ALPA Nat. DOES control MEC bargaining

[RJFlyer]

csmith:

I think it is important to find out why Duane will not sign off on the deal. Much has been written about how ALPA cannot represent the regionals, and favors the majors. You think Duane is not signing it simply because he wants to screw the Mesa guys? That doesn't really make sense.

It does not matter why DW didn't sign off on it. The point is that ALPA went to court to ensure that ALPA national has ultimate control over a contract negotiated by a MEC and ratified by the unit's membership. Since ALPA national holds that power (and fought in court to keep it), they also hold the responsibility for all contracts negotiated with ALPA as bargaining agent. That is the point.

For that reason, when any MEC negotiates a contract under ALPA's auspices, ALPA national is ultimately responsible. If the court decides that the RJDC is correct in saying they were harmed by DMEC's scope, then ALPA national by its own admission is ultimately responsible.

 

[csmith]

csmith:

It does not matter why DW didn't sign off on it. The point is that ALPA went to court to ensure that ALPA national has ultimate control over a contract negotiated by a MEC and ratified by the unit's membership. Since ALPA national holds that power (and fought in court to keep it), they also hold the responsibility for all contracts negotiated with ALPA as bargaining agent. That is the point.

For that reason, when any MEC negotiates a contract under ALPA's auspices, ALPA national is ultimately responsible. If the court decides that the RJDC is correct in saying they were harmed by DMEC's scope, then ALPA national by its own admission is ultimately responsible.

Ok, <sigh>, again:

It was ALPA vs Mesa Air Group according to the press release. It was not ALPA vs the CC Air MEC. ALPA won and retained the right to enforce its own bylaws. In the bylaws it retains the right to have the final authority to reject or accept the contract. It also has the authority to declare a PID, define operational integration.
As I said, it was a press release, and you can not draw out from it more than is there. You make a big deal out of the fact ALPA went to court to defend their bylaws. I sure hope that they would. Looks as if they are headed there again.

In the grand scheme, yes, the reason is important. Does this help the RJDC? I don't think so. It may actually hurt them. In this case, the bandwagon jumpers say the regional pilot got screwed. I disagree that they got screwed, but even if they did, ALPA retained the rights to the last look. They took the last look with the Delta PWA and signed, "screwing" the pilots of Comair and ASA according to some. I am not saying this is how it will all go down, merely stating that such an "obviously discriminatory decision on the part of ALPA" can be interpreted different ways depending on which side of the fence you sit--not even regional vs mainline.

I am not aware of the history of Freedom air, but it sounds as if Duane made a sound decision. JMO

CSmith

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: Re: ALPA Nat. DOES control MEC bargaining

I think it is important to find out why Duane will not sign off on the deal. Much has been written about how ALPA cannot represent the regionals, and favors the majors. You think Duane is not signing it simply because he wants to screw the Mesa guys? That doesn't really make sense.

While I do not know the exact reason(s) why the President declined to sign this contract (he doesn't call me for advice), I don't believe that he refused in order to "screw the Mesa guys". I can only speculate but would guess that he refused to "help" the Mesa guys among other reasons. Politics works in strange ways and none of us writing here knows the exact reason(s) why the President refused to sign.

That however, misses or avoids the issue completely. A good diversionary tactic. The issue is not why, that's irrelevant. The point is that ALPA is the controlling agent, not the individual MEC or the pilot's ratification vote, but ALPA. ALPA has the authority and with it the responsibility.

Does everyone know that Duane also did not/has not signed off on LOA 81 with USAirways? Has he signed off on the subsequest agreement with USAirways? What is the difference between the two agreements?? Think about it.

You think about it too. Captain Woerth did not sign LOA81. That is because it was replaced by a new agreement that ultimately included the US Air Group's restructuring plan and large concessions, unrelated to RJs, made by the USAirways pilots. The restructuring agreement was singed by the President, shortly before US Air Group declared bankruptcy. "Shortly" meaning as little as one or two hours.

There are many differences between the two "agreements", but very few differences as they relate to the "jets for jobs protocol" which is included in the restructuring agreement.

