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.

 

[Andy]

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.

Dude, you've been watching one too many legal TV shows and are just mixing/matching legal terms but it's coming out as complete mumbo jumbo.

I'm not trying to be anal about spelling but it's breach, not breech. Which contract do you think has been breached? An agreement is not a contract.

Careful on bad faith negotiations. I could make a case for that on the part of AAIALPA.

What exactly is a TRO supposed to restrain? I'm really confused by that. Selling off assets? What would be the legal basis for a TRO? It's not McCaskill-Bond.

Now let's really get to the bottom line here. Are you ready to slug this out in court for a decade or more, paying your lawyer to keep the fight going?

For the sake of this job (no longer a profession), I'd love to see an amicable agreement reached by both sides. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed.
No one knows how this is going to play out. I'm a sideline observer pointing out things for both sides to think about. Granted, I've got a perspective that most AAI pilots don't want to hear. But I've got to tell ya, I really think you're committing seppuku in public. Just my opinion which is, quite frankly, worth nothing.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Andy

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.

Ain't that the truth. I'm beginning to think that Lear 70, Ty Webb, GLEE, OYS, FubiJakar, Kharma Police and JonJuan are all the same dude.

Ty and Lear want to feign intelligent debate while the other hornets buzz around attacking the site but when you start offering up an opinion that deviates from their world view or the ALPA message then all of a sudden you're a "radical".

Funny stuff. What ALPA won't tell their membership and what Lear 70, Ty Webb and PCL refuse to acknowledge is that there is no law, no requirement, nothing at all that forces Mr. Kelly to make former AAI pilots, SWA pilots. Hence the reason he has always used the word "If".

 

[slaquer5]

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.

I see you flew the 9 and the L 1011. Please tell me you did not fly for EAL after the strike in 89

 

[Andy]

Ain't that the truth. I'm beginning to think that Lear 70, Ty Webb, GLEE, OYS, FubiJakar, Kharma Police and JonJuan are all the same dude.

I can guarantee you that Lear, Ty, GL, and OYS are different people. I don't know about the rest; jonjuan's always been a wingnut. I don't remember reading much/anything from Fubi and Kharma in years past.

 

[texman]

Andy has a point and thats is what SWA is doing. Following the process Agreement. Just letting it all play out. It's not a contract. Can hold a company to the fire. Been saying since day one.

 

[slaquer5]

I see you flew the 9 and the L 1011. Please tell me you did not fly for EAL after the strike in 89

Becket I noticed you did not answer my question .I can assume now, I know the answer.