Originally Posted by
R57 relay
A couple of things cacti, with the clear understanding that I am not an attorney.
There are couple guys here that have their law degrees maybe they can chime in.
You say that you guys will file suit as soon as the deal closes. I figured as much. But, and maybe I'm reading the AOL update and Harper letter wrong, but they seem to think it is ripe now. I don't see that. The MOU does not put us all on a JCBA as the AOL update says.
On the "effective date" the Mou itself says we are all on the same contract, further the mou says that contract is retroactive to feb. 8th. Usapa and company says that a agreement that changes pay/vacation/ work rules is not a contract, we say it is and that is what judges are for. We also believe that the act of specifically excluding the Nic\. from the mou is collusion with usapa and another avenue to sue the merged company and the apa if the nic. is not used.
It is a pathway to get to one, but many obstacles remain and we very well might not get there. I believe US/UA went a year with merger plans before UA pulled the plug because of DOJ(DOT?) objections and a declining economy. If this merger falls through we are still on our separate contracts with separate ops.
True but a seniority list wouldn't take effect until after closure so it doesn't matter
Seems like you would need to wait for the JCBA to be completed,
The JCBA completion is our second bite at the apple if a judge doesn't buy the mou as a contract.
USAPA could negotiate in a way with the APA that does represent the west's best interests, particularly if their attorneys decide that the really are backed into a corner. I know you're laughing, but we don't know yet.
Why would we want usapa to negotiate a thing? You are smart enough to figure out why we want the apa scared of colluding with usapa/
Also, I find this line kind of odd:
"The MOU vote has proven us (and Judge Wake) right: Given enough
money
there never was an impasse."
That is technically right, but not practically. It kind of like saying "There would be no mold on my deck if it wasn't so humid here." Yeah, that's right, but it is humid in the south, hence I get to deal with mold on my deck. The 7 years that have passed have proven there was an impasse. I always said that with enough money that a Nic inclusive contract WOULD pass. But I also said that I didn't think Parker would put forth a contract with enough money. He has been consistent with the message that a standalone US could not, and he would not, pay the same as DL and UA. But, that if we merged with a bigger carrier we could. That's what happened. A merger allowed the higher rates, and the MOU is seniority neutral, that's why it passed.
So why would the nic. not be used? The passage of this TA shows that there was never an "absolute impass" just as the west argued, the east has voted in a path to a guaranteed new contract (goes to arbitration) the Nicolau didn't go away did it?
Why would your attorneys reference a court case that has been dismissed?
It was dismissed without prejudice and it was dismissed only on ripeness grounds. The 9th made clear that a contract would make the case ripe. A case that was dismissed without prejudice can be refiled when "ripe".
I think you guys are jumping the gun again and I hope it doesn't screw up the merger.
We are making sure that it is clear to the company lawyers (us/aa) that they will be sued and a tro requested if they collude with usapa. You seem to think that once dismissed a case just goes away, that is not so. Look no further than the declaratory judgement where Silver continuously goes back to addington.