Components of any Agreement that affects only USAirways pilots are obviously within the prerogative of USAirways pilots to negotiate and to decide unilaterally. No one intelligently argues otherwise. However, when an Agreement directly affects the rights of another pilot group, the UMEC may not unilaterally negotiate for that group without its consent. If the UMEC does and the ALPA endorses such action, the endorsement disenfranchises the WO pilots and violates their right to fair representation.

ALPA will claim (correctly) that the regional MECs ratified the terms of the agreement and therefore, they consented to its terms. That is technically accurate. However, it is also accurate that those MEC's were actively pressured and coerced by the Company and their union (ALPA) and threatened with the loss of all jobs if they failed to agree to the injurious terms of the Agreement negotiated by their union and the UMEC. A contract signed under duress is not valid.

A rapist holding a gun to the head of his victim may obtain what he wants, but the rape remains a crime and the holding of the gun itself becomes another crime, and the consent of the victim under those circumstances does not exculpate the perpetrator. Rape has still been committed.

Components of the (U) Agreement signed by ALPA rape the regional subsidiaries at US Air Group of their seniority and other contractual rights. There's no two ways about that. That same rape will occur at any other regional airline whose pilots are coerced into accepting the J4J protocols.

If you wish to debate the pros and cons of this agreement credibly, you owe it to yourself to review the agreement and the history of its negotiation before you take a position as to the legality of its negotiation.

Many people jump on the sue ALPA bandwagon. I'm not really sure they are thinking it through clearly.

At face value that is an accurate statement. However, I am not sure that you are thinking clearly when you make a decision as to the merits of a case based upon whether your like or dislike its potential outcome. With all due respect, that is not objective thinking. How I may be affected or how you may be affected by the outcome of litigation is not a determinant factor as to the merits of that litigation. Our feelings are not at issue, ALPA's actions are.

The individual MECs are responsible for negotiating their own agreements. Duane has been quoted as saying that each MEC has wide latitude to negotiate their own agreements. CCAir agreement was negotiated and ratified. <<< >>> I would imagine it gets the magnifying glass to ensure it complies with ALPA bylaws, does not conflict with another agreement already in place, etc.

What you attempt to "make clear" is in fact only muddled further by your attempt. You must differentiate between responsibility and wide latitude. What does "wide latitude" really mean? Is it synonymous with autonomy? "Duane" has been quoted as saying many things. So have George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ariel Sharon, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Surplus1 and CSmith. Unfortunately, that has little bearing on reality or the issues.

"Duane" is a politician. His statements are carefully constructed by his communications team, with his input, in order to convey his message de jour. The statements often contain much "spin" and are certainly neither infallible or always true. I don't accuse him of lying, but I would be gullible indeed and very naive if I were to accept everything that he says at face value.

Like every other politician, he says what he needs to say in order to justify his actions and advance his agendas. I don't fault him for that, but neither do I accept his every utterance as "gospel". You shouldn't either.

The scrutiny that a particular agreement may receive prior to the President affixing his signature depends to a great extent on the political power of the particular MEC/pilot group that participated in the negotiations. It is one thing for the ALPA president to refuse to sign an agreement ratified by a handful of CCAir pilots and quite another to refuse to sign an agreement ratified by the Delta MEC and 9,000 Delta pilots.

CCAir Pilots have NO political power within the ALPA. In contrast Delta Pilots possess extraordinary political power within the ALPA. "Duane" need not think twice about refusing to sign a CCAir agreement, but must give a great deal of thought to refusing to sign a Delta agreement. That is the simple reality of how things are and has nothing to do with how they ought to be. The ALPA is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. Big difference there.

A question, if ALPA Natn'l is responsible for negotiations, then why didn't Duane nip this in the bud during negotiations instead of after the TA and subsequent ratification?

Good question. Are you actually familiar with who was at the table and who conducted the final bargaining that resulted in the CCAir TA? Suppose I told you that it was none other than the Executive Administrator of the ALPA along with other national staff, and not really CCAir pilots (not to say that some weren't present)? I don't know why he didn't "nip it in the bud" and can only speculate, but I suspect that circumstances and pressures external to the CCAir property changed after the TA was ratified and the President therefore decided that he should not sign it. I refer not to contractual changes or pressures but political changes and pressures.

