TWA settlement

[PCL_128]

Yet he's been on here time and time again saying there were no promises of DOH or Relative Seniority. No one believed it.

Facts are facts, no matter how much you may not like them. ALPA never promised anyone any method of integration. In fact, ALPA went out of its way to say that nothing was guaranteed in arbitration.

 

[redflyer65]

Facts are facts. I agree.

So....


Was MK wrong on any of his facts? Did the EVP bloviate on the internal message board about voting No? Was there and email stating the same? Did the email say DOH or RS would carry the day?

 

[PCL_128]

EVPs have opinions like any other pilots, and they have the right to express them. An individual's opinion is not necessarily the same as the union's position, however.

 

[HowardBorden]

EVPs have opinions like any other pilots, and they have the right to express them. An individual's opinion is not necessarily the same as the union's position, however.

I agree EVP's do have a right to express opinions but a lawsuit has been filed contending that when an EVP expresses opinions in a public forum it will be viewed that the EVP is stating official ALPA positions. That very well may be difficult to prove, however it is plausible to infer that the comments made by an individual that holds an elected office can be misconstrued as actual union positions when it is well known that the individual is an office holder.

http://ia700806.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.uscourts.gand.181455/gov.uscourts.gand.181455.1.0.pdf

"Upon information and belief, ALPA deployed Todd Ortscheid, an Executive Vice President of the union, as a stalking horse to dissuade the ALPA MEC and/or AirTran pilots from recognizing that the seniority integration package would have been a highly favorable outcome for the AirTran pilots. In so doing, ALPA sought, falsely, to credit arbitration as an effective manner in which to protect the seniority rights of pilots employed by a financially ailing airline and one which employed far fewer pilots than Southwest. In so doing, ALPA sought, falsely, to make it sound as though an arbitrator would view a date-of-hire approach as a fait accompli, when, in fact, the recent history of seniority integration arbitration proceedings is riddled with cases in which date-of-hire has been largely or entirely disregarded. In acting as it did, ALPA breached its duty of fair representation to its members by acting in a manner that was characterized by bad faith."

stalk-ing horse 1. a false pretext concealing someone's real intentions.

 

[PCL_128]

however it is plausible to infer that the comments made by an individual that holds an elected office can be misconstrued as actual union positions when it is well known that the individual is an office holder.

Not when that individual goes out of his way to make it clear that the opinion being expressed is his alone and not the position of the union. This is from the widely distributed email from the EVP that was mentioned earlier:

"Nothing in this email should be construed as coming from ALPA International, despite my position as an EVP. This email is nothing more than my own personal thoughts as a line pilot at AirTran."

Hard to misconstrue that, huh, Howard?

 

[HowardBorden]

"Nothing in this email should be construed as coming from ALPA International, despite my position as an EVP. This email is nothing more than my own personal thoughts as a line pilot at AirTran."

That is why it is termed "stalking horse", or- a false pretext concealing someone's real intentions.

 

[PCL_128]

That is why it is termed "stalking horse", or- a false pretext concealing someone's real intentions.

That argument falls apart quickly when you find out that ALPA senior staff and officers wanted the first deal to go out. Not that they took an official position or told the MEC what to do, but it was clear what their opinion was. The idea that people who wanted the first deal to go out for a vote would send a "stalking horse" out to kill it is comical. And that's really what is so ridiculous about that lawsuit. It talks out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, it claims that ALPA sends a stalking horse EVP out to get the deal killed, but on the other hand it claims that the MEC ignored ALPA advice to send out the deal for a vote. Both are false claims, yet both are conflicting. Only Haber could be so incompetent as to accomplish that.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

Not when that individual goes out of his way to make it clear that the opinion being expressed is his alone and not the position of the union. This is from the widely distributed email from the EVP that was mentioned earlier:

"Nothing in this email should be construed as coming from ALPA International, despite my position as an EVP. This email is nothing more than my own personal thoughts as a line pilot at AirTran."

Hard to misconstrue that, huh, Howard?

Todd, I'm here to tell you, ALPA Legal disagrees with your assertion. If what Howard posted is true, I suggest you shut your computer, and call them ASAP. Because if a DFR lawsuit has been filed, ALPA will throw you under the bus so fast your head will spin. I hope you have a personal $100 mllion dollar liability umbrella policy.

 

[PCL_128]

Todd, I'm here to tell you, ALPA Legal disagrees with your assertion. If what Howard posted is true, I suggest you shut your computer, and call them ASAP. Because if a DFR lawsuit has been filed, ALPA will throw you under the bus so fast your head will spin. I hope you have a personal $100 mllion dollar liability umbrella policy.

If I am who you claim I am, don't you think I would know what ALPA Legal really thinks? So either I am who you think I am and ALPA Legal disagrees with you, or I'm not who you claim I am. Either way, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

P.S. Union representatives can't be held personally liable. That's why DFR suits are filed against the union instead of against the reps.

 

[BOX OFFICE]

If I am who you claim I am, don't you think I would know what ALPA Legal really thinks? So either I am who you think I am and ALPA Legal disagrees with you, or I'm not who you claim I am. Either way, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

P.S. Union representatives can't be held personally liable. That's why DFR suits are filed against the union instead of against the reps.

1. You ARE who I said you are.
2. Either you haven't called ALPA Legal or you ignored them, otherwise you wouldn't be on here running your mouth constantly. Even the MEC reps got the memo to stay off the interwebs! Union reps absolutely ARE personally liable for misconduct and malpractice (DFR).
3. I have a very good clue who you are. Anyone in doubt just needs to review your posting history, then look for the slouching schmuck on the back of the ALPA magazine in the cheap brown suit.
4. The TWA pilots got screwed, and now the Airtran pilots got screwed... with your help! And you have the audacity to come on here and continue arguing from such a horrendous position. Really I hope SWA management sees you GK fellatio reference and cans you. Maybe you can go back to Pinnacle.