8 Simple Questions for the RJDC

[FDJ2]

Simple questions Braveheart refused to answer

1. Can the DAL pilot group, or any pilot group own/control their code?

2. If you can't control (own) the code, then how can you prevent outsourcing?

3. According to the RJDC lawsuit, can ALPA negotiate scope language for the DAL pilots that limits another ALPA pilot group access to the DL code regardless of wholly owned status?

4. According to the RJDC, does CMR/ASA being wholly owned or not have any effect on the RJDC lawsuit? If so, what does it change?

5. According to the RJDC lawsuit, would ALPA be allowed to negotiate scope limits on the DL code which would prevent another ALPA pilot group from flying DL code passengers on 90 seat, 110 seat or 150 seat aircraft?

6. If the RJDC lawsuit were to prevail, would a combined DAL/ASA PWA be able to apply DL code scope restrictions on CMR if CMR were a wholly owned or spun off? How about scope restrictions limiting DL code access to Mesa or Freedom?

7. Explain the following from your lawsuit and how it prevents whipsawing and outsourcing:

"Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated"

8. Is there any claim for relief in the RJDC lawsuit which would compel a single list or PWA? If so, which one?

There is no demagoguery or political slant to any of these questions. Straight froward questions deserve straight forward answers, not evasion. I look forward to Braveheart's straight forward answers.

 

[braveheart]

Straight froward questions deserve straight forward answers...

FDJ2,

"Why did you beat your wife last night?" also appears to be a "straight forward" question but it too presupposes something that's totally false and is therefore more of an accusation than a question.

The so-called "questions" in your post are laced with red-herring issues that the RJDC's critics have attempted to raise for years in an attempt to distract folks from the real issues and to vilify those who advocate reform. For example, the interjection of 110 and 150-seat jets in the form of a question is merely a warmed over version of the false allegation that the RJDC seeks to strip the mainline pilots of their aircraft, jobs, and livelihoods.

For those who are new to the debate, here's the condensed version of "the script":

The RJDC seeks to end all scope.
The RJDC seeks to engage in class warfare against "mainline" pilots.
The RJDC seeks to strip "mainline" carriers of their aircraft.
The RJDC's efforts will reduce the number of high-paying "mainline" jobs.
The RJDC is anti-union.
The RJDC is management's puppet.
"Regional" pilots don't know how to bargain.
"Regional" pilots will work for nothing.
"Regional" pilots benefit from having their aircraft restricted.
The small-jet is a threat to the piloting profession.
The small-jet is a threat to the ATC system.
The small-jet is poorly constructed and unsafe.

Not only are such allegations totally false and irrelevant, but it's obvious that any questions drawn from "the script" are intended for purposes other than to illicit a rational discussion.

For those sincerely interested in the RJDC's views on scope, please read "Ten Things Every Airline Pilot Should Know About Scope" which can be downloaded at: http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdf .

You'll see that the very first item calls for pilots to differentiate between good scope and bad scope thereby disproving FDJ2's principle allegation that the RJDC seeks to destroy all scope.

Thanks

 

[PCL_128]

Braveheart, pointing to some other propoganda put out by the RJDC is not going to help the situation. Read the actual lawsuit itself. The judge doesn't care what "10 Things About Scope.pdf" has to say. He is concerned with the lawsuit that has been brought before the court. The lawsuit says it all in very plain language:

Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA

to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated

There's no way around this Braveheart. No matter what the other RJDC propoganda says, this is the lawsuit language that the judge will consider. "Inclusive scope" will not be the result of an RJDC win. The end of all scope will be the ultimate result. That's not good for anybody.

 

[9rj9]

The RJDC will not end scope, economics will end scope.

 

[surplus1]

Braveheart, pointing to some other propoganda put out by the RJDC is not going to help the situation. Read the actual lawsuit itself. The judge doesn't care what "10 Things About Scope.pdf" has to say. He is concerned with the lawsuit that has been brought before the court.

Disclaimer: I hold no official position with the RJDC and cannot speak officially for it. I do support its efforts and the litigation.

