Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > American Airlines | AAdvantage
Reload this Page >

Federal judge issues permanent injunction against AA mechanics union

Federal judge issues permanent injunction against AA mechanics union

Reply

Old Aug 15, 19, 7:40 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: AA/US - PlatinumPro; 1W Sapphire; HHonors - Silver; UA dirt
Posts: 5,398
Federal judge issues permanent injunction against AA mechanics union

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: "Mondayís order prohibits employees from 'calling, permitting, instigating, authorizing, encouraging, participating in, approving, or continuing any form of disruption to or interference with Americanís 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.
IADCAflyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 19, 9:27 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NYC,SFO
Programs: AY+ Plat, AA Plat, SPG/Marriott Plat Premier, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,570
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer View Post
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.
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?
bchandler02 likes this.
flyingeph12 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 19, 9:36 am
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Roswell, GA
Programs: AA EXP 2.8m,Lifetime PLT, Hilton Diamond, IHG PlLT, SPG Gold
Posts: 1,731
let AA tried to enforce or act on it.. the mechanics can say and do anything to declare a plane not travel worthy...
fotographer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 19, 9:50 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Programs: British Airways Gold
Posts: 2,314
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....
ajeleonard is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:20 am
  #5  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: AA/US - PlatinumPro; 1W Sapphire; HHonors - Silver; UA dirt
Posts: 5,398
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
IADCAflyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:57 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Programs: AS MVP 75K, UA PremEx-MM
Posts: 3,028
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.
Kurt is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:40 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: LAX
Posts: 2,704
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
lobo411 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 6:53 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT PLT, AA LT PLT, HH GLD, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 24,680
Originally Posted by flyingeph12 View Post
Haven't read the order, but I wonder how this injunction is enforceable exactly.
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.
CPRich is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 7:01 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Midwest USA
Programs: BA Gold, UA SIL, WN A+/CP, Marriott Tit (LT), Hyatt EXP, Hilton Gold
Posts: 1,381
Originally Posted by CPRich View Post
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.
+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.
nachosdelux is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 8:13 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NYC,SFO
Programs: AY+ Plat, AA Plat, SPG/Marriott Plat Premier, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,570
Originally Posted by CPRich View Post
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.
Originally Posted by nachosdelux View Post
+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.
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.
flyingeph12 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread