RJDC update 8/20/02

[InclusiveScope]

Update

August 20, 2002

Comair Plaintiff Count Reaches 300 as ASA Plans are Finalized

After seeing their fellow pilots victimized by ALPA's predatory bargaining, more than 300 Comair pilots have asked that their names be added to the first of two lawsuits intended to compel ALPA to uphold its duties to ASA and Comair pilots. In addition, plans are underway concerning a second suit on behalf of the similarly situated ASA pilots, as well as involvement by ASA pilots in the pending lawsuit.

The legal action has taken on added importance after ALPA supported efforts of the US Airways MEC to unilaterally divert hundreds of new aircraft, otherwise destined for the wholly owned carriers, to a new "preferred" subsidiary staffed by US Airways pilots.

By organizing the largest suit of its kind in ALPA's history, ASA and Comair pilots have sent a clear message to anyone in ALPA who may be contemplating similar actions at Delta. The ASA and Comair pilots are prepared to compel the union to uphold its obligations to treat all its members in the Delta family of airlines equally and without discrimination.

Delta MEC Says it will Seek End to Force Majeure Scope Exemptions

On July 16th, the Delta MEC wrote Delta's CEO claiming that ALPA's legal and financial experts have determined that the force majeure period had ended and demanded that management cease furloughing pilots and establish a recall schedule. In a recent meeting between Delta management and ALPA, the company re-affirmed its need to maintain mainline capacity reductions and resultant furloughs. Consequently, the Delta MEC has decided to take the matter back to the System Board of Adjustment, which has scheduled hearings for October 30 and 31.

Of concern to the ASA and Comair pilots is the fact that the same force majeure exception clause that permits management to furlough pilots also provides temporary relief from the scope ratios. We have already warned ALPA's leaders that any attempt to enforce the ill-gotten scope restrictions will undoubtedly harm ASA and Comair pilots. Rather than attempting to enforce the egregious provisions, we believe that ALPA should instead find ways to preserve mainline jobs without violating its duty to ASA and Comair pilots.

Delta's Restructuring Plans May Lead to Mainline Scope Negotiations

As Delta releases more information concerning its restructuring, it is becoming apparent that significant changes in the current Delta mainline scope clause may be required. Thus far, Delta management has indicated that it wishes to negotiate domestic code-share alliances with other major airlines and is planning to restructure operations to fend off low-cost competitors, which may include major changes to Delta Express and the re-deployment of RJs.

Any domestic mainline code-share alliance and placement of larger aircraft at Delta Express will require changes in the Delta scope clause. The Delta MEC has already indicated that should management request changes to the Delta pilot working agreement, protecting mainline jobs and advancement opportunities will be its top priority. What role ASA and Comair's 475 aircraft orders and options will play in these negotiations remains unknown. It's our position that notwithstanding current scope restrictions, the Delta MEC may not seek to use the jobs or flying of the ASA and Comair pilots as bargaining capital in their negotiations, nor may it unilaterally negotiate issues that directly affect our interests.

Court Narrows ALPA's Motion

As previously reported, ALPA filed a motion for dismissal and summary judgment. The court previously permitted us limited discovery to respond to ALPA's motion. However, we sought court intervention after ALPA failed to adequately respond to our discovery requests. After hearing extensive arguments, the Judge determined that the portion of ALPA's motion that seeks summary judgment should be withdrawn and that they will not be permitted to use disputed facts in their motion for dismissal. At the same meeting, the court ordered ALPA to keep us apprised of any effort to commence scope reset negotiations.

ALPA's President Says that Sacrifices of US Airways Pilots Justifies Contract

On July 22, the Allegheny MEC wrote ALPA's President protesting the terms of the US Airways agreement that created a "preferred" US Airways RJ subsidiary and granted mainline pilots extraordinary employment and seniority rights at any airline that code-shared with US Airways. In response, the union's President refused to acknowledge the glaring breach of the union's duty to the Allegheny pilots and instead cited the enormous sacrifices made by the US Airways pilots.

Interestingly, the "sacrifices" cited by the union's President include "allowing" the company to acquire the RJs needed to compete in the changing marketplace and new terms that permit displaced mainline pilots to fly "regional" aircraft with "regional" workrules. But of utmost concern is the message that the union's duty to its "regional" members can be bought and sold as part of the mainline bargaining process.

American Airlines Cites Scope Restrictions and Sells Eagle's Jets

On July 16, American management announced that it would sell 14 American Eagle 50-passenger EMB-145's to Trans States Airlines. American management stated that the move was necessary in view of the fact that the mainline scope clause limits the total number of 50 passenger jets American Eagle may operate and the ill-effects caused by the seat-mile limit triggered by the furlough of American mainline pilots.

The move by American's management provides another illustration that irrational and unilaterally imposed contractual provisions can harm ALPA's "regional" pilots. Such predatory provisions have not saved a single mainline or Eagle pilot job; instead, they merely limit how many RJs the company may operate. Unfortunately, ALPA refuses to acknowledge the impact that mainline predatory bargaining has had on its members. Instead, ALPA exclusively blames management even though the role of the mainline scope is painfully obvious.

Comair Pilots Please Check Your Receipts

E-mail receipts have been sent to all pilots who have requested to become a named plaintiff. If you turned in paperwork and have not yet received a receipt, please contact us right away. Drop us a note any time in the RJDC Mailbox in CVG ops or e-mail us at
[email protected] Thank you.

