TRO
#23
Banned
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 657
Likes: 0
From: B-737 Captain
#24
Banned
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
From: Down N Out
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
From: 787 Captain
#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: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,512
Likes: 0
From: 787 Captain
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



