Originally Posted by
Spoiler
The complaint appears to be that the arbiter used ALPA policy which was not binding as federal law but MB was a wholesale adoption of that policy no?
Alpa merger policy TODAY is not as there is MB however prior to MB ALPA merger policy is only binding upon those represented by ALPA. Now since both carriers were represented by ALPA and all parties were well aware of said policy PRIOR to entering into negotiations the result is in fact binding. Now having said that where the US 9th circuit court is concerned and I agree with their conclusion " we can not know the harm until there is a collective agreement".
The court is unwilling to assume and rightly so that it can predict the what will happen. This is why I have felt since that time the company should just negotiate with usapa giving it just just what it wants. The day the agreement is signed the west then file an emergency injunction to be followed by a perm injunction. We can then make the claim with proof of harm. Now lets face it, anything that usapa comes up with will be a far cry from what the arbitrator ruled thus HARM.
The company is unwilling to take that chance and who could blame them? When the case is made monetary damages are sure to follow and where usapa would try to claim bankrupt the company could not.
The smart play for the company would be to do just what its doing. They will merge with a larger carrier hand them the Nic list and let them decide. APA has no dog in the fight and the sure way for them never to is take the Nic list tell usapa this is it and OH BTW we are the majority. Usapa has no claim that can be made and the threat of work stoppage is hollow.
WD at AWA