crzipilot

Yup, but the MTA will supersede the US CBA and any prior agreements including status Quo. As one of the courts mentioned USAPA could renegotiate the terms of the existing TA. Looks like that has happened with the MOU/MTA. Still won't have that JCBA until about 18 months after the POR. Hence, your claim will not be ripe until such time there is an actual contract and list initiated and installed.

I.E. Until a new joint contract, and a new seniority list other than NIC is actually in place and being used, the courts have said they can not tell by conjecture, IF the west would actually be harmed. So I believe they said, come back when all the stuff is done and we will look at it. As simply saying, I am going to be harmed, does not make a case ripe in their eyes.

cactiboss

So using you theory the west would never have a case. You think that is logical?

crzipilot

You can make a case out of anything you want. People do it every day. I think your trick is going to be to prove that USAPA negotiating a new TA (the MTA in this case) which throws out all previous agreements, In order to accomplish merger with AMR, move the East/West groups forward in pay and contract etc is a failure of DFR. BUT as the 9th said, don't come back until you have that new contract and an instituted seniority list. I.E. Have the two things voted in and in effect, and then we will judge that against the wide range of reasonableness that a union has to stay within a DFR.

I think in the end, your just going to have an extra layer to sort through to prove your DFR claim. Instead of comparing East West JCBA with or without NIC, you'll have to prove that the AA merger would or could be consumated with the NIC and by not using it your caused harm.

9th already stated they didn't believe a JCBA could be consumated with the NIC. Would the MOU be consumated with the NIC?


So sure, you got a case, just going to be harder to prove, and a bit longer to start until you get those two blocks the 9th told you to get before refiling. A joint contract, and some other list besides the NIC actually in effect. As until you see the end result of any other SLI YOU don't know if your harmed within a DFR, you can just Assume you are.

crzipilot

What I don't think is logical, is the west claiming harm, before seeing what the SLI looks like in final form.

R57 relay

But not before the SLI process is begun, AND if we were to reach an agreement on a new SL with the APA, then we will have it done prior to a JCBA. The requirement for a JCBA is only for arbitration. The period before the JCBA is when your legal CBA will be dealing with your seniority. Heck, after these letters maybe they will use the Nic.

R57 relay

Apples and oranges. The requirement for separate ops until a joint contract is reached is why there were west more west furloughs and downgrades. You are using that argument elsewhere in the thread. You are just mad that the Nicolau didn't prevent the natural reductions you guys have had because of the economics. Question: While the USAPA election was running and prior, didn't your advisers warn you guys of the dangers of the separate ops provision of the TA?

Good thing you guys did lose as many hulls as the east since 2005! I was displaced 3 times and attended 4 schools in 2 years.

lolwut

lolwut

Let me make a visual for you. The west is just like this iphone:


All busted and doesn't have a case.

cactiboss

This has been the most outrageous miscarriage of union power and justice so far, nothing will surprise me.

cactiboss

You can justify the west job losses all you want, everyone in the industry is well aware of the position usairways was in in 2005 as well as what binding arbitration is.