Carl Spackler

You have a flair for the obvious. Who has said anything different?

And the RLA (like any other act of congress) can be interpreted by courts, the congress and the president. If any of their interpretations show that NMB is abusing their authority to advantage one side of a negotiations, any of them can institute change. Again, basic civics.

Carl

PCL_128

Yeah, good luck with that plan, Carl.

acl65pilot

Carl;
That was in direct retort to making demands that many feel would be way out of the realm of possibility. I did post that. It means that guys are not going to demand rates that they know will take five-seven years to obtain while inflation keeps marching its way upward, working under these same work rules with no relief. It is also why ALPA or any union for that fact does not publish what they want at the start of the talks. They wait until they are dealing with section three.

I know I do not want my union to publish a rate that inflation would easily pass, or set a demand that will lead to talks being drawn out until inflation catches up. Either way, your assumption on what I have in mind is wrong. (Also look at who I was referring to, that is not my position Carl)

Keep in mind I fly with the old farts that only have a few years left and they want money in their pocket before they are forced out. I figured you knew I flew on the "Almost Super-Premium Widebody!

Carl Spackler

It's a "plan" that will have to be offered up to the courts at some point due to NMB's historic abuse of power in the APA case.

If you're an example of the gutless mentality at ALPA national, I sure wouldn't expect that kind of legal challenge to be instituted by ALPA.

Maybe after you become a SWAPA member, you'll gain some perspective outside the ALPA echo chamber.

Carl

newKnow

Acl,

Are you telling these old farts that you think they are wanting and expecting too much and/or that they are being selfish in a way for wanting so much?

Carl Spackler

Like I said dude, if you're doing the standard acl65pilot "walking it back" after you realized how weak you sounded, then that's fine. Just stop being so weak. And stop saying that I put words into your mouth. I just remember what you actually type.

Carl

PCL_128

Carl, I'm familiar with the APA's outside general counsel, because we used to use the same firm at AirTran when we had the in-house union. From my experience with them, I think it's incredibly unlikely that they will advise the APA to try to take such a case to court, and I doubt they would be willing to litigate it if the APA disregarded counsel and decided to file the suit anyway. But hey, I'm sure you know better.

Carl Spackler

Either through litigation, executive or legislative action, this must eventually be addressed. I'm fully aware of ALPA national's view on litigation. 'Better to not test this because we could lose.' That's no surprise.

ALPA national has decided that the NMB's blocking of worker's right to strike is best for the industry. No strikes mean no interruptions in business or ALPA dues. This also means less money for union employees, but ALPA has decided that stability is better than "taking it back."

APA has thus far refused to cave in to the NMB's obvious actions in support of AMR management. Now that APA is using advice from ALPA's legal subsidiary, APA will face massive legal "advice" to cave in.

If we've lost the right to strike, I would like to know. The only way to know is to litigate if the NMB continues on their current course. Nobody is without oversight...not even the NMB.

Carl

PCL_128

ALPA is more than happy to litigate....when there's a basis for litigation.

ALPA has fought repeatedly to protect the rights of RLA employees to strike. Your claim has no basis in reality.

ALPA isn't a law firm, and neither is the IPSC subsidiary, so they don't provide legal advice to outside clients. ALPA only provides things like professional negotiators, financial analysts, communications specialists, etc. All legal matters have to be handled through the APA's legal counsel. ALPA doesn't get involved in that.

We haven't lost the right to strike. That much is clear from the successful Spirit strike that took place this summer, and the AmeriJet strike prior to that. But the right to strike is not without limits, and the NMB will not release you into self help if your demands are such that they would destroy the company. The NMB isn't in the business of destroying air commerce. Quite the opposite actually, as the NMB's charter requires them to avoid disruptions to air commerce. A release into self help is intended to lead to a successful resolution of the dispute. If the union's demands are so outlandish that the company couldn't possibly agree to them, regardless of how long a strike lasts, then the NMB isn't going to allow a release. The NMB won't facilitate the bankruptcy of a carrier. But if you have reasonable demands, and management is behaving unreasonably, then the NMB will provide you the release that you need after exhausting the bargaining process. The right to strike hasn't been lost.

tsquare

You are comparing DAL to Amerijet and Spirit? Really? You don't see any difference in the effect that DAL would have on the economy versus either of the two aforementioned? Really??? It would have NOTHING to do with the health of the company.. It would have a lot more to do with the economic impact of the United States of America. Not only can I not believe that you posted that comparison... I cannot believe I wasted 3 minutes responding to it...