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

[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.