Delta Air May File Bankruptcy Wed or Thurs?

[FDJ2]

Thanks. That would certainly explain why the majority of court challenges by ALPA's attorneys have been denied while the majority of court challenges by the RJDC's attorney has been upheld.

Spin, you do realize that ALPA had 9 out of 10 RJDC claims summarily dismissed don't you? Summarily dismissed even before discovery! Perhaps you need to check your facts.

 

[180ToTheMarker]

Hey 737 pylt, I am very much invested in this industry. I happen to fly for ASA so whatever happens to Delta very much affects me. Now, sure I don't have 20 years but it will affect my family all the same. So maybe you need to shut your pie hole!

The only point I was making was that everyone knows it is coming...lets just do it and move on. So maybe you need to shut your pie hole!

Actually, I think BK could be a good thing. We are trying to compete in an industry where half the majors have filed BK. Sure, it creates other problems but I would like to get some of this debt off of us and move on to making this airline profitable.

I thought you worked for ASA...

 

[spinproof]

Spin, you do realize that ALPA had 9 out of 10 RJDC claims summarily dismissed don't you? Summarily dismissed even before discovery! Perhaps you need to check your facts.

Yes and perhaps you should revisit your source. By the way what would that exactly be. Could you possible share that source with the great unwashed!My source would be the Regional Jet Defense Coalition.

 

[spinproof]

spinproof, you're argument is disengenous. You first posted in response to FDJ when he said that ASA could find plenty of people to PFT. You obviously took offense and you obviously know that PFT stands for "buy a job", otherwise you wouldn't have reacted with your attempt to drag all of the pilots who have honorably obtained flight training into your side with your implication.

Then you go and ask if there is a difference between buying a job and buying a type rating. In your own question, you admit that you are not arguing for buying training, your arguing the question of buying a job. You lose.

As far as my "scum" statement, I was just playing your game. You want to link me buying my private, with you buying your job, but you can't stand it when I link a PFT'r to a scab.
Not that consider PFT'rs scabs, they are not. Nothing is as low as a scab. Not even some poor uniformed soul who paid for a job that could have been obtained for free.

enigma

you can have the last word

You are seriously in need of help! I really don't have a clue as to what you are referring. My response to FDJ2 was his reference to PFT as whores. I only pointed out that could apply to all of us!! Its just a matter of how its couched!

I must confess your reference to "play my game" has me totally confused. Your attempt to belittle those you consider beneath you only belittles you. Try getting to Church next time. I'll be pulling for you and deep down I know you don't mean it.

 

[FDJ2]

Yes and perhaps you should revisit your source. By the way what would that exactly be. Could you possible share that source with the great unwashed!My source would be the Regional Jet Defense Coalition.

My source is Judge Glasser's ruling which summarily dismissed 9 out of 10 RJDC claims before discovery. The sole remaining claim has yet to be argued on its merits, which should happen after discovery. For now, the good judge has only determined that he has subject matter jurisdiction on the sole remaining claim and he has made no ruling on its merits. Perhaps you should spend less time reading RJDC rhetoric and spend more time reading the actual decisions of the court. I would also recommend that you wash from time to time so as not to offend your fellow crewmembers in the tight quarters of your cockpit.

 

[79%N1]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[FDJ2]

79%, now that you realize how terribly wrong you were and how you have no response to counter my facts vs your false statements then my work is done with you. Next time try have at least some knowledge of the issues.

 

[79%N1]

Yeah, you schooled me alright, AllMighty One. I bow to your mainline superiority to my lowly RJ flying, uninformed, unintelligent, second class self! I can only hope to be just like you someday!

Tell the General I said Hi!

 

[FDJ2]

Yeah, you schooled me alright, AllMighty One. I bow to your mainline superiority to my lowly RJ flying, uninformed, unintelligent, second class self! I can only hope to be just like you someday!

Your poor sense of self seems quite evident. I never stated that you were wrong because your "lowly RJ flying, uninformed, unintelligent, second class self", but rather because you are ignorant of the facts and poorly informed. I have simply, in my own humble way, given you a little schooling. Hopefully in the future you will engage the rest of your brain, like I've said before, there is a wealth of potential there if ever you choose to use it. Have a nice day.

