Then don't state your opinion as fact anymore.
I'll state whatever I please.
Actually, the history of the after effects proves something quite different -- something proven in court.
Would that be the court that just allowed an appeal to show no harm?
It is very presumptuous to imply that the AWA pilots would've attempted to get around binding arbitration. Not all pilots lack integrity as the Easties do (and apparently the handful of non-Easties who support their treacherous actions).
Here is the quote from you to which I was referring:
"Following your skewed logic, let's say Nicolau had ruled DOH (which staples 2/3 of the AWA list behind the junior active AAA pilot) and then we went irrationally ballistic like the East did. Being only 1/3 of the size of the combined pilot group our attempts to pressure Prater would've fallen on deaf ears and our attempt to get around binding arbitration by changing unions would've failed to garner enough votes. Would we then be able to state as a "fact" that the arbitrator screwed up?"
I merely responded in kind. The was no presumption. Get your arguments straight, and then we'll debate.
Which is why merger policies exist: to protect smaller pilot groups from egregious larger groups.
You are way off base here. Both APA and ALPA had merger policies, but that did not prevent a rogering of the TWA pilots. Do you realize that ALPA merger policy changed after your debacle. Why do you think that is??:erm:
FWIW, there should be an appeal process to arbitration for exactly this case, IMO. In the event of failure of the appeal, then it's binding.
Fine. Big irrelevant difference. Nicolau didn't buy it.
A neutral noted it, however. You know, an actual pilot. I guess you ran out of bad logic on this one.
Seriously, do you really not understand the difference between each airline's seniority and combining seniority? Lemme ask you this, something no Eastie has even tried to answer. On the day the merger was announced the bottom US Airways FO was a 1988 hire. Would you say he was junior or senior? I say he was junior. Having nobody below you employed makes you junior. The Easties make him senior to 2/3 of the AWA pilot group. So how can one pilot be both junior and senior at the same time?
Sure, I understand. What you are not willing to concede is that I don't agree that they are all that different. You guys are hanging your hat on the fact that AWA was not technically in BK. You leave our of your quoting of me the small blurb about the govt owning 1/3 of AWA, and perhaps that had something to do with the fact that you were NOT in BK. You conveniently overlook the fact that your contract has always sucked while USAir has been the victim of fellow ALPA airline groups hanging on the very bar they were trying to raise. You leave out the fact that in your myopic mind USAir was on the brink of liquidation, when in FACT they weren't. You leave out the blurb that a 1988 pilot at USAir was in many people's opinions, NOT the bottom pilot at USAir. You leave out the fact that the ruling, almost instantaneously, gave AWA pilots access to international flying, more bases, more diversity, more furlough cushion, and more leverage, while taking those very same things aways from several USAir pilots--a violation of ALPA merger policy. You leave out the fact that USAir east didn't need USAPA. All they really had to do was just never vote successfully on a JCBA. That was their only real misstep, IMO.
You're right. That's why it isn't ALPA's merger policy to impose DOH. Every merger is difference therefore no one integration policy is fair.
You are wrong. ALPA's merger policy wasn't DOH, because certain groups had gotten it removed from the policy manual due to their size and subsequent relatively new DOH. Check your history, and then come back to the fray. It has changed since yours, and will likely change again. The fact that every merger is different is what leads to the bloodbaths, which is exactly the reason WHY the policy needs to be subjective, and the same every time. Your making this very easy.
That's right, if only pilots had more fortitude we'd all make 500k/year, work eight days a month and have a pension to support our great-grand kids. You've got it all figured out. Who do you work for again?
What does this say? Nothing. That's right nothing. I suppose you thought that you had to say something, when you probably just should have conceded the point.
I'm glad you brought up the TWA affair. You see, the Easties are trying to do to us exactly what the APA did to TWA: impose their own seniority integration. The APA is terrified of the idea of an arbitrator because they know it would be more fair.
This is what pilot groups do when given the chance, they take advantage of the other group. That's why I favor ALPA Merger Policy (even the new, revised version) so much. It's a fair process. And unlike the Easties and you I understand that binding arbitration is binding even if I don't like the result.
See, and I think my point was that the East received an unfair shake, just as the TWA pilots did. Proves my point all the more that there needs to be an objective standard of merger policy between ALPA carriers. I really don't care what it. Make it eye color for all I care. Just don't make it subject to interpretation, career expectations, whims, opinions of human beings, etc. I will concede that binding should mean binding, as long as it is fair. There is no such thing as mostly fair, more fair, or less fair. Something is either fair, or it is not. The award was arguably not fair. Whether it was or not should not be up to you or me, but a truly impartial panel of peers. Once that is confirmed, then binding should mean binding. I think that east side has a valid argument. How about the west side allowing a panel of experts looking at the award today, and judging its fairness. THEN the east giving up all recourse to anything but Nic. I mean, if you are so sure you are right, it should pass the sniff test from a panel of peers, right? Of course it's not, because the west continues behind their only veil of fairness: two words-binding arbitration.
Wow, you just proved the sky is blue! Of course I'm biased, 100%. So what? At least I can admit my bias. What's yours?
Again, pretty much nothing said here. My "bias" is WHAT is right, not WHO is right.
Nuff said
