Originally Posted by
gloopy
IWhile I think the AT pilots would have gotten more had they pursued arbitration I base that assumption on their scope and merger language being strong enough to prevent being operated separtely while phased out. If they failed to bargain for that then how is that ALPA's falut? Again, they are trying to get a financial windfall off our backs. If SWA's second offer was better than the first like they thought it would be, would they be lining up to send thank you checks to their former union? While I am no ALPA fan, I hope ALPA sues them to the ends of the earth to recover all costs of this bogus junk lawsuit.
I've always been amazed that their fragemntation langauge actually allowed them to be operated under a subsidiary, where they could be shrunk to oblivion. It didn't sound to me thought they actually had enough to force arbitration. At that point, they were playing with a weak hand. They took a risk of turning down the first deal, expecting somewhat better terms. That would have struck me as a fairly smart calculation at the time, but then again, I've never read their fragmentation language.
Thing is, had they sent this to the membership, they would have had to either recommend against it in the hope of a better second deal (which would never have come), or recommend it because their position was obviously weak. Either way, they lose.
Its becomming SOP to auto-sue after an SLI and that needs to stop. Let them do a USAPA pipe dream if they think that will result in a magical re-do. And while TWA may have "won" so far, so did the USFL and I think their "award" will be similar.
I think every arbitration has always come with a suit. What might be a little "new" is the tendency not to accept the results, ever (USAPA). I don't blame TWA or AT for trying. They'll win or lose on the case's merits.
The real lesson here is that good scope language matters, even if it didn'tseemed to matter years before, when you reached that T/A.