New on the RJDC Web Site here:

www.rjdefense.com

a. Attorney's July 22, 2002 Litigation Update
b. RJDC August 5, 2002 Press Release

 

[FlyingSig]

also provides temporary relief from the scope ratios.

This is a false statement. Delta managment can violate block hour limitations at will now due to a weak scope clause that says after 2 consecutive loosing quarters the percentages get reset to a new number, then after 2 more loosing quarters the percentage number gets thrown out the window. All Delta is obligated to do is "meet and confer" with ALPA. Forced Maneur has nothing to do with this, so don't worry RJDC, you'll see even MORE DCI block hours harming your future (TIC) in the near future.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: RJDC update 8/20/02

This is a false statement. Delta managment can violate block hour limitations at will now due to a weak scope clause that says after 2 consecutive loosing quarters the percentages get reset to a new number, then after 2 more loosing quarters the percentage number gets thrown out the window. All Delta is obligated to do is "meet and confer" with ALPA. Forced Maneur has nothing to do with this, so don't worry RJDC, you'll see even MORE DCI block
hours harming your future (TIC) in the near future.

Well now that's nice but to say that "this is a false statement" is itself a false statement. You are dead wrong sir. Force majeure has everything to do with the block hour ratios, just as profitability also controls. The contract contains a double whammy that you have apparently failed to recognize.

Allow me to refer you to Section 1.E.6.b. of the Delta PWA. (That's your contract by the way.) You will find there that "The Company will be excused from compliance with the block hour plans and planned percentages, for all affected years, in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance." "Circumstance over which the Company does not have control" is the operative language. Force majeure is the exercise of that clause and it exempts the Company from compliance with the Scope restrictions.

Further in Section 1.J.2. of the Delta PWA you will find the same language that exempts the Company for compliance with the no furlough provisions of the contract. Also a force majeure provison and the section over which you lost the grievance arbitration.

Refer also to Section 1.B.2. of the Delta PWA where you will find the definition of "circumstance over which the Company does not have control." (Just in case you still have doubts).

Finally, refer to the Delta ME Grievance #ATL 02-11, filed by Captain William C. Buergey (Delta MEC Chairman) on January 31, 2002, in which Capt Buergey alleges that Delta is in violation of the block hour ratios of your contract. This grievance was withdrawn immediately after the arbitrator ruled against ALPA on the furlough issue, due to that ruling. The ruling was a force majeure decision which made your block hour grievance moot.

As you state in your post it is true that the Company's consecutive quarters of economic loss nullify the block hour ratios in you Scope language. It is equally true (as stated by the RJDC) that the block hour ratios are also nullified by force majeure. I've given you the proof of the statements validity.

I regret the need to upset your surmised revelation of an incorrect statement by the RJDC. However, before you accuse the RJDC of making false statements in the future, I strongly urge you to consult your own contract and get it right. Otherwise, you may get more egg on face.

You surprised me Sig, your arguments are usually pretty good. This time you're begining to sound more like ALPA's arguments. Lots of air but no substance. Don't follow them too closely, they really aren't always right.

Best regards,

Surplus1

 

[NYRANGERS]

Re: Re: Re: RJDC update 8/20/02

ell now that's nice but to say that "this is a false


Allow me to refer you to Section 1.E.6.b. of the Delta PWA. (That's your contract by the way.) You will find there that "The Company will be excused from compliance with the block hour plans and planned percentages, for all affected years, in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance." "Circumstance over which the Company does not have control" is the operative language. Force majeure is the exercise of that clause and it exempts the Company from compliance with the Scope restrictions.

Surplus1

So you admit you are trying to destroy our PWA and ALPA.

I find it very hard to rally with your 300 soon to be dismised minions.

You see............ your group is hiring and mine is furloughing. I am sorry that I am such a threat to your job, being one of 867 furloughed pilots.

I

 

[9rj9]

You are a threat Nyranger

You want to stop our growth, hire mainline guys to fly the same plane for more money and keep the regional pilot down. You and your other unemployed brothers are no better than me no matter what you think.
Why doesn't your pilot group take a pay cut, get you back to work?
Its lowest bidder flying, JetBlue and SWA caused this mess and now you want to blame us. Shame on you.

 

[Jeff G]

That's gutless of you, 9rj9, throwing rocks at a guy out of work. Just as gutless is ignoring replies to your own post when someone actually challenges your absurd assumptions. You know, the last time you tried to blame SWA and JBLU for your own internal problems? Why don't you revisit that thread (click here) and leave this guy alone. He had 0 (zero) say in his situation.

 

[9rj9]

Only

responding to his baseless claim that RJDC was trying to destroy his contract. I'm not taking shots a him, only his greedy and pompus pilot group. I guess my comments before hit their mark since someone deleted my previous thread concerning SWA and Jetblue working for substandard pay.
SWA just announced $299 for a walk up fare, how can they do this? The pilots work for far less than any major, thats how.
They just caved in to a contract extention and got basically nothing more.
The discounters are the root of the problem not the RJ.

I have no idea about what internal problems you think we have. The only problem is another pilot group is trying to control when and what we do.

 

[Jeff G]

SWA just announced $299 for a walk up fare, how can they do this? The pilots work for far less than any major, thats how.
They just caved in to a contract extention and got basically nothing more.
The discounters are the root of the problem not the RJ.

