Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Metro,Even if the MDA list is flawed. There will be NO "re-arbitration". George Nicalau maintains jurisdiction over the list. This is spelled out in no uncertain terms. If a federal court tell him the list was flawed, and in fact these (fill in the blank) number of pilots were affected, George Nicalau would slot them in in the different order. Hardly the windfall you're hoping for.
You are not holding the lynch pin to a certified DOH ruling from another Arbitrator!!
Metro,
L, but if those on the west feel they want the NIC award because it was an agreed upon process by all, then they would have to accept the new Nic with open arms.
Does that also mean, that if a Judge issues a ruling that a newly voted in Union does not have to adhere to the merger policies of the old Union, and can determine how seniority lists will be combined within it's own bylaws. Combined with the fact that the previous Unions policies and procedures were never fully completed as set forth in it's agreement with management, will the west also seek to implement the new list decided upon by the new union? :jerry:
I'll take a stab at that, mate. I'd guess no AWA pilot will complain about ANY rearranging of the NIC..as long as it all happens BENEATH Dave O'Dell. Once they have all their side firmly placed above the East pilots via the NIC...they don't care about it afterwards.Does that also mean, that if a Judge issues a ruling that a newly voted in Union does not have to adhere to the merger policies of the old Union, and can determine how seniority lists will be combined within it's own bylaws. Combined with the fact that the previous Unions policies and procedures were never fully completed as set forth in it's agreement with management, will the west also seek to implement the new list decided upon by the new union? :jerry:
I guess some people just have reading comprehension problems, possibly the reason for the position they are in currently?
So tazz.......
Have you stopped beating your wife/Girlfriend/Significant Other?????
A simple, YES or NO answer will suffice.
Geeeze, talk about a 6th grade mentality...
Does that also mean, that if a Judge issues a ruling that a newly voted in Union does not have to adhere to the merger policies of the old Union, and can determine how seniority lists will be combined within it's own bylaws. Combined with the fact that the previous Unions policies and procedures were never fully completed as set forth in it's agreement with management, will the west also seek to implement the new list decided upon by the new union? :jerry:
Tazz, Your questions are irrelevant to the propriety of ALPA and company actions.
How the pilots were treated only determines how they were treated, not how ALPA and the company were legally obligated. You may as well ask if the pilots were put in jail. Their experience "enlightens" nothing absent an analysis with respect to the relevant rules.
What rule existed that the so-called MDA pilots were legally flying under the USAir certificate? The certificate...
Clever. Childish, but clever. Twisting words and semantics. You guys are really good at that. Mine, however is a straightforward question. Yes or no WILL suffice.
Don't bother with rational talk with Tazz, mate...no possible.Now Taz, my question was as straight forward as well. A simple yes or no WILL suffice also. Obviously, if you know how to frame a question you will get the answer that you want. As you have done with your questions. Unfortunately if the solutions or explanation was as easy as a yes or no question, there wouldn't be the problems we have. But it is sufficient to say, the information you are requesting can not be answered by a yes or no answer, and in fact would require you to go through a number of years of debates on this board as well as others, to find the answer your looking for.
And you could very well be wrong....Very well could be wrong here, but if USAPA's merger policy does not result in a west pilot losing his seat, or position, (once the airlines are combined, since they are not now, and the majority of the pull down have been on the west side) How is that unfairly representing the west pilots? If the west pilots are able to capture there own attrition, as well as just by the shear numbers, a portion of the east attrition, how have the been unfairly represented?