"What's next now for AA/US possible merger'

[Turtle21]

Hi Pvt. Lee. Pay isn't the only important part of a contract. The choice we had at US Stupidways with the AWA genious (wunderkind) Parker at the helm was getting a couple dollars more per hour (YEA for the AWA guys) but raping us with work rules, scope, min fleet, min utilization rate and they are still trying to do the same with the AA "term sheet". Oh ya and I would have had to have their two month guys as my captain...sounds to me like you are right and we passed up a great deal...Private. Thanks for all your help.

The soldier didn't care one whit about this mess until trying to score with a AWA pilot. Beer goggles will make anyone a sniveling worm.

 

[General Lee]

The soldier didn't care one whit about this mess until trying to score with a AWA pilot. Beer goggles will make anyone a sniveling worm.

Hahahahahhahhahahhhahahaha. You Easties are gonna get worked over so bad! What a train wreck!


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[cactusboy53]

The 9th made it abundantly clear. No injunction. Maybe Silver thinks she is above that. USAPA has freedom to bargain. Members that don't like the outcome can sue once a contract is ratified. The 9th also cited the SCOTUS for the standard that a plaintiff will have to prove in order to be successful in a DFR suit. The plaintiff will have to prove the union acted in a way that is arbitrary and outside a wide range of reasonableness.

Good luck.

Here is what the 9th said about "free to bargain"....: "We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA."

Here is the "abundantly clear" statement from the 9th in the entire CONCLUSION: "For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED. No costs to either side."

I'm not an attorney, but if you read the ENTIRE decision from the 9th you should walk away with the following:

1. Was ALPA "free to abandon" the Nicolau seniority list? ALPA already looked at the process and found no wrong doing. They delivered the completed list to US Airways. As such, I think the answer to that question is "NO".
2. The 9th said it was simply not ripe (2-1 Bybee dissenting) with out a joint collective bargaining agreement that did not include the Nicolau list (paraphrasing). It seems then that IF a collective bargaining agreement is struck between the company and USAPA (or who ever the agent is) that has something OTHER than the Nicolau seniority list....you have just crossed the RIPE line (IMHO).

Here is the document if you wish to read it yourself: http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/9th.../Doc046-1_AddingtonDecision_Ninth_Circuit.pdf

CB

 

[igneousy2]

Here is the document if you wish to read it yourself: http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/9th.../Doc046-1_AddingtonDecision_Ninth_Circuit.pdf


CB

Thanks for posting the entire case..it's been a boring rainy night at the crash pad so I actually read the decision cover-cover.

I had only previously read the opinion pretty quickly but now that I have read the entire document I have to say that I wouldn't be so confident that the West has a slam dunk case once a CBA is formed.

I think the most telling view of how the judges view this case is the statement in the notes on 8009...

The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA.

After reading this note and then re-reading the case (especially the notes), I have changed my opinion, and it seems to me that the judges that delivered the majority opinion do not believe that Nicolau is binding upon USAPA. I think the pilots are drawing the circles small...a circle for seniority, circle for work rules, a circle for pay rates, and this whole Nicolau award is just one of the little circles. The judges are drawing a bigger circle around the entire process of the new CBA which includes the seniority list as just one part. Once there is a CBA, then the CBA would be judged in the treatment of the west pilots in it's entirety. The "binding arbitration" was a tool that ALPA used to ensure it provided fair representation to both sides. USAPA will have to figure out some way to ensure fair representation to all pilots on it's own but I no longer believe that they are somehow bound by the Nicolau award. For example a CBA that gave the East their DOH, but pay protected the West based on a ratio might be able to pass muster.

​

 

[Turtle21]

Here is what the 9th said about "free to bargain"....: "We do not address the thorny question of the extent to which the Nicolau Award is binding on USAPA. We note, as the district court recognized, that USAPA is at least as free to abandon the Nicolau Award as was its predecessor, ALPA. The dissent appears implicitly to assume that the Nicolau Award, the product of the internal rules and processes of ALPA, is binding on USAPA."

Here is the "abundantly clear" statement from the 9th in the entire CONCLUSION: "For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’ DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED. No costs to either side."

