Iam Going Back To Court

[700UW]

It seems when the appellate court rules, it usually is a verbal statement then 14 days later a written decision is given, this did not happen in this case.

After the ruling US Airways went back to the Western District Court and got the TRO lifted by the chief justice, but US Airways failed to inform the court that the IAM had filed an appeal.

The IAM attorneys went back to the Western District Court last week and informed the Chief Justice that an appeal was filed, she then reinstated the TRO.

The company is taking the position that since the Appellate court ruled that the TRO is not effect, the had the work resumed on one airplane.

The IAM will be going back to the Western District Court Friday or early next week to seek enforcement of the TRO and to hold the company in contempt of court since the appeal is filed everything is suppose to be status quo and the TRO remains in effect until the Appellate court rules either way.

 

[700UW]

Bob, the company is gambling and have spent way too much money on lawyers now to just give up. I think they are not happy cause we won't play their game of ball.

If they win (which they won't when it finally ends up in arbitration) they could could close down all of heavy maintenance when they retire the boeings.

 

[700UW]

Nothing gained nothing ventured, it is all being drive by Neal Cohen who thinks he can do anything he wants, he came from NWA where they could farm out work, he still thinks he is there.

The former VP of maintenance was fired because he stood up at a meeting, told Dave, Jerry, Neal and Doug that you can't do that it is IAM work, he and Cohen got into it and I believe a religous slur was used towards Cohen then the VP was told leave the meeting your service are no longer needed.

They also know that an arbitor will more then likely rule in the IAMs favor, but split the baby and not award any monetary damages.

 

[delldude]

bob: its coming down to a face saving issue to condone the monies they've wasted...pure and simple....in the end if the IAM does prevail either in appeal or arbitration...there will be fannies hung out to dry from the companies end.

 

[usfliboi]

Yes but they are playing their hand like they hold all the cards. Which on the surface would seem not to be the case. So what gives?

Something just doesn't ring true to me. No one plays high stakes legal poker like this because it's a slow work day. We're missing something.

My thoughts exactly Bon! Obviously they feel they have the upper hand. They just dont go around slinging money at lawyers unless there s a lot of money to be saved. We are def mising a piece of the puzzle. To say the company is just playing a game isnt factual. Obviously the facts are not known by us .

 

[A320 Driver]

700UW said:

Bob, the company is gambling and have spent way too much money on lawyers now to just give up. I think they are not happy cause we won't play their game of ball.

My first question is, just what is "their game of ball"? Is it the fact that they want things done a certain way and you won't comply or what? I don't know.

Secondly, can any management team be so stupid as to spend this kind of money when they stand to gain nothing? This has to be some kind of short term stategy. Nothing that's been done so far has any long term value to it so what have they got to gain by persuing a course of action that they know leads to a dead end?

I gotta go with Bob here. There is a bigger player at work here and I think we're all missing it. Otherwise this whole thing is one big waste of time.

A320 Driver B)

 

[tim]

700UW said:

Bob, the company is gambling and have spent way too much money on lawyers now to just give up. I think they are not happy cause we won't play their game of ball.

My first question is, just what is "their game of ball"? Is it the fact that they want things done a certain way and you won't comply or what? I don't know.

Secondly, can any management team be so stupid as to spend this kind of money when they stand to gain nothing? This has to be some kind of short term stategy. Nothing that's been done so far has any long term value to it so what have they got to gain by persuing a course of action that they know leads to a dead end?

I gotta go with Bob here. There is a bigger player at work here and I think we're all missing it. Otherwise this whole thing is one big waste of time.

A320 Driver B)

320 you're giving this sorry ### team way too much credit!

There's nothing lurking behind the scenes. They are so far out of the pulse of reality and have lost control, it's nothing more. Giving them credit for originality when their batting average is zero!? You and bobby piney have enough faith to toss a mountain in the sea!

 

[sentrido]

They have a lot to gain and relatively little to lose.Its a good gamble on their part. If somehow they win the windfall would be enormous.They would just start to phase out all the boeings. A lot of the benefit would be the leverage they would gain over the IAM. In the long run the money they are losing from parking the airplanes is minimal and won't make or break the company anyway. That said, I hate those those bastards.

 

[tim]

They have a lot to gain and relatively little to lose.Its a good gamble on their part. If somehow they win the windfall would be enormous.They would just start to phase out all the boeings. A lot of the benefit would be the leverage they would gain over the IAM. In the long run the money they are losing from parking the airplanes is minimal and won't make or break the company anyway. That said, I hate those those bastards.

A Man after my heart!

 

[delldude]

They have a lot to gain and relatively little to lose.Its a good gamble on their part. If somehow they win the windfall would be enormous.They would just start to phase out all the boeings. A lot of the benefit would be the leverage they would gain over the IAM. In the long run the money they are losing from parking the airplanes is minimal and won't make or break the company anyway. That said, I hate those those bastards.

theres the sublime little reason for the big stakes game..... <_<

 

[ITRADE]

It seems when the appellate court rules, it usually is a verbal statement then 14 days later a written decision is given, this did not happen in this case.

After the ruling US Airways went back to the Western District Court and got the TRO lifted by the chief justice, but US Airways failed to inform the court that the IAM had filed an appeal.

When did US petition for a lifting of the TRO?

 

[tim]

It seems when the appellate court rules, it usually is a verbal statement then 14 days later a written decision is given, this did not happen in this case.

After the ruling US Airways went back to the Western District Court and got the TRO lifted by the chief justice, but US Airways failed to inform the court that the IAM had filed an appeal.

When did US petition for a lifting of the TRO?

Itrade. I thought that was your job. No?

 

[tim]

It seems when the appellate court rules, it usually is a verbal statement then 14 days later a written decision is given, this did not happen in this case.

After the ruling US Airways went back to the Western District Court and got the TRO lifted by the chief justice, but US Airways failed to inform the court that the IAM had filed an appeal.

When did US petition for a lifting of the TRO?

Itrade. I thought that was your job. No?

I understand some women judge ruled on it, maybe delldude knows, he is informed.

 

[delldude]

as i understand,shortly thereafter gaining favor in PHl.
judge donetta ambrose,chief justice western dist.court...cindrich retired ,so she took it.
BTW,cindrich is now a legalman for UPMC health....

 

[pitguy]

I heard have heard the company is sending tons of tooling down daily to Alabama to support the Airbus during the 'S' check. Also heard that the vendor company had brought in some citizens from Argentina to help them work on the aircraft and they were upset since the were unable to make all the money they were supposed to since the work was stopped on the ten aircraft and now they could not or did not want to come back up to work using their work visa's.