Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
The liability in any merger is the East Pilot group. Nobody else will accept your DOH mantra. Nor will they want to deal with any antics of your pilot groups sense of entitlement. Keep steppin' over dollars to pick up that shiny nickel....Parker shouldve let AAA die on the vine.
Putting your fingers in your ears is not the same as "There is no answer."
Subsequent to an agreement to binding arbitration, the entire pilot group enacted an hortatory constitution by means of a free, fair, and lawful election. I know, I know... plenty of people deny that it was free and fair, and they deny the hortatory nature of the new constitution that supersedes (supplants) the old one... but... Wake forgot to school anyone about what they decided in their new constitution.
The irony of course is that the only reason there ever was an arbitration among "brothers" in the "union" of ALPA was that the previous Constitution (get it yet) let the leadership shirk any responsibility in a seniority integration, but instead mandated the "union brothers" figure it out, or go to arbitration. The ALPA constitution (Eh..?) was the only thing that required the arbitration, and it allowed ALPA to deny any culpability.. errr. responsability... uh.. glory.. for the outcome... so they thought.
Fact is.. all the pilots voted in a new Constitution (Eh?) and no body has pointed out any issues wit dat.
What part of OUR Constitution don't WE understand? (see.. its so easy.. tastes great. less filling...... your turn.).
By the way, how come the cashier won't accept confederate bills?
Stay on topic. The Cactus 18 have nothing to do with the West and our DFR claim. The Cactus 18 are a group of pilots pursued by USAPA to the tune of how much? $$$$$$ What is USAPA going to get in return for their efforts against these guys....in other words, what is their return on the dues dollar.
How much length of service did a 1988 hire have? or 1998 hire?
Yes and no. The election erased from existence those agreements which the new union found disfavorable, but said union would scream bloody murder if the other party, read: the company, elected to erase agreements it found unpalatable. So it's an objective analysis applied to all, except the new union, whence the tyranny of the majority rules. Apparently, they have a lawyer who insists there's mountains of case law to support that position too!
Thats what I like about this board. Whenever the fish aren't biting, you can always get a rise out of the rocking chair crowd to tell the young whipper snappers what it really be.
It is quite obvious that you have no idea what the cactus 18 is or how much money the west has and is willing to spend.
Only in that USAPA has lost both of the cases and USAPA has tried to make them about the Nicolau.