Take it to the other thread, and I'll answer that.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: Re: Re: RJDC update 8/20/02

So you admit you are trying to destroy our PWA and ALPA.

No sir, I do not admit that and we are not trying to do that.

First: There are two provisions of your current PWA that have been rendered moot a) by circumstance that no one could have predicted and, b) by the ineptitude and lack of foresight on the part of those who wrote your PWA. We have nothing to do with either of those provisions or their consequences. Remember, we were diliberately excluded from any opportunity to participate in the bargaining that affected both of us, by OUR union and YOUR leadership. You the line pilot are not to blame for that and neither are we. Look to the National leadership and your own MEC leaders if you wish to affix blame.

We do not seek to destroy your PWA. We seek to modify, by mutual agreement, (or if necessary by order of the courts) one area of that PWA which we believe was improperly negotiated, is intended to cause us irreperable harm and does not in fact (now proven) protect you from anything (as evidenced by your current status).

Second: We do not seek to destroy our union. We seek to restore our union to its intended and Constitutional purpose of representing ALL members fairly and, to prevent its future deviation therefrom. Given the unwillingness of our union to even discuss seriously the relevant issues, we seek legal redress from the courts. You may not like that, but there is nothing destructive about it.

We believe that our union has violated its Duty of Fair Representation, which is required of it not by us but by law. We seek to force our union to comply with its responsibilities, as legally determined in a court of law. If our allegations are determined to be incorrect, by the courts, we will accept that decision. If they are determined to be correct, by the courts, will you accept that?

If our union chooses to continue to refuse to comply with its legal responsibilities as determined by the courts, its usefulness as a collective bargaining agent will have been abdicated by those responsible for the conduct of its business. If such action by our union's leaders ultimately results in the union's demise, the responsibility will be theirs, not ours.

We await their decision failing which, the ultimate decision will be made by a court of law with appropriate jurisdiction. Would you deny us that right?

I find it very hard to rally with your 300 soon to be dismised minions.

I understand that fully and I do not blame you for having those feelings. I do not ask you to rally round the RJDC. Also, there may be 300 named litigants but there are thousands of unnamed supporters, growing by the day. I actually wish the RJDC did not have to exist. Unfortunately, the behavior of the "powers that be" makes it not only necessary but essential to our protection and welfare. It's support will continue to grow until the conditions that brought it into existence are removed.

I do ask you to reconsider the impact on your own career that results directly from the failure of OUR union and YOUR leadership to address these conflicts and the resulting problems.

I do not ask "your side" to do things our way. I do not expect "my side" to do things your way. What I would like to see and hope for (speaking only for myself) are three things: 1) Acknowledgement by "your side" that a conflict/problem does exist and requires a solution. Not 10-years from now but immediately; 2) A decision by "your side" that reflects a willigness to resolve the issues, jointly and without pre-conditions, and the decision to take the necessary steps; 3) A joint effort by both sides to sit together and do whatever is mutually agreed to put and end to this absurd and unnecessary conflict which damages both our interests and risks the eventual elimination of our union's usefulness as a collective bargaining agent.

You see............ your group is hiring and mine is furloughing. I am sorry that I am such a threat to your job, being one of 867 furloughed pilots.
I

I sincerely regret your furlough. I did not cause it, the RJDC did not cause it and the operation of the aircraft that we happen to fly did not cause it. Again, I'm sorry, but we are not responsible. Blaming us for what we have not done, will not hasten your recall. Helping us to resolve the conflicts just might.

Yes, we are hiring and you are furloughing. Regretably, YOUR leaders and OUR national leaders have had multiple opportunities to make decisions that could have given you free access to those job opportunities. They chose not to do so. We are not responsible for that inaction, we tried.

Now the latest strategy of the national union, is to find ways to give you the jobs and displace us in the process (see USAG). That won't fly on this property. There is a better way.

I would love to see you come back into the new jobs that are being created, but I will not give up even one job to make that happen, just as you will not give up one job at the mainline to accomodate us. There is and in-between, a compromise that gives ALL pilots access to ALL jobs within our Company (Delta, Inc.) Notice I did not say Delta Air Lines, I said Delta, Inc.

WE must find that compromise together, not unilaterally. As soon as we decide to do that, these issues and conflicts can be resolved. Individual courses of action will simply produce more conflict. That is of no benefit to either of us.

I am not against you and you should not be against me. We are really in the same boat. Right now, you have fallen out and you are struggling to survive. That happened because WE have been trying to row in opposing directions and fighting over ownership of the boat. We must share the boat. WE must row TOGETHER. Today we are in the boat and you are in the water. That could easily reverse tomorrow. We need a joint solution that keeps us both in the boat over the long term. I am more than willing to work towards that, are you?

Best regards,
Surplus1
CMR

 

[FlyingSig]

Re: Re: Re: RJDC update 8/20/02

Well now that's nice but to say that "this is a false statement" is itself a false statement. You are dead wrong sir.

While strong language like that makes for a nice soundclip, no I am not wrong at all... I will explain later in this post

The contract contains a double whammy that you have apparently failed to recognize.

Only if you are a party to the RJDC lawsuit and stand to gain millions of dollars can one interpret forced maneur as the reason for the violation of the block hours.

Thank you for pointing out some provisions in the DAL PWA, but since you're quoting it, let's point out everything and see how it really works.

