No..they made it "unquestionably" clear that it does not have to be the Nic...only if the West signs off on another list.
Otherwise, they made it "painfully" obvious that they had NO COMMENT on whether the Nic was binding.
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
No..they made it "unquestionably" clear that it does not have to be the Nic...only if the West signs off on another list.
Otherwise, they made it "painfully" obvious that they had NO COMMENT on whether the Nic was binding.
Well that begs two questions.
1. then why did you drop below the AWA contract?
2. why were you in bankruptcy in the first place?
And both of those comments were made prior to the 9ths ruling, and the following schooling the company got on exactly what a hybrid DFR is and why their rear is in a sling if they deviate from there contractual commitments to their pilot group.
In a future merger, even if the Nic has not been ratified in a contract, it will be the certified "system seniority list" at LCC.
"only if the West signs off on another list."...? Nuts! I "missed" that part in the 9th transcripts. Please cite it for us all.
"In a future merger, even if the Nic has not been ratified in a contract, it will be the certified "system seniority list" at LCC." As determined by.....?
Out for now. Thanks for the civil exchange within these oft too toxic walls nic4us...and no; I've no pretext of not contributing my share of poisons over time either. Have a good evening sir.
luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
What, you don't want to think you are important and try to rule a chat board when you retire?
Gotta go watch the Flyers!!!!!!
Black Swan
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 5,045
Good evening Nic4. Would you please quote that part? I could not find it.
Swan has already quoted the relevant portions.
"In a future merger, even if the Nic has not been ratified in a contract, it will be the certified "system seniority list" at LCC." As determined by.....?
Whomever does not want to get the pants sued off of them for breach of contract and DFR.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 5,045
Yes, I am still looking for that too. That and BB s rather generous interpretations. Those are the most, shall we be nice, interesting......
I have already quoted it twice in the last five pages, but for you I will do it again.
"3We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the
Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA."
Straight up said, this opinion does not talk about whether or not usapa is bound by the Nic. So, if the 9th said, we make no comments about whether or not usapa is bound by the Nic, how could they make a comment that usapa is NOT bound to the Nic.
Answere, is they did not. The portion you quote is nothing more than making a hypothetical case of an outcome that could make the case not ripe. An example, or a reason for which the West would not sue, or even have reason to sue if a non-Nic that did not harm the West was the final ratified product.
Further, that is not making any comment about what harm is or that the West would have to show usapa's plan fell outside a "legitimate union purpose", it just says, one possibility is the West could decide not to sue if usapa actually changes its mind and puts out a list that does not harm the West. That is obviously a determination the West would make, therefore I said, the West would have to sign off on a non-Nic.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 5,045
I honestly feel the West has legitimate grievances with the way they have been treated. However, it makes no sense to delude each other with speculation rather than fact. Both sides need to get real and work something before it is beyond doing. I think the gross mis interpretation of the 9th and misquoting is a prime example of wasting time. If Silver chooses she will go up against them. It will be much clearer than what Wake provoked if she makes them iterate their decision again. Maybe that would be a good thing, as Parker did it too. It will make him mark time in his most recent endeavor.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 5,045
It is not as clear as any of us think. Only another long mess. It is a travesty it has come to this.
traderjake
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 5,669
- Reaction score
- 9,308
Says the guy who posts 7.3 times a day.
Black Swan
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 5,045
A couple of questions. Cactusboy53. Do you like the airbus? Freebird, where are you?
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 1,207
They were made after the 9 th ruling
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,276
- Reaction score
- 1,207
I don't believe the question of what would happen if a third party merger is even before her rending that whole action obsolete ?
Won't the fact that the AOL leadership participating in closed session meetings, the resultant process and actively shaping the outcome render them unable to then sue?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