 

[spinproof]

My source is Judge Glasser's ruling which summarily dismissed 9 out of 10 RJDC claims before discovery. The sole remaining claim has yet to be argued on its merits, which should happen after discovery. For now, the good judge has only determined that he has subject matter jurisdiction on the sole remaining claim and he has made no ruling on its merits. Perhaps you should spend less time reading RJDC rhetoric and spend more time reading the actual decisions of the court. I would also recommend that you wash from time to time so as not to offend your fellow crewmembers in the tight quarters of your cockpit.

Really well lets take a look at the rulings....
http://emailwire.com/news/air3607.shtml
...yeah but that 10th one is a lu-lu!

 

[FDJ2]

Really well lets take a look at the rulings....

Spin, that's not the ruling, nice try though. That's a 1 page interpretation of the ruling by the RJDC. The actual ruling was quite long, 39 pages, and included 10 claims by the RJDC, and one request to amend the lawsuit and add 300 plaintiffs. Judge Glasser summarily dismissed 9 claims, allowed one to procede and stayed the motion to amend the lawsuit. IOW, 90% of the RJDC claims were summarily dismissed before discovery and only 1 survived. BTW, all the RJDC claims which sought monetary damages were summarily dismissed. The judge made no ruling on the merits of the last remaining claim, he only ruled that he had subject matter jurisdiction over that claim and that he would hear arguments on the merits after discovery. What has it been now, 16 months and counting and the RJDC has yet to make an argument on the merits of their last remaining claim. Do you even know what the standards are for a DFR claim? I doubt it, but perhaps you should join 79% and start educating yourself, instead of just reading the rhetorical spin of the RJDC.

 

[spinproof]

Spin, that's not the ruling, nice try though. That's a 1 page interpretation of the ruling by the RJDC. The actual ruling was quite long and included 10 claims by the RJDC and one request to amend the lawsuit and add 300 plaintiffs. Judge Glasser summarily dismissed 9 claims, allowed one to procede and stayed the motion to amend the lawsuit. IOW, 90% of the RJDC claims were summarily dismissed before discovery and only 1 survived. The judge made no ruling on the merits of the last remaining claim, he only ruled that he had subject matter jurisdiction over that claim and that he would hear arguments on the merits after discovery. Perhaps you should join 79% and start educating yourself, instead of just reading the rhetorical spin of the RJDC.

I hardly think the judge recommending class action status bodes very well for ALPA. Spin it as you will ALPA is guilty! It's just a matter of time. All interrogities since this opinion have gone against ALPA. TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC.......

 

[~~~^~~~]

What has it been now, 16 months and counting and the RJDC has yet to make an argument on the merits of their last remaining claim.

Not true. ALPA has breached its discovery obligations and the case will not go forward until discovery is complete. In fact, I think there was a hearing about the discovery schedule sometime in the last half of this month. The issues at Delta have provided a worthy distration from following RJDC news.

As far as the standards for DFR - the union has to act with honesty to impartially represent the members as a whole. the right of exclusive representation given to a union under the Railway Labor Act carries with it an obligation to exercise that right without hostile discrimination, fairly, impartially and in good faith.

There is no way that you can assert that ALPA has maintained that standard. ALPA has refused to hear grievances on scope, locked out the ASA and Comair MEC's, and arbitrarily imposed restrictions on non-preferred members at the whim of preferred members.

Hopefully, the lawsuit is achieving its goal of correcting ALPA's behavior and restraining the more predatory inclinations of the Delta MEC. We shall see soon. In any event, the lawsuit was timed to trigger changes from the 96 to 2000 scope language - so at least it is a safety net if the Delta pilots decide to start taking seats in "permitted aircraft types." If the Delta MEC and Delta agree to something really nasty ( US Air style J4J ) perhaps the RJDC can add Delta to the lawsuit and seek injunctive relief.

Don't tread on me....

 

[General Lee]

If DELTA decides to do anything, they can do it--since they own all of us. If they see that they can make a deal that would save them the most cash, they will make it, and it looks like we have the most to give them. It is deal time, and I don't think either side wants to go into Chap 11. There will be more giving on our side, but we may get some things out of this. Why haven't we seen a deal yet? Maybe they are actually negotiating.... With the creditors lining up (at least it seems that way), Dalpa now has a little more leverage than before. (not much more, though) We shall see, but I don't think the RJDC is even on the Delta radar scope. Delta can bargain anything they want away to get a deal done.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't think the RJDC is even on the Delta radar scope. Delta can bargain anything they want away to get a deal done.

