AWA ALPA Thread for the Week 9/14-9/20

[ClueByFour]

Of course, Nostro employing every logical fallacy of debate known to man (particularly the red herring) and not answering the simple question posed is entertaining. More popcorn and beer.

 

[767jetz]

Alright one last post.

Hypocrite?!?! How so?

Tiger 1050,

Good for you for staying on subject. Guys like nostradamus and EastUS always try to redirect the subject by throwing around words like scab, and hypocrite, and stories of drug runners of yesteryear. Then they end with things like naive boy. This is par for the course for them. They are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. It's amazing they made it this far as pilots. Next they will be calling you out like highschool bullies for a sudden death match in the sky!

You and your MEC have demonstrated the utmost professionalism and restraint in this dispute. These "old guys" and the East MEC could learn a few things from your example.

Peace,
767jetz

 

[700UW]

And the US Air Pilots crossed the picket line in 1992 and cleaned planes makes them scabs in my book.

 

[CactusFlyr]

did your MEC and MC agree to binding arbitration?

Did your MEC and MC understand (you should with all your experience) the potential consequences of binding arbitration?

If the answer is yes then why all the hate and discontent?

Do you blame me and my fellow AWA pilots for your career problems?

Yes ALPA did.

Yes ALPA did.

Naive.

No, but did you know a few years ago your Director of ops, chief pilot and flight crew manager were flying drugs into the United States and they got caught. Now if I understand this correctly if you think I am responsible for my leaders action you are a drug pusher and I am a Welcher. So if you agree you are a drug pusher I will agree I am a Welcher, because you see none of us had any say of our leaders.

This was a quite funny thread until I read this post. Your logic in this response just amazes me. Please post your schedule here each month so I can make sure I never end up on your aircraft.

 

[CactusFlyr]

When the facts do not patronize your kind, it is not grounds for the cornfield. It is truly amazing when you guys cry for Richard when only facts are posted. America West pilots scabbed and ran drugs, this is a fact.

And what does this have to do with the NIC award??? Nothing

 

[EastUS]

Tiger 1050,

Good for you for staying on subject. Guys like nostradamus and EastUS always try to redirect the subject by throwing around words like scab, and hypocrite, and stories of drug runners of yesteryear. Then they end with things like naive boy. This is par for the course for them. They are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. It's amazing they made it this far as pilots. Next they will be calling you out like highschool bullies for a sudden death match in the sky!

You and your MEC have demonstrated the utmost professionalism and restraint in this dispute. These "old guys" and the East MEC could learn a few things from your example.

Peace,
767jetz

"Next they will be calling you out like highschool bullies for a sudden death match in the sky! Naah..I've already heard about what a Bad Dood race car driver you are..and who would dare do such, given that? Plus..it's far more fun just to see you tap dance.

I always get a grin from your puppy yaps "jetz" Keep up the "I wanna be Prater when I grow up" propoganda

 

[Piedmont1984]

Mr. Nicolau

It has been some months since you issued your award in the USAirways/AmericaWest merger. The dust is still flying in the wake of that decision.

In addition to the deep and likely irreparable animosity that has developed between the two pilot groups, your award may have set in motion a series of events which will begin the dismantling of ALPA. Perhaps that is a good thing.

I have always understood that an arbitrator, if he exercises his authority properly and renders his decision fairly, would impact the opposing parties in an arbitration equally. In other words, each party would be equally pleased or displeased.

The arbitrator thus ends the debate. He puts to rest the conflict which led to the arbitration in the first place.

The vast majority of past awards which I have witnessed or researched met this simple standard.

In this case, the AWA pilots can't wait to have this award implemented. The AAA pilots prefer to wait until hell freezes over.

Would you do it any differently?

Regards,



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

 

[Richard]

OK,

What part of not making it personal don't you all understand?

I have read the posts involved, and at worst, they border on personal sniping, but at best, they are swinging the discussion away from the issue at hand, and making it a personal debate between Tiger and Nostradamus. This must stop now.

Keep it on the subject of the dispute itself, not who did what to whom and when.

This is strike two folks, strike three closes this down and we will not permit a new thread until Friday.

 

[hp_fa]

Richard, may I point out that while the thread obvioulsy deteriorated overnight, closing the consolidated weekly topic isn't something I think should be considered. That potentially is a remedy that includes folks who are innocent of any wrongdoing and lumps them together with folks who potentially stepped over the line. Shouldn't any punishments for any wrongdoing be targeted toward individuals rather then everyone?

Respectfully,

hp_fa

 

[Piedmont1984]

Richard, may I point out that while the thread obvioulsy deteriorated overnight, closing the consolidated weekly topic isn't something I think should be considered. That potentially is a remedy that includes folks who are innocent of any wrongdoing and lumps them together with folks who potentially stepped over the line. Shouldn't any punishments for any wrongdoing be targeted toward individuals rather then everyone?

Respectfully,

hp_fa

Richard

Take a hammer, and hammer the nail that is sticking up. No need to replace the entire deck.

