What would management's list look like?

[doh]

^^^this^^^

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

That's the Ricci way. Rob from the hard working pilots that make the backbone of this company, so a few of HIS good old boys club pilots reap the temporary rewards.

 

[ProFracPilot]

If people would look at McCaskill-Bond from a logical point of view, there's no way this law (as written) was ever intended to apply to all "air carriers". It is far too encompassing. In my (not so humble) opinion the intent of the law was to appease a large political constituency - meaning the normal folks who ride in steerage on part 121 air carriers - by trying to smooth out future "major" air carrier SLI's (and minimize operational impact) after the AA-TWA debacle. Look at it this way: what if two mom and pop 135 air carriers decided to merge (maybe neither had a pilot seniority list...) and then they attempt to apply this law? It would never work. Chances are it would bankrupt the new combined company in training costs alone if an attempt was made to apply it.

This isn't a frivolous lawsuit. Lawmakers craft bad law all the time and then leave it up to the courts to fix the law. Perhaps the merit of the lawsuit is to flesh out the intent of the law as originally written.

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

The purpose of the lawsuit is nothing more than to perpetuate the lie that the company has the backs of the transfer pilots. The company will put on a good show but its nothing more than that. The company gambled with the careers of those pilots, and will now blame the union. Unfortunately the blame falls on the transfers because they were the ones that gambled against the united pilots that did not see thru the deceit and vote out the union. Now that they lost, as in any gamble, they must pay the price.

 

[doh]

Anyone notice the absence of the usual apologists? Handschuch's quote has them pretty much shut down. Anything they say to try and twist that makes him a liar. Tough spot for the sycophants.

 

[Praetorian]

If people would look at McCaskill-Bond from a logical point of view, there's no way this law (as written) was ever intended to apply to all "air carriers". It is far too encompassing. In my (not so humble) opinion the intent of the law was to appease a large political constituency - meaning the normal folks who ride in steerage on part 121 air carriers - by trying to smooth out future "major" air carrier SLI's (and minimize operational impact) after the AA-TWA debacle. Look at it this way: what if two mom and pop 135 air carriers decided to merge (maybe neither had a pilot seniority list...) and then they attempt to apply this law? It would never work. Chances are it would bankrupt the new combined company in training costs alone if an attempt was made to apply it.

This isn't a frivolous lawsuit. Lawmakers craft bad law all the time and then leave it up to the courts to fix the law. Perhaps the merit of the lawsuit is to flesh out the intent of the law as originally written.

You're right the amendment only applies when a "covered transaction" occurres. However DAC's acquisition of FX and the subsequent merger clearly fall under that definition.

Ironically DAC's former attorney has perhaps devoted more scolarship to MB then anyone else. Here is a good article he wrote on the topic:

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/164186/Aviation/Seniority+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute

You can call this lawsuit what you want, but, as with just about everything DAC has done lately, it's sole purpose is to delay the union's ability to negotiate a joint CBA. They know they will ultamately loose, but time is money.