Pilots dislike US Airways merger

[Bear96]

Since you're clearly not a lawyer, let me try to save you from future embarrasment and give you a little hint and a lesson in administrative law: An appellate court's interpretation of a statute trumps the administrative agency's interpretation. In this case, that means the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of the RLA in the Russell case you refuse to read trumps the NMB's interpretation.

While the method you cite is one way to get rid of a union under the RLA, it is not the only way, as the Russell case shows.

 

[ussnark]

The solution is to live up to your commitments and get a joint contract.

As someone who got a windfall, of course you'd like to move on. The rest of us, the solution is an unqualified, nope.

Doug Parker will do nothing because he knows the award was fair, and more importantly, he can't.

Logic is not your strong point, is it?

Do any of you remember all of those meetings with Parker early on in the merger? What was the one big question BOTH sides were asking him? Yes, seniority and how to merge the pilot groups. And do you remember what he said to both groups ? (the meetings were taped and there are video archives). Parker told both sides he thought ratios was the fair way to integrate the pilots. C'mon, admit it, I'm sure you attended at least one of them. Don't believe me, just ask corp comm for the archives. Or they still may be on theHub.

Uh, please direct me to those videos as I'd like to present those as evidence that management publicly participated in the arbitration. Please help me out here.

No?

 

[700UW]

Since you're clearly not a lawyer, let me try to save you from future embarrasment and give you a little hint and a lesson in administrative law: An appellate court's interpretation of a statute trumps the administrative agency's interpretation. In this case, that means the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of the RLA in the Russell case you refuse to read trumps the NMB's interpretation.

While the method you cite is one way to get rid of a union under the RLA, it is not the only way, as the Russell case shows.

Gee I just read over the Appeals court ruling in the case it is a dispute between two unions, the IFAA and AFA due to the TWA strike, nothing about a decertifiation of an exsisting union under the RLA without an election between two unions.

I hope you go back to law school and get a refresher course on interpretation.

Appeals Court Ruling on Russel vs National Mediation Board.

Gee dont let the facts get in your way!

 

[Bear96]

Gee I just read over the Appeals court ruling in the case it is a dispute between two unions, the IFAA and AFA due to the TWA strike, nothing about a decertifiation of an exsisting union under the RLA without an election between two unions.

I hope you go back to law school and get a refresher course on interpretation.

Appeals Court Ruling on Russel vs National Mediation Board.

Gee dont let the facts get in your way!

Gee your ignorance of legal matters runs deeper than I thought.

I'm not sure why you think it is relevant to this discussion or why you titled the link the way you did (which makes no sense), but the case you linked to is not Russell. It is Professional Cabin Crew Assoc. v. NMB.

Guess how you can tell -- read the title at the top of the page. (Sneaky, huh?)

Gee don't let the facts get in your way!

I hope get to law school some day and learn basic legal research skills. You must have missed your calling. Here, let me help:

Law School Admissions Council

 

[700UW]

It is the appeal of that very same case, learn to read and comprehend.

Guess you are the ignorant one!

The very first Text on the page:

PROFESSIONAL CABIN CREW ASSOCIATION, GLENDA LOPEZ-BRUNER, AND DELYNN KLOSTERHOFF, PETITIONERS V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD

 

[Bear96]

It is the appeal of that very same case, learn to read and comprehend.

Guess you are the ignorant one!

The very first Text on the page:

Oh my. This is turning futile rather rapidly.

(1) What on Earth are you talking about? How is it an "appeal of the very same case"? In your previous post, you admitted it had nothing to do with Russell (a case which, it should be noted, you have no interest in reading or learning about, apparently because you fear it might say something you don't already know and you don't want to be exposed to new and different ideas, or deal with the fact that you might be wrong).

(2) What text on the first page are you referring to that shows this is an appeal of Russell?

(3) The Fifth Circuit decision in Russell IS the appeal. After a federal circuit court of appeal, the only other court to go to is the U.S. Supreme Court. (I assume you have heard of the U.S. Supreme Court? Although I am learning not to take your comprehension of the U.S. civil litigation system for granted any more.) And guess what -- the Supreme Court DECLINED to hear an appeal of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Russell. See Brotherhood of Ry. Clerks v. Russell, 467 U.S. 204 (1984) (denying certiorari in Russell v. NMB).

To paraphrase someone who can never, ever admit he was wrong:

Learn to read and comprehend.

Guess you are the ignorant one!

Don't let the facts get in your way

 

[Edward]

Guys if you want this thread to stay open it's time to give it a break.