 

[Richard]

HP and Piedmont,

Your points are well taken and I will take them under advisement.

If nothing else I did get everyone's attention.

I am trying to keep an open mind.

Thanks.

 

[Bear96]

Mr. Nicolau

It has been some months since you issued your award in the USAirways/AmericaWest merger. The dust is still flying in the wake of that decision.

In addition to the deep and likely irreparable animosity that has developed between the two pilot groups, your award may have set in motion a series of events which will begin the dismantling of ALPA. Perhaps that is a good thing.

I have always understood that an arbitrator, if he exercises his authority properly and renders his decision fairly, would impact the opposing parties in an arbitration equally. In other words, each party would be equally pleased or displeased.

The arbitrator thus ends the debate. He puts to rest the conflict which led to the arbitration in the first place.

The vast majority of past awards which I have witnessed or researched met this simple standard.

In this case, the AWA pilots can't wait to have this award implemented. The AAA pilots prefer to wait until hell freezes over.

Would you do it any differently?

You appear to be suggesting that an arbitrator's job is simply to split the baby. If that is so, why even have arbitration? Simply have each side present its most extreme position, find the midpoint of the extremities, and make that the "solution."

Here, the situation was that West was willing to negotiate and modify its position. By contrast, East remained intransigent and, depite repeated attempts to get it to consider alternatives, insisted on DOH, period, from Day One through the present.

Your "solution" encourages extremism and stubbornness, and discourages compromise and creative thinking.

Your "solution" also encourages each side to whip up its supporters into a frenzy. If the way to judge whether an arbitration was done correctly is by the relative anger of the parties, then the side that plays on the basest instincts and emotions of its supporters most effectively wins, while the side that tries to educate its supporters about the process and encourages them to remain rational and open-minded loses.

 

[Piedmont1984]

You appear to be suggesting that an arbitrator's job is simply to split the baby. If that is so, why even have arbitration? Simply have each side present its most extreme position, find the midpoint of the extremities, and make that the "solution."

Here, the situation was that West was willing to negotiate and modify its position. By contrast, East remained intransigent and, depite repeated attempts to get it to consider alternatives, insisted on DOH, period, from Day One through the present.

Your "solution" encourages extremism and stubbornness, and discourages compromise and creative thinking.

Your "solution" also encourages each side to whip up its supporters into a frenzy. If the way to judge whether an arbitration was done correctly is by the relative anger of the parties, then the side that plays on the basest instincts and emotions of its supporters most effectively wins, while the side that tries to educate its supporters about the process and encourages them to remain rational and open-minded loses.

I am asking the arbitrator a question, although a rhetorical one since I understand he does not respond to emails. You appear to be putting words in my mouth.

The East has, from day one, proposed DOH with conditions and restrictions.

The two sides had already reached an impasse prior to arbitration. It was the award you so admire that has "whipped each side into a frenzy".

And stop describing your side as "rational and openminded". I have been reading and posting here since this fiasco began. I know better.

 

[Bear96]

I am asking the arbitrator a question, although a rhetorical one since I understand he does not respond to emails. You appear to be putting words in my mouth.

I chose the words, "You appear to be . . . " for a reason, so that if I did not state your position accurately, you would be welcome to clarify. So please clarify. How should the decision have been rendered? From my reading of your post, you seem to be saying that the arbitrator should have chosen a solution that pissed off both sides equally, and should have paid little attention to anything else. If that is not what you meant and if I misinterpreted your post, explain what the arbitrator should have based his decision on.

The East has, from day one, proposed DOH with conditions and restrictions.

(1) A DOH award would have been against ALPA merger policy. (2) The arbitrator gave clear indications that DOH was not going to happen and wanted creative solutions from East, which were not forthcoming.

When a tribunal gives such clear indications to an advocate that the advocate is not going to get what he is asking for, the advocate should come up with a new idea and a new position, pronto, and not just repeat the same thing over and over. (At least that is what I would do if a judge / arbitrator were growing impatient with what I was saying.) East declined to do so, so the tribunal did the best it could based on the limited ideas it had.

The two sides had already reached an impasse prior to arbitration.

Obviously. That is why it went to arbitration in the first place. Your point?

 

[Phoenix]

... It was the award you so admire that has "whipped each side into a frenzy".

And stop describing your side as "rational and openminded". I have been reading and posting here since this fiasco began. I know better.

True. There was no outcry about each side proposing what they were proposing (back when the arguments were made. Heck it was part of arguing). Even the West understood the LOS argument and were in great dread about what condition and restriction would be awarded (hoping that the arbrytraytor had condtions and restriction sufficeint to alleviate the pain of LOS that the West expected.)

Now to justify the windfall they see a need to say "The argument was stupid and you deserve the punishment for being stupid." They have no argument about why it is reasonable. Only that it is just deserts for stupid people.

"And don't feel bad. We think stupid people make good friends. Lets do Joint talks and get a contract together. We want to help the stupid people."