Exactly Freighter, AMR pilots have been all over this. They will not allow the Nic. It damages them too much also. They are all talking a re do as the AWA AAA deal never was consummated. They know all about that one. Imagine, the APA killing the Nic. Pretty slick.
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
Exactly Freighter, AMR pilots have been all over this. They will not allow the Nic. It damages them too much also. They are all talking a re do as the AWA AAA deal never was consummated. They know all about that one. Imagine, the APA killing the Nic. Pretty slick.
Better yet sell the WEST to a third entity, kills all lawsuits, promotes a quicker synegy, and ends DUI's litigation problems! MM! With the LA hub and LUV competition you guys are toast!
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
APA made the US in USAPA irrelevant.
USAPA - US = APA.
It's almost there, feel free to improve our new union slogan.
When the "REAL MONEY" shows up, mute point, have a good WKEND!
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
For once I agree with you, I give it a 1 in 4 chance of happening (if that's what you meant).
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
They don't care how our list is arranged.
They only care about the catagory and status of their pilots compared to ours.
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
And iwas being generous by excluding the E190.
If you count that bird then every single FURLOUGHED West pilot can hold a Capt. Job. Imagine that, furloughed East pilot under Nic stapled to the bottom but with an AMR merge every single west furlough comes back as a skipper.
I picture the Austin Powers Fembots heads exploding as the west posters try to create a plausible justification to the APA.
1 in 4, man you are the eternal optimist!
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
Wishful thinking on my part.
I think Jim agrees with you, now there's an unholy alliance.
It has become clear that all the attorneys and Judges have been dancing around the issues except perhaps Siegel.
The seniority section of the TA is complete. Per the TA, ALPA merger policy was followed, a SLI was proposed to the company, the company quickly accepted the SLI, and remuneration was provided.
From filings in the current USAirways action in Federal court, USAPA references AFA vs USAir. From AFA the court quoted a 1935 NMB position statement:
“When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.”
This is why the 9th said that USAPA is as free to change the NIC as was ALPA.
i.e. USAPA is subject to ALPA merger policy per the existing TA, because USAPA can not alter or cancel any existing agreement.
As USAPA argued in their filing, the successor union has the right to bargain for new agreements, but not absolute rights. USAPA cannot unilaterally alter or cancel agreements anymore than the company can.
Since USAPA’s merger policy is not the same as ALPA’s merger policy, a substitution constitues an alteration and cancellation. USAPA can ask/negotiate to change the seniority section of the TA, but per the TA, this change can only occur if all parties to the TA agree. (Since USAPA eliminated the west as a party to the TA, this will be very difficult.) In four years, USAPA has tried to alter and cancel the seniority section of the TA, but they never tried to amend the TA.
Before anything other than the NIC is used, the TA must be amended. Also, the TA has to be amended before contract ratification because a new contract immediately terminates the TA.
All discussions about using anything other than the NIC are moot until the TA is amended. Of course, such a change to the TA immediately makes the West’s DFR case ripe.
The seniority section of the TA is complete. Per the TA, ALPA merger policy was followed, a SLI was proposed to the company, the company quickly accepted the SLI, and remuneration was provided.
From filings in the current USAirways action in Federal court, USAPA references AFA vs USAir. From AFA the court quoted a 1935 NMB position statement:
“When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.”
This is why the 9th said that USAPA is as free to change the NIC as was ALPA.
i.e. USAPA is subject to ALPA merger policy per the existing TA, because USAPA can not alter or cancel any existing agreement.
As USAPA argued in their filing, the successor union has the right to bargain for new agreements, but not absolute rights. USAPA cannot unilaterally alter or cancel agreements anymore than the company can.
Since USAPA’s merger policy is not the same as ALPA’s merger policy, a substitution constitues an alteration and cancellation. USAPA can ask/negotiate to change the seniority section of the TA, but per the TA, this change can only occur if all parties to the TA agree. (Since USAPA eliminated the west as a party to the TA, this will be very difficult.) In four years, USAPA has tried to alter and cancel the seniority section of the TA, but they never tried to amend the TA.
Before anything other than the NIC is used, the TA must be amended. Also, the TA has to be amended before contract ratification because a new contract immediately terminates the TA.
All discussions about using anything other than the NIC are moot until the TA is amended. Of course, such a change to the TA immediately makes the West’s DFR case ripe.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
It is said that Benjamin Franklin advised people to appeal to folk's interests rather than their intellect. "Integrity Matters" in one hand while demanding captain slots for an entire list in the other hand will be the same lead balloon it always was.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
If APA Loses their collective minds and attempts to placate USLAPPY with a doh sli, they're putting their pensions in harms way by allowing a multi year delay/ injunction...something USTUPID could never pull off.
IBT wouldn't touch the pickleballers with a mile long pole for a very good reason. Liability. Apa won't either.
IBT wouldn't touch the pickleballers with a mile long pole for a very good reason. Liability. Apa won't either.
LUV, that mindset, DUI sells you off(movin to DFW anyway)You litigate who? The corp has the perfect fragmentation right anyway! Change of control, they don't care, DEAL with APA, lock out a MNGMNT COC, (DUI DOESN'T GET A COC BOTH WAYS), sells WEST avoids CORP litigation, IT IS PERFECT, besides a hub in LA and LUV on your SWA doorstep DUI a WIN, WIN, WIN, YOUR TOAST!
Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
odouls is non alcoholic. Give it a try.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
