Originally Posted by crzipilot

Between the emails passed between the AOL top people. Their concern over 10h, and how it will kill the NIC, that "Does this mean USAPA is smarter than us?"

All of this before the vote. They KNEW 10h was a possible lynchpin that would do away with the NIC.

Then hummels depo, explaining how the language of 10h came about. Where EVEN the west member of the NAC was concerned about 10h.

I would say it is CLEAR, the concerted decision was to roll the dice and vote in the MOU. Then quickly, before the dust was settled, to turn around and say OMG, we didn't know what we were doing. They said it was neutral.

Yes it is. It doesn't institute the NIC, and it doesn't institute DOH. It clears the plate to start from the beginning with American. They problem the west guys have is once again, nothing has changed so there is no harm. The 9th was explicit with their explanation that they will not rule on merits on anything until they see an end product.

So West guys, with the slate wiped clean. Can you please provide the 9th with the seniority list that the combined AA/US will use in order to show this harm that has been done to you?

I think that will be the bottom line if you prevail in Silvers courtroom. The 9th will simply ask. What harm has been done. Oh nothing has changed from a few years ago? Well sorry guys, judgment overturned and come back when you have the final result.

You guys remember these words???



"We conclude that this case presents contingencies that
could prevent effectuation of USAPA’s proposal and the
accompanying injury. At this point, neither the West Pilots
nor USAPA can be certain what seniority proposal ultimately
will be acceptable to both USAPA and the airline as part of
a final CBA."

"Not until the airline responds to the proposal, the
parties complete negotiations, and the membership ratifies the
CBA will the West Pilots actually be affected by USAPA’s
seniority proposal — whatever USAPA’s final proposal ultimately
is. Because these contingencies make the claim speculative,
the issues are not yet fit for judicial decision."

Plaintiffs correctly note that certain West Pilots have
been furloughed, whereas they would still be working under
a single CBA implementing the Nicolau Award. It is, however,
at best, speculative that a single CBA incorporating the
Nicolau Award would be ratified if presented to the union’s
membership. ALPA had been unable to broker a compromise
between the two pilot groups, and the East Pilots had
expressed their intentions not to ratify a CBA containing the
Nicolau Award. Thus, even under the district court’s injunction
mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is
uncertain that the West Pilots’ preferred seniority system ever
would be effectuated. That the court cannot fashion a remedy that will alleviate Plaintiffs’ harm suggests that the case is not
ripe.1

Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3

1The dissent asserts that “nothing would be gained by postponing a
decision, and the parties’ interest would be well served by a prompt resolution
of the West Pilots’ claim.” Diss. op. at 8017 (internal alterations,
quotation marks, and citation omitted). To be sure, the parties’ interest
would be served by prompt resolution of the seniority dispute, but that is
not the same as prompt resolution of the DFR claim. The present impasse,
in fact, could well be prolonged by prematurely resolving the West Pilots’
claim judicially at this point. Forced to bargain for the Nicolau Award, any
contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its
membership. By deferring judicial intervention, we leave USAPA to bargain
in good faith pursuant to its DFR, with the interests of all members
— both East and West — in mind, under pain of an unquestionably ripe
DFR suit, once a contract is ratified.

And if you call the MOU a contract, then you must abide by that contract, in which ALL PROVISIONS of previous agreements are nullified on Dec 9th.