There you go. Wakes rule was vacated because of ripeness, not merit. So you now admit the Nicolau is alive.
And no JCBA means LOA93. Is that good for you?
Dec 2012 / Jan 2013 US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
- Status
There you go. Wakes rule was vacated because of ripeness, not merit. So you now admit the Nicolau is alive.
And no JCBA means LOA93. Is that good for you?
A320 Driver
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,358
- Reaction score
- 2,319
That's just flame bait.
nevergiveup
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,125
- Reaction score
- 2,148
It's called CYA! They could care less if it is used or not.
So you are saying there is no growth on the east, that you misspoke, and what you meant to say was there is attrition on the east?
Beancounter
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 1,817
I agree, he's pulling a MOVE2CLT. Either that or he's a complete flippin' moron.
Bean
Perhaps you could just alleviate any and all misplaced concerns of mine by quoting the specific language that demonstrates the validity of your easy certainty here on even this one issue?
You'll forgive me if any enthusiastic "end of story" babble fails to fill that void.
Ah! A more concise and thoughtful response couldn't be found anywhere other than within your brilliant masterpiece above! When asked what specific language supported your BS: = quoting the specific language that demonstrates the validity of your easy certainty ...the truly and honestly very best you can put forth is "Me and most everyone else are going to move on."..? You can't find anything in the MOU that at all supports your declared "certainty"? = No "gray areas" in the MOU exist? What a surprise. Sigh! Your "logic" is such that I'm honestly starting to feel sorry for you.
You'll forgive me if any enthusiastic "end of story" babble fails to fill that void.
Ah! A more concise and thoughtful response couldn't be found anywhere other than within your brilliant masterpiece above! When asked what specific language supported your BS: = quoting the specific language that demonstrates the validity of your easy certainty ...the truly and honestly very best you can put forth is "Me and most everyone else are going to move on."..? You can't find anything in the MOU that at all supports your declared "certainty"? = No "gray areas" in the MOU exist? What a surprise. Sigh! Your "logic" is such that I'm honestly starting to feel sorry for you.
Has anyone noticed that those with the most reasonable questions and concerns with this proposed MOU are among the longest serving pilots around here, who've seen the proverbial movie many times now? Against those; largely nebulous, infantile BS about "moving on" is the bulk of what's offered by those most enthusiastic about accepting the agreement? Just something to consider folks.
"It's deja vu all over again!" Yogi Berra
And another thing to consider is that we'll sit on LOA 93 and let the APA negotiate our future. I'll pass on that.
If we go your way it will be déjà vu all over again - us getting hosed.
They care a whole lot. The APA is going to be drawn into the DFR and they know it. This was told to me first hand by that big APA guy.
Answere your own question MM...
What would be fragmented? And what is the system list for hue thing being fragmented?
You note LOA93. Why was the arbitration such an absurdly easy kill for management? Could it just possibly have been the incredibly inadequate language contained, as well as needed language that was entirely ommitted? Sigh!...No matter, since this glorious and brand new day's dawning could never be equally twisted to management's delight and your loss...ummm...could it? You've previously assured me that no gray areas existed even within just one portion, but then found yourself entirely unable to intelligently argue in favor of your "faith" there.....and we're not corporate lawyers who's sole professional purpose is to completely dissect contractual documents and find and/or contrive holes in them.
Believe me, I understand your position here = "Move on". No need to undertake any such droll pursuits as reading, evaluating and actually thinking. Leave such tedious things to management's legal department, whom you've every reason to trust as honest people that have your best interests at heart. Blindly accepting one of the most absurdly constructed and hopelessly ambiguous proposals that I've ever seen isn't the slightest problem since all will magically be well regardless....and fields of flowers will surround yourself and the unicorn you're riding. 😉 Good luck with that, and I hope it all works out great for all concerned. Seriously: Good Luck!
GuntherA320
Senior
That big guy's name is Neil Roghair. He is the lead negotiator for the APA. I also talked with him on Monday. He is crashpad mates in New York with one of my best friends (We worked 3 different flying jobs together and have known each other since Junior High School). Your portrayal of APA's postiion is not entirely correct. They are concerned about the seniority integration. Trust me....the APA would prefer not to use the Nicolau as the US Airways seniority list for this merger. The language in the MOU goes a long, long way in squashing the use of it. Who do you think helped come up with the language in the MOU as to that respect? I guess you'll just have to wait and see what gets used. You'd be amazed the amount of liability a group is willing to risk over seniority. But you already knew that. Remember, it would be a fresh new DFR case from scratch. According to the 9th and Judge Silver, USAPA is free to negotiate within a wide range of reasonableness. If USAPA gives APA what they want (widebody protections), USAPA will get what it wants.
Couple of things here,
First, neither Silver or the 9th said uscaba is free to negotiate "within a wide range of reasonableness". That is uscaba spin after the fact. The argument that a union has a wide range of reasonableness is never specifically stated (I guess it could be implied), however phrases like "PAIN of an unquestionably ripe DFR"...."on dangerous ground"....those address the fact that rearranging an arbitrated "powerful evidence of a fair"award, does not fit within the wide range of reasonableness, is Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and in Bad Faith!
Second, you do realize APA people with ties to West pilots are ensuring them it will be the Nic. Basically, both east and West are going to hear from the APa exactly zero of what is going on in their merger committe. all our friends over there are going to tell us what we want to hear.
Finally, you bet they are concerned about seniority integration. Their own house is full of issues, plus they are the ones in bankruptcy with 1500 urloughees on the street.
Bottom line......the LCC pilots system seniority is already complete. Shaking the Nic is as big a fantasy play as MM's fragmentation scenarios. The APA is going to play uscaba like the fools they are, and all LCC pilots will come out worse for the wear because of it.
GuntherA320
Senior
I absolutely agree that you're being told what you want to hear.
Forgot to mention.....
The MOU does not "squash" the Nic, and the language does not forward that notion by any means.
Take a few notes from your own lawyer...you know, the uscaba lawyer who came to the PHX roadshow and made a fool of himself.....
The MOU does not influence, support or deny any party's position on a future SLI.
Or, are you saying uscaba and "ITS" lawyer are intentionally making fabrications in the presentation to their West constituency?
The MOU does not "squash" the Nic, and the language does not forward that notion by any means.
Take a few notes from your own lawyer...you know, the uscaba lawyer who came to the PHX roadshow and made a fool of himself.....
The MOU does not influence, support or deny any party's position on a future SLI.
Or, are you saying uscaba and "ITS" lawyer are intentionally making fabrications in the presentation to their West constituency?
- Status