I feel that you mean well in your arguments and you believe most of what you say. However, I also feel that your practical experience with the internal workings of the ALPA or any other large political entity is quite limited. You have (although slanted in your favor) a high minded and somewhat altruistic perception of how things work that is quite removed from reality.

Another question, who knows exactly the grounds upon which the agreement was not signed off?

We don't really know. Once more however, your point evades the real issue. That issue is who is the true bargaining agent., is it the MEC or is it the ALPA? That's the question. Why the agreement was or was not signed is ancillary and irrelevant. That is exactly why the court ruled in ALPA's favor in the CCAir lawsuit discussed here.

The authority to negotiate and to ultimately ratify any agreement, rests exclusively with the ALPA and not with the individual MEC or the pilots. MEC "autonomy" is a myth. A sugar coated placebo that replaces the real medicine. Legally, that's the way it is.

What is truly interesting is that the ALPA argues and wins that point of law in one court, but argues the exact opposite in another court (re the RJDC litigation). "What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

I have said beofre, the wholly owneds at USAir have a legitimate beef with LOA 81. I have not read enough on the J4J thing to comment intelligently.

You bet they have a legitimate beef. So do the wholly owned regionals on the Delta property. The difference is that you will not acknowledge the latter because you have a self-interest in the outcome of the Delta/CMR/ASA litigation but only a curiosity in the US Air Group scenario. Both situations, while not identical, embody the same basic principles. Therefore, one cannot be right and the other wrong. Either they are both legitimate or both illegitimate. The legal principles are the same. in both cases the union has violated The Duty of Fair Representation.

Our true concern should not be how to argue more convincingly but what can we do collectively to remedy the situation. How do we remove the conflicts of interest and provide fair (not equal) representation to all parties? That is the problem that must be solved and we can only solve it together.

Surplus1

 

[surplus1]

All the more reason for the regionals to decertify their ALPA affiliation and go it on their own.

Wrong! Decertification at this time would be the equivalent of endorsing the abuse that has been committed.

What is needed is exactly what we are doing. Fight internally within OUR union and the courts until the union's obligations to its members are voluntarily honored or directed by the courts.

Regional pilots everywhere in ALPA should join in the litigation or seek independent redress.

Decertification at this time is tantamount to endorsement of the wrong doing.

I think your recommendation has an ulterior motive.

 

[surplus1]

Ok, <sigh>, again:

It was ALPA vs Mesa Air Group according to the press release. It was not ALPA vs the CC Air MEC.

Spin? All press releases are subject to that. The original litigation was filed by a CCAir pilot. Mesa Air Group subsequently joined in the case on the side of that pilot. The suit is public, check it out.

By the way, an MEC cannot sue ALPA. The MEC is not a legal entity, but an internal component of the ALPA. That would therefore be the equivalent of ALPA suing ALPA. Not possible.

Individual pilots have rights under the RLA. Individual pilots or groups of pilots may therefore sue their union.

Does this help the RJDC? I don't think so. It may actually hurt them. <<>>I disagree that they got screwed, but even if they did, ALPA retained the rights to the last look.

It may surprise you but I actually think that the president may have had a legitimate reason for refusing to sign that CCAir contract, but it hasn't yet been stated by anyone and I prefer not to take that leap. However, I still believe that is irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

You should note that the RJDC has not challenged ALPA's right to the "last look." The opposite is actually true. The RJDC is arguing that ALPA failed to exercise or improperly exercised its right to the "last look" and should not have endorsed certain limited provisions of the Delta PWA or taken or failed to take other actions (unrelated to the Delta PWA) that it did.

I am not aware of the history of Freedom air, but it sounds as if Duane made a sound decision. JMO
CSmith

I urge you to make yourself aware of the history of Freedom Air and when you have finished that, also make yourself aware of the history of Potomac/Mid Atlantic Air. Keep in mind that the ALPA opposes Freedom but fully endorses Mid Atlantic.

