which action(s) moves the merger along? Which action gets her "done" with this?

Greeter

How about the simple injunction requiring the nic knowing full well your fake union is going to go "poof" into irrelevant mist made certain by the APA.

How long with the 9th take to hear and rule upon any appeals? 18months at the earliest?

Also, Set aside that 3 million for the West. I'd hate for USAPA to fail to follow every Word of the impending order.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

How about the simple injunction requiring the nic knowing full well your fake union is going to go "poof" into irrelevant mist made certain by the APA.

How long with the 9th take to hear and rule upon any appeals? 18months at the earliest?

Also, Set aside that 3 million for the West. I'd hate for USAPA to fail to follow every Word of the impending order.

Read the MOU. USAPA survives and is funded until the end product of M/B. Almost all of you voted for it, at least read it.

Read the USAPA CBL, there is nothing in it about giving a subset of the US Airways pilot group any moneys. It’s all DOH moneys, as per a vote. If you have other goals, start your own union.

I have said it here many times, and no joking...I hope this entire process gets mired in the courts for years. The longer the better. And I want to be in the court in NY when Parker tries to explain why he will NOT be able to merge the pilots for years and years, especially with his history. The merger will proceed, but he and Siegel will be dancing.

No injunction. Ripe. Dismissed.

Greeter

 

[cactusboy53]

Sure....that's the ticket!
Doc 106 is irrelevant and deals with the past, which Silver is not interested in rehashing. Also, it's submitted by Seigel who is trying to influence the court, since Silver has admitted her inexperience in this area. His statement about ripeness and also, his statement about the CAB allowing a separate party a chance to be heard during arbitration, especially while represented by the same union are totally false and will be proven as Judge Silver gets deeper into the case.

The 9th set the precedence on ripeness and the CAB has never, ever allowed a 3rd party a seat at an arbitration while being represented by the union involved.

Check mate my ###.
breeze

[font="Arial""]3 [/font][font="Times New Roman""]We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA. [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""] [/font]
[font="Times New Roman""]Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion[/font]

[font="Times New Roman""]Case: 09-16564 06/04/2010[/font]