PCL 128,

You take issue with what you call RJDC propaganda. In its documents, the RJDC has been stating its position on all of the issues included in the litigation. You are of course free not to believe any of it and to have a different opinion. However, if you choose to classify those statements as propaganda, then the questions posed by FDJ2 are also propaganda. That boils it down to whose propaganda you personally choose to believe or not believe.

In other words, your and FDJ2's opinons are no less propaganda than the RJDC's opinions. I hope I'm not wrong in assuming that you do understand the meaning of the term "propaganda."

I think both you and FDJ2 would do better to state your positions on the issues than to ask a series of questions, all of which have been answered time and again (you just don't like the answers) in an effort to obfuscate.

You both claim to have read and understood the litigation, therefore you should have already the answers to all of your questions.

At the point in time when the courts make their final disposition of the case, you will then have the courts answers to your questions. If it does not go in ALPA's favor, the court will impose its decision and you will have to comply with it, whether or not you agree.

Meanwhile you just have to content yourselves with the fact that this litigation isn't going to go away until an equitable settlement has been reached and mutually agreed or the court makes a final determination.

The lawsuit says it all in very plain language:

Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA

to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated

There's no way around this Braveheart. No matter what the other RJDC propoganda says, this is the lawsuit language that the judge will consider. "Inclusive scope" will not be the result of an RJDC win. The end of all scope will be the ultimate result. That's not good for anybody.

You state that the lawsuit says it all in "very plain language". You then quote one of the several requests to the court, which you both appear unable to comprehend. If the language is "plain" (as you claim it to be) then surely you understand it. Given the breadth of your alleged understanding, what then is the purpose of your questions? Could it be an effort to spead your own propaganda?

The various arguements that you two advance from time-to-time, and the questions that you ask, make it rather obvious to me that you do not in fact understand much of anything in the litigation. Either that or your questions have some ulterior motive. I suspect the latter.

Fear not, the courts already understand the litigation, which is why they have rejected ALPA's attempts to dismiss it. When the case is heard and the courts rule, I'm sure they'll couch their ruling in language that ALPA and perhaps even you two can comprehend.

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2,

"Why did you beat your wife last night?" also appears to be a "straight forward" question but it too presupposes something that's totally false and is therefore more of an accusation than a question.

The simple answer is, I didn't beat my wife last night. You see Surplus it's easy when you are being straight forward. None of these questions presuppose anything, but a nice attempt on your part to redirect. They are very straight forward questions. It's very telling how you and your RJDC buddies can't answer the most basic questions about your lawsuit. So how about it Surplus, are you and your RJDC buddies ever going to answer these very simple and straight forward questions? Why all of a sudden are you and your buddies so unwilling to discuss the details of your lawsuit and agenda?

 

[braveheart]

PCL_128:

Yes, you are correct that the Court will examine the suit brought before it. That's why folks like the "General" and "FDJ2" are spending hours and hours demonizing those who advocate reform. If what the RJDC said lacked merit, then you'd think they'd pay it no mind.

On another note, you say the RJDC's "10-Things about scope" document is propaganda. For the benefit of the forum readers, please identify those specific parts you believe to be propaganda. But be forewarned, much if it is drawn from ALPA's own materials.

Thanks

http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdf

 

[FDJ2]

You take issue with what you call RJDC propaganda. In its documents, the RJDC has been stating its position on all of the issues included in the litigation.

If that were true then why don't you cut and paste them as answers to these very basic and simple questions? Hmmmmm

However, if you choose to classify those statements as propaganda, then the questions posed by FDJ2 are also propaganda.

Questions aren't propaganda Surplus, they're only questions. Questions which you seem unwilling to answer. Put the issue to rest, if you can, by simply answering these simple straight forward questions.


In other words, your and FDJ2's opinons are no less propaganda than the RJDC's opinions.

I'm not stating an opinion, I'm simply asking questions. Why are you and your RJDC buddies so affraid of some simple questions.

I think both you and FDJ2 would do better to state your positions on the issues than to ask a series of questions, all of which have been answered time and again (you just don't like the answers) in an effort to obfuscate.

It's not my lawsuit, it's yours, so please just answer the questions so that I, and the rest of us, can better understand your lawsuit. These are specific questions about your lawsuit, directing the reader to a website that doesn't answer these questions is avoidance and very telling.

You both claim to have read and understood the litigation, therefore you should have already the answers to all of your questions.

You keep saying we don't understand your lawsuit, so I've simply put out some questions which should help us understand your lawsuit. It's called straight forward and honest communication.

At the point in time when the courts make their final disposition of the case, you will then have the courts answers to your questions.

Wonderful, we are njot entitled to know the implications of your lawsuit until the courts decide it. The keep them all in the dark approach. Noted.


Meanwhile you just have to content yourselves with the fact that this litigation isn't going to go away until an equitable settlement has been reached and mutually agreed or the court makes a final determination.

So in other words, the RJDC does not want to answer the most basic questions about the direction or implications of its lawsuit. Noted.



You state that the lawsuit says it all in "very plain language". You then quote one of the several requests to the court, which you both appear unable to comprehend. If the language is "plain" (as you claim it to be) then surely you understand it. Given the breadth of your alleged understanding, what then is the purpose of your questions? Could it be an effort to spead your own propaganda?


No, you continually claim that our understanding is incorrect, yet you refuse to explain exactly what that claim for relief is. It seems hypocritical of you to state that our understanding is wrong, yet refuse to explain why.

The various arguements that you two advance from time-to-time, and the questions that you ask, make it rather obvious to me that you do not in fact understand much of anything in the litigation.

Then why don't you help us out and answer my questions so that we can better understand each other. Straight forward questions should be answered by straight forward answers.

Fear not, the courts already understand the litigation, which is why they have rejected ALPA's attempts to dismiss it. When the case is heard and the courts rule, I'm sure they'll couch their ruling in language that ALPA and perhaps even you two can comprehend.

Funny, I thought that the court only ruled that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the last remaining RJDC allegation.

Regardless, I find it quite noteworthy that the RJDC and its supporters don't want to clarify their position or the implications of their lawsuit. The truth will set you free Surplus. You can either enlighten us with your indepth knowledge, or continue to hide. My guess is that you'll choose to dodge and hide.

 

[surplus1]

Funny, I thought that the court only ruled that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the last remaining RJDC allegation.

Then perhaps you thought incorrectly. The court's full response to ALPA's attempt to dismiss is posted on the RJDC website. Considering your level of interest, I'm sure you must have read it.

Regardless, I find it quite noteworthy that the RJDC and its supporters don't want to clarify their position or the implications of their lawsuit. The truth will set you free Surplus. You can either enlighten us with your indepth knowledge, or continue to hide. My guess is that you'll choose to dodge and hide.

These issues/questions have been debated for years in dozens of threads on this and other bulletin boards. You have been a participant in most of those debates. Therefore, I think you have already had your questions answered repeatedly, by me and several others.

Efforts to discuss the substance of the issues always result in repetition of the very same questions and the same limited point of view from your fellows.

Not too long ago I asked you how you would feel if the hypothetical scenarion included in the last RJDC update were applied to Delta. You responded by saying that was about USAirways, not Delta. In other words, you would not discuss the issues. I told you then and I tell you again now, when you answer my question about the hypothetical, I'll answer your questions.

 

[FDJ2]

[/color]

Then perhaps you thought incorrectly. The court's full response to ALPA's attempt to dismiss is posted on the RJDC website. Considering your level of interest, I'm sure you must have read it.

Yes I have had and he only rules that the RJDC has stated a claim for which he has jurisdiction, he summarily dismissed 9 other claims by the rjdc, and stayed the RJDC motion to add 300 plaintiffs.




These issues/questions have been debated for years in dozens of threads on this and other bulletin boards.


Yet you are silent on these direct questions. Interesting how the cat's got your tongue. I suspect you have never answered these questions.