When you have completed your analysis, determine for yourself what is really different between the two. Then make the decision as to whether the non-union status of the former makes it wrong and the union status of the latter makes it somehow right.

I think you will find that Feedom Air was created for the purpose of circumventing a provision of the USAirways pilot's Agreement (now moot) and coincidentally serves also as leverage to be used against the pilots of Mesa airlines during their Section 6 negotiations. It is vehemently opposed by the ALPA.

Perhaps you will also find that Potomac/Mid Atlantic Air was revived/created for the purpose of circumventing the contracts of Allegheny and Piedmont and to further provide a vehicle for the preferential treatment of furloughed USAirways pilots at the expense of ALG/PDT/PSA pilots and further, to bypassed the resistance of other ALPA and non-ALPA carrier's pilots to the "jets for jobs" protocol. US Air Group has agreed to recognize the ALPA as the bargaining agent for Mid Atlantic Airlines. It is enthusiastically endorsed by the ALPA.

I suspect that if the president of Mesa Air Group, were to suddenly agree to recognize the ALPA as the bargaining agent of Freedom Air, ALPA's "objections" to its founding would cease forthwith. However, the dangers to Mesa pilots would not change subsantially as a consequence.

There's a whole lot of dirty water in the bathtub CSmith. That's why it is so difficult to see what's floating in it. Get your hands dirty and take a real look. You'll learn a lot.

 

[beezlebozo]

90% sure China Clipper got it right. Gee, why hasn't anyone responded to that here on the "RJDC Pro's and Con's" board?

p.s. - ALPA might be "a" controlling agent by requiring the signature of the national president, but that doesn't mean that they are "the" controlling agent. DW can't sign in ANYTHING he wants - it also has to be ratified by the MEC or membership. He's not the only one in control.

 

[csmith]

part 1

"While I do not know the exact reason(s) why the President declined to sign this contract (he doesn't call me for advice), I don't believe that he refused in order to "screw the Mesa guys". I can only speculate but would guess that he refused to "help" the Mesa guys among other reasons. Politics works in strange ways and none of us writing here knows the exact reason(s) why the President refused to sign.


That however, misses or avoids the issue completely. A good diversionary tactic. The issue is not why, that's irrelevant. The point is that ALPA is the controlling agent, not the individual MEC or the pilot's ratification vote, but ALPA. ALPA has the authority and with it the responsibility."


Speaking of diversionary tactics...I notice you throw the AMONG OTHER REASONS in as a diversionary tactic. You just have to throw your barb. The reason IS improtant to the RJDC. I imagine, if asked, he would say why. Have you ever met Duane? I have, and when I asked him questions--controversial ones--he spoke right up with frank responses without going over to huddle with his communications team first. It would have been a solo huddle anyway. There was no communications team.


"You think about it too. Captain Woerth did not sign LOA81. That is because it was replaced by a new agreement that ultimately included the US Air Group's restructuring plan and large concessions, unrelated to RJs, made by the USAirways pilots. The restructuring agreement was singed by the President, shortly before US Air Group declared bankruptcy. "Shortly" meaning as little as one or two hours.

There are many differences between the two "agreements", but very few differences as they relate to the "jets for jobs protocol" which is included in the restructuring agreement.

Components of any Agreement that affects only USAirways pilots are obviously within the prerogative of USAirways pilots to negotiate and to decide unilaterally. No one intelligently argues otherwise. However, when an Agreement directly affects the rights of another pilot group, the UMEC may not unilaterally negotiate for that group without its consent. If the UMEC does and the ALPA endorses such action, the endorsement disenfranchises the WO pilots and violates their right to fair representation.

ALPA will claim (correctly) that the regional MECs ratified the terms of the agreement and therefore, they consented to its terms. That is technically accurate. However, it is also accurate that those MEC's were actively pressured and coerced by the Company and their union (ALPA) and threatened with the loss of all jobs if they failed to agree to the injurious terms of the Agreement negotiated by their union and the UMEC. A contract signed under duress is not valid. "



Interesting points. I submit that it would not take much of a change in either LOA81 or J4J in order to change them significantly. For example, hypothetically, one document may not have a provision for a flow through while the other may have a provision for a flow through for the pilots who become employed at MidAtlantic. In this case, I would think that both groups have been "represented" and the president would sign the agreement--especially if all groups affected have signed off on the deal. Now if one group did not sign off on such a deal, AND they had some controlling language in their contract, they have a legitimate gripe.

As far as "duress", I just have to laugh at that one. Many voted no to the Delta contract because the MEC was pressuring us that Congress would impose a contract if we did not vote yes to it. Is that considered duress? What about the Comair pilots. Did the company threatening to shut them down, and the MEC saying that's all we can get or the company will shut us down signify duress? All contracts in labor related cases are signed under duress. Yet another emotional appeal to the masses.



"If you wish to debate the pros and cons of this agreement credibly, you owe it to yourself to review the agreement and the history of its negotiation before you take a position as to the legality of its negotiation."


I beilieve I clearly said that I could not comment on it due to the fact that I have only brushed through it. The fact that you mention it serves to prove that you need to keep the superiority complex via this board. I have a few PM attaboys to prove it as well--some from regional guys. I intetionally left out the "rape" part of your post. These are only my opinions. Everything I post is my opinion. You seem to think that everything you post is proven fact, that ALPA has raped the regionals, we should just skip the legal process, convict the major pilots, put them in jail, and give all jets to the regionals as the only acceptable outcome. This is the omnipotent attitude I refer to in my previous posts. Nothing has been proven yet. The RJDC could lose. I suppose if they do, it also has to be a big conspiracy. How could Surplus possible be wrong. It's as clear as day. How could somebody possibly offer another perspective. Here are a few examples.




"At face value that is an accurate statement. However, I am not sure that you are thinking clearly when you make a decision as to the merits of a case based upon whether your like or dislike its potential outcome. With all due respect, that is not objective thinking. How I may be affected or how you may be affected by the outcome of litigation is not a determinant factor as to the merits of that litigation. Our feelings are not at issue, ALPA's actions are."

ALPA's actions are not reflected in the press release given. In my next post, I clarified that point of view. I think I have made it clear enough that feeling should be detached from the thought process here on the boards, so I'll let your "thinking clearly" comment slide.


What you attempt to "make clear" is in fact only muddled further by your attempt. You must differentiate between responsibility and wide latitude. What does "wide latitude" really mean? Is it synonymous with autonomy?


The two are not mutually exclusive. "Wide latitude" can mean anything you want it to. Maybe it wasn't clear to you, but after rereading it, it makes perfect sense to me. Maybe somebody can "enlighten me" further.



"Duane" is a politician. His statements are carefully constructed by his communications team, with his input, in order to convey his message de jour. The statements often contain much "spin" and are certainly neither infallible or always true. I don't accuse him of lying, but I would be gullible indeed and very naive if I were to accept everything that he says at face value.

Like every other politician, he says what he needs to say in order to justify his actions and advance his agendas. I don't fault him for that, but neither do I accept his every utterance as "gospel". You shouldn't either."


Or maybe he just considers his every move, and the justification of such a decision, prior to making it. Then he doesn't have to create spin. He can quote exactly the parts in the bylaws which he used to render such a decision as just and correct. Of course, my little ALPA experience, 8 years or so, could be not enough or clouding my judgement. Duane is quite forthright and to the point when you speak to him personally. As for media, I wouldn't put out any statement without the experts looking it over either. You could get sued over it. Now, again, this is just another way you could look at it.



"The scrutiny that a particular agreement may receive prior to the President affixing his signature depends to a great extent on the political power of the particular MEC/pilot group that participated in the negotiations. It is one thing for the ALPA president to refuse to sign an agreement ratified by a handful of CCAir pilots and quite another to refuse to sign an agreement ratified by the Delta MEC and 9,000 Delta pilots."


You forgot the words "in my opinion", which it is. Remember, Duane doesn't consult you, so you really wouldn't know why he would or would not sign an agreement.




