IADCAflyer

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1V220P

AA filed suit against TWU-IAM over what seemed like some attempts to delay flights - part of an effort to press contract negotiations. On Monday, a judge basically made permanent a preliminary injunction that forbids individuals from engaging in activities that work to slow down AA's operations.

From one excerpt: "Monday’s order prohibits employees from 'calling, permitting, instigating, authorizing, encouraging, participating in, approving, or continuing any form of disruption to or interference with American’s airline operations,' including a refusal to accept overtime or complete any maintenance repairs in the normal course of work."

Lets see if the operational performance starts to improve or if IAM-TWU doubles down.

flyingeph12

Haven't read the order, but I wonder how this injunction is enforceable exactly. Is the court fining the union every time an individual mechanic "disrupts or interferes" with AA's operations? Of course, the union has maintained that it's not disrupting or interfering with AA's operations, so what does the injunction prohibit exactly? Should we be worried about potentially real mechanical issues not being addressed for fear that such "disruption" or "interference" would violate the injunction?

fotographer

let AA tried to enforce or act on it.. the mechanics can say and do anything to declare a plane not travel worthy...

ajeleonard

It's more of a symbolic deterrent

Of course the union claims they're not doing what the injunction prohibits, so should have no problem complying with it....

IADCAflyer

And now AA is seeking damages from the TWU-IAM. Can't find the pleading, but things are getting a little warm.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/14/amer...d-flights.html

Kurt

A friend was on AA487 CLT-DEN yestderday (8/15); they boarded on time, then a gate agent came onboard and told everyone to deboard as "this is the first flight of the day for this aircraft and it has not been cleaned or safety inspected." So they did; the delay ended up being 49 minutes for departure and 33 minutes for arrival. He said they ground staff appeared to be rather clueless and passengers were understandably frustrated. The aircraft (A321) appears to have come from DFW the night before and spent all day in CLT before a 6:20 p.m. departure.

Does this sound like some sort of shenanigans from mechanics to force a delay? Not saying it is, but it just seems a bit fishy to me.

lobo411

The judge, John McBryde, is a notorious authoritarian. He was sanctioned by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for having "engaged for a number of years in a pattern of abusive behavior" that was "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." For 7 years he fought a legal battle challenging the Court of Appeals' very right to discipline him at all, claiming that no one had a Constitutional right to supervise his activities. Thank God he lost that fight.

McBryde is now nearly 90 years old, and he's pretty much a poster child for senility. I'm no lawyer, but I doubt that an order *requiring* workers to work *overtime* under threat of criminal prosecution is un-Constitutional on its face.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1480832.html

CPRich

Probably the same way the initial order was supported. AA convinced the judge, through some collection of evidence evidence, that the mechanics were doing what they claimed.

If AA comes back later and convinces the judge, with subsequent evidence, the judge will find that the union has violated the order and probably fine the bejeezus out of them.

nachosdelux

+1. This happened to the AA pilot's union in 1999, for violating the federal judge's order not to encourage a sickout. A judgement of $46 million was issued against the union. It would have bankrupted the union, but they negotiated (away) the judgement in the next pilot contract.

flyingeph12

Enjoining a sickout in the pilot union's case versus enjoining "any form of disruption to or interference with American’s airline operations" in this case seems like very different things to me. What constitutes "disruption" or "interference"? In theory, any mechanical delay—even a legitimate one—is an "interference" with or "disruption" of AA's operations. How is a federal judge going to be able to determine the bogus delays from the real ones? I have no doubt AA could provide evidence showing violation of the injunction, given the extremely vague (and to me broad) language of the order.