Not too long ago I asked you how you would feel if the hypothetical scenarion included in the last RJDC update were applied to Delta. You responded by saying that was about USAirways, not Delta. In other words, you would not discuss the issues. I told you then and I tell you again now, when you answer my question about the hypothetical, I'll answer your questions.

05-07-2005, 17:55 #166 FDJ2 vbmenu_register("postmenu_612421", true);
Registered User

[url="http://forums.flightinfo.com/images/avatars/simpsons_homer.gif"]http://forums.flightinfo.com/images/avatars/simpsons_homer.gif[/url]

Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,107

Aircraft Experience: DC-8, MD88. B737, B767
Flight Experience: Mil/Civ
Ratings: DC-8, B757/767
Total Time: 7500+


Quote:
Originally Posted by N2264J
You still refuse to answer the questions Surplus put to you.

Your avoidance of Surplus' questions is itself, a revealing answer.

It's been noted.



I'll try yet again for you N, then I suspect you'll keep avoiding my questions.

What is your take on the hypothetical outline of the "new" Air Wisconsin scope re US Airways? I haven't read it.

Would you be content if that type of scope appeared in a contract affecting the Delta pilots?

I haven't read it. But if I understand where you are coming from with this question, I'll say that I've worked for a contract carrier before, I saw the limitations of that type of career and that's why I moved on to a carrier that has scope over its flying. Would I be happy if we lost scope over our flying? No, that's why I oppose the RJDC's efforts to eliminate scope protections and increase whipsawing. I would not be content if I loss parts of the scope protections which are in my CBA.

Would you feel that efforts to prevent it were unrreasonable and without legal merit?

As a general principle, I would oppose the loss of DL scope protections which are in my CBA. That being said, negotiations are negotiations and you don't always get what you want. The collective bargaining process, as outlined in the RLA, governs the process, my efforts to protect the scope language in my contract involves collective bargaining, which is legal. I feel that it is reasonable to protect your CBA.

I just wonder how double your standard really is?

It's not a double standard at all, I believe in the collective bargaining process and I believe we should respect each others CBAs.

Do you have the guts to tell me and the rest of the audience?

I just did. How revealing is that, for the third or fourth time.


Now N, when are you going to finally answer my questions? Do you have the guts? Have I hit a raw nerve and exposed the hypocrisy of the RJDC, your lies and misleading statements? I'm waiting. Your avoidance is noted.






Questions answered, now it's your turn Surplus, if you're a man of your word. I suspect you aren't.

 

[PCL_128]

You take issue with what you call RJDC propaganda. In its documents, the RJDC has been stating its position on all of the issues included in the litigation. You are of course free not to believe any of it and to have a different opinion. However, if you choose to classify those statements as propaganda, then the questions posed by FDJ2 are also propaganda. That boils it down to whose propaganda you personally choose to believe or not believe.

These are merely questions, not propaganda. You choose to ignore the questions rather than answer them in a straighforward manner. I think that speaks volumes.

You state that the lawsuit says it all in "very plain language". You then quote one of the several requests to the court, which you both appear unable to comprehend. If the language is "plain" (as you claim it to be) then surely you understand it. Given the breadth of your alleged understanding, what then is the purpose of your questions? Could it be an effort to spead your own propaganda?

My point of wanting answers to FDJ's questions is to find out what explanation you can possibly give to explain how this lawsuit would not end all scope. You and Fins constantly say that this lawsuit would not end scope, it would just make it "inclusive." I disagree and seek an answer as to how I am wrong in that thinking. Since you can't provide simple answers I am left to believe that FDJ and I are right in our thinking. I hope your CMR and ASA junior pilots are seeing this and realizing that they shouldn't become part of a movement that can't even answer a few simple questions.

 

[michael707767]

My point of wanting answers to FDJ's questions is to find out what explanation you can possibly give to explain how this lawsuit would not end all scope. You and Fins constantly say that this lawsuit would not end scope, it would just make it "inclusive." .

