Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
The APA missed its best, and last chance, to demonstrate that they are in compliance with MB, and intend to remain in compliance. Instead, they magnify the necessity of the injunction, as well as prove the prescience of MB. And USAPA predicted exactly that in their filings, already.USA320Pilot said:Today US Airways/AAGs filed their Reply Brief, APA filed their Reply Brief, and AA pilot Wesley Kennedy filed a Declaration in D.C. federal court today.[/size]
[/size]
According to APA, (Quoting from Judge Silver) The Court has no doubt that as is USAPAs consistent practice USAPA will change its position when it needs to do so to fit its hard and unyielding view on seniority. That is, having prevailed in convincing the Court that only the certified representatives should participate in seniority discussions, once USAPA is no longer a certified representative, it will change its position and argue entities other than certified representatives should be allowed to participate. The Courts patience with USAPA has run out. . . .[W]hen USAPA is no longer the certified representative, it must immediately stop participating in the seniority integration.
Id. The court erred in only one respect: USAPA did not wait until it was no longer the certified representative to change its position. [/size]
OUCH! -- USAPA = Pyrrhic Victory.[/size]
The APA hopes the court will implicitly assume MB really isn't binding after all (not even on the ones who caused its necessity). We all know how implicit assumptions end. We have seen it before.
Tic, Toc. Tic, Toc.