Why because I think for myself, it's our money being wasted on this lawsuit, it will turn out just like the Arbitrator lawsuit, you better brush up on understanding contract language, and RLA, and quit being a stupid sheep.
It wasn't that long ago that the pilots filed a lawsuit over the max. Who knows, perhaps the pilots advised us to go for it. Better than sitting on our hands waiting for another year to pass without challenge.
What part are you guys so dumb, that you can't understand the PILOTS CONTRACT HAD SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR A DIFFERENT AIRCRAFT TYPE, OUR CONTRACT has no specific ETOPS language, AMFA never bothered to put it in there.So guess what Judge will say dismissed, SWA will use our own contract language against us.
Well yours is better than ours, just says will provide medical plan , no control cost. I was talking about specific work rules.
Sure hang on
I couldn't find the email but this is our contract language the company quoted in the email
And yes Weezz AMFA filed a Federal lawsuit to block the flights claiming that's our work, no meeting no vote, no discussion.
Lighten up Francis, I'm no lawyer and neither are you. In regard to the pilots the company thought it's a 737, what's the problem. They we're wrong and so were the pilots that may have agreed with the company. I hope this turns out to be something we can gain an advantage over but if not I'm in no hurry.
I too hope we can gain some advantage, but let me ask this; say 10 aircraft on average overnight say in San Diego where we have no aircraft mx personnel. SWA decides to schedule mv type checks and hires a contract company in San Diego to do them. Where in the contract stops them? Read Scope article 2 paragraph 3. I'm trying to relate this to the etops deal. But you are right, not a lawyer so who knows.
As a steward I had to know language to argue a grievance and win it, including all the way to a system board, and I know what language means.Now I will wait for the Hack attack.
