Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
Ok.
Consider this.. The PA is presently a governing document. AOL has acknowledged as much in that they have submitted to it and made application for a west merger committee pursuant to the PA... In that they submit to the PA, they (all of us) will be required to follow all of it.
If AOL intends to repudiate the PA, when are they going to do so? And if they should ever be successful in invalidating the PA (by who's authority?) then what governing document will replace the PA (and again by whose authority will a new PA be established?). And how soon is AOL going to make all this happen, seeing that they haven't even started to do so?
Well, we have to remember what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Previously it was USAPA that questioned the validity and fairness of the MOU after they agreed to its provisions and then filed suit seeking BOTH declaratory and injunctive relief from its clearly stated provisions and intentions. The provisions and intentions spelled out the potential (actually intention) for the dissolution of USAPA not only at some point prior to the completion of the SLI process, but even as early as some point in the JCBA process.
USAPA filed suit that would very likely delay the MOU timeline until well after its termination, but agreement was made by the parties to avoid that. The NEW provisions require a preliminary arbitration to decide if the West is entitled to a merger committee. Considering USAPA used as a primary foundation the belief that to truly achieve a fair and equitable SLI, the provisions of McCaskill-Bond (as they interpreted) prevent anyone from dissolving their right to self-representation in the SLI process even using the TWA integration situation as their example. USAPA essentially attempted to nullify the MOU (or at least the clearly spelled out provisions that provided for their likely elimination) and so I suppose Leonidas could then too use the very same argument and interpretation of McCaskill-Bond.
As it stands now though, it would appear the West class of pilots has agreed to the arbitral process to decide if they are entitled to separate representation and if they were considering throwing their own wrench in the process just as USAPA did, they'd have to do it prior to that process. Once arbitration rules and should it go against the West, I find it difficult to see how a valid suit could be won declaring the MOU (and thus the arbitration they accepted) to be invalid and perhaps a foundation for their own claim of violation of McCaskill-Bond. Now, that's not to say Leonidas couldn't file a suit after that in the hope creating delay will force others to capitulate to their desires (at least until a judge ruled to dismiss their suit) since it worked for USAPA. In that case, all that I think would happen though would be delay until any such suit was dismissed, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if they did that should the preliminary arbitration go against them.
When USAPA signed the MOU, it also was then a "governing document" (with CLEARLY spelled out provisions). USAPA acknowledged as much when they too signed it, but that didn't stop them from then disputing it after that when it suited their interests to do so. As such, the West could simply do the same thing, although by acceptance of a neutral process to decide any McCaskill-Bond related fairness claims, it would seem to make it MUCH more difficult to gain anything except the satisfaction of throwing their own wrench into the process to at least get delay. Considering the growth slated for AA legacy and US Airways East ops as opposed to PHX ops, that would seem to hurt them more then help them and would simply make them guilty of the same flawed logic that USAPA used to when financially shooting their toes of one at a time once a year simply to maintain control of the seniority list ankle bracelet they had during the years of dispute at US Airways prior to the AA merge.
As I've stated before, IMO the West WILL get separate representation as a result of the preliminary arbitration, but ultimately the Nic will not be used. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see in APA's briefs to the preliminary arbitration to include additional integration delay as a possible byproduct of denying the West representation, but without taking a stance on that.