I'm not an attorney, but if you read the ENTIRE decision from the 9th you should walk away with the following:

1. Was ALPA "free to abandon" the Nicolau seniority list? ALPA already looked at the process and found no wrong doing. They delivered the completed list to US Airways. As such, I think the answer to that question is "NO".
2. The 9th said it was simply not ripe (2-1 Bybee dissenting) with out a joint collective bargaining agreement that did not include the Nicolau list (paraphrasing). It seems then that IF a collective bargaining agreement is struck between the company and USAPA (or who ever the agent is) that has something OTHER than the Nicolau seniority list....you have just crossed the RIPE line (IMHO).

Here is the document if you wish to read it yourself: http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/9th.../Doc046-1_AddingtonDecision_Ninth_Circuit.pdf

CB

I assure you I am very familiar with it and have read it numerous times, from the 9th's own library of published opinions Here, and not from USAPA's or Leonidas' site (in the off chance they aren't exact copies).


Using the 9th's opinion to speculate on the outcome of this dispute is not very reliable, because after all, the 9th court's opinion was merely a direction to remove the inunction, and provided for the pilots to know what to expect from the courts in the future, after they finish their negotiations with the company.

The relevant information for us is what we 1) cannot do now, what we 2) can do now, and what conditions must be met for us to 3) do something different in the future. Making predictions about the outcome of this dispute are only speculative (and denying the dispute is stupid), but the 9th did provide clear direction for what we cannot do, what we can do, and provided the conditions for the next DFR suit, in the event someone wants one. The 9th even cited a SCOTUS standard or threshold to be surmounted to prove that a DFR occurred, should anyone that is thinking of a future DFR wish to have a heads up before spending another $2Mil.


The 9th told us what we cannot have or do--No injunction during internal disputes:

there is no disputing that this case would be the first time we [the 9th] allowed a DFR suit to proceed in a collective bargaining/ contract negotiating context before the CBA at issue was ratified. Such a departure from the norm would invite parties to bring suit long before internal disputes have had a chance to work themselves out.


To be sure, the parties’ interest would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute , but that is not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim.

The 9th told us what we can do, ie. continue to bargain with the company, with the knowledge of when a DFR may be brought:

..it is uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever would be effectuated.

Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately is.

Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.

“in light of the well-established federal policy of avoiding unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of unions and according considerable deference to the interpretation and application of a union’s rules and regulations”.[think about that for a bit]. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain in good faith [with the company] pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.

“a claim can be brought only after negotiations are complete and a “final product” has been reached.”

In the grievance context, too, we have required that a final outcome be reached before allowing a suit based on a union’s allegedly violative conduct that led to the decision.

And the 9th cited the SCOTUS standard of DFR that must be met:

“[T]he final product of the bargaining process may constitute evidence of a breach of duty only if it can be fairly characterized as so far outside a ‘wide range of reasonableness,’that it is wholly ‘irrational’ or ‘arbitrary.’

Silver may well think that she can establish an injunction that the 9th saw fit to dismiss. Silver may think that there is no internal union dispute, contrary to the findings of the 9th. Silver may think that a looming merger is really not a contingency that the 9th could have had in mind as a reason not to judicially intervene before a contract is ratified.

Who knows how the internal union dispute will work itself out, or if courts will feel the need to intervene in spite of the 9th's clear choice not to.

Who knows how it will work out, but if I were a judge I would not make a decision that contradicts the 9th, unless I were on the SCOTUS .

 

[cactusboy53]

The only question in front of Judge Silver is whether or not the company is going to be free from litigation should they decide to accept a list other than the Nicolau (basically).

IF Judge Silver says the company is free from harm, USAPA is still NOT. IF Judge Silver says Doug is a big boy and on his own, both the company, USAPA (& any other party involved in a seniority integration) will be co-litigants to DFR (when the plaintiffs party decides to pull the trigger).

