TRO
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Position: B-737 Captain
Posts: 649
riiiiight. Let us know how that works out for ya. Get the shot or move along. That's the choice. Watch and see.
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Down N Out
Posts: 145
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
#27
Then I may have misread your post. Apologies. There are a handful of pilots who do fall in the no vax no RAP category. The MEC has filed a grievance regarding that small group. Last I heard single digits. Anyway, my point was only that there is a clear distinction relative to the Sambrano case.
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Then I may have misread your post. Apologies. There are a handful of pilots who do fall in the no vax no RAP category. The MEC has filed a grievance regarding that small group. Last I heard single digits. Anyway, my point was only that there is a clear distinction relative to the Sambrano case.
#29
As to the larger issue, this TRO isn’t a win for either side- it’s a delay of proceedings while the court decides on the question of jurisdiction. Can the state of Texas determine legality of an employment policy from an international airline based in Chicago? It has the makings for a prolonged legal fight that works its way to the top. Even if Texas does rule against UAL, it’s more likely to have staying power for employees who work entirely in the state (rampers, ticketing agents, etc.) than interstate employees like pilots & FAs.
#30
The key being they would have to apply. Whether or not they elect to do so? If they don’t, they wouldn’t be considered part of the class IMHO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post