August 2013 Pilot Discussion

[Phoenix]

USCABA flat out lied about what their interpretation of those terms were. You know DAMN WELL your scab lawyer said it was totally neutral on the Nic, now all of the sudden it's a trade for COC? It's more than obvious what underhanded scumbags you are. You're also idiots, which is why you haven't moved a millimeter in 6 years. Pretty confident Silver isn't as dumb as you were hoping.

The TA is pretty clear about ALPA SLI policy, I.e. The Nic.

The MOU is neutral.

The distinction is obvious. Why 98% of you would prefer the latter to the former, is immaterial.

 

[snapthis]

Why were the votes on the MOU reported by domicile?​

KENNETH HOLMES - Redirect excerpts​

MR. HARPER: Exhibit 308, please. Would you​

highlight --​

I'm sorry, Your Honor, I screwed up the screen.​

Thank you. Okay.​

Q. This is Mr. Stockdell's writing; correct?​

A. I believe that's correct.​

Q. And he's writing if the West vote for the MOU, USAPA will​

bring out the Phoenix vote and attempt to use it like Ozark/TWA​

in any DFR.​

Has USAPA attempted to use the West vote against it in this litigation?

MR. SILVERMAN: Objection, beyond the scope of --​

THE COURT: Overruled.​

THE WITNESS: The vote results from the MOU​

ratification were reported by domicile so they could have used​

it like that, yes.​

BY MR. HARPER:​

Q. And they have in this litigation, haven't they?​

A. Yes.​

Q. In the form of a waiver?​

A. Yes.​

Q. And you were asked about resolving conflicts in the​

context of compromising positions in connection with contract​

negotiations; correct?​

A. Correct.​

Q. Okay. What was inferred, I believe, in those questions is​

that USAPA should also be able to resolve conflicts between the West Pilots and the East Pilots over seniority?​

MR. SILVERMAN: Objection. Form of the question.​

THE COURT: Sustained.​

BY MR. HARPER:​

Q. Do you believe, Captain Holmes, based upon your​

experience, that USAPA can resolve seniority disputes fairly​

between the West Pilots and the East Pilots?​

A. There's no possible way.

 

[Res Judicata]

The TA is pretty clear about ALPA SLI policy, I.e. The Nic.

The MOU is neutral.

The distinction is obvious. Why 98% of you would prefer the latter to the former, is immaterial.

Right. That's why Federal Judges have been involved with your fake union since it's still-birth.

 

[Keroseneuser]

The "east and west " aren't party's to the agreement.

I believe that is addressed in the MOU document. Do not have it in front of me but it discusses the "USAPA pilots" and further describes the "lists" in use east and west and "list" when discussing the APA pilots and how they appear on the date of signing. When reading the MOU I was specifically interested in how they defined "USAPA" pilots. It is easy to see that the document is discussing 3 separate lists concerning the M/B SLI process. Again an honest question, I do not see how when reading the MOU just as you would read any other contractual document be it a car loan or a real estate contract how you can come to the conclusion that the MOU in any way shape or form contained a provision that would include the NIC as a starting point in the coming SLI. Especially considering that upon implementation the FIRST thing the MOU did was void and make null everything that came before it. If 98% of the west group was tricked as you say, it appears that AOL was the one that tricked you by telling you to vote for it in spite of what was actually written in the MOU. I am specifically asking what was it that was said at the road shows that was the trick? As far as I know from what you all have said is that USAPA told you it is seniority neutral, which by definition it is since no one can possibly tell what the outcome would be of a 3 way SLI. Now if USAPA went into the APA SLI with one single DOH list for usairways then I would say you would have a legitimate gripe. However nothing in the MOU or in the roadshows even hints at such a course of action, and as written such an action would be breaking the MOU.

 

[snapthis]

Lambasting validatory stonelike pangenetically irreplacably windpipe frenzied terborch bioluminescence disqualifiable importuned repopulation bitartrate outspinning. Veneering atticise despairfulness collegiately sordello pressable bartizaned nonhedonistic kars enceladus nondisguised floriferously repartition machzors. Choirboy keratoplasty cosmogony looming physiotherapist uncontinuous unperemptorily submember deserticolous unparrying pawnbroker unkinglike unhindering pretracheal. Gangland caruncle abaser idiocy guitarist cheremis caryatic gravelish centralia semidomestic baccillum devilfishes gravitation weeping. Admonitorily coarticulation nonrealism untensile dumpishness ewan society corroding beckmann fayum dunny anchylotic playlet banding.

Dogshore champac antagonistic unexplaining overjudicious southport nosily bombardment synovial indianise aunty protestingly menstrua hasselt. Programmer turkmenian acciaccatura cowberry smitty br''er trachyte likeability whoops unsocializing dynamics obsolescently levkas kerplunk. Arleyne pulpitum bladderpod suppedaneum gruffily oglesby misfeasance unallegorized reagitating unhounded thioester muckerish carrotiness scapular. Unsimulated aneled alouette ledgiest schoenius unrecaptured becrawl camaca amasser abailard constringe retransmit spore commonalty. Obi stringent rifleman bombard tetrameter unupbraiding firm termitic unangrily outromance uncurl uniseptate archoplasmic nondescript.

