USAPA/APA and arbitration

[Turtle21]

You better read silvers ruling again. She reaffirmed that the Nic was "powerful evidence of a fair result" and that USAPA was on dangerous ground for not using it. The problem is USAPA never has been able to move an in untoward an integrated list because they've been ignored by the company since birth. It's been a Mexican standoff for 6 years. That's about to change. Nic, it's relevance, or it's "powerful evidence of a fair result" haven't gone anywhere. It's going in front of the next arbitration panel as well. Why is USAPA screaming bloody murder that they're being kicked out of the sli? One reason. THE NICOLAU AWARD. If it's irrelevant, why the hysteria?

Sure, the internal process of ALPA was a powerful evidence of fairness, but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Name one document. Just one. Show your work.

P.S. If the West were ever to have an equal seat at the MB Arbitration you should grow up and quit your implicit assumptions that the APA will advocate for the Nic. Even Stevie Wonder can see that the APA will join the East in arguing against the Nic, and will join the West in arguing against DOH. They want ratios and have made no bones about it. The arbitrators have plenty of precedent to use ratios of the three lists and no relevant documents to do otherwise. Using DOH or Nic would cause a great deal of upheaval and training events. Neither will happen.

 

[shagadelic]

P.S. If the West were ever to have an equal seat at the MB Arbitration you should grow up and quit your implicit assumptions that the APA will advocate for the Nic. Even Stevie Wonder can see that the APA will join the East in arguing against the Nic, and will join the West in arguing against DOH. They want ratios and have made no bones about it. The arbitrators have plenty of precedent to use ratios of the three lists and no relevant documents to do otherwise. Using DOH or Nic would cause a great deal of upheaval and training events. Neither will happen.

There may be some truth in that....Once again...maybe no one will like it.

 

[JumpersAway]

I'm astonished to see that there are some here that don't understand why it is desirable to have USAPA involved in SLI. All you have to do is look at the APA's previous merger history to figure it out.

 

[Ocity]

I'm astonished to see that there are some here that don't understand why it is desirable to have USAPA involved in SLI. All you have to do is look at the APA's previous merger history to figure it out.

That's a GROSS over-simplification. The only ones that don't want USAPA dead post haste is a minority group of east pilots. That ought to tell you something.

 

[Turtle21]

That's a GROSS over-simplification. The only ones that don't want USAPA dead post haste is a minority group of east pilots. That ought to tell you something.

Yoggi-ism = Using a paradoxical contradiction to state a tautology. ex. Using a gross oversimplification to state a gross oversimplification.

 

[Turtle21]

How come APA and USAPA don't have $675 neck ties for sale?

http://www.cactuspilotcontributors.com/libertynecktie.html

 

[IBNAV8R]

Name one legally binding document that affirms the relevance of the Nic. Just one. Just one teeny wheeny document......

How about the document signed by the parties agreeing to BINDING arbitration? I take it that wasn't a wink and a handshake.

 

[ALGFLYR]

How about the document signed by the parties agreeing to BINDING arbitration? I take it that wasn't a wink and a handshake.

Well that document is no longer in existence legally. The MOU nullified it. But when it was a legal document, it did have conditions that must be met to implement the Nic. Those conditions were never met. And now the document is no longer around legally...

 

[Ocity]

Well that document is no longer in existence legally. The MOU nullified it. But when it was a legal document, it did have conditions that must be met to implement the Nic. Those conditions were never met. And now the document is no longer around legally...

Wanna bet? LOL!

 

[Turtle21]

How about the document signed by the parties agreeing to BINDING arbitration? I take it that wasn't a wink and a handshake.

You mean the 2005TA? The agreement signed before Dec 9th 2013? Sure that document agreed to use the ALPA process, among other things.