The only way to really make scope "inclusive" would be to set it up so that any ALPA carrier can do the flying. Otherwise, you will be excluding someone. And even then you would be excluding non-ALPA airlines. The fact of the matter is, you cannot have scope without excluding someone. The very nature of scope is to exclude. I would love to hear an exact definition of "inclusive" scope.

 

[PCL_128]

As would I. Scope is "exclusive" by nature. "Inclusive scope" is an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure we'll be waiting a very long time for that definition though. None of the RJDC supporters ever answer any questions in a straightforward manner as we've seen on these threads. The best thing is to watch Dan Ford's hit and run on the ALPA boards each month when he drops off the latest RJDC "Update" and then doesn't say a single thing to all the responses. It's very telling when these guys won't answer a single question without double-talk.

 

[surplus1]

PCL 128,

The play on words is interesting. You say scope is exclusive, because it excludes pilots of other airlines. I say it is inclusive, because it includes all the pilots of a particular airline. In that context neithier term is truly descriptive of what a particular Scope Clause in a CBA does..

We can "play" with semantics all day and in the end will have accomplished nothing.

 

[NYRANGERS]

PCL 128,

The play on words is interesting. You say scope is exclusive, because it excludes pilots of other airlines. I say it is inclusive, because it includes all the pilots of a particular airline. In that context neithier term is truly descriptive of what a particular Scope Clause in a CBA does..

We can "play" with semantics all day and in the end will have accomplished nothing.

So you're not/can't answer the questions. Fair enough.

 

[surplus1]

Questions answered, now it's your turn Surplus, if you're a man of your word. I suspect you aren't.

You should have stuck with the first of your answers and left it there. You say you haven't read the scenario to which I made reference, therefore it is not possible for you to answer questions that are related to that document. I will publish it for your reference later and then you may answer if you wish. It is public and was a part of the last RJDC update.

In the mean time, I concede that you're trying to solicit statements concerning the lawsuit.

First, if you took the time to read the entire complaint, you'd know that the RJDC is not a party to the suit and therefore there is no such thing as the 'RJDC lawsuit.' It may sound trivial, but if you're going to pretend to be knowledgeable on the litigation, you'd better pay closer attention to such details.

Second, by aggressively pressing for an on-line debate concerning the litigation, you're making it readily apparent that the questions most probably aren't even yours. I think you should go back to whomever you got them from (probably ALPA or the Delta MEC) and tell them that if these questions are so relevant and they really want to know the answers, then they can ask them in court.

My point is that I think I've heard these very same questions before, if not identical unbelievably close, asked by ALPA lawyers or the Delta MEC through their lawyers (who also work for ALPA). Because of this I think you're disingenuous and either acting as an undercover plant or being fed information from ALPA or the DMEC. I don't think you're acting as an interested individual. I would not want unofficial answers that I give you as an outsider to appear in court at a later date as being "from the RJDC" or one of the principals.

As I told you earlier, I'm not an official spokesperson for either the RJDC or the litigants. I know them and I agree with them, but that's as far as it goes. I don't mind debating the issues but I don't want to attempt to argue their case in a forum. The have an attorney who will do that in court when the time comes. Again, if ALPA's lawyers want those specific questions answered, tell them to ask the questions in court. That way the judge and the jury can hear the qestions and the answers, and your lawyers can argue as they see fit.

 

[michael707767]

PCL 128,

The play on words is interesting. You say scope is exclusive, because it excludes pilots of other airlines. I say it is inclusive, because it includes all the pilots of a particular airline.

Hmm, Ok. Thats fair enough, but let me ask this. Why is it ok to exclude pilots of other airlines, especially if they are also ALPA pilots? Strictly speaking from a legal standpoint, I fail to see how you can say its ok to include yourselves but not include every ALPA group.

One other small point, legally (according to my source) even though Delta owns ASA and CMR, we do not work for the same airline. A wholly owned subsidiary does not mean those employed by the subsidiary are by default employed by the parent company. So again, legally, you are no different from any other ALPA pilot group.


