"Because BB had his hands in decisions at Midwest up to a year prior to the merger. Many of these decision like returning 717s were done while he working this plan."
I understand that Midwest ALPA believe that the 717's were given back, while the court recently stated that Boeing took them back.
I am not trying to start a war of words here, but if Midwest ALPA was accurate and the 717's were given back, why could they provide proof during the arbitration last week?
The judge basically said that the routes no longer exist and boeing took the aircraft back as a condition of the leases that allowed them to move all 25 to an airline in mexico. This is rather important, considering the premise of the arbitration. How could there be no proof supporting midwest alpa's position?
It's my understanding that ALPA didn't argue this point. Their argument in this grievance was off the arbitrators last ruling on outsourcing being ok because it was a codeshare. The argument was you can't codeshare with yourself. They weren't prepared for the argument involving any influence of Republic management on Midwest business plan prior to the merger.
I really don't know how they would be able to get this information. If YX was a public company it would be easier but they weren't. There maybe some legal recourse with arguing Republic influence with the SLI mediator.
With BB history it would be naive to think that he wasn't influencing things to decrease his expense when his plan was complete.