If you read the paragraph above the one you quoted, Section 1-E-5-B, you'd find this:

5. Excused Compliance and Automatic Fixed Reset

3) the Company has an operating loss (excluding the effect of the retroactive costs of the PWA) in any two consecutive quarters commencing with the first full quarter after the date of signing of the PWA

OK, the contract was signed in June, so let's look at 3Q '01 and 4Q'01:

3Q '01 = Loss of $114 Million
4Q '01 = Loss of $251 Million
(source delta.com under investor relations

So what does this mean? Well, the DCI block hours in '02 were planned to be 34%. This excused compliance allows them to be reset to 35%.

OK, looks like that section was met so let's read on....now we're to the section that you quoted. What you didn't tell everyone is the part in 1.E.6.A which reads:

a. If an event in Section 1 E. 5. a. 1), 2), 3) or 4) excusing compliance, occurs after there has been an automatic fixed reset, there will be no second automatic fixed reset, but the Company and the Association will promptly meet and confer to reset block hour plans and planned percentages at levels appropriate to the circumstances.

Section 1.E.5.A-3 happened again!! It happened in 1Q '02 and 2Q '02
1Q '02 loss= $435 Million
2Q '02 loss= $127 Million

Again, let's translate to English for the folks out there trying to finish the internet....

This now means, thoretically, that 100% of Delta flying can be done by Comair, ASA, and other DCI pilots.... as long as Delta management "meets and confers" about their plans.

That's right, the Delta MEC negotiated themselves such a carreer damaging to the DCI pilot contract that the whole airline can be legally outsourced as long as it's done with airplanes certifed to less then 70 seats.

So what this really means to the RJDC, and the reason they claim forced maneur is the reason instead of the actual contract is that all the dollar signs in their eyes will dissapear.

How can one claim that DALPA (and ALPA allowed DALPA to do it blah blah to be PC here) harmed their carrer when this very PWA negotiated by DALPA allows for unlimited growth at the DCI carriers?!?

Nope, as long as the RJDC clings on to the straw that as soon as FM is declared over then Delta management will say, sorry fellas, you gotta go back to 34% (which you and I both know will never happen), then they can keep on spewing false statements like the one I originally quoted.

It makes for a good soundbite. But it's not the truth.

Allow me to refer you to Section 1.E.6.b. of the Delta PWA. (That's your contract by the way.) ........Force majeure is the exercise of that clause and it exempts the Company from compliance with the Scope restrictions.

Again, this section is nullified due to the fact that two resets were met. FM doesn't matter now because now the limit is unlimited growth for DCI block hours. Again, good for you, but bad for winning millions of dollars from ALPA.

Further in Section 1.J.2. of the Delta PWA you will find the same language that exempts the Company for compliance with the no furlough provisions of the contract. Also a force majeure provison and the section over which you lost the grievance arbitration.

No argument there. FM applies to the no furlough clause. Yup, we grieved it and lost. Yup, I'm still unemployed. So what's the point of writing this in your post? I honestly don't think you're trying to rub it in my face... but really, that was a low blow and has nothing to do with the current debate.

Refer also to Section 1.B.2. of the Delta PWA where you will find the definition of "circumstance over which the Company does not have control." (Just in case you still have doubts).

Have doubts over what? What the definition of FM is? That it was ruled to be ok to furlough? What? My favorite gem of that section however reads The term "circumstance over which the Company does not have control" will not include the price of fuel or other supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company's then-current operations.

...but that's a debate for a whole other thread (and a pointless debate at that since we lost the grievance)

This grievance was withdrawn immediately after the arbitrator ruled against ALPA on the furlough issue, due to that ruling. The ruling was a force majeure decision which made your block hour grievance moot.

The grievance was withdrawn but the reason is pure speculation on your part. There is no written or verbal reasoning given for withdrawing the grievance (if there is, please provide it, because DALPA never provieded it to this at the time dues paying member). Delta did not claim force majeur in regards to the block hours. They simply informed ALPA that they would not meet the block hours in 1.E.5.B (the section I quoted, differant then the section you quoted which is .6.B).

Because there is no written reason for withdrawing the grievance all I can do is speculate too... I figure DALPA knew that the second reset was imminent and they didn't have a case because the new percentages would be legal per the PWA. Can't grieve what you negotiated yourself.....

I regret the need to upset your surmised revelation of an incorrect statement by the RJDC. However, before you accuse the RJDC of making false statements in the future, I strongly urge you to consult your own contract and get it right. Otherwise, you may get more egg on face.

Personally, I suggest next time, before you start quoting a contract you read the whole contract. But then again, this is a debate and why would you want to point out all the sections that don't support your arguement?

You surprised me Sig, your arguments are usually pretty good.

Just because my last post wasn't as long as this one (or any of yours ) doesn't mean the point isn't there... I was surprised that you responed to it (though I was expecting a reply from some others here) as you have a good working knowledge of the DAL PWA. I guess you were just in the mood for a debate....


For the rest on this board that actually read this thread, sorry to bore you.

Have a nice night.
FlyingSig

 

[surplus1]

Hi there FlyingSig,

Thanks for the detailed defense. If you read the third sentence of the first paragraph in my original reply to your post, you will note that I acknowledge the applicability of Section 1.E.5. You are correct about that and I never challenged it.

What I tried to point out and, you either missed or bypassed, was that there are two "triggers" in your contract either of which can remove the block hour ratios and restrictions. Which one you "prefer" is academic; both apply. One of them is the profitability that you focus on. The other is circumstance beyond the control per Section 1.E.6. Both apply jointly and severally.

I understand that many of you do not accept the applicability of force majeure as it relates to furloughs or to anything else. You are entitled to that opinion. However, the arbitrator has ruled against that opinion and until he reverses that ruling it does apply. While you have sought to revese his ruling, currently it remains in place.

It happens that the Company's lack of profitability does void some of your Scope restrictions, however if the company had continued to be profitable, force majeure would also have voided those provisions. That was my point and it was also the RJDC's point. It is not a false statement as you allege. You are as mistaken about this as you were about the furlough issue when you filed the grievance.

Yes, I know that your MEC has not "officially announced" its reasons for withdrawing the block hour grievance. That however is not unusual or particularly significant. Only a minimum of political savoir faire allows reasonable speculation as to why a grievance alleging violation of Section 1.E. was withdrawn.

I accept your premise that lack of profitablity is now more relavant than FM as it applies to the Scope restrictions. That doesn't make the statement false.

Your reference to loss of money from successful litigation is out of line. Yes, I am a strong supporter of the RJDC but I am not a listed litigant. Therefore, I will receive no monies personally regardless of the outcome. There is literally nothing whatever that I personally can gain from any of this. My motivation is not personal want, need or expectation of any kind (and yes, that includes your "list").

Your presumption that the RJDC litigants or supporters are motivated by money is misguided. I suspect it is a symptom of your personal situation and the erroneous belief prevalent among furloughed Delta pilots that RJs are somehow related to your furlough. They are not. While difficult to prove directly, the evidence clearly and overwhelmingly indicates that many more of you would be furloughed if the RJs did not exist. Your crusade against them is as detrimental to you as it is to us.

As for the RJDC, the fact is that the litigation has so far had no direct impact whatever on any Delta pilot. What it has done is temporarily restrain both ALPA and the DMEC from further predatory attempts in the near term. However, I have little doubt that as soon as the other circumstances permit, ALPA and you will once more attempt to limit what we do or engage in some other predatory and discriminatory behavior. ALPA is doing that now on other properties.

It is unfortunate that most of you won't accept that ALPA's and your MEC's actions or lack thereof are the cause of the conflicts that now exist. Many of you appear bent on pursuing and advocating continued conflict rather than seeking avenues to resolve the conflicts of interest. I can't tell you what to do, but I can and do tell you that your leader's actions are not in the best interests of Delta pilots. Particularly those that are currently furloughed.

With respect to your contract, I have a copy, have read it more than once and refer to it before positing. I'll continue to do that and yes, I do have a "good working knowledge" of your PWA that I would venture is at the very least equal to yours. Obviously, it doesn't avoid different interpretations of what it means or we would not be having this discussion, would we? I guess when we disagree on what it means, we will just have to agree to disagree.

One final but very important item. The inference that I would try to rub your furlough in your face troubles me greatly. I write a great deal on this and related issues in this forum and others. I have always expressed empathy with furlughed pilots and wished for their rapid return to work, provided it is not at another pilot's expense. Anyone who reads what I write knows that. I have been furloughed myself and I know what its financial and emotional impact means. It would never occur to me to wish bad fortune on another pilot, no matter how much we may disagree. The accusation is unwarranted, FlyingSig. Please do not allow your frustrations, whatever they may be, to cloud your judgment.

You may think that what I support and what I'm against in some way might keep you furloughed longer. There is no such intent. On the contrary, if what I would like to see happen were to take place, you would in fact be returned to work far sooner than you will be by maintaing the status quo with respect to the relationship between Delta and Comair pilots. If your group would work with us instead of against us, both of us could benefit greatly. If we have the collective will to do something constructive together, this sordid mess could be changed to a win/win situation for all concerned. Think about it.

I wish you the very best and a speedy return.

Surplus1
CMR

 

[JohnDoe]

Can somebody post the monetary damages that the rjdc is seeking from ALPA in it lawsuit........thanks

 

[surplus1]

Can somebody post the monetary damages that the rjdc is seeking from ALPA in it lawsuit........thanks

Go to their web site rjdefense.com and you can read everything you want to know there. The lawsuit itself is published on the site.

 

[NYRANGERS]

Can somebody post the monetary damages that the rjdc is seeking from ALPA in it lawsuit........thanks

I think it is $100,000,000 plus no less than $2,000,000 for every pilot listed on the suit.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

It is actually about 12 BILLION DOLLARS. This includes $100,000,000 plus "no less than $2,000,000 for every comair pilot" for each of 6 separate complaints.


Assuming CMR has 1,000 pilots (I'm pretty sure they have more than that), the math would break down as follows:

$2,000,000 x 1,000 = $2,000,000,000 x 6 complaints = $12,000,000,000 + $100,000,000 = $12,100,000,000!!!!!


I can understand why none of the supporters were quick to answer the question.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Excellent discussion of the Delta PWA in light of the current events. Thanks to Surplus and Flying Sig for their efforts.

