|
|
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1643884)
Why doesn't DALPA file for an injunction?
If we shut down the long call reserve system the company would attempt to run the airline with shortcalls and reroutes. They would fail with the current manning and it would create the chaos you crave in 20% of the US airline system. If you have looked at all at recent as in last 25 year court rulings you will see we will get hammered in court. There will be a injunction. At that point we have accomplished little and in fact will have damaged our standing with the NMB. Long term we will lose far more then we might gain. I realize we have far more legal experience on the forum but in this case I will defer to the experts and a simple review of past decisions even I can do. What I am really confused about is we have a agreement so why are we having this discussion. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1643941)
If Delta took ALPA to court, what would they argue? That we weren't following Dickson's memo? I'm not so sure they want to go there. Dickson's memo is a wing and a prayer. It is not enforceable by any court or arbitrator anywhere. Its a memo. The only reason it is working is because DALPA has allowed management to use intimidation, fear and punishment to establish new reserve rules instead of using the RLA collective bargaining process.
But, the Court would probably find that DALPA's position did cause some pilots to not be available to fly when they otherwise would be and acknowledge the immediate, irreparable harm to Deltas operation caused by the subsequent flight cancellations. It really wouldn't even have to be a reserve pilots fault. They could take one cancelled flight that couldn't be covered by and blame DALPA's policy and the domino effect. Not only would Delta argue that they were losing money, they would argue that they were losing passengers -- forever (dramatic, right?) :) It would be hard to prove, but the Court would go along with it, issue injunctive relief, and fine the union -- for something that probably wasn't our fault to begin with. What many of you are suggesting is a losing proposition. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1643941)
new-
I don't agree. The long call reserve system would shut down, but that's it. They can easily run the airline with short calls, greenslips and reroutes. It would definitely cost them some extra cash but that's not a factor in whether or not it would be legal under the law. And the long call system really wouldn't "shut down". Far from it. Do you have any doubt that tsquare and sailingfun would follow Dickson's directives regardless of what the contract says? And most guys would just go about business as usual, they get a trip the day before and they acknowledge it. ALPA would NOT go broke unless the company started handing out massive numbers of personal drops and if they do that then it means a whole bunch of trips aren't getting covered. Something would have to give long before ALPA went broke. The personal drops would be far less than we've paid in the past for strike assessments. The Comair strike for instance. Eastern Airlines, etc. etc. If Delta took ALPA to court, what would they argue? That we weren't following Dickson's memo? I'm not so sure they want to go there. Dickson's memo is a wing and a prayer. It is not enforceable by any court or arbitrator anywhere. Its a memo. The only reason it is working is because DALPA has allowed management to use intimidation, fear and punishment to establish new reserve rules instead of using the RLA collective bargaining process. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1643977)
Do you really think a judge would make that decision in a vacuum, without weighing the company's ridiculous, contract-abrogating memo (which he may very well take serious issue with)? :confused:
I hate to be so frank, but this is almost a no brainer. That's how it would happen. The risk for the union to do what you suggest it too great. It's almost a 100% guaranteed loss for DALPA. But, SD's memo is so unworkable, it's almost a 100% guaranteed win for us. The pilots who got PD's will get paid back, too. We have the high ground. Why come down off the hill? |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 1643997)
Yes, sir. The judge would pass that issue to someone else. He would give the company immediate relief.
We have the high ground. Why come down off the hill? Suffice to say your are satisfied with DALPA's performance on the matter thus far? |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1644005)
Fair enough. I'm not a lawyer, and will defer to your expertise.
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1644005)
Suffice to say your are satisfied with DALPA's performance on the matter thus far? On this issue, I see that they are playing it how they have to. It's a winning hand. It just takes a while to materialize. |
Originally Posted by Purple Drank
(Post 1644005)
Fair enough. I'm not a lawyer, and will defer to your expertise.
Suffice to say your are satisfied with DALPA's performance on the matter thus far? http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1302409867 |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1643986)
What I am really confused about is we have a agreement so why are we having this discussion.
Failing that, I hope they at least let the line pilots have a look at it for a day or two and provide our input before they vote it up or down. |
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1644013)
One must always defer to newK's expertise. I mean... you know:
http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1302409867 |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1644021)
I hope the MEC will put it out for memrat.
Failing that, I hope they at least let the line pilots have a look at it for a day or two and provide our input before they vote it up or down. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:28 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands