Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
The west winning a DFR suit and citing that is like citing a football game where a team "won" the game by kicking the extra point. And then the point was taken off the scoreboard for a penalty. This is getting old and it is not true either. They won no DFR suit, and you know it. It has been erased.
The better question would be this: why on earth does the west continue to send Jacobs on legal missions that make USAPA's case? Every time Jacobs goes to bat, he gets a clarification from a court or judge that kills his mission. He got the 9th to admit the Nic isn't a requirement, and got Wake to clearly ERASE Addington.
that's not the case.
No, it's more like two football teams playing a legitimate game where one side records a decisive 56 to 0 victory. Then, six months after the game is over and everyone knows who won and who lost, the league office comes back and says that due to a scheduling error they determined that the game should not have been played and the results are being reversed. Regardless of what the league office says, everyone knows who won and who lost when the final whistle blew. Should those two teams meet again with all of the same payers, who do you think the odds would favor?
The 9th didn’t say that the NIC wasn’t a requirement in this case. Rather they said what everyone already knows – that in most situations a seniority list is viewed by the courts as being an internal matter within a wide range of reasonableness, and that ripeness unquestionably occurs upon ratification. Upon this “thank you captain obvious but why didn’t you look at the actual facts in this case” decision, they remanded the matter back to the district court for lack of jurisdiction. The merits were not reviewed by the 9th and they made no such legal ruling on the merits.
Many holes in this theory. For one thing, separate ops is not going to be permanent, especially for a new hire. They will be left holding the bag when you leave, aside from making bankruptcy, poverty level wages in the mean time. Second, a closer look at how many retirements will happen from medical leave, sick leave, and the right seat paints a much less rosy picture. Third, look how good the "career advancement" analysis worked for the 17 year furloughed pilots of the east. Everyone knows that downsizing can easily outpace attrition, especially at US Airways, who is currently and for the foreseeable future without a consolidation partner.
Until the NMB lawyers parachute into the courtroom and tell USAPA they must now negotiate in good faith since the company has every legal motive to abide by the result of binding arbitration, and the days of delay and separate ops forever are over.
Would the Air Wisconsin and MVA arbitration fall into that category?
Your opinions may not be shared by new hires. So the idea that they will inevitably and unquestionably support USAPA's desire to avoid binding arbitration is questionable at best. More likely they will come to the East realizing that when the dust settles, they will be on the bottom behind pilots already at the combined company, even if they temporarily get a boost by being ahead of some west pilots initially. With that in mind, I doubt they will vote in lockstep with current USAPA east members, as was theorized by someone.
Six months? In six months the east pilots are going to finally grow tired of LOA93 and begin what, an illegal job action? How long before the Feds come in and hammer USAPA for doing something so foolish? How will such an action look in the courts and with the NMB when it comes time to rule in favor of Management vs. the pilots who show over and over again that they are incapable of obeying the law, honoring their agreements, or approaching negotiations with a good and realistic attempt to get a contract? I predict more substantial losses for USAPA and the east pilots if this is their next best strategy. Talk about just gift wrapping and handing a victory to the other side of the table! I wouldn't advocate violating the law (USAPA's core tenent I beleive), but I can't wait to see how it unfolds if this is what the east pilots decide to do.
And, that "process" resulting in presenting that "bargaining position" to management who in turn accepted the same and paid the bargaining agent for the finalized list per the terms of the TA. Let's not forget those additional details shall we? Perhaps we also shouldn't forget that when the former, now decertified, bargaining agent was replaced by USAPA, that USAPA inherited all of the rights, responsibilities and contractual agreements made by the former agent. That includes the TA which wasn't purely an internal matter or agreement within ALPA.
