What would happend if we merge again?

[swamt]

Getting back to the subject of this forum: What would happend if we merge again? US should buy AA out of BK (yes I know they are not in BK yet) and staple their asses to the bottom. I know they won't be able to do that, but they should put them as close to stapling to the bottom as possible. I think any arbitrader would return to them the favor that the AA pilots did for the TWA pilots. Hey who knows, maybe the US pilots could get an X-TWA pilot as an arbitrader, how sweet would that be?? One more question; How would the merge list go since the US and AW pilots are still not merged? Would the AW pilots have priority over the AA pilots or would they start all over again trying to merge the three groups all at once??

 

[N965VJ]

Go back to work, Herb Tarlek.

Get me a cup of coffee, Jennifer.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Any chance you can move on Sparrow. It's quite obvious no one is interested.

Don't you have someone to mourn?

Now that's way below the belt. I'm even surprised at you.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Are we talking about divorce? No

We are talking about labor law.

Apples and oranges, either you are trying to obfuscate or you aren't too smart.

Binding arbitration, labor law, look it up and stop trying to compare it to something that isn't it.

And, its cute how you try to rip HR. We protect companies from the sales clowns who get us sued. Go back to work, Herb Tarlek.

It's the same basic legal concept. ANY party to a so called binding contract has legal remedies at their disposal and it's perfectly fine to seek to undo the outcome via the courts whether it be divorce, labor law or any other type of tort law.

It's basic fundamental law. If you & I enter into a contract for services and you decide you got the crappy end of the deal and under the terms of the contract we agree to binding arbitration and I win and you lose, you are most certainly allowed to spend your resources in court to attempt to undo an arbitrators decision even though it's "Final & Binding" under our contract. This activity occurs EVERY DAY in courts throughout the land. Unless the SCOTUS rules on an issue very little if anything is "Final & Binding"

Do take notice that at no point do I mention I agree with the East or West position. All I'm saying is that you can sue over the sky being blue if a judge will hear your argument. USAPA and their legal counsel have taken the path of litigation, so far to their detriment. However there is nothing inherently evil or wrong with their attempts to seek redress outside the prior agreed to Arbitration.

What you or I think is of little consequence until all the courts have weighed in and USAPA decides to appeal unfavorable decisions. To imply that anyone involved is somehow immoral or unethical on either side is rubbish. Both sides have at various times for various reasons acted in their own self interest to the detriment of the other. Our legal system is adversarial not a Sunday School picnic and these two groups have if nothing else, proved that.

Now run along and write some arcane hate speech rule into the employee handbook like a good little HR parasite

 

[CallawayGolf]

What happen to all the Binding arbitration awards that were given up during concessionary bargaining

A new mutual-agreement between the parties can and does supersede the old agreements. Unless all parties mutually agree to alter or revoke the terms of the agreement, the agreement or binding arbitration provisions continue to stand. In this case the West and the Company have both not agreed to change the terms of the Transition Agreement or the Nicolau Award, so it still stands no matter how badly east pilots or USAPA want to see it changed.

 

[john john]

A new mutual-agreement between the parties can and does supersede the old agreements. Unless all parties mutually agree to alter or revoke the terms of the agreement, the agreement or binding arbitration provisions continue to stand.

So if a vote comes out without the NIC and passes DONE DEAL

 

[cleardirect]

So if a vote comes out without the NIC and passes DONE DEAL

Except for the DFR to follow. Read the ninth ruling. Without the Nicolau and it does the harm the west fears. Unquestionably ripe DFR. Proceeded by an injunction preventing the implementation of the new contract.

Do you guys feel that box getting smaller everyday?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Get me a cup of coffee, Jennifer.

Just for the record, I was always hot for the Jan Smithers Character, Bailey Quarters

 

[john john]

SO a

A new mutual-agreement between the parties can and does supersede the old agreements. Unless all parties mutually agree to alter or revoke the terms of the agreement, the agreement or binding arbitration provisions continue to stand.

Except for the DFR to follow. Read the ninth ruling. Without the Nicolau and it does the harm the west fears. Unquestionably ripe DFR. Proceeded by an injunction preventing the implementation of the new contract.

Do you guys feel that box getting smaller everyday?

So a "new mutual-agreement between the parties can and does supersede the old agreements" therefore a DFR is give out

OK?

 

[CallawayGolf]

therefore a DFR is in give out

OK?

Can you try again? The words are in English but there is no discernible meaning conveyed in this clause.

 

[john john]

Can you try again? The words are in English but there is no discernible meaning conveyed in this clause.

So a new mutual-agreement between the parties can and does supersede the old agreements therefore a DFR is give to all parties because they all agree. The words are in English but there is no discernible meaning conveyed in this clause.

 

[CallawayGolf]

So a new mutual-agreement between the parties can and does supersede the old agreements therefore a DFR is give to all parties because they all agree. The words are in English but there is no discernible meaning conveyed in this clause.

Are you suggesting the west pilots, the east pilots and Management have all agreed on a new seniority list and that this new seniority list is DFR-proof because it superseded the NIC? That's news to me; please produce the new list and show where the various parties have signed off on that list.

Last I heard there is still a very active DJ lawsuit in judge Silver's court which centers on which seniority list the Company must use in order to avoid future litigation. So, the NIC hasn't been superseded by anything presented by ALPA or USAPA specifically because all of the requisite parties to the TA haven't reached a new agreement. Thus the only existing agreement between the parties is the TA and the TA mentions using the ALPA merger process throughout the document. That process calls for negotiation-mediation-binding arbitration. Any deviation from that current agreement by USAPA or Management will result in a DFR/collusion lawsuit which judge Silver has already indicated would have merit (thus she declared the Company's DJ matter to be ripe for adjudication).

Anything else you need clarified?

 

[john john]

Are you suggesting the west pilots, the east pilots and Management have all agreed on a new seniority list and that this new seniority list is DFR-proof because it superseded the NIC? That's news to me; please produce the new list and show where the various parties have signed off on that list.

If the fruits of good faith negotiations produces a tentative agreement with out the nic and it is put out for a vote and passes the select minority that want the nic have a DFR case. Good luck with that$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[CallawayGolf]

If the fruits of good faith negotiations produces a tentative agreement with out the nic and it is put out for a vote and passes the select minority that want the nic have a DFR case. Good luck with that$$$$$$$$$$$

There are several problems with that. First of all the Company isn't going to risk a collusion lawsuit which they have been advised will happen if they accept a non-NIC seniority list. So all of the "good faith" negotiations will not yield more than they already have on the financial sections of the CBA until a court answers the legal questions about the SLI.

The second problem is that even if Management ignored the risk and completed negotiations with USAPA on a non-NIC JCBA, the existence of a ratified TA does not in any way take the DFR claim off the table. USAPA already lost the first DFR lawsuit for not using the NIC in a federal court and with a fully ripe matter before the courts they should have every expectation that they would lose again, even without $eham driving the USAPA bus off the cliff.

This is all academic anyway. Management will never accept a non-NIC list unless a federal court gives them the all clear to accept something else. So section 22 must be closed before any superseding agreements can be reached and that is very unlikely to occur until all of the court challenges run their course. Besides, if what the USAPA zealots are claiming will happen tomorrow actually does result in restored east wages, then a JCBA is more than just a few years away. By their own admission they will stop seeking a JCBA and trying to overturn the NIC. They will apparently be happy to remain in status quo until they are forced to abandon that strategy. That says a little something about their true lack of confidence in what the Ninth said (and didn't say) versus the bluster we see on these boards.

 

[ChockJockey]

The second AA merger thread has now become the ninth pilot thread. Great.