Did you not attend the brief where even ALPA cautioned that seniority is negotiable, and the Nicolau merely a bargaining position in an internal union struggle? I realize some do not understand bargaining agents and positions and the term "binding" as applied to the same, but you obviously have to. You need to educate some of those on your side as to the reality of internal union bargaining positions. Binding arbitration, in this case, obviously does not apply nor can it be enforced. If it could have been binding or enforceable, it would have been done.
BS-Where do I begin with your complete misunderstanding of the issue. Let's dive in.
The separate bargaining positions from east and west were simply bargaining positions during the negotiations and mediation phases. When it went to an arbitrator, both sides agreed that the result would be the seniority methodology used during the implementation. The company did not pay $600K for a bargaining position. Would they pay anything for a Hostage and Internment bargaining position? How about vacation, what did they pay for that?
Next, the parties to the agreement are the PILOTS in the service of, not the agent. You should know this and accept it. The agent can change, but they continue to administer the agreements of the previous agent (or at least they should, USAPA being the lone exception as they make up their rules ad hoc).
So why is binding not enforced? Because of the mechanics of implementing the seniority integration as part of the joint contract (one list - two disparate contracts, you see the problem). The courts understand the mechanics of this and realize that they don't feel it's their place to replace the votes of the pilots for one section of the contract AND they know that the pilots have the right to vote down what they don't like (and vote out a union that doesn't serve them).
So try to forget the crap you've been fed about "bargaining position" and evaluate whether or not you think your unions mission to disenfranchise and divide the pilot group will yield a better or worse joint contract. No contract isn't an option. That should be a clear DFR. So there will be a contract. USAPA could roll the dice and put out a DOH contract, but it would not be any better than the Kirby offer because the company knows that they can exploit the divided pilot group to their advantage. USAPA could turn the union over to the teamsters (a likely scenario if Judge Silver rules that Nicolau must be used) and let them spend the money to jam the airline together (since they have no "side" in the issue, a net positive, actually).
Or they could meet behind closed doors in their Bubba Bunker (with new skirting around the outside I might add and a shiny Taurus parked out front) and revoke pilot ratification and under some made-up emergency and decide (8-2 no doubt) to have BPR ratification of a DOH contract.
If the Angry F/O's really wanted to pull this one off, they would filed for Single Carrier and formed USAPA before the Nic came out. Then they could have chosen whatever integration they wanted.
Now as to the negotiability of seniority, I actually agree. On the next contract. The first joint contract is a different animal and played by slightly different rules. The list has been arbitrated and delivered. Next stop: a contract. A crummy one, thanks to the guys you voted in, but that's the bed you made.
Or you can vote for real change and de-certify USAPA and replace them with a bipartisan union that can actually negotiate coherently with management like adults rather than little kids, and whose lynchpin will be unity and all the strength and benefits that come with it.
I can't beleive I spent all this time explaining what you must already know. :angry:
