I'm no lawyer, but I'd argue there would be a case of "misrepresentation." A poll was taken and he clearly went against the wishes of the majority of his constituents. They would argue that we all answered the question that if the change was inevitable would you want ALPA to be part of the process.

My biggest beef with the whole process was retroactivity. I heard DW say it put us on the "wrong side of a lawsuit," by not supporting it. Retroactivity clearly was a minority in ALPA.

As someone who knows a lot of lawyers, I posed this question back when it changed because I was so ****ed. It seems as if it's certainly possible however no one would win. Even if you could go after individuals rather than ALPA itself, what would we be trying to get back in damages? How could damage be quantified? A lot of assumptions would have to be made about career progression, pay rates, potentially losing a medical...

Bottom line hear is that the lawyers would win as the fees would be astronomical as they'd have to look at so many angles to make the appropriate argument and even if a judgement was obtained against DW or ALPA, the funds wouldn't be there to pay anyway as we'd just be robbing ourselves.

I just hope that we can remove anyone that was involved in that decision.

The lawyers represented Coke. They were trying to sue Coke Zero. Just sayin' :p

Hey, are you Canadian??? :D :D

(...but, yes --- I believe you are correct)

I get a call periodically....probably from the same guy a...... weasely reader. Seems to hawk these boards pretty closely. Did he at least lower his voice to sound intimidating? We need everything we can to substantiate these RICO claims.....

:D

The funny thing is....who knew labor was so concerned about possible lawsuits......it woulda been easier to just threaten to sue Jimmy Hoffa than hide him.......hindsight........woulda saved all those lives at the Ford plant in the 30's too.

Relax reader....I'm just joshing you.:D