SWA/AAI Time to step away from the forum

[Andy]

You forgot option 6.

Federal court seeking a restraining order/injunction against SWA for mcCaskill/bond violations.

???? OK, I'll bite. Please expand.
I can't picture any such legal maneuver unless two separate lists are maintained for a very long time. CAL/UAL is at 15+ months and nowhere close to SLI so the precedent has been set for long timeframes with separate lists. And restraining order/injunction would be the wrong tool for resolution.

 

[becket]

???? OK, I'll bite. Please expand.
I can't picture any such legal maneuver unless two separate lists are maintained for a very long time. CAL/UAL is at 15+ months and nowhere close to SLI so the precedent has been set for long timeframes with separate lists. And restraining order/injunction would be the wrong tool for resolution.

between mcCaskill/Bond,potential breech of contract and bad faith negotiations, swa could be on a very slippery slope. If damages are incurred to AAI as a result then. TRO followed by an injunction is absolutely the tools a judge can use.

The whole process would cost millions, damages could go to the tens of millions and the multi year slugfest would certainly erode the coveted "culture". SWA just needs to be fair and live up to their agreements...even if some swa fo's get pissed of because their golden entitlement has been delayed.

 

[Ty Webb]

???? OK, I'll bite. Please expand.
I can't picture any such legal maneuver unless two separate lists are maintained for a very long time. CAL/UAL is at 15+ months and nowhere close to SLI so the precedent has been set for long timeframes with separate lists. And restraining order/injunction would be the wrong tool for resolution.

Andy-

I'm not sure why, nearly eleven months on, you decided you wanted to wade into this stinkfest, but many of the questions you raise were answered long ago:

• The Process Agreement, signed by all four parties, requires that an Arbitrator set the date the list is implemented.

• Our Section 1 language requires combined Ops within 18 months of the DOCC. We have a letter from SWA affirming our CBA is binding upon them as Successors. While I am sure we would be amenable to extending that 18 month window, it would be with reasonable protections.

Hope this helps clear up some of the details.

TW

 

[Roomwithaview]

AAI's Section One

Our Section 1 language requires combined Ops within 18 months of the DOCC. We have a letter from SWA affirming our CBA is binding upon them as Successors. While I am sure we would be amenable to extending that 18 month window, it would be with reasonable protections.

Only stays in tact as long as the company's in business. Sorry, them's the rules of the game.

 

[Ty Webb]

This message is hidden because Roomwithaview is on your ignore list.

If you are responding to me, don't bother.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Boo!=======

 

[luvfan]

Binding Arbitration.

The way it's been explained to me is that any decision handed down from arbitration is binding. However, Gary wouldn't be obligated to do anything. It's only binding IF Gary decides to integrate the groups. I'm not even a good jailhouse lawyer though.

 

[redflyer65]

Only stays in tact as long as the company's in business. Sorry, them's the rules of the game.

Exactly Luvfan, it's a fact that the AAI say can't happen. We'll see. I don't see the offer being better leading up to arbitration. What's Gary going to do? Offer them 4 billion?

RF

 

[Andy]

Andy-

I'm not sure why, nearly eleven months on, you decided you wanted to wade into this stinkfest

First, I've been away from this forum for quite a while.
I was bored. I've gotten most of my list of things to do around the house accomplished.

I'm not going to check your post history but I'm sure that you've waded into other stinkfests that are outside your lane. And I don't see you making the same statement to OYS or Gen Lee. While I can understand that you don't like my opinion, I have tried to be courteous. Of course we all know that courteous pilot is an oxymoron so I request that you allow for some indiscretions on my part.

 

[Andy]

Dupe; deleted.