ALPA files suit against US
- Thread starter flyingcat
- Start date
Tim Nelson
Veteran
Cooperation and 'organized labor' are mutually exclusive. Labor is almost worthless in the USA now and workers realize this. In the last 12 months, labor went from 7.9% to 7.4% of the private workforce. It's not because of Bush, or anyone else, but because workers aren't stupid.
Labor is in a sore need of an overhaul in the USA if workers are going to be semi successful in protecting their rights.
regards,
Frivolous ?
You wanna talk Frivolous ?
After reading your post 'hp fa', I am going to assume that you are not aware of what this company is up to concerning the 'change of control' grievance that the IAM has filed.
Are you aware that the company AGREED to arbitrate this grievance, but when it came down to meet with the arbiter, they ran crying to the bankruptcy :blink: judge ?
It's the COMPANY that has opened up the 'Frivolous' can of worms.. :down:
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Frivolous ?
You wanna talk Frivolous ?
After reading your post 'hp fa', I am going to assume that you are not aware of what this company is up to concerning the 'change of control' grievance that the IAM has filed.
Are you aware that the company AGREED to arbitrate this grievance, but when it came down to meet with the arbiter, they ran crying to the bankruptcy :blink: judge ?
It's the COMPANY that has opened up the 'Frivolous' can of worms.. :down:
This is not the IAM topic. I am addressing the ALPA lawsuit.
Informed1
Advanced
- Nov 18, 2006
- 136
- 0
[
You tell me Mr. Judge, because to grant the extrodinary relief to have a TRO issue, the plaintiffs need to prove both the likelihood of prevailing and that irreperable harm will be done absent the issuance of a TRO.
[/quote]
You forgot the most important part- the pilots have a transition agreement with the company, that the company signed and agreed to. Specifically stating that the operations will remain separate until a merged contract is acheived. Now, as Mr. Judge, my question is "why do you (the company) believe you should not be bound to this agreement you signed just one year earlier?
You tell me Mr. Judge, because to grant the extrodinary relief to have a TRO issue, the plaintiffs need to prove both the likelihood of prevailing and that irreperable harm will be done absent the issuance of a TRO.
[/quote]
You forgot the most important part- the pilots have a transition agreement with the company, that the company signed and agreed to. Specifically stating that the operations will remain separate until a merged contract is acheived. Now, as Mr. Judge, my question is "why do you (the company) believe you should not be bound to this agreement you signed just one year earlier?
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
You answered your own question when you used the word "operations".
Think of it this way. What codes are being used in the reservations computers for RJ flights? Not Mesa, Not Air Wisconsin, US Airways. It is going to be the same thing with HP and U. They are still operationally different airlines. Their reservation computer simply will show both as US.
Right, we know this, but isn't the lawsuit trying to put a stop to this? What is happening with this? Wouldn't there have to be a ruling by tomorrow?
Informed1
Advanced
- Nov 18, 2006
- 136
- 0
What you fail to realize is the court will only be ruling on the TRO and if this is a major dispute or minor dispute. The court won't rule if it is a legitimate or not. It will probably be ruled a minor dispute and they will be told to settle it through normal grievance procedures. In the meantime the company will do what the want and the arbitrator will eventually rule on damages if any unless settled before it gets that far. If ruled a major they will get their TRO and the company will appeal. If the union wins the appeals the only course for the company will have is to negotiate in good faith with the pilot group.
In short the pilots have nothing to lose filing this lawsuit and the company has a ton to lose.
The best of luck to ALPA and a great move at the last minute.
Kinda like what the company did to the IAM a few days ago
touché
WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Philadelphia on Friday refused to halt plans by US Airways Group Inc. (LCC.N: Quote, Profile , Research) to merge its reservation systems on Sunday, rejecting a complaint from pilots that the move would violate their work agreement.
U.S. District Judge Berle Schiller said the complaint from two chapters of the Air Line Pilots Association was a minor dispute that should be addressed in binding arbitration, not in court.
Pilots sought an injunction to stop the airline from combining reservation systems of the old US Airways and the old America West Airlines, which merged in 2005.
The airline is branded under the US Airways flag but still operates America West crews on America West planes and old US Airways crews on the old US Airways equipment. The carrier is expected to complete integration of the two operations this year.
Reuters Pictures
Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow
The old US Airways and America West unions contend the move to combine reservation systems violates their work agreement that was struck to ensure their support for the merger. The pilots say management must negotiate one contract for both union groups before proceeding further with major aspects of integrating airline operations.
US Airways says it wants a pilot contract but can operate with separate work agreements indefinitely.
Similar threads
