To top it all off, some key evidence used in court against the UAL pilots were FORUM POSTS about SRM/JRM and SL. The company wanted to prove that it was an intentional job action when they were really just having staffing issues as they were furloughing; unfortunately the court believed them and placed an injunction against UAL ALPA. One small sliver of light was that they did not bother to redact a pilot's login info used to obtain some of those posts.

We should use some common sense about picking up time with fellow pilots on furlough, and at the same time use restraint from posting on why it should not be done online. If PP goes to complete zero, we will more than likely be back in court with PC providing historical data again.

SP

 

It's not a hard sell, in fact it's far easier than you want to believe. The hurdle the company must clear in order to get an injunction/TRO is about ¼ inch tall (if that). The questions are simple. Are our actions causing financial harm to the company? Are the losses permanent and ongoing? Yes = TRO. The judge simply says 'honor your contract in the same manner you have been doing'. The company has A **** TON of stats that show how much PP is flown, how much TT is done, how much open time is picked up, etc... From the judges perspective a TRO/injunction prevents irreversible financial harm to the company but doesn't harm the pilot group.

There will, and SHOULD, be plenty discussion of how this impacts individual pilots vs the overall pilot group. Short story is that nobody can MAKE an individual pilot partake in any voluntary parts of the contract, BUT if the overall group changes our behavior (based on company data) the group can suffer consequences.

 

??

I think you mean AC who is now a EWR777FO at around 85%......... They gave him a cushy job at HQ while on furlough for his services to management. Turncoat - If you ever come across him please treat him as you would a scab and remember that anything you say goes directly to management.

Pest

 

All valid points, and historical prescident (I cant spell) should definitely be a learning point, but as you point it... it’s voluntary. If the larger union hasn’t told anyone to change their behaviors, but we individually decide not to take part and leave my phone off on my days off, what do they have left.

Unfortunately, the minority of selfish individual (SCABs in waiting), are still a large numerical force. Every pilot just needs to decide for themselves who they want to be, and don’t be surprised or angry at the social backlash if you take a certain path.

 

The company can argue that all day long, what stops individuals that stop picking up from arguing they no longer need the money. If I have picked up every month for the last 5 years maybe I just finished paying off my new boat and don’t need the extra time. The company has no way of knowing why people pick up time or stop picking up time. Maybe my best friend got furloughed and I would rather spend time on my boat with him/her instead of picking up open time. Easiest way to get me back is to pay my friend to head back to work so that I have no one to go onto my boat with. The company doesn’t know and had no reason to know why people pickup/don’t pick up.

 

That's all good.

But as we (hopefully) leaned last time, unfortunately that means jack in front of the Judge due to current law, including the RLA.

All the company has to produce is aggregate evidence that shows an overall change in behavior and it's a slam dunk.

As far as the Judge is concerned they are dealing with two children and an injunction is simply telling them both to go back and play by the rules they agreed to (i.e. the contract.) Even if the Judge is indifferent to which "side" is more correct when issuing an injunction, they are especially not indifferent if they feel their order is being ignored.

It's one more reason why it would be great to have additional sections in the UPA that are automatically applied (or suspended, depending) when certain events occur, like furloughs.

 

Did PC actually appear in court as part of the previous case?

 

Pest,

No, I was talking about SRM/JRM data from PC.
It is tracked, monitored and stored for this very purpose.

Yes, we took one on the Chen, but NO I was not referring to AC.

SP

 

Got it. My bad. I thought you were referring to the injunction against us and the information from the boards that AC provided to management. As for PC having anything to do with the injunction, I don't know. I would imagine if he was here at the time then yes, he would have all that information just as it was/is available to the SSC.

Pest

 

Pest,

No worries, that ruling is worth reading. You will see forum posts like those made here on this thread, and some familiar names including PC. The company keeps all of our trading, bidding and reliability data for this very reason.

Flying extra time with pilots on furlough is wrong. period. That being said, the company will cover flights one way or another even if it means going back to court.

The three things that could delay recalls are the potential longer term economic impacts from COVID-19 on our Business and International travel markets, another round of airline marriages or BK. I doubt the third with our extra cash and cuts, but the other two remain possible outcomes.

SP