BoilerUP

You make a very public claim about your lawsuit on an internet chat forum, saying "The lawsuit is demanding a jury trial to gain accountability and damages for the factual allegations of", yet you aren't willing to describe how the TA you are suing over "drastically lowered retirement benefits" from your previous CBA per your own claim?!?

Because "We are not going to litigate this lawsuit on APC"?

Creating a screen name for the purpose of posting this thread and sharing "information" is pretty much "litigating this lawsuit on APC".

I asked a basic, simple question:

Based on FDXLAG's post, it would appear that in fact retirement benefits for FedEx pilots weren't "drastically lowered" in your 2015 contract - the DB plan remained the same and the DC plan actually went up.

I can't speak for any of your other claims - again, I'm not a FDX pilot and not privy to the communications you received - but for a claim supporting your overall contention, this sure seems tenuous.

ClassActionALPA

This is not tenuous. The compliant explains the issues and factual allegations concerning retirement. We cannot comment or expand on certain aspects of the complaint. Please don't take this personally.

As far as the "court of public opinion" goes, read my previous post.

ClassActionALPA

This is not the first Duty Of Fair Representation (DFR) lawsuit against ALPA. Continental pilots also have a current a DFR lawsuit against ALPA filed before our lawsuit.

This is about rule of law and accountability for actions. Isn't this what our society is based on?

Or do we just let this be "swept under the rug" and "hope" for change? We certainly do not agree with that premise.

BoilerUP

I'm not taking anything personally; as I said, I am not a FedEx pilot and I am also not an ALPA member.

I must say though, casting an objective outside eye on your complaint that you linked to in Post #1 of this thread, paragraphs 70-83 in no way represent "factual allegations" supporting your claim on this website of "drastically lowered retirement benefits".

Your contention of retirement benefits being "significantly lower than represented" (82) and "drastically lowered retirement benefits" (83) is based not upon actual, tangible reductions from existing benefits in your previous CBA...but rather significantly/drastically lowered only relative to your expectation of gains.

That is what is tenuous; you want to attach damages to unmet expectations.

I'm just a dumb pilot, but have to believe an experienced, competent attorney would have a field day with that at trial.

Good luck...

FXDX

Not any more. See the 2008 election results and ensuing lawlessness of the current administration and future administration of HRC.

ClassActionALPA

This Class Action lawsuit, on behalf of all FedEx pilots, is not about the 2008 election results.

We are stepping forward to demand accountability for ALPA's breaches of its Duty of Fair Representation, and as required by federal law.

ClassActionALPA

As you stated, you are not a FedEx pilot and do not have all of the information. Are you an attorney? We will prove the factual allegations in court, not on APC.

BoilerUP

Nope, I'm not an attorney, not even a crew room lawyer...just a dumb pilot as previously mentioned.

Without comment on the validity of the rest of your claim, good luck proving the factual allegations WRT 'drastically lowered retirement benefits' in court...you're going to need it.

ClassActionALPA

As you stated, you're not an attorney. Your opinion is noted, but I do not think our law firm, who has won against ALPA before in Brady vs. ALPA, would agree with you.

Our law firm, Jacobson Press & Fields, is also representing the state of Missouri in the Class Action lawsuit on behalf of all Volkswagen diesel owners for Volkswagen's diesel emissions scandal. They are reputable.

FDXFLYR

Who pays attorney fees and associated costs if you lose this lawsuit? Just the named plaintiffs?

Do I become a named plaintiff if I donate money to support this lawsuit?