Maybe you should send this to Lee Seham. You do know that ALPA presented the list. You also know that the merged airline (LCC) has already adopted the proposal. So that means it is no longer a proposal but the accepted list.
At the rate you're going, you're going to have to change your handle to "end_of_usapa"
Different interpretations? For the same reason the en banc court will not hear this case the SCOTUS will ignore this case. (Funny how that option was mentioned only right before the oral arguments) The only question is ripeness nothing else. If you notice the audio no questions were asked about if USAPA was liable of the DFR that is a settled question they are. Neither court is going to waste it’s time over ripeness.
It will not be nearly that much. But the way Seham charges usapa will run another $2.5 mil. Paid for on LOA 93 wages.
Talk of a remand is pretty much nonsense, really. If there was a flaw in how the trial was conducted, then USAPA would have gotten somewhere with their request to stay the injunction. The panel has had the case for some time, they've had the briefs for nearly two months, they get the picture and it's a pretty clear picture: Judge Bybee out of the starting gate hitting Seham with the binding doesn't mean binding line of questioning and then you don't hear from him again. Nothing else to say I suppose. Then Judge Graber letting Seham talk himself into a corner he couldn't possibly hope to get out of was priceless. Then there's Judge T. quietly mentioning the distinction brought out in Ramey which is the exact reason why the case is the centerpiece of the plaintiff's case. So talk of a remand is just plain silly.
USAPA's site and on the AWAPPA board.
Merry Xmas Phoenix. Seriously.
