Class Action Lawsuits – Is It Time??!!

[mesaba13]

Didn't Al Haynes push this age 60 thing all the way to the supreme court and lost?

Can't have guys over 60 flying 121 because it was unsafe. Now since the economics have changed all of a sudden 65 is safe. This doesnt make much sense to me and I would be pissed if I were Mr. Haynes!

 

[atafan]

If you feel that an injustice has just been dealt out, rather than crying lawsuit go and take over your union.

I hear all the time how the union is so unfair and your just a victim. If there is so much support against this latest ruling and you have the numbers try to remedy this injustice the only effective way possible, work within your own union and balance the contract your way.

But whatever you do, step away from your PS3, put down your I-phone and man up. Please quit acting like little children that just got your toy taken away.

 

[whymeworry?]

1) I support any attempt at a class action suit. Why? ALPA's participation in this process was shameful.

2) Who you going to sue? ALPA for starters. Our beloved union failed to give fair representation. A majority of those polled wanted the law to remain intact. The EB ignored this and ALPA national deliberately and connivingly worked this bill into law in as little as 3 days. Just last week ALPA Nat'l denied that there was even a bill in play. It can be proven that ALPA National participated in a campaign of misinformation, telling everyone we are 1-2 years from any change, to get this bill done without opposition. They did this as recently as last week. That is fraud, and it is ripe with misrepresentation of facts.

3) The Senate did not VOTE. I repeat: THIS WAS NEVER VOTED UPON. The bill was introduced in a session whereby, if there are no objections, the bill passes. That is not a vote. Most senators weren't even there to object. Furthermore, what do congressmen and senators know about aviation? They have never spent one day in an airliner line environment. What's next? Their telling us we can't commute because that affects crewrest? Allowing our airlines to hire foreign pilots overseas? Every American should be embarrassed that this is how our gov't works.

4) While the Legislative branch cannot be sued, they can be challenged via the Supreme Court. So a class action for fair representation could be filed against ALPA while the law is challenged at the Supreme Court.

Will it be done? I don't know. If enough junior pilots realize how they just got thrown under the bus then perhaps a grass root effort will take root. But this will be one long and divisive battle, no doubt.


Whether or not you agree with the law change. Simply saying, "accept this" is both defeatist and ignorant of what occurred. ALPA is suppose to fairly serve the interests of its members. The president of our union and his cohorts grossly failed to do so. We all knew the law was going to change eventually. But we also thought that at some point we would have an opportunity to give our input (NPRM process). All I wanted to see was that ALPA played fairly in this process. Shafting the interests of 60% of the pilots seems hardly the way a true union should perform.

Reference the polling results as evidence of my aforementioned claims. I would provide a copy of the polling results but I can't figure out how to include an attachment. Sorry.

Remember, the second half of the questionnaire was loaded, i.e., "If the law is going to change anyway, do you want ALPA to be involved?" Those answers were put in the camp of supporting change. That's called spin.

 

[snow-back]

Snow-back,

You are a fool. Of course F/O's will be forced to fly to 65 in order to simply earn back the money they lost in the first place.

This is not right.

AA767AV8TOR

There are very few guarantees in life and even fewer in the aviation industry. Banking on age 60 retirements to progress YOUR career could be likened to banking on your pension plan for comfortable retirement.

Sounds like you're the fool.

 

[Andy Neill]

4) While the Legislative branch cannot be sued, they can be challenged via the Supreme Court. So a class action for fair representation could be filed against ALPA while the law is challenged at the Supreme Court.

When this would be brought to the Federal Court for challenge, the matter will be raised on what basis? Where is the Constitutional error in PL 110-135 worthy of reversal by the courts?

 

[cal73cap]

You guys contest that all the senior guys are greedy by working past 60 and that your future earnings are in jeopardy. Why do you think that current junior pilots will be any less "greedy" when they turn 60. Do the current generation of F/Os have a higher so-called moral standard than their senior counterparts? I doubt it. I would bet that a higher percentage of pilots will be working past 60 in 2 decades than will continue past 60 now.

Lawsuit...why don't you take your ball and go home?

