LittleBoyBlew

The west can "sue" for anything up to and including the lack of chocolate chip cookies in their crew meal!! They must prove that they were in fact "DAMAGED"..God luck with the last part....You might get your cookies back??

R57 relay

OMG! Pot, meet Kettle.

Spoiler

Maybe I'm misinformed but I'm thinking MB made the tenets of Allegheny/Mohawk federal law. So why would anyone expect different results? (having reviewed the argument made earlier that ALPA policy was not binding as it is not federal law).

R57 relay

I'm not clear about what you are asking.

LittleBoyBlew

....I believe your assumption is that MB would in fact be Final and Binding. Were as ALPA merger policy is not..

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?

Spoiler

By the way R57 - you have made several olive branch attempts and have drawn back a bloody stump (not that you are perfect ) so my hat is off to you

Wiskey Driver

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

LittleBoyBlew

WD you speak as if stating FACT....Who or what are you quoting?? AOL might I guess?? The 9th places the burden of proof on the west pilot group, that harm has in fact been done.. IF THE NIC WERE FINAL AND BINDING, THE 9TH WOULD MANDATE ITS USE AND NOT REQUIRE PROOF OF DAMAGE!!! CAPICHE????
They stated that a Nic inclusive CBA might be UN-RATIFIABLE!!!
Going as far as saying that "not employing the Nic might in fact not harm the plaintiffs"!!!


ps. "emergency injunction"??? Is that like an emergency AD??

Wiskey Driver

I speak as if I know my way around the court system I dont have much in the way of association with AOL.

I dont think you quite understand the 9th circuits decision. Theirs is not to determine or even debate what can or can not be ratified. What the court said was that they could not know what harm existed absent a collective agreement. Now that is a far cry from what you believe the court to have said. In short my good man, the court wants to see what you do prior to making a ruling. I think the statement was to the effect of "usapa may come up with a solution that doesn't not play to the fears of the west group".

The glaring obvious that usapa never understood is that anything less for the west or anything more for the east equals harm to the plaintiff. Now Seham understood this thus the great stall maneuver. He also knew that the time would come when usapa no longer had cards to play. He warned the east BPR of the and was promptly fired.

There is but one way out prior to the merger being done and that is acceptance and move on. However if you feel that strongly about having a legal position then have usapa accept the nic then you file suit. Sounde easy enough to me.

WD at AWA