While you both are sharp and educated (likely to the same degree that I am), you should remember these points:

1. A senior arbitrator and two pilot neutrals came up with the Nicolau seniority list. It was never found out of compliance of the ALPA merger policy (which is now generally mirrored in the McCaskill /Bond legislation).
2. No seniority list / arbitration has EVER been overturned by the court system (ask Mike Cleary & Randy Mowrey....they said the same thing in June 2000).
3. The only lawyer that told USAPA (after USAPA shopped SEVERAL lawyers) that DOH was a slam dunk, it now off payroll. His counsel was expensive and failed to produce the results that USAPA was seeking.
4. 2 seasoned federal judges agreed with the Nicolau seniority arbitration and the DFR lawsuit.
5. A jury of peers found USAPA guilty of DFR in LESS than 90 MINUTES based on court testimony.
6. If the company is not given a "bye" on liability in a DFR lawsuit, do you think Mr. Parker will endanger LCC's position with further guaranteed litigation?

I think Tuesday will bring a conclusion to these proceedings. The question in front of Judge Silver may not be as black & white as ..."You must use the Nicolau list". The company is the party seeking clarification on liability.

I'll be in Philly with a Coke and a bag of microwave popcorn.

PS Everything from the Leonidas site is truthful and verifiable. No really, it is.

 

[charlie2]

Hey Sulley. Anyways.......You guys were going to EAT it or go CHAP 7. Them's is the facts. AWA got a mortgage and bought your butts. They did. You then agreed on binding arbitration, and your MEC chair even said NIC was a good guy to do it. Then, when NIC was ready to give his award, he told your guy to come around and try to work it out. Did your guy take NIC's advice? NOPE. IDIOTS. You could have changed the pay, the work rules, etc with a NEW contract, but instead, your A320 Captains make less per hour than I do. What a joke. You guys have helped ruin this profession by showing you can say NO to a handshake, a BINDING award that honorable men would abide to because they AGREED to it. But NOOOOOOOO, you instead are just a joke.


Bye Bye---General Lee

That's Colonel Charlie2 to you Private. You are right we were going to go ch 7 which might have much better for us as we might have been able to have a better career elsewhere. But no, Bruce Lakefield and the ex-con at AWA Doug Parker convinced a bunch of suckers to invest in a merger with us. OOOPS! I really feel bad for AWA pilots because even though they try to take credit for "saving" us US Stupidairways pilots they did not and it didn't turn out very well for them. An honorable man takes care of his family doing whatever it takes. Now go eat you grits with a lot of butter Private.

 

[Turtle21]

The only question in front of Judge Silver is whether or not the company is going to be free from litigation should they decide to accept a list other than the Nicolau (basically).

IF Judge Silver says the company is free from harm, USAPA is still NOT. IF Judge Silver says Doug is a big boy and on his own, both the company, USAPA (& any other party involved in a seniority integration) will be co-litigants to DFR (when the plaintiffs party decides to pull the trigger).

While you both are sharp and educated (likely to the same degree that I am), you should remember these points:

1. A senior arbitrator and two pilot neutrals came up with the Nicolau seniority list. It was never found out of compliance of the ALPA merger policy (which is now generally mirrored in the McCaskill /Bond legislation).
2. No seniority list / arbitration has EVER been overturned by the court system (ask Mike Cleary & Randy Mowrey....they said the same thing in June 2000).
3. The only lawyer that told USAPA (after USAPA shopped SEVERAL lawyers) that DOH was a slam dunk, it now off payroll. His counsel was expensive and failed to produce the results that USAPA was seeking.
4. 2 seasoned federal judges agreed with the Nicolau seniority arbitration and the DFR lawsuit.
5. A jury of peers found USAPA guilty of DFR in LESS than 90 MINUTES based on court testimony.
6. If the company is not given a "bye" on liability in a DFR lawsuit, do you think Mr. Parker will endanger LCC's position with further guaranteed litigation?

I think Tuesday will bring a conclusion to these proceedings. The question in front of Judge Silver may not be as black & white as ..."You must use the Nicolau list". The company is the party seeking clarification on liability.

I'll be in Philly with a Coke and a bag of microwave popcorn.

PS Everything from the Leonidas site is truthful and verifiable. No really, it is.

We get it, you think there should be an injunction to use the Nic. Remember, even the 9th acknowledged you have dreams.

