? for Albie...
 

Is it possible to sue the Union for the way that the age 65 law and retroactivity was implemented? Instead of people complaining about it, is there anything that can be done about it? DW and his personal retraoactivity clause clearly demonstrate misrepresentation and gross negligence. If a suit was filed could we actually find out why there was an excess out of the 727 SO seat allowing JL and his friends to return to the line? Has anyone else considered this?

I might be wrong, but I believe that when the law was changed, a section was added that specifically prohibited certain types of lawsuits.

You can sue anyone. This America. Weather you would win is another question. I think we would win...

I know how you feel, I feel the same way. However, I am completely against suing myself--the money the union spends to defend itself comes from our dues dollars. Even if you got a judgment you would be wasting everyone's money on both sides of the table, which is a total waste of limited resources. Sometimes it's better to just walk away and this is one of those times.

Maybe the money the union uses to defend itself could come out of DW's 92 hours a month?

Hypothetically, I dont believe your logic is valid.

You can consider it suing yourself. In reality you would be suing an entity that was supposed to represent all of us, and, if proved that DW did it to benefit a select group of "friends", the lawsuit would have more weight. And if you were not one who benefited from the retro activity of the age change, you would have been harmed. And if the suit was won on the merits of the case, it would be a win, because that kind of thing (waste of our $ to fight for that change) hopefully would not happen in the future.

Everyone has their concept of whats right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. Walking away is one way to deal with that concept. JMO

I'm not ALPA, but are you going to sue all of congress as well? It is Federal law. ICAO rules ultimately drove the politicians on this devisive issue.
Would bet ALPA will cover legal costs of it officers per it's rules. So it does seem a bit counterproductive. BWDIK.
Not many like the 60 thing, bet alot of folks in 1959 didn't either. They probably felt scrogged since they may have planned on working longer <g>
Our union was about to get sued for not supporting the age 60 legislation. Go figure...

I think the suit would have to be based on something like a 'down-bid' in lieu of 'retirement, and a 2 year freeze. If a crew member bid to the panel instead of retiring, is that considered a down-bid, and should those crews be frozen for 2 years? Then, in subsequent bids [after their two years of plumbing] they could once again bid where their seniority allowed. If there were [5] CA slots in a subsequent bid, only that many would have been able to bid to the left seat off the panel. The age 60/65 law is the law, but I think contractually both sides took some unethical liberties with the CBA during the hysteria and anger.

So your choice is retire or down bid. So, if they had retired you are saying they could come back since they would have done that to avoid a down bid. I don't think going to the only seat available would ever be considered a down bid.

Don't get me wrong I'm with the guys that think JL took care of himself and his peers. If I/we (most of us) would do the same if we had the power or pull.

JL cost this company millions taking care of the old guys and himself. He let every guy that wanted to stay, stay even when there wasn't a seat for them.

Agree with most of your post ---- except all ICAO rules are not specifically binding on all signatories.

Signatories (countries) merely have to publish which parts of the ICAO rules will differ in their juridictions --- and I believe there are some countries who have kept their regulated age at 60.

Now, I do agree "political pressure" from other ICAO signatories played a big role --- plus, let's not forget the Federal Gov't itself (specifically the PBGC) benefitted by not having to pick up more of the pensions of the bankrupt legacy carrier pilots starting at Age 60.

But maybe we can hire those lawyers that represent Coke Zero! :D:D

Where does ALPA get the funds to do its work? From our dues. Who will pay the attorneys you hire to sue ALPA? The members. Therefore, we all will be suing ourselves regardless of how you characterize the entity. The concept lacks merit.

You were obviously not negatively affected by the rule change.

R1200 -
NO - that wasn't my point. My point was directed at what to base a suit, and I thought the ONLY option might be to address the down-bid option. Subsequent bids back to flying seats would be handled like every other vacancy bid - if you can hold it - you bid it. If there are 5 Captain seats, that doesn't open up 160 seats for all the post 60 guys to jump in.
The DW/JL/PC debacle and the excesses allowed the whole mess to occur, and it could have been easily prevented. Retro-activity wasn't a one-sided deal - there's plenty of blame on this issue to point fingers both directions.

Good one! I love those ads.

I think you are missing the target. You would need to file a civil lawsuit directly against DW. Then all you need to show is he was not acting in the best interest of the majority of the members (his charter) thereby he is acting on his own. Then ALPA would not bear liability for his actions and he would have to fund the suit himself. Don't know how that really helps but it would feel better.

Also, How about under the Federal RICO statutes showing that DW conspired with JL to defraud those affected. If you could show that they had reason to act in that manner for personal gain (does not have to be monetary, could be increased power) then the fact that other also benefited is not relevant. Much broader net under federal statues but you'd need a prosecutor buy into that theory.

Isn't this fun.;)

How about we keep the recent unity going, instead of dikking that up? How about we concern ourselves with who is going to take over in June and call our block reps to voice your opinion? I wasn't/still aren't happy with the results of the Age 65 thing and how it was handled, but it's over man, get on with it. If you want to continue the American tradition of suing everytime something doesn't go your way, be my guest. I think I'll go skiing today instead.

What unity is that?

(Edited)

Got a call suggesting any lawsuit issues, however unlikely, probably should not be commented on by a current MEC member.

I dont' think 727memphis is going to sue, but if he does I should not comment pro or con.

Not trying to cop out, but in this crazy legal climate it can cause problems.

If you have legal questions--contact your own attorney or the ALPA legal staff for questions.

Thanks for the response. Was just hoping for answers on the who, why and how implementation of retroactivity and the -1 excess bid. The career progression, career loss of pay to the affected crewmembers and damage to the company will almost certainly never be recovered. If there was any way to reverse some of the mistakes, I would hope they would be pursued. Even if they were made by us...

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