Originally Posted by
dashtrash300
Does anyone know if the new hotel in CLT accepts the choice privileges rewards card? I noticed that Quality was on there and was just curious if they accept it for pilots.
The court case went about as well as could be expected, considering we were arguing in one of the most, if not the most, conservative court in the country. Two of the judges (one a Reagan appointee and the other a Bush, Sr. appointee) didn't think this was a judicial question. They were constructionist - I think that's the word - in their view of the law, and felt that the wording was specific enough that the court didn't need to overturn the previous ruling. The third judge, who happened to be a Clinton appointee, was more sympathetic to our cause, and seemed to think what we were asking for was a reasonable request.
It appeared that at least the two conservative judges had their minds made up when they walked in the court room. The third seemed on the fence and our lawyer - Marcus Migliori (sp?) - seemed to sway him with a very convincing and well designed argument. Our representation in the case was certainly top-notch.
One of the bigger questions centered around this section of the Railway Labor Act:
§ 184. System, group, or regional boards of adjustment
The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers by air growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on April 10, 1936 before the National Labor Relations Board, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to an appropriate adjustment board, as hereinafter provided, with a full statement of the facts and supporting data bearing upon the disputes.
It shall be the duty of every carrier and of its employees, acting through their representatives, selected in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, to establish a board of adjustment of jurisdiction not exceeding the jurisdiction which may be lawfully exercised by system, group, or regional boards of adjustment, under the authority of section 153 of this title.
Such boards of adjustment may be established by agreement between employees and carriers either on any individual carrier, or system, or group of carriers by air and any class or classes of its or their employees; or pending the establishment of a permanent National Board of Adjustment as hereinafter provided. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent said carriers by air, or any class or classes of their employees, both acting through their representatives selected in accordance with provisions of this subchapter, from mutually agreeing to the establishment of a National Board of Adjustment of temporary duration and of similarly limited jurisdiction.
The system board described in the second paragraph is limited in scope, according to the two conservative judges, to single air carriers (i.e. PDT, not US Airways Group, which is made up of 3 carriers). While it is limited in size, the air carrier is REQUIRED to have a board of a adjustment (notice the highlighted "shall," which is much more limiting than the "may" below) While the third paragraph allows system boards between multiple carriers, it is
not mandated, as the single-carrier system boards in paragraph 2 are (again because of the use of the word may instead of shall). I don't quite agree with the judges that this is incredibly clear language, but I'm also not a judge or lawyer.
Also, section 153, which is referred to in paragraph 2, is the section relating to Railway system boards and how they are to be set up. It's a quite long section, so I excluded it, but it's inside the link below.
Some other things the judges noted:
- Our case was weakened by the fact that USAPA and ALPA were on different sides of the case.
- There was some discussion over whether or not the RLA applied to US Airways Group or just to the individual airlines US Airways group owns (our attorney argued that they are an "agent" which has a definition within the RLA).
- The lead judge also seemed to think this was something that should be negotiated (since he thought we "may" create a multi-carrier system board if we all agree), and the parties had not done enough on that front (although the judge seemed to lack any kind of knowledge over how much we had actually sat at the table). the US Airways, et al. lawyer claimed ALPA was the one who walked away from the table and just filed a lawsuit. To me, that's a stupid argument because we wouldn't throw away all the money on a court case if we could have negotiated the agreement. Clearly this was not something ALPA did hastily. In fact, it was USAPA and the company who walked away from the table and did not feel the need to negotiate (I believe Mr. Migliori spelled that out in his rebuttal).
It could take them some time to write the ruling. Hopefully that'll be out sooner rather than later, but I hear the last ruling took around 90 days.
If anyone's interested, there's a copy of the Railway Labor Act at
The Railway Labor Act.