For the record, I think this will all be a moot point within two years. Delta cannot avoid a trip to BK, and I think BK will wipe out all scope whether or not we include the ASA and CMR pilots. We can argue all day about inclusive, exclusive, the fact of the matter is, all of us together or each pilot group individually do not have the negotiating leverage, in or out of BK, to prevent someone like Mesa from doing a portion of our flying.

 

[NYRANGERS]

I don't mind debating the issues but I don't want to attempt to argue their case in a forum. QUOTE]

What? Isn't that what you have been doing for the past 4+ years? Since you are not a part of the lawsuit, it shouldn't matter what your opinion is (with regards to the lawsuit).

You champion thier (rjdc) cause, yet won't answer the questions. Could it be that your answers may cause the rjdc fence sitters to see the truth and abandon the rjdc?

NYR

Fact. Delta had stronger scope in the past= Comair and ASA not having to compete for flying with Mesa. Our scope is now closer to what the rjdc wants...enter mesa. If we get rid of all scope, mesa will be flying all of Delta's trips, and NW's, CAL's, AA's etc, etc....simple as that...

 

[PCL_128]

Surplus, I'm impressed. That's some of the most skillful dodging of questions I've ever seen. In any case, FDJ and I were right. No one that supports the RJDC is willing to answer some simple questions. Your assertion that your answers could show up in court is laughable at best. You're not dumb enough to truly believe that a post from an anonymous message board will be deemed suitable as court evidence, even in a civil case such as this. Again, some simple answers are all we're looking for. Can you not answer just one of the questions? Is your case so flimsy that you're really that afraid to talk about it? If so, that's just pathetic.

 

[surplus1]

Hmm, Ok. Thats fair enough, but let me ask this. Why is it ok to exclude pilots of other airlines, especially if they are also ALPA pilots? Strictly speaking from a legal standpoint, I fail to see how you can say its ok to include yourselves but not include every ALPA group.

I think you are misunderstanding me. It is OK for a given pilot group to include all of its pilots in its own scope language. In fact if it did not do so, I think you'd get a bunch of new litigation. When I say "inclusive" do not take that as meaning inclusive of CMR pilots.

One other small point, legally (according to my source) even though Delta owns ASA and CMR, we do not work for the same airline. A wholly owned subsidiary does not mean those employed by the subsidiary are by default employed by the parent company. So again, legally, you are no different from any other ALPA pilot group.

That's not a "small" point. As I see it, it is the point. ALPA made the determination, officialy, that notwithstanding the acquisition by Delta, Comair was a separate company. Therefore, whether wholly owned or not, Comair's status with respect to the Delta pilots' PWA is no different from the status of United or SouthWest. You cannot legally write scope in the Delta PWA that pretends to control the flying of United pilots, notwithstanding that they are represented by the ALPA. You also cannot write scope in the Delta PWA that control the flying of SWA, which is not represented by ALPA, even if SWA was owned by Delta. It is a separate company.

I accept your finding and ALPA's, that Comair pilots are not employed by Delta Air Lines. Therefore it follows, Delta pilots have nothing to say about what they do. I'd really like to see you try to negotiate what you have done with respect to Comair and have it apply to United. There's just no way it would fly. The fact that Comair happens to operate airplanes that are smaller than those operated by Delta, does not give ALPA or the Delta pilots the right to control their flying, which is of course what you have tried to do. ALPA is duty bound, and by law, to represent the interests of both Delta pilots and Comair pilots fairly. They cannot legally descriminate in favor of the Delta pilots' interests at the expense of the Comair pilots' interests. That's what they have tried to do. There is more to it, but that's enough for now.

For the record, I think this will all be a moot point within two years. Delta cannot avoid a trip to BK, and I think BK will wipe out all scope whether or not we include the ASA and CMR pilots. We can argue all day about inclusive, exclusive, the fact of the matter is, all of us together or each pilot group individually do not have the negotiating leverage, in or out of BK, to prevent someone like Mesa from doing a portion of our flying.

I don't disagree with you assumptions about the future. However, that isn't the problem. The problem is ALPA's failure to honor its Duty of Fair Representation with respect to the Comair pilots, and countless other ALPA members at various regional carriers.