Snoop,
My fragmentation reference is simply that USAPA, rather than being one combined voice, is potentially becoming separate East & West in nature. I will grant that one of the potential separations will be by an injunction and somewhat outside the control of the members. However, the second issue is seemingly by choice and that is the investigation of past acts that don't involve the West, nor even your current employer. (Remember that the current US Airways had nothing to do with the past US Airways which failed to survive the last bankruptcy.)
Oh come on, hp, "potentially?" We"re already split, even back to the last year of ALPAs iron-fisted rule. Once the Nic came out, we fractured. Fact of life, hp, made worse by Wests jumpseat denials and flip-offs. "Nor even your current employer?" Remember Love Canal? Occidental ate the past acts when they bought Hooker 20 years after the pollution stopped. Thats the way the legal system works, hp, or did your legal training miss that? I think we all know US Airways did survive, just as predicted by West merger attorney Freund in August 2005.
And I still dont see your angle. Spending all that time in court, all the time on this chat. Either you bored, are totally narsisistic enjoying the spolight you created for yourself or your shilling for the company or the west or ALPA or any and all of them.
Snoop,
As I said I almost agree with you on this one, but I have 1 question. Will the West members get to vote on your assesment for pension loss inquiries?
Ni4, I assume so. I hope so. If we can vote as a whole on your age 58, then you have a right to vote on our retirement investigation assessment, although I hear West wont be assessed. Im into the democracy thing. By a 11-3 vote, we voted to appeal DFR. We"ll play it out. We cant appeal until his remedy is released. Just like the pension investigation (if it passes), we need the closure on the DFR. If we lose, its over and Nic is in any TA put out for vote.
On subject voting, Wakes got some real thinking to do. The TA does not say how the vote is done, only refers to ALPA merger policy. He says ALPA merger policy rules. Ok, then each "side" gets to vote separately and veto the other side. That makes the TA harder to pass. But if he allows a combined vote, hes in violation of ALPA merger policy. Why important? A combined, no-veto vote plays into the hands of the company making it easier to pass a marginal contract, for sure every west member in good standing would vote NIC, regardless of the rest of the TA. The question is, can Wake essentially write a remedy that contradicts his jury instructions?
Wakes got a history of reversing himself in the same case. Last year he ruled against a defendant and then 7 months later reversed himself in the same trial. Kind of a John Kerry, “I voted for funding the war before I voted against it†in reverse. Weâ€ll see if he pulls a 180 here, sooner or later. Hes got a legal snag and a legal "out" that he just might have to use, but Ill let you sweat what it is. Mr Snoop