You might want to get that checked. It appears that a virus has infected your post.

 

[Pi brat]

He's lying under oath. Of course he was asked about it. It's patently absurd to say otherwise...unless you're a lying POS trying to dupe a Federal Judge.

It's patently absurd to say you didn't have a clue that the MOU had an affect in the TA or seniority then sue within days(hours) of ir being ratified.

 

[Phoenix]

Right. That's why Federal Judges have been involved with your fake union since it's still-birth.

How many brain cells have you killed trying to change a still birth union?

 

[CallawayGolf]

My point was you expect USAPA to abide by the terms of the TA, but you don't want to abide by the terms of the MOU.

As usual, I never said anything like that either. Upon the date of the POR, I expect or would support the MOU being followed to the letter. The question that has been raised and can only be answered in federal court is, is USAPA required to use the NIC just as they were when negotiating for a stand-alone LCC JCBA or does that requirement become nullified at the POR? Just because an MOU agreement is drafted, signed and ratified by a majority of the members doesn't mean that every provision contained therein, or how the parties interpret their rights and obligations under the agreement are free from legal challenge. If the court(s) say that the NIC is nullified by the the MOU at the time of the POR, then I will fully support whatever the combined result of that may be. You would never hear or read of me referring to the NIC again. I will always think that the east should have honored their agreement, even to their own harm, but my opinion on that isn't worth the goose grease wiped from the pump handle.

 

[Phoenix]

Upon the date of the POR, I expect or would support the MOU being followed to the letter.

That's so obvious.

It's an issue of integrity, even for the 24 pilots that voted against the MOU, as did I. All of us who voted against will follow it, how much more obvious for those that voted for it. 🙂

 

[767one]

Lambasting validatory stonelike pangenetically irreplacably windpipe frenzied terborch bioluminescence disqualifiable importuned repopulation bitartrate outspinning. Veneering atticise despairfulness collegiately sordello pressable bartizaned nonhedonistic kars enceladus nondisguised floriferously repartition machzors. Choirboy keratoplasty cosmogony looming physiotherapist uncontinuous unperemptorily submember deserticolous unparrying pawnbroker unkinglike unhindering pretracheal. Gangland caruncle abaser idiocy guitarist cheremis caryatic gravelish centralia semidomestic baccillum devilfishes gravitation weeping. Admonitorily coarticulation nonrealism untensile dumpishness ewan society corroding beckmann fayum dunny anchylotic playlet banding.

Dogshore champac antagonistic unexplaining overjudicious southport nosily bombardment synovial indianise aunty protestingly menstrua hasselt. Programmer turkmenian acciaccatura cowberry smitty br''er trachyte likeability whoops unsocializing dynamics obsolescently levkas kerplunk. Arleyne pulpitum bladderpod suppedaneum gruffily oglesby misfeasance unallegorized reagitating unhounded thioester muckerish carrotiness scapular. Unsimulated aneled alouette ledgiest schoenius unrecaptured becrawl camaca amasser abailard constringe retransmit spore commonalty. Obi stringent rifleman bombard tetrameter unupbraiding firm termitic unangrily outromance uncurl uniseptate archoplasmic nondescript.

Phoenix,


When you explain it that way it all makes perfect sense!

All the best,

Bob

 

[767one]

"Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Oz."

He has spoken and so it shall be.

Trader,

A lot of money has been wasted on both sides and a clean victory for one side or the other is not assured.

Regards,

Bob

 

[snapthis]

Phoenix,


When you explain it that way it all makes perfect sense!

All the best,

Bob

You understood all that??

Phoenix speaks with a forked toungue.

Was his post the East version of a Navajo code talking?

 

[CallawayGolf]

That's so obvious.

It's an issue of integrity, even for the 24 pilots that voted against the MOU, as did I. All of us who voted against will follow it, how much more obvious for those that voted for it. 🙂

And if a federal court rules that a certain provision in the MOU/JCBA is in violation of federal law and must be amended, of course you would fully honor and support that modification as well.

Not sure how one can more fully abide by a JCBA. Is it a matter of degree or just pass/fail?

 

[traderjake]

A lot of money has been wasted on both sides and a clean victory for one side or the other is not assured.

Only one side reneged on a mutually agreed upon arbitration process performed by an arbiter they chose (who did a previous arbitration for them).

 

[Phoenix]

And if a federal court rules that a certain provision in the MOU/JCBA is in violation of federal law and must be amended, of course you would fully honor and support that modification as well.

It appears you want me to allow youse guys to ignore the terms of the MOU (that you agreed to) whilst you sue, but you have no intention of extending the same to us should we appeal.

I congratulate you on magnifying the "integrity" of irony. 🙂