More DL Judge Remarks - Interesting...

[On Your Six]

Some pretty interesting recent comments from the judge:


DL Attorney was going on about the non-pilot employees losing their
retirement. Judge says she doesn't care. DL Attorney goes for "fair
and equitable" angle and "44,000 poor DL employees". She says, "they chose not to have a union, and they have to live with the fact that
anything beyond wages is a gift from DL. DL took that plan from its
employees ..... not me. Do you want me to play the large or small
violin? The pilots chose to unionize, so they're here [in court].
The freezing of that [non-pilot] plan will have nothing to do with my
decision in this case".

DL Attorney put on his outrage act to the point that she literally
had to shout him down. She shouted into her mike, "shut up".

Judge makes several comments regarding, "don't put too much stock in
the time lines associated with 1113. This is a complicated case."

DL Attorney - your honor, according to the statute, on December 16,
we will be free to act on our motion, lacking a ruling from you".

Judge - you want to bet?

DL Attorney - that what the statute says, your honor.

Judge - On Dec 15, if we're not through, I'll arrange with the
parties for an extension of the deadline.

DL Attorney - we will not be agreeable to that.

Judge - I don't think you'll like what happens if you're not.

Judge then closed subject with a lecture on how an 1113 proceeding
could have the "taint of union busting" about it .... and that she
had to be very careful to ensure that such a motive was not what was
driving a company in her court.

****************

Judge to DL CFO Edward Bastian: "Is it not possible for you to give a
simple, straight answer"?

****************

Judge again took company attorney to task for not producing what she
requested last session: the costing of the "non-negotiable" items
which DL had claimed were not economic items ..... scope relief, min
block hours, code share, etc.

****************

Judge referred to company's 79 seat a/c proposal as "outsourcing DL pilots' jobs".

****************
Judge refused to listen to DL testimony regarding what non-pilot
employees had given prior to 2004 Plan, when pilots gave 70% of total
wage cuts. Her comment was that what happened in the 3 prior years
(pilot raises) was no more germane than what happened in the the 3
years prior to that. She states that the "fair and equitable" in this
this case is about what has happened beginning with the 2004 cuts.

***************
When DL attorney attempted to deflect her frequent shots at the $2.4B
stock buy back .... by explaining that DL mgmt did this in a noble
attempt to raise the stock price for employees holding options .....
judge commented that she imagined that upper mgmt had a great many of those options also.

****************
ALPA attorney asked CFO Bastian if DL had a contingency plan for a
possible pilot strike. CFO replied, "we have a legal opinion that a
strike would not be allowed under the RLA". Judge interrupted to ask,
"What does the RLA have to do with this". CFO repeats his statement.
Judge says, " I don't believe the Federal courts have the power to
enjoin a strike. I know I certainly don't."

 

[General Lee]

Amazing statements. Interesting.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Has she done a 180???

 

[PCL_128]

Judge says, " I don't believe the Federal courts have the power to
enjoin a strike. I know I certainly don't."

Beautiful. This is what ALPA Legal has been saying all along, but it's nice to hear a judge say it. Maybe it will put the fear of God in Delta management and their lawyers.

 

[General Lee]

Judge referred to company's 79 seat a/c proposal as "outsourcing DL pilots' jobs.




That statement put the fear of God into the RJDC.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[spinproof]

Judge referred to company's 79 seat a/c proposal as "outsourcing DL pilots' jobs.




That statement put the fear of God into the RJDC.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Why should this effect the RJDC? A lot of companies outsource jobs. While she may be referring to any new company proposal, she doesn't seem likely to change the status quo without mutual benefit.

Your giddeness at the thought that the RJDC will suffer harm is misguided and is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. This Judge has nothing to do with the lawsuit pending on the original matter of preditory barginning by ALPA.

 

[PHXFLYR]

Has she done a 180???

No. I think she's a judge who doesn't take any 'bs' from either side. Sure makes for interesting reading. Leave it to "the General" though to turn the thread into a RJDC debate .....


PHXFLYR

 

[chazman]

On your Six,

Thanks for doing our homework.

I really appreciate being able to read some of the highlights. I am sure there is and was a lot more said, but just reading these bullets is great.

Thanks for the work,

Chaz

 

[~~~^~~~]

Actually General is right on the money. The Delta MEC is making a grab for airplanes currently on order and on a delivery schedule for ASA. If ALPA remains intransigent, then the airplanes will still come, but in a 70 seat configuration. Note: These quotes come from a Delta pilot source, so I can not confirm their authenticity, but they sound accurate.

MR. GALLAGHER: We'd have to get permission to increase the size of our regional jets from seventy which is the limit in the current ALPA agreement to seventy-nine, and to increase the number of those regional jets -- THE COURT: Okay. And how many -- MR. GALLAGHER: -- from a hundred and -- THE COURT: -- how many seventy-nine-seat planes do you own at this time? MR. GALLAGHER: At this time, Your Honor, ASA which is one of our contract now formally -- now a contract carrier has seventeen CRJ-900s on order -- THE COURT: Well, that don't make any difference to me what you call them, because I don't know what they are. MR. GALLAGHER: Well, Your Honor, these are aircraft that are certificated for up to ninety seats which Delta would propose to fly in a two-class configuration with seventy-nine seats. If we are unable to do that, Your Honor, we will fly them with seventy seats. They will still be flown by ASA pilots at ASA pay rates, but with seventy seats in them instead of seventy-nine. We think that is simply an economic waste when we could generate revenue from that. THE COURT: Well, see, I think that this is what you and the union need to be talking about because this is what the union is not happy with.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Why should this effect the RJDC?

Well we have ALPA on record trying to redirect a current aircraft order towards their "preferred" members at Delta. This is the same as ASA pilots negotiating 737-700 rates and trying to force the company to fly 737's with 50 seats if they do not use our pilots.