You hit the nail on the head! The new young breed coming into the industry are the typical Gen Y's. You owe us everything, we're entitled! The older generation owes you nothing! Seniority is seniority and that is the way it goes. When you are junior you can't wait until you're senior. Then seniority comes and the junior folks must wait their turn. All you young guys need to stop whining, it will be your turn at seniority soon enough. Time does go very fast. By the way , this is your typical ALPA move. Feed the old, starve the young.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Well, don't forget to pick up your cup of coffee through the McDonalds Drive Up window on the way to the courthouse.

And what -- ask for an application!!

 

[kwick]

No Backbone!

If age 60 was a safety issue, how can you now justify working to age 65? Stick to your guns and retire at sixty. You either have bad judgement, which will not serve the flying public well, or you're AA hypocrite.

 

[Caveman]

3) The Senate did not VOTE. I repeat: THIS WAS NEVER VOTED UPON. The bill was introduced in a session whereby, if there are no objections, the bill passes. That is not a vote. Most senators weren't even there to object. Furthermore, what do congressmen and senators know about aviation? They have never spent one day in an airliner line environment. What's next? Their telling us we can't commute because that affects crewrest? Allowing our airlines to hire foreign pilots overseas? Every American should be embarrassed that this is how our gov't works.

Yes, they did vote: by unanimous consent. It is a procedural vote and is as valid as a roll call vote. There is no way you'll convince a court that the Senate didn't approve of this. They approved it unanimously

 

[whymeworry?]

You hit the nail on the head! The new young breed coming into the industry are the typical Gen Y's. You owe us everything, we're entitled! The older generation owes you nothing! Seniority is seniority and that is the way it goes. When you are junior you can't wait until you're senior. Then seniority comes and the junior folks must wait their turn. All you young guys need to stop whining, it will be your turn at seniority soon enough. Time does go very fast. By the way , this is your typical ALPA move. Feed the old, starve the young.

Oh, OK... sorry for speaking up. You're right, oh senior one. How dare we have an opinion.

This is a free country last I checked. If the young ones want to speak up, so what. It's gets old hearing you old guys tell everyone to fall in line because the change benefits you.

BTW, I was never fundamentally opposed to a change in the law. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out a change was eventually coming. So the actual change isn't what bothers me. Rather, I am concerned with how ALPA played a role in this watershed event, and the lengths our Nat'l union went to misguide everyone during the process. Do you think that's admirable? I think we should be worried.

It's quite easy for you to sit back and call the junior pilots whiners. Afterall, you benefited from the age-60 rule your whole career. You got yours now it's time to pull the ladder up. So who's being biased here? You or us? If the younger pilots want to speak up, they will. Just as your generation spoke up for change in the law so too will the younger voice their viewpoint. Isn't this what our country is all about? Relax.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

How can you guys argue that this is good for the industry? This will be a bigger problem then people understand. It will divide unions, stall negotiations, and It will take up union resources with lawsuits. This is a very sad day.

 

[whymeworry?]

Yes, they did vote: by unanimous consent. It is a procedural vote and is as valid as a roll call vote. There is no way you'll convince a court that the Senate didn't approve of this. They approved it unanimously

I will agree that what occurred was legal, and is part of the process. But no, they did not vote... according to my sources.

Obviously I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to ponder the legal ramifications about what occurred nor on what grounds it could be challenged. But I can tell you anything the Congress passes can be challenged at the Supreme Court level. At least that's my understanding. How it would be challenged and on what basis, I am not sure.

My real beef here is with ALPA. I expect my government to shaft our interests. By contrast, I expect ALPA to represent the will of the majority. I know ALPA changed course on this issue with the EB vote last summer, shameful and politically manipulative as it was, but we were told we would still have somewhat of a say in the matter as the process begins (NPRM, etc.).

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Do you really think you can convince a court that legislation diminishing the effects of arbitrary age discrimination is illegal, unjust, and unconstitutional? Good luck trying to make that argument.

Caveman,

Glad to see you have it all figured out. Fortunately, you are not on our list of legal consultants.

There are many questions of law that must be answered. This came down with little to no thought and was quickly pushed through Congress. There are still issues of safety and career expectations to contend with that could torpedo the entire 65 process. Also, just because the government has invoked the rule change, we are still determining whether the unions have to impose it just like flying 100 hours per month.

