Delta is going to sell Comair, yeah right!!!!!

[General Lee]

Wasn't ASA flying a BAE 146 back in '96? Did that have 105 seats? Three flight attendants on that thing?



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

Can you, or anyone, produce a single scrap of documentation that there was any seniority integration plan ( other than ALPA's policy ) proffered by any MEC, or LEC?

Do you deny that ASA/CMR had reached a seniority integration via DOH?

How can ALPA act in accordance with its CBL's when the Delta MEC provided false information to the Board?

Do you have any specific evidence of this allegation of yours? Is ALPA's denial of the PID a violation of its obligation to ASA/CMR pilots? If it is, then why is it not part of the RJDC claim of a failure of fair representation? Hmmm

No, I think the count was actually higher than that, but the hammer, the DFR claims and the lawsuit remain and will continue to influence ALPA's behavior.

Actually 6 claims were summarily dismissed because there could be no possible evidence that could support the RJDC claim. As a matter of fact in a desperate last ditch effort to salvage the bulk of the RJDC claims, Dan Ford and his legal team kept trying to alter their charges against ALPA. Luckily Judge Glasser saw right through the charade. These 6 claims had over $1B alledged damages associated with them, once the judge dismissed these claims all the RJDC claims for monetary damages were gone, leaving them only with a very weak injunctive claim remaining. 3 claims were tossed out for other reasons. The last remaining claim has yet to go through discovery and there is no documentary evidence that it has had any effect on DAL negotiations.

You admit that expecting the union to follow its own Constitution and Bylaws is "meaningless." Wow, could we get you to come to Court and explain to the Judge why we lack personal responsibility because we expect our union to abide by its own rules and the laws of our nation?

Classic RJDC spin. I made no such declaration, yet you state that some how I did. Classic act of a desperate bunch. Meanwhile you dodge any responsibility for the fact that your PWA had no mechanism in it that would require DAL to merge lists.

Could you point out where in the RJDC lawsuit there is a claim that ALPA violated it's own C&BLs when it rightly and overwhelmingly denied the ASA/CMR PID? if not, I wonder why. Hmmmmm

 

[FDJ2]

Wasn't ASA flying a BAE 146 back in '96? Did that have 105 seats? Three flight attendants on that thing?

Yes they were, but ASA had dumped their 146s prior to their acquisition. The limited number of 146's that ASA flew at the time of POS'96 were the only exemption for that size jet. Naturally, Fins tries to paint a different picture hoping no one would catch on to him, but it's a fact. Long before contract C2K, ASA had stopped flying 146s and they had no plans to go back to flying the 146s that were part of the POS'96 exemption. With no more 146s flying the exemption went away in the next contract.

 

[~~~^~~~]

How can ALPA act in accordance with its CBL's when the Delta MEC provided false information to the Board?

Do you have any specific evidence of this allegation of yours? Is ALPA's denial of the PID a violation of its obligation to ASA/CMR pilots? If it is, then why is it not part of the RJDC claim of a failure of fair representation? Hmmm

Yes, your side letter of agreement on bid restricted second officers.

....leaving them only with a very weak injunctive claim remaining. 3 claims were tossed out for other reasons. The last remaining claim has yet to go through discovery and there is no documentary evidence that it has had any effect on DAL negotiations.

Wrong, no request has been made for injunctive relief ( although such a claim might be made to stop any immediate harm.

But answer the question - why do you continue to support failed scope policy.

 

[surplus1]

ALPA acted in accordance with its C&BLs in its resounding decision when it denied your seniority grab.

ALPA did, technically, act within its jury-rigged rules in denying the PID. It also acted against your long term interersts, which your leaders of the time weren't smart enough to grasp. However, there was not "seniority grab", attempted or otherwise. That idea is an invention of your MEC (designed to rile you up and effective in doing so).

Weren't 6 out of 10 RJDC claims summarily dismissed before discovery because the judge found that no set of facts could ever support the RJDC claims.

It is true that counts were dismissed but not for the reason you indicated. In fact they were only dismissed because the judge decided that they were all covered under the DFR claim and were therefore duplicitous. In other words, he essentially said that the dismissed counts were also DFR claims and would be dealt with under that count. Check the ruling again. Note that the judge also urged conversion to a class action.

Of course if you had contract language that requitred a list integration if acquired as a wholly owned this would be a moot point,

You're correct about that. It is also true that your contract language specifically exempted certain aircraft from your own merger clause. It's no coincidence that they just happened to be the ones that we fly.

You claim that the PID request reflects our intent at a seniority grab. That claim is not supported by the facts.

Your own intent to preclude any possibility of a merger, on any terms, was made clear long before the PID was ever filed. That fact is supported by your own contractual language.

We really don't need to rehash this but you should call a spade a spade. Don't accuse us of spining unless you refrain from spining yourself.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas.