Originally Posted by
lambourne
I would not grant that SWAPA hired the finest litigation attorneys to prosecute this case.
Perhaps you'll be more willing to grant that point after you've learned a bit more about
Condon & Forsyth, the firm SWAPA has retained to work with its in-house attorneys and local outside counsel on the case. It might also be a good idea to read and understand the
complaint.
You obviously don’t know how labor unions work in the USA. They will sell their membership the belief and hope of a payoff for just about anything. Doesn’t take away the fact that the Southwest pilots have a thin argument in front of a jury that they have been harmed. A jury hearing how pilots who make 250K missed out on making 300K are generally not very sympathetic.
I won't argue with you over your opinion of "how labor unions work in the USA." I do suggest that you try to understand the case and the process of civil litigation before deciding that SWAPA has a "thin argument." As for the possible balance of sympathies, I wouldn't want to rely upon that if I were Boeing, in this case (or most any case related to the MAX that is tried in the next few years).
I am no fan of Boeing but the fact that Southwest hired the chief test pilot who pled the 5th is alarming. Way too much cross pollination to have a leg to stand on in court.
The situation with Forkner may not be particularly important in SWAPA's case. We are already aware of a great deal of evidence that indicates that the grounding of the MAX is largely the result of recklessness and misbehavior by its manufacturer, and we don't have the advantage of the very thorough discovery process that will likely bring much more such evidence to light -- unless Boeing short-circuits the case with a quick settlement before discovery. If SWAPA's attorneys don't think Forkner's testimony is essential, they may well not call him as a witness, and Boeing would certainly be taking a risk by doing so. I doubt that Forkner will be a major factor in the union litigation.