The relief section doesn't specify what form of scope would be acceptable to you guys. Dan has always said that scope should "include, not exclude," but that doesn't make any sense. Scope, by definition, excludes. If DAL negotiated scope that "includes" ASA and CMR exclusively for all 70-seat flying, then you'd claim that they were "excluding" you from the larger flying. Give me an example of mainline scope that would satisfy you and also fit within the definition of acceptable scope under the litigation.
PCL, I think I've answered this before, so if this is redundant, my apologies.
Perfect scope is all Delta flying done by Delta pilots. This could have been achieved with ALPA's support for a PID when Delta acquired the airlines performing Connection flying in 1999 and 2000. (Inclusive Scope)
Not as good scope would be ALPA negotiating scope which would have limited Delta flying to Delta, Comair and ASA. Scope which limited outsourcing to non-Delta, non-ALPA, pilots. (again, Inclusive Scope)
Not as good as that scope, would be scope negotiations which at least allowed ASA and Comair pilots to represent their pilots to their Master, which in this case is Delta. (sort of Inclusive Scope, at least those affected ALPA members are invited to the table)
Even less effective scope would be a holding company letter. (Exclusive Scope)
No scope is "scope" achieved by underbidding other pilots for the work. (Exclusive Scope)
Right now we are in the "no scope" zone. To re-create better scope it would be necessary to first wipe the slate clean and bring the parties to the table to re-negotiate scope which
includes all the involved parties.
It may seem events may have eclipsed the relief section that was drafted 7 years ago.
(remember the suit is based on CY96 scope language and changes in the 2000 deal) Back then 10 Connection carriers was the nightmare scenario which was envisioned could result from ALPA's actions. Obviously now there are other ALPA members that would be negatively effected and I'm not sure a ASA new hire is in any different position than a Mesa / Freedom new hire who does Connection flying. But the litigation has to take a point to start from. What has happened since then is the measure of change.
The RJDC has never published their version of idea scope. They have written a lot on the basic tenets that I have extrapolated into a range of scope solutions. However, there are a million shades of gray and variations that pilots might want to negotiate. The RJDC has always deferred to the elected representatives as the party that has the authority and responsibility to negotiate on behalf of their pilots. And I actually saw this start to happen!
Once, when I thought tripartied negotiations were going to settle this mess, Dan Ford immediately stepped back and put the ASA and Comair MECs on notice that the elected representatives would go forward to negotiate on the behalf of their pilots. In effect, all Dan wanted to do was to give the ASA and Comair MEC's equal opportunity to work with the Delta MEC on mutually beneficial scope.
You who see yourself as true blue ALPA patriots do not seem to ever realize that the RJDC has never supported decertification, has supported ALPA in representational votes and has looked to ALPA's leadership to negotiate scope on behalf of its pilots.
This is not a divorce case. It is a paternity case. The RJDC litigation seeks to have the red headed stepchildren treated like the fair headed wonders. We want to be
included in the family and treated like the other kids. How is that for a Father's Day pun?
Hello Mesa fodder!:laugh: 
