? for Albie...
02-27-2009 | 08:26 PM
#1
Thread Starter
On Reserve
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
? 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?
02-27-2009 | 08:40 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
From: ANC-Based MD-11 FO
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.
02-27-2009 | 09:25 PM
#6
"blue collar thug"!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,614
Likes: 0
From: A proponent of...
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.
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
02-27-2009 | 10:58 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,899
Likes: 0
From: Leftof longitudinal
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?
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...
02-27-2009 | 11:35 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
From: Continuing The Dream
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.
02-28-2009 | 04:31 AM
#9
Living the dream!
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
From: MD-11 Capt
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.
02-28-2009 | 05:40 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,203
Likes: 0
From: Gear Monkey
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...
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...
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.
Last edited by DLax85; 02-28-2009 at 06:06 AM.