Also, Age 65 will radically change any contract negotiations as F/O’s quickly realize the financial devastation on their career earnings. There is a firestorm going on now at APA from the junior guys.

Caveman, in pursuing any important litigation, there will always be the naysayers such as you. Luckily not everyone listens to you.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Nor you.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I'd just take my 500-600 grand in lost wages for a 5 year longer upgrade and be happy. The over 60's can stay but just don't make me pay for it.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

There are very few guarantees in life and even fewer in the aviation industry. Banking on age 60 retirements to progress YOUR career could be likened to banking on your pension plan for comfortable retirement.

Sounds like you're the fool.

Snow-back,

No, you made reference to the fact that F/O’s would want to fly when they reached the age of 60. I was trying to illustrate to you, that most F/O’s will have to fly all the way to 65 to recover income that was lost in the first place due to this rule change. This includes not only straight pay, but also the loss in pensionable earnings and compounding interest. The longer the stagnation, the worst the hit in career earnings for the junior crewmember. Do you understand that concept?

A massive transfer of wealth just took place two days ago that will have serious repercussions for the future of our industry and profession.

You are asking F/O’s to wait up to two decades for they see any positive income from Age 65.

How fair is that?

AA767AV8TOR

 

[PCL_128]

As anyone can see from my previous posts on this subject, I'm just as mad about this as any of you are. However, lawsuits against ALPA will not help anything. Trying to bankrupt the union will cause much more harm than good. If you want to stop this sort of thing from happening in the future, then get rid of Prater, but don't destroy the union.

 

[stratocoaster]

Snow-back,

No, you made reference to the fact that F/O’s would want to fly when they reached the age of 60. I was trying to illustrate to you, that most F/O’s will have to fly all the way to 65 to recover income that was lost in the first place due to this rule change. This includes not only straight pay, but also the loss in pensionable earnings and compounding interest. The longer the stagnation, the worst the hit in career earnings for the junior crewmember. Do you understand that concept?

A massive transfer of wealth just took place two days ago that will have serious repercussions for the future of our industry and profession.

You are asking F/O’s to wait up to two decades for they see any positive income from Age 65.

How fair is that?

AA767AV8TOR

Your argument is based upon the concept of recovery of "lost income."

Income is only "lost" if one had it in their hands in the first place.

The correct term is "projected income", and one is no more guaranteed "projected income" than they are guaranteed "projected earnings" on a stock.

Bankruptcies, furloughs, mergers and even personal injuries can diminish, dilute or demolish one's projected earnings over the course of one's career.

You can also sue the government for all of those instances. But your suit can also be thrown out as frivolous, too.

 

[Carl_Spackler]

PCL_128 is right, it doesn't make any sense to sue yourself.

Does ALPA publish PAC donations? If I had donated to the PAC in the past, I would stop now. I can see the PAC funds go way down in the next year.

What were the motives for the EB to do a 180 after the will of the membership was made known? At first glance it would seem to make no sense at all, but the motive in this situation was the same as many decisions. Money. ALPA revenue from dues has gone down due to post 9/11 cuts. If they start losing many senior pilots in the next few years, that would further hurt revenue. The EB was not looking out for their members, but for their own pocket book. That is what I call SELFISH.

 

[alaskaplt]

You hit the nail on the head! The new young breed coming into the industry are the typical Gen Y's. You owe us everything, we're entitled! The older generation owes you nothing! Seniority is seniority and that is the way it goes. When you are junior you can't wait until you're senior. Then seniority comes and the junior folks must wait their turn. All you young guys need to stop whining, it will be your turn at seniority soon enough. Time does go very fast. By the way , this is your typical ALPA move. Feed the old, starve the young.

I think you have confused gen y with baby boomers. Sure sounds like that is who you are describing in your post. Not to mention I believe most of the alpa members that oppossed the change were gen x and young boomers (as in barely part of the "me generation"). All boomers benefited from the age 60 law. This change comes within 1 year after the first boomer hit 60. Like as if any of us need any further proof of why they are called the "me generation".