Regularguy

Dudes:

I'm not shooting, it is a fact, so go ahead and violate the injunction on behalf of the LCAL pilots and see what happens. UCH Management shot at you last summer over EWR cancellations and the injunction.

PS. ya got to read the whole context!!!

Oh and the "shoot first" quote is about you, not me, because that is what you are doing.

"When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way! from you first cigarette your last dyin' days. "

"Play it cool boy, real cool"

Regularguy

OK time for some legal jargon:

The Plaintiff is: United Airlines, Inc. - Which doesn't exist any more so according to your logic the whole injunction should be void.

The named Defendants are (those enjoined by the court order) :
1. the Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”) (which BTW the LCAL MEC is a part of).

2. the United Air Lines Master Executive Council (“MEC”)

3. Four named pilots.

4. and all persons acting in concert therewith - (I think this includes you all, assuming you are all persons).

These parties are enjoined from:

from:
calling
permitting,
instigating,
authorizing,
encouraging,
participating in,
approving or continuing
any form of
interference with United’s airline operations,

including but not limited to
any strike,
work stoppage,
sick-out,
slowdown,
work to rule campaign,
concerted refusal to accept voluntary or overtime flight assignments,
or other concerted refusal to perform normal pilot operations

in violation of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (the “RLA”).

I guess things have to be broken down into their elements for people to understand.

Fellow pilots DON"T DO IT!!

Be cool!

SpecialTracking

Such a fine place to work isn't it?

Lerxst

RG, so I guess Delta and all the other ALPA airlines are also enjoined in these little shenanigans too, eh?

Go read McKeens letter from the 8th and the Hart's from last week... Both addressed to Heppner and the UAL MEC with specific complaints about suspected sUA pilot activity. CAL was not mentioned, nor was either addressed to Pierce. You worry about your side of the fence and go sell crazy someplace else, we're all full up here.

krudawg

A good point was brought up about the fact that we are no longer UAL Inc but since the merger, we are United Continental Holdings - a completely differently company with management which did not exist at the time of the injunction. Why can't we pull a pile of money out of ALPA's "War Chest", get the best hired gun(attorney) out there and haul the company back into court and chip away at the basis of the injunction. ALPA should be happy to do this because if everry management uses the court system to hamstring negotiations under the RLA, we are all toast.

Lerxst

Thats true, Kru. Both the company's and the union's structure has changed dramatically since 2008, and that has muddied the waters with regards to the TRO. UCH has not yet pressed the CAL MEC too hard in that arena, and, in fact, has actually unlinked the two MEC's from accountability when they addressed only the sUA side of the house in the 2 June warning letters.

I don't know why the legal underpinning of their argument has not been questioned nor tested by National in light of the profound structural changes that have taken place over the last 4 years. Oh wait, silly me. Gotta keep that powder dry.

This is a moot discussion anyway since in order for UCH to act on the TRO they would have to go back to the court, and, in doing so, would certainly make sure to capture sCAL because of our purported nefarious behavior(s).

Out of our hands, the system is melting down around us on a daily basis anyway. LTSW.

Regularguy

Delta as a corp is not mentioned nor is any other corp. Now if other ALPA pilots acted in a manner to disrupt UAL operations then those persons are part of the all. The issue is disrupting operations out side the RLA so normal competitiveness between corps would be covered under other laws.


But the point is we boys and gals can't do anything. Sadly even "flying the contract" could be construed as disruption. Sad

Regularguy

Come on now you know why Heppner was mentioned. Until recently your boy Pierce was a tad bit compliant. But that's another thread.

How quickly things are forgotten.

Lerxst

You are seriously delusional if you think the UCH legal strategy is based on who they like more. BTW, Heppner wasn't "mentioned" in the 2 letters... They were addressed to him.

We will never know as the company has chosen to not address both MEC's as a single entity in regards to the TRO, and will have to refile with the court if they do decide to pursue perceived violations.

Whatever, I do agree with your post above this one though. Nobody do nuthin dumb, and let the chips fall where they may.

Regularguy

Lerxst

I don't what you got stuck in your craw, in case you missed it Heppner was the architect of this latest push of ALPA to get a JCBA. It had nothing to do with your statement, "You are seriously delusional if you think the UCH legal strategy is based on who they like more. " at all. Pierce has been more than a moderate from the start and, good or bad, the UAL pilots and the associated MEC are the most radical in all of ALPA.

Pay attention, get reasonable and quit thinking you are exempt from the fray. We all need to hang in there until this plays out.