Ok sense you began this with some sense of intelligence I will respond in like manner. The company is obligated to negotiate with the bargaining agent as per RLA. The company is also under contract via the transition agreement which is the major sticking point for these negotiations. The company would like to move on however they are stuck because of this agreement. Seham has the emotional east pilots thinking they can change the name and walk away from an agreement. In short you cant.
Now let me tell you why with an example. The name of my company changed however I am under my same contract. If that were true then it would possible to eliminate any contract with a simple name change and change of a few principles. Contracts are there for a reason. They are there to protect the parties and their interests. LCC is unwilling to breach that contract on the say so of usapa because it is LCC that would suffer the most in litigation.
I think the easy way would have been to breach and then let the DFR take hold however some one counted the beans and figured that it would cost far more to go that route. Now many on this forum are completely clueless as to the purpose of the Declaratory judgement. If usapa really wanted an end game they would support this action to finally get the answer to the questions they seek. Usapa is begging for a dismissal which does not get them to the end game at all. All that really needs to happen for the west is for the courts to say no indemnity and frankly thats really all thats going to happen. The courts are not there to offer indemnity to parties of law suits.
AWA320
So far all the Courts have done is kill DFR-I over ripeness. The merits of a DFR-II can only be heard and adjudicated at the conclusion of a new JCBA, period. I'm not making this stuff up here, below is the verbatim pertinent language from the 9th Court of Appeals ruling affirmed by the SCOUS.
"[5] We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the
accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA. Likewise, it is not certain whether that proposal
will be ratified by the USAPA membership as part of a new,
single CBA. Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision.
[9] Our conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claim is not ripe is consistent
with our DFR decisions, which have found DFR violations
based on contract negotiation only after a contract has
been agreed upon.
[10] For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Plaintiffs’
DFR claim is not ripe; therefore, the case is REMANDED to
the district court with directions that the action be DISMISSED."
The DFR-I party is over, turn out the lights. You can start planning the festivities for DFR-II but I wouldn't have the invitations printed up just yet. Better to decide who the "DJ" is going to be first.
seajay