"CCAir Pilots have NO political power within the ALPA. In contrast Delta Pilots possess extraordinary political power within the ALPA. "Duane" need not think twice about refusing to sign a CCAir agreement, but must give a great deal of thought to refusing to sign a Delta agreement. That is the simple reality of how things are and has nothing to do with how they ought to be. The ALPA is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. Big difference there."

You are correct that Delta does carry some weight in ALPA--as they should with 9,000 members. There comes that equal vs fair representation thing again. By contrast, in light of a lwasuit over his head, I'd be willing to lay money down that he "thought more than twice about whether or not to affix his signature to the agreement. Again just another perpsective.

 

[csmith]

part 2

"Good question. Are you actually familiar with who was at the table and who conducted the final bargaining that resulted in the CCAir TA? Suppose I told you that it was none other than the Executive Administrator of the ALPA along with other national staff, and not really CCAir pilots (not to say that some weren't present)? I don't know why he didn't "nip it in the bud" and can only speculate, but I suspect that circumstances and pressures external to the CCAir property changed after the TA was ratified and the President therefore decided that he should not sign it. I refer not to contractual changes or pressures but political changes and pressures."


Are you telling me that CC Air negotiators were not at the table? Did they request help? Would you care to comment on these external pressures? The word "speculate" is key here, but the vast majority of the time you go around preaching your words as gospel. When others offer another viewpoint, they must be tainted, or unaware of the workings of ALPA, or biased. None of these would apply to you of course, but I suspect that your following largely follows you because of such an attitude--a political sounding one to this observer.



"I feel that you mean well in your arguments and you believe most of what you say. However, I also feel that your practical experience with the internal workings of the ALPA or any other large political entity is quite limited. You have (although slanted in your favor) a high minded and somewhat altruistic perception of how things work that is quite removed from reality."


As I said, 8 years, 1 working under Dolan. I have a pretty good idea of how he works. I'll let you to your opinion. I have a hard time believing our elected reps would purposely act in a manner which would be cause for a 12,000,000,000 lawsuit against them.


"Once more however, your point evades the real issue. That issue is who is the true bargaining agent., is it the MEC or is it the ALPA? That's the question. Why the agreement was or was not signed is ancillary and irrelevant. That is exactly why the court ruled in ALPA's favor in the CCAir lawsuit discussed here."


I am not evading the issue. I agree that the responsibility rests with ALPA. Much like the captain is responsible to ensure the preflight, he delegates it to the f/o. Hence, Duane's statement that ALPA gives wide latitude to individual MECs to negotiate their own contracts. I think you may "have (although slanted in your favor) a high minded and somewhat altruistic perception of how things work that is quite removed from reality."



"The authority to negotiate and to ultimately ratify any agreement, rests exclusively with the ALPA and not with the individual MEC or the pilots. MEC "autonomy" is a myth. A sugar coated placebo that replaces the real medicine. Legally, that's the way it is."

IMO the authority is delegated to the individual MECs. The responsibility rests with ALPA, and thus the final say.


"What is truly interesting is that the ALPA argues and wins that point of law in one court, but argues the exact opposite in another court (re the RJDC litigation). "What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Again, I don't feel as if the two are mutually exclusive. You are drawaing the conclusion that ALPA has won some case over the CCAir MEC. It looks to me as if they have won the case over the Mesa Air Group. Did the CCAir MEC take them to court? I honestly don't know. Did the CCAir MEC request help from national in the negotiation? I don't believe all of the issues really at hand have been presented on this board. I also don't believe that you and your followers should necessarily take this as some kind of victory for your cause. It could be quite the opposite.



"You bet they have a legitimate beef. So do the wholly owned regionals on the Delta property. The difference is that you will not acknowledge the latter because you have a self-interest in the outcome of the Delta/CMR/ASA litigation but only a curiosity in the US Air Group scenario. Both situations, while not identical, embody the same basic principles. Therefore, one cannot be right and the other wrong. Either they are both legitimate or both illegitimate. The legal principles are the same. in both cases the union has violated The Duty of Fair Representation."