Like I said, who knows what Silver will do, but ironically none of your points even address the question before Silver, neither do they address the realities established by the 9th, or the standard of DFR established by the SCOTUS. You are just ignoring them and arguing as if the 9th is irrelevant.

We shall see if Silver is smart enough to do what you haven't.

 

[ALGFLYR]

The only question in front of Judge Silver is whether or not the company is going to be free from litigation should they decide to accept a list other than the Nicolau (basically).

...

I think Tuesday will bring a conclusion to these proceedings. The question in front of Judge Silver may not be as black & white as ..."You must use the Nicolau list". The company is the party seeking clarification on liability.

I think what Silver decides will become important when and if a joint agreement is reached and ratified between USAPA and US Airways. Of course if an agreement between these two parties is never reached due to a merger with American, her ruling won't really matter... It will have no bearing on a seniority list between USAPA and the APA...

 

[General Lee]

I think what Silver decides will become important when and if a joint agreement is reached and ratified between USAPA and US Airways. Of course if an agreement between these two parties is never reached due to a merger with American, her ruling won't really matter... It will have no bearing on a seniority list between USAPA and the APA...

Ummmmmm, NO. I think it would be considered "ripe" if the AWA guys lost out on seniority in a SLI between the APA and USAPA. Maybe you also believe that you can drive that truck that was taken from you in the divorce settlement with your Ex Wife. Riiiiight. You Easties are unbelievable. You continue to try to brush the NIC award under the door, pretending it NEVER happened. Everyone can see you! Maybe you can negotiate this time with the APA, and just tell them THIS TIME YOU WILL PLAY BY THE RULES, unlike LAST TIME..... Last time was just practice, this time with the APA WILL BE FOR REAL.....


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[charlie2]

Ummmmmm, NO. I think it would be considered "ripe" if the AWA guys lost out on seniority in a SLI between the APA and USAPA. Maybe you also believe that you can drive that truck that was taken from you in the divorce settlement with your Ex Wife. Riiiiight. You Easties are unbelievable. You continue to try to brush the NIC award under the door, pretending it NEVER happened. Everyone can see you! Maybe you can negotiate this time with the APA, and just tell them THIS TIME YOU WILL PLAY BY THE RULES, unlike LAST TIME..... Last time was just practice, this time with the APA WILL BE FOR REAL.....


Bye Bye---General Lee

Pvt. Lee the "rules" say the list is used when AWA and US Stupidways ratify a contract. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

 

[ironspud]

It's more fun to speculate that AA doesn't even need the eastholes. Just take the planes and the west pilots. Solves a ton of current and potential major problems.

 

[Holy Shiite]

Pvt. Lee the "rules" say the list is used when AWA and US Stupidways ratify a contract. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand.

A little off topic here but the "general" is most likely not an Airline Pilot at all. Probably a scumbag lawyer or a management puke. He posts to stir the pot and create dissension. Look at his history of posts and it becomes all to clear. Majors, regionals, how many posts does he have? Way too much time on his hands and way too much interest in creating conflict on these boards.

Why would a so called Delta pilot take such an interest in these forums? Yup, there isn't one. HS

 

[MCDU]

A little off topic here but the "general" is most likely not an Airline Pilot at all. Probably a scumbag lawyer or a management puke. He posts to stir the pot and create dissension. Look at his history of posts and it becomes all to clear. Majors, regionals, how many posts does he have? Way too much time on his hands and way too much interest in creating conflict on these boards.

Why would a so called Delta pilot take such an interest in these forums? Yup, there isn't one. HS

Bingo. That is the consensus by most.

M

 

[General Lee]

A little off topic here but the "general" is most likely not an Airline Pilot at all. Probably a scumbag lawyer or a management puke. He posts to stir the pot and create dissension. Look at his history of posts and it becomes all to clear. Majors, regionals, how many posts does he have? Way too much time on his hands and way too much interest in creating conflict on these boards.

Why would a so called Delta pilot take such an interest in these forums? Yup, there isn't one. HS

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. You're a dork. Why would a PILOT take an interest in an aviation forum? REALLY? I have been on this board for 14 years. Look at you, talk about being full of shiite.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Bingo. That is the consensus by most.

