Phoenix court hears US Air seniority case
10-02-2012, 05:38 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Bigg Bird!!
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by cactiboss
I was there. The Judge ended up not answering any of the questions the company asked, in other words she won't issue a declaratory judgement. She did say the exact same thing the 9th said, usapa is free to negotiate and the west is free to sue after a ratified contract. Now this is a biggie, the company does NOT get immunity, in other words nothing was resolved at all. The company said they won't change the list without immunity and the judge did not give them immunity. We are exactly where we were the day before the suit was filed, 2 years and nothing to show for it.
If the west continues in their pursuit of the nic, it will be spun-off to OTHER entities... After all, the PHX yields are well bellow the preferred margins for the new AA..
10-02-2012, 05:44 PM
#12
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by LittleBoyBlew
The west can sue till the cows come home. The burden of proof that a legitimate DFR exists now rests on the West pilot group. The union USAPA is free to negotiate a cba NIC not inclusive!! The west will then have to prove how the union went to extremes to screw the west...You have NO CASE boys, your out of money and ideas.. Time to put this fiasco behind US and look forward to bigger things..AA/US.
If the west continues in their pursuit of the nic, it will be spun-off to OTHER entities... After all, the PHX yields are well bellow the preferred margins for the new AA..
If the west continues in their pursuit of the nic, it will be spun-off to OTHER entities... After all, the PHX yields are well bellow the preferred margins for the new AA..
10-02-2012, 05:54 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Bigg Bird!!
Posts: 599
If the AA/US merger occurs, all 3 pilot groups will be on a common CBA. A SLI will be arbitrated within 2 years. It will be VERY difficult for the west group to prove that they have been damaged...
10-02-2012, 05:59 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,273
Originally Posted by LittleBoyBlew
If the AA/US merger occurs, all 3 pilot groups will be on a common CBA. A SLI will be arbitrated within 2 years. It will be VERY difficult for the west group to prove that they have been damaged...
10-02-2012, 06:09 PM
#16
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by LittleBoyBlew
NO judge can give ANYONE immunity from exposure to a law suit. Frivolous suits are filed daily in all walks of life, just to be dismissed..
10-02-2012, 07:57 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by justjack
"Quick, someone call Catiboss"...
"Please don't rush it, he will be here soon enough. He has probably been camped out at the courthouse for a few days to get a good seat"...
followed by
"I was there"
"Please don't rush it, he will be here soon enough. He has probably been camped out at the courthouse for a few days to get a good seat"...
followed by
"I was there"
Do I know him or what?
10-02-2012, 08:22 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by cactiboss
Usapa sent you an email saying they won and will petition the NMB to restart negotiations since the seniority matter is now "settled". Now are you naive enough to think the company considers this settled when not one of their reasons for filing the DJ was answered? The company got absolutely no guidance today, as a matter of fact the judge said "you don't have to accept usapa's proposal if you don't want to". What is going on here is the judge didn't do Parker's dirty work for him. BTW this trial did help the west, as management put down in writing the TA is a fully execution-ed contract, a document that will help dfr2.
I believe USAPA's lawyer told the company the same thing about not having to agree. We'll see what they say.
10-02-2012, 08:34 PM
#20
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by R57 relay
I thought the company was asking for one of three things that the judge couldn't give them. The first two were taken away by the 9th and as for immunity, how could she give them that?
I believe USAPA's lawyer told the company the same thing about not having to agree. We'll see what they say.
I believe USAPA's lawyer told the company the same thing about not having to agree. We'll see what they say.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
