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

[ALGFLYR]

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 representational change didn't release USAPA from the obligations left from ALPA. Both ALPA contracts are still in place and legally binding on the pilot groups and the company. The Transition Agreement (TA) is still a legal document that governs how the East and West pilot groups and contracts will be combined. The TA also governs how the 2 seniority lists will be combined once the two groups combine into one group under US Airways. That is defined under a very specific set of circumstances that must happen between the two groups and US Airways management. Those conditions will never be realized if a merger occurs with American.

 

[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...

Look, you can TRY to rationalize it all you want, but your group "pulled a fast one" on your other side, after you both signed up for BINDING arbitration. Your GROUP voted out ALPA because of the BINDING AWARD, all because you didn't like the outcome. That reflects poorly ON YOUR WHOLE GROUP. We all know it, and so do you. So, I am looking forward to restitution for the West side. Really, you guys screwed up. Didn't Sulley talk about integrity? You guys lost it when you didn't HONOR what you agreed to in the first place. There you go, no name calling. But, the truth.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

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 Easties are saying "I divorced Sally, but because I just married Wendy I still can drive Sally's truck that I lost in the divorce settlement....."


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Whataburger]

...about integrity? You guys lost it But, the truth...



Bye Bye---General Lee

Integrity? The kind when you tell someone you will pay them $1 for a widget, and they let you have the widget. Then, you only pay them $.20 for the widget when the bills come due??

 

[Bad-Andy]

The Easties are saying "I divorced Sally, but because I just married Wendy I still can drive Sally's truck that I lost in the divorce settlement....."


Bye Bye---General Lee

Actually, Gen Lee, you're a little off on your analogy here. It would be more akin to "I was engaged to Sally, but we never set a date and walked down the aisle. But, we did buy a house together -- both signed the mortgage papers. Now I want to live in the house because Wendy and I are getting married..."

Still a moral wrong (to want the house without paying), but since it was only an engagement, not a marriage (never finalized the agreement), not necessarily a legal wrong (yet). We have to wait for the court to decide -- can we get the house and is SALLY SOL? Or do we owe Sally for her half of the house?

Hopefully it will be decided tomorrow (but I'm not holding my breath...).

 

[General Lee]

Integrity? The kind when you tell someone you will pay them $1 for a widget, and they let you have the widget. Then, you only pay them $.20 for the widget when the bills come due??

Look Stalin, everyone and any company can go BK, that's legal. Trying to dodge a binding award, that isn't. Good try. You probably will go personal BK yourself someday, so get back to us and tell us how it went. Btw, you guys also treated your AT brothers like poop, so I can kinda see how you might not think its a big deal. Makes sense now. Enjoy your stagnation.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Actually, Gen Lee, you're a little off on your analogy here. It would be more akin to "I was engaged to Sally, but we never set a date and walked down the aisle. But, we did buy a house together -- both signed the mortgage papers. Now I want to live in the house because Wendy and I are getting married..."

Still a moral wrong (to want the house without paying), but since it was only an engagement, not a marriage (never finalized the agreement), not necessarily a legal wrong (yet). We have to wait for the court to decide -- can we get the house and is SALLY SOL? Or do we owe Sally for her half of the house?

Hopefully it will be decided tomorrow (but I'm not holding my breath...).

That might be a better analogy, but your group did accept the binding agreement prior to the award. Your MEC chair signed the papers for you. You all agreed on the arbitrator. Because you didn't agree with the award, the union was kicked out as an end around to the award. That is just plain dirty. I hope it is decided tomorrow, but if this act of denying an award is allowed, all arbitration in the future will be in question, because everyone will be allowed to find an end around to avoid it.


Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Whataburger]

You probably will go personal BK yourself someday,



Bye Bye---General Lee

huh? what?

 

[Bad-Andy]

That might be a better analogy, but your group did accept the binding agreement prior to the award. Your MEC chair signed the papers for you. You all agreed on the arbitrator. Because you didn't agree with the award, the union was kicked out as an end around to the award. That is just plain dirty. I hope it is decided tomorrow, but if this act of denying an award is allowed, all arbitration in the future will be in question, because everyone will be allowed to find an end around to avoid it.


Bye Bye---General Lee

I agree. I was just pointing out that the loophole that is being exploited (or attempted to be exploited) is that the deal was never finalized -- i.e. a JCBA as required by the Transition Agreement. I'm not arguing that its right, just that it exists...

 

[The Drizzle]

The representational change didn't release USAPA from the obligations left from ALPA. Both ALPA contracts are still in place and legally binding on the pilot groups and the company. The Transition Agreement (TA) is still a legal document that governs how the East and West pilot groups and contracts will be combined. The TA also governs how the 2 seniority lists will be combined once the two groups combine into one group under US Airways. That is defined under a very specific set of circumstances that must happen between the two groups and US Airways management. Those conditions will never be realized if a merger occurs with American.

I see. That's a hell of a tightrope.