M

The NIC award will rule, and you know it. I can't wait to watch the continuation of your train wreck.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[cactusboy53]

I think what Silver decides will become important when and if a joint agreement is reached and ratified between USAPA and US Airways. Of course if an agreement between these two parties is never reached due to a merger with American, her ruling won't really matter... It will have no bearing on a seniority list between USAPA and the APA...

Ahhhh...I get it now. You are saying that the arbitration panel (of three) will be presented with three lists and told that SINCE there was no joint agreement ratified between the former AAA pilots and the AWA pilots that the Nicolau Seniority arbitration "doesn't count".

I wonder how the arbitration panel of three (that are most assuredly co-workers/friends/ mentees of Arbitrator Nicolau) would respond to that position?

Keep swinging for the fences boys, theres bound to be a good pitch in the bunch! Question: WHEN we finally work together, how much money do you think LCC will offer you for all your pain, angst & agony for all that you have suffered (considering that most of it is self inflicted)?

Pizza anyone?

 

[General Lee]

Hey, everyone can trust the Easties NOW, because THIS TIME, it will be FOR REAL. For real for real. This time. This SLI, they will HONOR. Trust them. They are NOT crossing their fingers behind their backs. This time, it's for real!


Bye Bye----General Lee

 

[charlie2]

Hey, everyone can trust the Easties NOW, because THIS TIME, it will be FOR REAL. For real for real. This time. This SLI, they will HONOR. Trust them. They are NOT crossing their fingers behind their backs. This time, it's for real!


Bye Bye----General Lee

Trust? Go eat your grits. This is business.

 

[Holy Shiite]

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA. You're a dork. Why would a PILOT take an interest in an aviation forum? REALLY? I have been on this board for 14 years. Look at you, talk about being full of shiite.


Bye Bye---General Lee

Go crawl back in your cubicle, poser. Actually, I like private better! HS

 

[ALGFLYR]

Ahhhh...I get it now. You are saying that the arbitration panel (of three) will be presented with three lists and told that SINCE there was no joint agreement ratified between the former AAA pilots and the AWA pilots that the Nicolau Seniority arbitration "doesn't count".

...

Yes. It's not that it "doesn't count", It's just that the clearly defined conditions that would make it "count" were never realized (Assuming a merger with AA happens). The Nicolau list is not an official seniority list. If it were, you could bid PHL and I could bid PHX. Neither of us can do that because it's not an official seniority list on this property.

 

[General Lee]

Yes. It's not that it "doesn't count", It's just that the clearly defined conditions that would make it "count" were never realized (Assuming a merger with AA happens). The Nicolau list is not an official seniority list. If it were, you could bid PHL and I could bid PHX. Neither of us can do that because it's not an official seniority list on this property.

Looooooooozer! You guys agreed to NIC doing the list. He did it, you didn't like it, you changed unions to avoid it. Don't say it didn't happen like that. It will follow you, just like a divorce settlement. HAVE FUN!


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[ALGFLYR]

Looooooooozer! You guys agreed to NIC doing the list. He did it, you didn't like it, you changed unions to avoid it. Don't say it didn't happen like that. It will follow you, just like a divorce settlement. HAVE FUN!


Bye Bye---General Lee

Loser? Really GL? I challenge you to find any post I have ever posted that I resorted to name calling. I welcome participating in a civilized debate and will engage in such until it becomes a childish bout of name calling and the like.

To me it seems that if an argument is presented and the best someone can come back with is calling names and trying to pull someone down to that level, the name caller is either uneducated about the subject matter, or knows he is wrong and resorts to calling someone names in a childish fashion to make themselves feel better... Either way, I suppose I shall go back into lurking mode...

 

[The Drizzle]

Loser? Really GL? I challenge you to find any post I have ever posted that I resorted to name calling. I welcome participating in a civilized debate and will engage in such until it becomes a childish bout of name calling and the like.

To me it seems that if an argument is presented and the best someone can come back with is calling names and trying to pull someone down to that level, the name caller is either uneducated about the subject matter, or knows he is wrong and resorts to calling someone names in a childish fashion to make themselves feel better... Either way, I suppose I shall go back into lurking mode...