Fly Delta's Jets: The University of Cincinnati only pegged the number for ALPA's harm at $600,000,000 - so I guess you guys get a break there. But while you are discussing damages, how much to your fellow Delta, non - ALPA member pilots hope to recover from Miller v. ALPA?Another question you will ignore - in your rant against the RJDC actually asking for enforceability of what ever resolution may be reached

The value of the Comair litigation is that it has thus far kept jets for jobs away from the Delta property. The litigation is a deterrent to predatory practices by the Delta MEC, because unlike the US Air Express guys and Eagle, we are prepared for war - we are organized, educated and funded. We see our effort as a valliant fight to save our international union from individual MEC actions that have undermined the solidarity of pilots performing Delta flying. Further, you tell me if the PID had been granted, would you not be better off than you are now?Another question FDJ will ignore

I am assured the RJDC will always remain open to any enforceable offer by ALPA to provide fair representation to ASA and Comair pilots. But until that solution is reached, we would be fools to allow our pilots the same fate as the other wholly owned regionals within ALPA.

I'm pleased that so far ALPA's harm to my career has been limited - everyone knows that was not ALPA's intent. I hope that I continue to enjoy my job without ALPA interference and that I'm never in a position to collect a dime from this union. And you have no clue just how determined we are - you would be better off with us on your side...

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Excellent discussion of the Delta PWA in light of the current events. Thanks to Surplus and Flying Sig for their efforts.

Fly Delta's Jets: The University of Cincinnati only pegged the number for ALPA's harm at $600,000,000 - so I guess you guys get a break there.




---------Get a break??!!! Reread your lawsuit. It is asking for OVER 12 BILLION DOLLARS! That's a bit more than your highly debateable 600 million dollar figure, especially in light of the fact that our ineffective scope has yet to limit even a single hour of rj flying.


But while you are discussing damages, how much to your fellow Delta, non - ALPA member pilots hope to recover from Miller v. ALPA?Another question you will ignore - in your rant against the RJDC actually asking for enforceability of what ever resolution may be reached



--------Rarely do I ignore a question. I am not familiar with Miller vs. ALPA. I will research it and answer your question, but I do not see the relevance. I answered a simple question about what the rjdc is seeking. No rjdc supporter gave an accurate figure, so I did (well over twelve BILLION dollars). I find it ironic that supporters of this lawsuit will not even honestly answer what damages they are seeking. Perhaps they are ashamed?



The value of the Comair litigation is that it has thus far kept jets for jobs away from the Delta property.



---------Your assertion has absolutely no basis in fact. There is no evidence of the DALPA MEC being even remotely interested in such a proposal. As a furloughee who prides himself on keeping abreast (huh, huh, I said breast!) of the issues, I can assure you that no Delta pilot has ever suggested such a proposal. The reason has nothing to do with the rjdc and everything to do with the fact that none of us have the desire or the need to fly for any airline but Delta.




The litigation is a deterrent to predatory practices by the Delta MEC, because unlike the US Air Express guys and Eagle, we are prepared for war - we are organized, educated and funded. We see our effort as a valliant fight to save our international union from individual MEC actions that have undermined the solidarity of pilots performing Delta flying. Further, you tell me if the PID had been granted, would you not be better off than you are now?Another question FDJ will ignore




----------A. I don't ignore questions. Sometimes I think I should.
B. I can honestly tell you, after a not insignificant amount of thought, that I do not feel I would be at all better than I am now had the PID been granted. The reason? We do not have the power to combine the lists, and Delta is committed to keeping them separate. Do you honestly think that the lists would be merged today had the PID been granted?



I am assured the RJDC will always remain open to any enforceable offer by ALPA to provide fair representation to ASA and Comair pilots. But until that solution is reached, we would be fools to allow our pilots the same fate as the other wholly owned regionals within ALPA.


--------You are already getting perfectly fair representation. I feel that a judge will eventually concur.


I'm pleased that so far ALPA's harm to my career has been limited


-------Limited???!!!!! May I suggest "non-existent?"




- everyone knows that was not ALPA's intent. I hope that I continue to enjoy my job without ALPA interference and that I'm never in a position to collect a dime from this union.


---------You already have.


And you have no clue just how determined we are - you would be better off with us on your side...

I concur. Unfortunately, you have decided to secede.

Here's a couple of questions for you.

1) Are you or are you not supporting a lawsuit that has requested that a judge award them over 12 billion dollars from ALPA.

2) Did you quote a study that estimates the "potential" damages at only 600 million, less than 5% of the damages sought.


P.S.
The toe fungus is in remission!

 

[JohnDoe]

Thanks for the responses on the $ amounts....

If those dollar figures are accurate, I have to ask:

I have seen several rjdc supporters say that it's "not about the money." Ok. If it isn't, then why are you seeking such a HUGE settlement?? If the contract and representation issues are decided in your favor, why not just recoup your court and legal costs? I find it hard to believe that money isn't in the equation when the amount sought is so large.

I'm interested in hearing the supporters justification for those $$ amounts.

 

[surplus1]

Thanks for the responses on the $ amounts....

If those dollar figures are accurate, I have to ask:

I have seen several rjdc supporters say that it's "not about the money." Ok. If it isn't, then why are you seeking such a HUGE settlement?? If the contract and representation issues are decided in your favor, why not just recoup your court and legal costs? I find it hard to believe that money isn't in the equation when the amount sought is so large.

I'm interested in hearing the supporters justification for those $$ amounts.

