Jester
Veteran
Dear Gentle Roabilly,
You certainly do provide the most provocative thoughts for me to respond, even after your aforementioned question has been asked by others. Allow me to offer my insights to the "importance" of the COC.
Frankly, it is cheaper even with the attorneys, negotiators, etc. to remove it now than to argue the point before a binding arbitration hearing later. Furthermore, even if the company continues to win such matters, defending the issue would be an expense whenever there is the slightest whiff a COC matter and Easties have dreams of Snap Backs dancing in their heads. From the company's point of view, it is broke and it needs fixin'.
In addition, any potential buyer might be uneasy with the COC regardless of assurances to the contrary and prior rulings. Think of it as akin to water pipes banging between the walls in your house, after 20 years and no problems, you are comfortable with it, but a new buyer will view it as a pipe ready to burst between the walls. You are probably going to need to fix it first. Then again if the price is right, and home inspectors sign off, then the buyer would be willing to accept the risk. Just as much as a buyer for US Airways would have their own legal experts review the COC as did the investors did a few years ago. Keep the COC and maybe, just maybe, a ruling might go in favor of the ramp agents, just as those pipes might actually burst.
The COC card was played by the IAM prior to the last TA, and there was some improvement. In some ways this current TA is a step backwards, but after losing the COC ruling, the COC importance was greatly diminished. Those clinging to the COC are looking for leverage to pull a string, when the only option available would be to push the string. Any potential buyer could continue to run as two or three separate fleet service organizations indefinately, so I don't see this contract as an something critical to overcome for the company before another merger or buy-out.
So Views Jester.
