What the 717 leaving means

[27 driver]

OK, don't want to start a new thread, but couldn't find the Dispute thread. Seems SWAPA just denied the AT pilots claim citing it should be handled outside the DR process, as in the DRP has no jurisdiction. Lawyers should meet to discuss, of course...

Did you expect a different ruling? Wouldn't matter what the dispute was SWAPA would deny it.

 

[redflyer65]

Southwest implemented Plan B on the 717. It won't change the SLI any. It's a Hail Mary with 1 second on the clock. Not going to matter in the end.

 

[Lear70]

OK, don't want to start a new thread, but couldn't find the Dispute thread. Seems SWAPA just denied the AT pilots claim citing it should be handled outside the DR process, as in the DRP has no jurisdiction. Lawyers should meet to discuss, of course...

Not really news, our ALPA reps stated that the DRC does, indeed, have jurisdiction, just as your reps said that it doesn't.

As such, that question itself now goes on to arbitration, as I previously mentioned in another, related thread, whichever arbitrator of the 3 is available first.

If the arbitrator agrees that the DRC does indeed have jurisdiction over the issue, it'll go back to the DRC again on the question itself, which will deadlock like this issue, then it will go to arbitration again over the issue itself.

Like I said before, it's going to be almost a year from when we filed it (September) before we have a decision on the issue itself.

 

[scoreboardII]

Lear, why was there no specific claim or harm cited? I can't see any arbitrator siding with the claim that "we are pretty sure we are harmed, just have no real idea what that harm is...".

 

[scoreboardII]

Did you expect a different ruling? Wouldn't matter what the dispute was SWAPA would deny it.

Not neccesarily. But a blanket claim of harm, without details, really? Check the dispute claim here:
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102365104649-407/AirTrain_DisputeForm.pdf

What rights were abridged or denied, specificially and how?

 

[humveedriver]

Not neccesarily. But a blanket claim of harm, without details, really? Check the dispute claim here:
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1102365104649-407/AirTrain_DisputeForm.pdf

What rights were abridged or denied, specificially and how?

Not sure about the format of that claim. But towards the bottom it stated domicile ATL and position Captain. To me, that is specifically being violated. I understand the SWA pilots point of view. But I find it more than a little fishy that a company buys a competitor, drafts a transition plan and then yells "hocus pocus!", and drastically changes the deal after it has been voted on by both sides. If you believe that SWA suddenly lost interest in the 717 and then by chance Delta swooped in to lease them...

 

[scoreboardII]

Yet thats exactly how the CEO will testify.

 

[Lear70]

Lear, why was there no specific claim or harm cited? I can't see any arbitrator siding with the claim that "we are pretty sure we are harmed, just have no real idea what that harm is...".

Because you don't telegraph your arguments to your opponent before you go into arbitration.

The broad claim is enough to get it to arbitration, then you get specific with arguments in front of the arbitrator. Every arbitration works like that for the most part, but this format is especially important to do that since there aren't going to be post-arbitration arguments accepted by summary form, which is what is normally done - it gives you one last chance to defend claims made by the other side that you may not have had the data to refute in the hearing itself.

Since they're not going to do that and will have a "one day and done" finite amount of time to present arguments AND closing statements, it makes even more sense to keep the specifics of your arguments to yourself until you present them to the arbitrator.

It doesn't mean there aren't compelling arguments, it just means they're keeping them to themselves as part of the overall strategy.

 

[scoreboardII]

So you see no possibility an arbitrator will say "so there is a dispute resolution process, but you denied that avenue a chance because you kept the claim details from that process and you wanted to go directly to arbitration in violation of the DR process, and now you want ME to hear your case?"

Sounds like your side wants to get to arbitration, throw out a strategy of claims in arbitration without letting SWAPA hear those claims prior to arbitration, prevent the SWAPA side from having any chance to rebut those because of the nature of arbitration.

Arbitrators see right through that tactic as a failure of due process.

Good luck with that.

 

[humveedriver]

So you see no possibility an arbitrator will say "so there is a dispute resolution process, but you denied that avenue a chance because you kept the claim details from that process and you wanted to go directly to arbitration in violation of the DR process, and now you want ME to hear your case?"

Sounds like your side wants to get to arbitration, throw out a strategy of claims in arbitration without letting SWAPA hear those claims prior to arbitration, prevent the SWAPA side from having any chance to rebut those because of the nature of arbitration.

Arbitrators see right through that tactic as a failure of due process.

Good luck with that.

SWAPA controls the Dispute Resolution Process. The agreement was written that way. Anything that AT presents will be dismissed by SWAPA. I think it is fair to say that the language of the agreement is not specific enough to answer the questions surrounding the transition of pilots with the 717 leaving so rapidly.