Hello JohnDoe,

I'm one of the evil supporters of the RJDC. Before I get carried away, I'd like to say this. Perhaps we might all benefit if we spent 1/2 of the time that we spend arguing, in a joint effort to resolve the issues that seem to devide us. What we really need are solutions, not more arguments. It is unfortunate that one side seems to have great interest in disputing and defeating the RJDC, but littlle if any interest in finding a solution. As usual, it's "their way or the highway". Unproductive.

Here's some ideas related to your questions. More argument, no solution.

First: Don't believe everything you read, including the gospel according to FDJ and the gospel according to RJDC. Go to the web site, read the actual lawsuit and make your own interpretation.

Second: FDJ makes several "assumptions", ALL of which are his opinions and ALL of which are his interpretations of what a court "might" award at some point in the future. He puts those assumptions out as "facts" in support of his own arguments. Please note that the "facts according to FDJ" are not necessarily the facts. Neither are the "facts according to Surplus1". If you are interested, study the subject matter and form your own opinions.

For FDJ to be anywhere close to accurate in his assumptions, means that the courts would have to rule in favor of the RJDC on each and every one of the counts in the litigation. The courts would also have to award exactly what the RJDC has claimed, in full and separately, on each and every one of the counts. Next, the courts would have to determine that every single pilot on the Comair seniority list is entitled to and awarded the full amount of the claims on each of the six counts in the suit (not withstanding that there are "only" 300 named litigants to date).

FDJ is "angry" because he personally has become a victim of the economic downturn and is furloughed. He has chosen to focus that anger on the RJDC lawsuit apparently because (I'm not really sure why) doing so gives him a ready target at which to direct his frustrations. Perhaps the FDJ attack willl damage or destroy the RJDC (not likely) but, if it should, FDJ is likely to discover in the aftermath that he attacked the wrong target and destroyed it with "friendly fire". Meanwhile, the real enemy escapes unscathed, and his personal dilemma remains unsolved.

FDJ, does lots of reasearch and is well informed. His arguments are all plausible and therfore gain much attention. One might easily think "this is good". However, the basic premise underlying all of these arguments is flawed. As a result, all of the "facts" are skewed in support of a premise that is itself, way off the mark.

1)The regional jets (defended by the RJDC) are NOT responsible for the furlough of any Delta pilot.
2)The RJDC is NOT responsible for the furlough of any Delta pilot.
3) Elimination of every regional jet from the Delta property, will NOT return even one furloughed Delta pilot to work.
4) Defeat of the RJDC will NOT return one furloughed Delta pilot to work.
5) Granting the ALPA relief from this litigation will NOT return any furloughed Delta pilot to work.

IF the above 5 points are accurate, FDJ's relentless assault on the RJDC will not benefit him one iota. What then is the motivation or reason for the crusade? Is it the fervent and high-minded belief that his "union" is flawless and being maligned? I understand what he is attacking, but what exactly is he defending?

If the litigation is without merit, as he alleges, will the courts not simply dismiss it and end the dispute? IF the ALPA is totally innocent of any wrong doing, won't the ALPA be exonerated?

If the litigants believe they have been wronged and damanged, but in fact the courts determine they have not, will the ALPA not be found "not guilty"? Does FDJ believe that persons who feel they have been injured, should not have access to the courts? What alternative to litigation would FDJ recommend? Should Comair pilots that believe they have been wronged simply shut up and go away, because FDJ believes they have not?

I repeat that I am a supporter of the RJDC. I believe that their grievance is justiified. I know that they have sought to resolve those grievances, internally within the ALPA and have been ignored repeatedly. Therefore, I also believe that not only do they have a right to seek redress in the courts, but that is the only legal method available to them. I am prejudiced in their favor and acknowledge it. Who's favor is FDJ prejudiced in? Is FDJ unbiased and objective?

Do my beliefs make me wrong and FDJ right? Do FDJ's beliefs make him wrong and me right? Somehow I don't think so.

What we have here is a legitimate and unresolved dispute between a labor union and a significant number of its members. Like any other dispute between two parties, it can be settled out of court or in court. To date, the ALPA and the RJDC have both chosen to proceed to the courts. When its over, one will prevail and the other will not. That is the system that our country recognizes for the settlement of legal disputes. Why can't FDJ recognize that system as well?

Perhaps I have not answered you basic question of why the monetary amounts of the claims are so high. The answer is quite simple really. IF the ALPA prevails in the pursuit of the practices that affect Comair pilots adversely, every Comair pilot is exposed to the potential loss of more than a million dollars over the life of his career. That is why we seek recompense. If and when the factors that cause this potential loss are withdrawn, the need for compensation will also go away. The punitive damages sought are designed to preclude the ALPA from engaging in such practices in the future. A slap on the rist won't do that. One hundred million dollars just might.

I sincerely hope we can ultimately work together and find a mutually satisfactory solution to our differences.

Surplus1
CMR

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

.

First: Don't believe everything you read, including the gospel according to FDJ and the gospel according to RJDC. Go to the web site, read the actual lawsuit and make your own interpretation.



-------I agree. Read complaints VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and XIII. All ask for "not less than $2,000,000 for each CMR pilot. You will find not gospel, but actual language from the suit.



Second: FDJ makes several "assumptions", ALL of which are his opinions and ALL of which are his interpretations of what a court "might" award at some point in the future. He puts those assumptions out as "facts" in support of his own arguments. Please note that the "facts according to FDJ" are not necessarily the facts. Neither are the "facts according to Surplus1". If you are interested, study the subject matter and form your own opinions.


