August 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
You are SICK! You really need help. REALLY! Get help.
snapthis: Was his post the East version of a Navajo code talking?
Bob: You must realize that you tread dangerously close to violating the covenants guarding our Order's sacred secrets in even offering that much up sir!
Bob: You must realize that you tread dangerously close to violating the covenants guarding our Order's sacred secrets in even offering that much up sir!
cltrat
Veteran
- Aug 29, 2007
- 5,481
- 3,051
Has the nic ever been triggered through dual ratification of any contract that didn't, as does the MOU, include verbage declaring that it's acceptance rendered all prior agreements null?
null [nʌl]adj
1. without legal force; invalid; (esp in the phrase null and void)
2. without value or consequence; useless
3. lacking distinction; characterless a null expression
4. nonexistent; amounting to nothing
5. (Mathematics) Maths
a. quantitatively zero
b. relating to zero
c. (of a set) having no members
d. (of a sequence) having zero as a limit
Is the west truly seeking to advance your legal position through posturing all of your 98% in favor as being entirely illiterate? Does your group also claim utter ignorance of the union's constitution and by laws? Lastly; is there verbage contained anywhere within the MOU that at all suggests or even hints that "the nic is it!"...?
PS: I voted against accepting the MOU for reasons unrelated to seniority resolution. This is all on "you'se"/98% as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps it should have been suggested to all "spartans" that, instead of blindly voting for it, that they take the time to actually read it first...Just a crazy notion on my part. Nevermind.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
snapthis: Was his post the East version of a Navajo code talking?
Bob: You must realize that you tread dangerously close to violating the covenants guarding our Order's sacred secrets in even offering that much up sir!
Bob, listen for the helicopters. If you see that they're black....climb on that tractor and race away!
nycbusdriver
Veteran
well after all, you do have quite the prediction record on here
Think of the profiling talent that the FBI just walked away from.
- May 8, 2007
- 3,146
- 3,236
Spoken like a TRUE SCAB:
"Based on my West seniority, I'm somewhere around 13 or 1400 numbers senior to myself on the Nicolau Award, basically; so it was natural that I would choose the better position. But I was -- but it happened as it did, rightfully so, that I didn't contribute anything to the mergers, a furloughed US Airways pilot." AFSHIN IRANPOUR
"Based on my West seniority, I'm somewhere around 13 or 1400 numbers senior to myself on the Nicolau Award, basically; so it was natural that I would choose the better position. But I was -- but it happened as it did, rightfully so, that I didn't contribute anything to the mergers, a furloughed US Airways pilot." AFSHIN IRANPOUR
I dunno that I'd use the term scab, more like just another self-centered, wanton opportunist, without the slightest personal principles past "It's ALL about MEEE!" Here's a person who'd rather be furloughed than productively working, just to try and scam "somewhere around 13 or 1400 numbers senior" over coworkers, or even himself? Seriously? How can anyone possibly respect that? "but it happened as it did, rightfully so"...? Yea...Words just fail me there.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 9,464
- 14,119
Did you know that the company will NOT pay you retro pay at the new rate after Jan 2. (provided the POR is NOT signed) however APA will get the 181/hr rate you will still be at the 167 rate along with the company paying approx 145 million or so to cover the taxes on the APA's 100,000 plus bonus. Sure hoipe you enjoy that 8 grand. Who went along with this one and why were the pilots not told this back in Sept. when it happened. You have to love Hummel's "transparency"
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
The NIC hasn't been triggered but the Transition Agreement has been in effect since 9/27/2005. USAPA is advocating for a non-NIC list since 2008 which violates the Transition Agreement that is currently governing certain aspects of the pilot integrations, including seniority. So at present there is a vast difference between not abiding by an MOU which is not in effect and not abiding by the Transition Agreement which is in effect. Furthermore, challenging a provision of a contract in court or by grievance is not an act of not honoring the contract but rather seeking independent clarification on the terms of the contract and if all parties are abiding by those terms, assuming the terms themselves are legally enforceable or valid.
I agree with the definition of "null" and have no problem with the TA, LOA93, C2004 all becoming nullified at the POR of an AMR/LCC merger. The legal question that you apparently prefer not to have asked and answered is does the seniority baton that USAOA passes from the TA to the MOU process have to be the NIC or does it have to be the existing separate lists ( yes I know the MOU says lists) or is it an entirely clean slate and USAPA can pass any scheme they come up with before the POR? Is it not a least logical to have that question answered by the courts to put to rest any doubt or question if the list presented is the right one and is done in accordance with the law governing the whole process?
If you are confident that your interpretation of the law and the contracts is correct, why are you so contentious about even having the question asked? It's not slowing anything down or changing anything that effects you in any way. It's not like USAPA is lawsuit adverse and seeks to avoid such conflict by abiding by their contractual obligations. Instead they have in effect said only a court of law will be able to force us to abide by our obligations and duties as required. The status quo injunction comes to mind here along with the abject refusal to accept the NIC.
Does not the TA require dual ratification and thus an agreed upon contract for the nic to come into play? Perhaps you could show us all exactly where not having achieved any acceptable contract violates tha TA?
Would you at least agree the MOU's language indicates that it's acceptance renders prior agreements null and gone, or do you honestly contend that somehow, all or even any of the previous TA remains magically in effect afterwards? Care to explain how that's really even supposed to be the true case?
"If you are confident that your interpretation of the law and the contracts is correct, why are you so contentious about even having the question asked?" I'm fine with any/all questions being asked. It does seem the case that at least some should have been asked (by way of reading the frikkin' document) prior to any AOL cheerleading for universal acceptance of the MOU. No matter now. You've every right to sue to your collective hearts' content.
"So at present there is a vast difference between not abiding by an MOU which is not in effect.." So why all the litigation about an instrument that's not even in effect as yet, and may never be so? Secondly: Why ever vote in favor of any such instrument in the first place, if the west intention was/is only to immediately challenge it in court(s)? That last carries with it an unusually unsavory aroma...even by "spartan" standards.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Shouldn't you be busy thinking about your Feb bid?
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
The TA explicitly provides it is negotiable in its entirety. The MOU does not (but obviously is negotiable at least until it is effective since it is conditional) and the MOU says all other things become a nullity. Ergo, the difference is the pilots of USAir and the company negotiated and ratified a change to the TA, but the West self-righteous class is attempting to replace the MOU with yet a third conditional contract, without negotiations, without ratification, and unbelievably desires to eliminate any avenue of recourse, democratic or otherwise.... And they have the temerity to call us 'holes and scabs.
A laugh a minute.
- Status