I'm just a third-lister who's eagerly awaiting his turn under the bus, but don't surviving entities still have to adhere to previous agreements? Wouldn't the surviving entity, AA in this case, still have to adhere to the transition agreement that made the Nic contingent on a joint contract?

 

[Turtle21]

I'm just a third-lister who's eagerly awaiting his turn under the bus, but don't surviving entities still have to adhere to previous agreements? Wouldn't the surviving entity, AA in this case, still have to adhere to the transition agreement that made the Nic contingent on a joint contract?

The terms of the TA did not envision nor provide for a merger beyond the scope of AWA and LCC, accept of course for the part of that TA that retained the right for parties to entirely change everything via negotiations, which works out well to move forward in the seniority dispute if there is a new merger ahead.

P.S. I think lawyers would not refer to USAPA as a "surviving" entity.. rather it is a superseding one, and thus has the right to negotiate as granted by the TA. Any other superseding entity would likewise have the same right to negotiate.

 

[The Drizzle]

P.S. I think lawyers would not refer to USAPA as a "surviving" entity.. rather it is a superseding one, and thus has the right to negotiate as granted by the TA. Any other superseding entity would likewise have the same right to negotiate.

Isn't this where history and law aren't on USAPA's side? I don't know of a single case where a change of representation released the new representation from the obligations of the previous. Do the USAPA paid lawyers have backing or are these new arguments?

 

[cactusboy53]

The terms of the TA did not envision nor provide for a merger beyond the scope of AWA and LCC, accept of course for the part of that TA that retained the right for parties to entirely change everything via negotiations, which works out well to move forward in the seniority dispute if there is a new merger ahead.

P.S. I think lawyers would not refer to USAPA as a "surviving" entity.. rather it is a superseding one, and thus has the right to negotiate as granted by the TA. Any other superseding entity would likewise have the same right to negotiate.

Except for the actions of the collective majority of the former US Air pilots, yes there would have been a joint contract. Thus failing to accept the results of a final and binding seniority arbitration has cost each and every pilot on the property quite nearly 5 years of contract improvments and time off.

Goning one step further, I count many actions of USAPA as unacceptable. These actions include, but are not limited to the 2X RICO charges that cost those 24+ pilots nearly $5-$10K EACH and the trumped up "Address-Gate" charges.

According to your pretzel logic, you should not be surprised when the American pilots make you understand that the superseding union will be able to negotiate anything it wants to on your behalf because they out number you.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day.

 

[Turtle21]

Isn't this where history and law aren't on USAPA's side? I don't know of a single case where a change of representation released the new representation from the obligations of the previous. Do the USAPA paid lawyers have backing or are these new arguments?

The TA itself provides for negotiations and modifications of the entire TA, and if a merger occurs with AA, the TA is in no way adequate for a new merger (ie. its useless).

 

[Turtle21]

Except for the actions of the collective majority of the former US Air pilots, yes there would have been a joint contract. Thus failing to accept the results of a final and binding seniority arbitration has cost each and every pilot on the property quite nearly 5 years of contract improvments and time off.

Goning one step further, I count many actions of USAPA as unacceptable. These actions include, but are not limited to the 2X RICO charges that cost those 24+ pilots nearly $5-$10K EACH and the trumped up "Address-Gate" charges.

According to your pretzel logic, you should not be surprised when the American pilots make you understand that the superseding union will be able to negotiate anything it wants to on your behalf because they out number you.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day.

You have been told when you can sue, and it ain't tomorrow.

 

[Turtle21]

Except for the actions of the collective majority of the former US Air pilots, yes there would have been a joint contract. Thus failing to accept the results of a final and binding seniority arbitration has cost each and every pilot on the property quite nearly 5 years of contract improvments and time off.

Goning one step further, I count many actions of USAPA as unacceptable. These actions include, but are not limited to the 2X RICO charges that cost those 24+ pilots nearly $5-$10K EACH and the trumped up "Address-Gate" charges.

According to your pretzel logic, you should not be surprised when the American pilots make you understand that the superseding union will be able to negotiate anything it wants to on your behalf because they out number you.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day.

You have been told when you can sue, and it ain't tomorrow.

A superseding union gets to negotiate according to a wide range of reasonableness.