Delta can, ALPA can not. ALPA has a duty to its members.

The RJDC might not be on Delta's radar, but you can be certain it is on ALPA's - and it is not difficult to amend a complaint to add a defendant. Just because ALPA may have a willing co-conspirator is a distinction that makes no difference. Not only is DFR still DFR, but an agreement with Delta that harms ASA and Comair pilots ( while they were locked out and without their ratification ) pretty much proves up the RJDC's case for them.

One HUGE difference between us and the US Air, United, American and Northwest situations is that the RJDC is organized, prepared and has a very good crystal ball ( not that ALPA malfeasance is hard to predict based on their actions elsewhere, pattern bargaining you know....) The RJDC has placed ALPA on notice and with each denial of ASA and Comair pilots' representational rights ALPA has set for itself a mine that could well result in external legal review of any agreement that might be made ( if it harms ASA, or Comair, pilots )

I like my RJDC mutual aid pact. I would like it even more if ALPA would represent all of its members properly and the RJDC were not necessary.

 

[~~~^~~~]

If they see that they can make a deal that would save them the most cash, they will make it, and it looks like we have the most to give them. It is deal time, and I don't think either side wants to go into Chap 11. ... Delta can bargain anything they want away to get a deal done.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Really? Does that mean the ASA MEC can negotiate to perform Song flying? Do you think ALPA National would sign that agreement?

The point being that ALPA approves of mainline bargaining against ASA pilots, but not vice versa. ALPA keeps floating proposals to put mainline pilots at Connection type carriers while giving up their mainline longevity ( effectively undercutting the current Connection pilot wages by 15 to as much as 53% )

Again I'm saying, "Don't Tread on Me." They had better not engage in negotiations that effect the wages and working conditions of pilots they do not represent.

 

[General Lee]

Fins,


I highly doubt that our MEC is negotiating for your wages or working conditions. Come on now. Simmer down now, ya hear? I honestly have NO IDEA what they are negotiating, except probably a large pay cut and some productivity changes for us.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

I hardly think the judge recommending class action status bodes very well for ALPA.

The judge recommended class action not based on the merits, but rather as the best use of court resources. IOW, he only wants to hear similar claims once. He does not want to revisit the issue again with a different batch of similarly situated plaintiffs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits, or lack thereof of the RJDC claims. Spinroof, you seem full of nothing but spin, completely unable to back up your claims. Can we at least agree that 90% of the RJDC claims, which included six claims seeking monetary damages in the billions were summarily dismissed?

 

[FDJ2]

Not true. ALPA has breached its discovery obligations and the case will not go forward until discovery is complete.

As far as the standards for DFR - the union has to act with honesty to impartially represent the members as a whole. the right of exclusive representation given to a union under the Railway Labor Act carries with it an obligation to exercise that right without hostile discrimination, fairly, impartially and in good faith.

On the first point, it was my understanding that the judge has never made a determination that ALPA has breached its discovery obligation. If the judge has could you please post his ruling. Also, wasn't it agreed that ALPA would produce all the requested documentation by May 15th? Did they, and what's taken you so long? It seems that 5 months is plenty of time if you have such a strong case.

On your second point, that's a pretty good rough analysis, but it does fall somewhat short I believe. A better and more complete standard would be:

A union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions "can fairly be characterized as so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness' . . . that [they are] wholly 'arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.'" O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (quotation omitted). Judicial review of union action, however, "'must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that [unions] need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.'" Gvozdenovic v. United Air Lines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100, 1106 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67).

"[A] union's actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness,' . . . as to be irrational." O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (quoting Ford Motor Co., 345 U.S. at 338). A union's reasoned decision to support the interests of one group of employees over the competing interests of another group does not constitute arbitrary conduct. See, e.g., Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 892 F.2d 216, 221 (2d Cir. 1989); Jones v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 495 F.2d 790, 798 (2d Cir. 1974).

 

[DaveGriffin]

Fins,


I highly doubt that our MEC is negotiating for your wages or working conditions. Come on now. Simmer down now, ya hear? I honestly have NO IDEA what they are negotiating, except probably a large pay cut and some productivity changes for us.


Bye Bye--General Lee

GL;

Do you honestly expect that a J4J component will NOT end up in the final deal?
I do.