You really stepped on it this time, I have much more than a curiousity in the AAA group scenario. I would hope I would as the spouse of a furloughed pilot. I guess, in your infinite experience, there is something you don't know after all. She is quite well versed on the issues, and found fault with the LOA81. She thinks that the current agreement is different enough to be legal. At some point you have to be practical and ask, do you want a job, or do you want a contract but no company. You said yourself that both situations are not identical, thus by definition will be looked at seperately, with different points of view. Quite frankly, your view nor my view matter on these subjects. My view is different from yours. While it may be skewed somewhat, it is certainly a different perspective, and no less skewed than your viewpoints are.

" Our true concern should not be how to argue more convincingly but what can we do collectively to remedy the situation. How do we remove the conflicts of interest and provide fair (not equal) representation to all parties? That is the problem that must be solved and we can only solve it together.

Surplus1 [/B][/QUOTE]"

I really doubt you feel that way. I have not really read anything I would consider positive come from your keyboard. It is but just another broad recruitment stroke to your bandwagon. Like it or not, believe it or not, options have and were presented to the DCI pilots. They were just not the options they had predetermined they wanted to hear. They weren't lucrative enough for their perceived leverage. Fair enough. So be it. Don't try and convince me that you are interested in mutually beneficial solutions, however, because we are way past that point.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Please teach CSmith to use quotes!

Surplus summed it up when he wrote:

What is truly interesting is that the ALPA argues and wins that point of law in one court, but argues the exact opposite in another court (re the RJDC litigation).

More to the point, in one Court ALPA fights to enforce its Constitution and Bylaws, while in the RJDC litigation the Constitution and Bylaws are a tremendous inconvenience that ALPA can choose to ignore at its discretion - well ALPA, which is it?

Duane Woerth is running around saying 50 seats is a natural dividing line - The reason ALPA fought the CC Air agreement is that the agreement would have operated 70 and 90 seat RJ's at an airline not in ALPA's preferred club.

ALPA don't want no uppidy RJ pilot getting off the Plantation in a 70 to 90 seat jet. I can hear the dogs barking outside the big house for those that escaped with the CRJ700's.

ALPA Apartied
One Level of Discrimination

CSmith - tell me, how does this policy benefit you more than working together - as we stand here watching the approaching civil war? How do you consider the place where we have been led - "good leadership?"

There are not words to express my disgust for ALPA's failures to put the "collective" in labor bargaining. By separating us he has made us weaker. By allowing one group of ALPA members rights superior to other groups of ALPA members, he has exposed our union to incredible peril.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Re: part 2

Like it or not, believe it or not, options have and were presented to the DCI pilots. They were just not the options they had predetermined they wanted to hear. They weren't lucrative enough for their perceived leverage. Fair enough. So be it. Don't try and convince me that you are interested in mutually beneficial solutions, however, because we are way past that point.

That is a lie. Produce one scrap of paper, one reference to anything published by your MEC, or even meeting notes and I'll retract my allegation - but on the face of it - that is Delta MEC bull.

The truth is that at the Codeshare meeting Giambusso asked Arnold what he thought of a flow through and Arnold said, "we don't think very much of it." Buergey's comment was that military pilots could not be expected to start at ASA, or Comair. Arnold properly asked Buergey which he was more concerned about, his former squadron mates, or ALPA pilots who had been flying Delta passengers for years.

And therein lies the problem. The preferred ALPA airlines did not and do not want the RJ pilots in the club. Hiring at the majors has everything to do with who you know and not what you know or any objective measure of a pilot's abilities. The powers that be want to maintain the power to admit their preferred pilots to the club. Just like Augusta National was not thrilled to have Tiger play and now wants to exclude women. Mergers are never popular - the merged party is always "different."

However, ALPA was founded on beliefs that have a higher purpose. To bring together pilots to bargain collectively, to stand united to elevate the profession. In my view, leadership, would be restoration of the union to the beliefs esposed in Flying the Line, what our union was founded on.

No more ALPA Apartied - lets stop this crap!