Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
I gotchya on the NMB vs System Board of Adjustment if we pursued STS for RAH which I think is a great... plan B. If you win that case so what, RAH is replaced by SuperJet or Sillyjet or Surlyjet or another DCI. That's a lot of effort for a one time shot across the bow that smart lawyers will just find a way around again.
Plan A would be the air carrier definition. And I thought the idea of going after the legal definition of air carrier would be something to take up with the DOT for government clarification similar to what was done with the Whitlow letter in 2000?
If we get the interpretation to be that a holdings company is STS then RAH, AMR/AE and anyone else is out.
There was a history and explanation of this put out from ALPA. The key point is the RAH is not the first time this situation has come up. It is allowed within our contract and that was the intent of the contract. Its what we were able to negotiate. If we took this to arbitration we would not have a chance. There was never a intent to block this situation and we said nothing as a union when several other identical situations came up. American Eagle is one such situation.
Section 6 openers are exchanged in 9 months. If we want this changed then let it be know loud and clear in your contract survey.