---------Actually, I made no assumptions. I simply used facts to answer a question. I did not offer opinion (rare for me). I simply answered John Doe's question of how much the rjdc is seeking from ALPA in its suit. Your suit contains language asking for over 12 billion dollars. That is not a "fact," it is a fact.



For FDJ to be anywhere close to accurate in his assumptions, means that the courts would have to rule in favor of the RJDC on each and every one of the counts in the litigation. The courts would also have to award exactly what the RJDC has claimed, in full and separately, on each and every one of the counts. Next, the courts would have to determine that every single pilot on the Comair seniority list is entitled to and awarded the full amount of the claims on each of the six counts in the suit (not withstanding that there are "only" 300 named litigants to date).




-------Read the suit again surplus. It asks for 12 million for every cmr ALPA pilot. It says nothing about named litigants. Also, I did not say how much I think you will get (zero), I simply answered the question of what you are asking for.



FDJ is "angry" because he personally has become a victim of the economic downturn and is furloughed. He has chosen to focus that anger on the RJDC lawsuit apparently because (I'm not really sure why) doing so gives him a ready target at which to direct his frustrations.

-------Your assumption is incorrect. I have been angry with the rjdc long before my furlough, even when my carreer was proceeding perfectly. I am angry with the rjdc not because of what has happened to me, but what will happen to all of us if they succeed.



Perhaps the FDJ attack willl damage or destroy the RJDC (not likely) but, if it should, FDJ is likely to discover in the aftermath that he attacked the wrong target and destroyed it with "friendly fire". Meanwhile, the real enemy escapes unscathed, and his personal dilemma remains unsolved.


------My fight against the rjdc does not preclude me from fighting on other fronts as well.


1)The regional jets (defended by the RJDC) are NOT responsible for the furlough of any Delta pilot.

-----Never said they were. P.S. You don't need to defend something that faces no threat.

2)The RJDC is NOT responsible for the furlough of any Delta pilot.

-------Never said it was.


3) Elimination of every regional jet from the Delta property, will NOT return even one furloughed Delta pilot to work.

-------Never said it would.

4) Defeat of the RJDC will NOT return one furloughed Delta pilot to work.

--------Never said it would.

5) Granting the ALPA relief from this litigation will NOT return any furloughed Delta pilot to work.

------Never said it would.

IF the above 5 points are accurate, FDJ's relentless assault on the RJDC will not benefit him one iota.

-------It will allow me to keep my contract intact.

What then is the motivation or reason for the crusade? Is it the fervent and high-minded belief that his "union" is flawless and being maligned? I understand what he is attacking, but what exactly is he defending?

-------Have you ever read any of my posts? Do you really require me to rehash why I think the rjdc is a major threat? I have done so too many times to count.

If the litigation is without merit, as he alleges, will the courts not simply dismiss it and end the dispute? IF the ALPA is totally innocent of any wrong doing, won't the ALPA be exonerated?

------I believe that they will. I am not content to trust the courts to make the right decision.

If the litigants believe they have been wronged and damanged, but in fact the courts determine they have not, will the ALPA not be found "not guilty"? Does FDJ believe that persons who feel they have been injured, should not have access to the courts? What alternative to litigation would FDJ recommend? Should Comair pilots that believe they have been wronged simply shut up and go away, because FDJ believes they have not?


----I have been through this. I fully support your right to sue to have a judge review whether or not the PID proceedings were legal. I do not support them seeking over 12 billion in damages, and I do not support the assault on my contract.

I repeat that I am a supporter of the RJDC. I believe that their grievance is justiified. I know that they have sought to resolve those grievances, internally within the ALPA and have been ignored repeatedly. Therefore, I also believe that not only do they have a right to seek redress in the courts, but that is the only legal method available to them. I am prejudiced in their favor and acknowledge it. Who's favor is FDJ prejudiced in? Is FDJ unbiased and objective?

------No, I am very biased in favor of strong scope clauses. I firmly believe that they are the final defence mgt's assault on our professions, and I firmly believe that the ambiguous language of the rjdc puts EVERY scope clause in the country at risk.

Do my beliefs make me wrong and FDJ right? Do FDJ's beliefs make him wrong and me right? Somehow I don't think so.

-------Yes and no!

What we have here is a legitimate and unresolved dispute between a labor union and a significant number of its members. Like any other dispute between two parties, it can be settled out of court or in court. To date, the ALPA and the RJDC have both chosen to proceed to the courts. When its over, one will prevail and the other will not. That is the system that our country recognizes for the settlement of legal disputes. Why can't FDJ recognize that system as well?

----See my above explanation to a similar point.

Perhaps I have not answered you basic question of why the monetary amounts of the claims are so high. The answer is quite simple really. IF the ALPA prevails in the pursuit of the practices that affect Comair pilots adversely, every Comair pilot is exposed to the potential loss of more than a million dollars over the life of his career.

-----You are asking for 12 million for each comair pilot. Can you show any damages right now? You are asking for them.

The punitive damages sought are designed to preclude the ALPA from engaging in such practices in the future. A slap on the rist won't do that. One hundred million dollars just might.


----Try $12 BILLION.

I sincerely hope we can ultimately work together and find a mutually satisfactory solution to our differences.

Surplus1
CMR

---As do I.