Comair Vote Results ???

[surplus1]

Keep sending those checks, although I guess they'll have to be a little smaller since you just took a big paycut that even managed to undercut my already-horrible rate.

Have no fear they'll keep coming even if smaller. Don't worry about our being cheaper than you, that won't last for long. You will soon have the chance to return youselves to the cheapeast category that you've been bragging about in the other thread. Just be content they're still letting you play while we find out if NW is willing to go low enough to take all your flying (without you of course).

 

[PCL_128]

Don't worry about our being cheaper than you, that won't last for long. You will soon have the chance to return youselves to the cheapeast category that you've been bragging about in the other thread.

Sorry, ain't gonna happen. You guys may be willing to back down and take paycuts for "growth," but some pilot groups have had enough. The Skywest guys said NO to that pathetic 2% raise, the ASA guys said NO to concessions for growth, and we just said NO to management's pathetic proposal a few weeks ago. Some people still have a backbone.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I've looked backwards...read all the articles, followed the issues, enjoyed the vitriolic yellow journalism spewed by the RJDC (my view and my view only) and while I believe that all mainline MEC's (including AMR's APA as well as the ALPA MEC's) dropped the ball on the RJ issue over 10 years ago (all jet flying should have remained at those carriers in my view)...that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to curb this problem and manage through it as best as we can. So again, while understanding the past is part of understanding the problem, I choose not to dwell on the past and choose to look forward to the future in dealing with this issue.

-Neal

I see now why you were picked for yet another useless Herndon committee. Have you at least read the scope committee reports from 1995? If so, you are ahead of TW. Speaking of TW, is the BSIC still in business? If so, how will it fit into your committee. I guess that will be a new "joint task force". It will be the BFFDBSCTF, or Bilateral Fee For Departure Brand Scope Committee Task Force. Oh well, when your finished with your report can you send me a copy - I can file it with the rest of the ALPA and IACP reports dealing with this issue. I may need another filing cabinet though as this one is filling up.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

You're entitled to your own opinion but thanks for providing a window of opportunity to voice mine. I find that statement not only humourous but extremely naive, especially coming from people who cow-tow to the back stabbing SOB's who, while smiling to your face and taking you to free lunches, spend their time plotting how to piss on your pilot group and cheat you out of your livelihood at every opportunity. [My view and my view only.]

Enjoy your tenure on yet another "new" do nothing committe that is no more than the latest scam and window dressing from that group of entrenched wind bags. About the only thing surprising is that Woerth didn't again choose that lackey TW to chair it once more.

I find it ludicrous that you want to "mange through" what you call a "problem", which in reality is a long-standing scheme to eliminate pilot groups like yours and mine. I give them credit in that they are always able to come up with a crew of Kool Aid drinkers willing to help them plot against their fellows without even realizing it. I would classify those who fall for it not as potential saviors but as Trojan Horses. [Again, my view and my view only.]

There's a sucker born every day.

I see now why you were picked for yet another useless Herndon committee. Have you at least read the scope committee reports from 1995? If so, you are ahead of TW. Speaking of TW, is the BSIC still in business? If so, how will it fit into your committee. I guess that will be a new "joint task force". It will be the BFFDBSCTF, or Bilateral Fee For Departure Brand Scope Committee Task Force. Oh well, when your finished with your report can you send me a copy - I can file it with the rest of the ALPA and IACP reports dealing with this issue. I may need another filing cabinet though as this one is filling up.

Sorry but I am not going to respond to either of your condescending personal attacks. If you want to debate the issue, drop me a PM. But if you are going to continue to bash me and others, then I'll pass on this "discussion."

-Neal

 

[JoeMerchant]

Sorry but I am not going to respond to your condescending personal attacks. If you want to debate the issue, drop me a PM. But if you are going to continue to bash me and others, then I'll pass on this "discussion."

-Neal

Neal, I know the people who are involved in RJDC and everyone of them has supported ALPA and the idea of improving the plight of regional pilots. It was you who has personally attacked every one of these people with the following quote:

"vitriolic yellow journalism spewed by the RJDC"

Whether you like it or not, many of these people "spewing" this information have been ALPA volunteers as MEC Chairmen, Status reps, and Committee Chairmen. They could give tours of the Herndon facility and have given over 40 years of combined ALPA service. Dan Ford was instrumental in the Brasilia Prop. investigation as an ALPA safety member and did some fantastic work that benefited all Brasilia operaters including CoEx. For a member of this new "task force" to personally attack these people is very telling of how this committee is going to work.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal, I know the people who are involved in RJDC and everyone of them has supported ALPA and the idea of improving the plight of regional pilots. It was you who has personally attacked every one of these people with the following quote:

"vitriolic yellow journalism spewed by the RJDC"

Whether you like it or not, many of these people "spewing" this information have been ALPA volunteers as MEC Chairmen, Status reps, and Committee Chairmen. They could give tours of the Herndon facility and have given over 40 years of combined ALPA service. Dan Ford was instrumental in the Brasilia Prop. investigation as an ALPA safety member and did some fantastic work that benefited all Brasilia operaters including CoEx. For a member of this new "task force" to personally attack these people is very telling of how this committee is going to work.

Attacking an organization is slightly different than attacking the names and personalities behind them. My judgements about the RJDC are based off of their publications, press releases, and other materials. I have never met any of the people involved in the RJDC...but I am aware of their claims and their publications. I disagree vehemently with the mission statement, claims, and lawsuit of the RJDC. Even if the mission were a valid one in my eyes, the method in which the RJDC is trying to get its point across is where my real angst lies. I'll leave it at that for now.

If you want to continue to have a rational debate, so be it...if you are going to take a stab at me from an anonymous perch, nevermind.

-Neal

 

[surplus1]

Sorry but I am not going to respond to either of your condescending personal attacks. If you want to debate the issue, drop me a PM. But if you are going to continue to bash me and others, then I'll pass on this "discussion."

-Neal

I can't speak for JoeMerchant. I have no idea who he might be and that is not important to me. The only thing that is important is what he says. The same applies to you, i.e., your identity is irrelevant; your opinions are not.

I've read my post again as well as his and yours. I don't see any "personal attack" in what I wrote any more than I see a "personal attack" in what you wrote or what he wrote. Your's was an attack on the RJDC and it's policies; mine was a counter attack on the ALPA policies. Neither one is "personal". You support ALPA's policies, I support the RJDC; same difference.

If you don't think "vitriolic, yellow journalism" is condescending, then I don't know what is. If you enter the debate over these issues you do so with the full knowledge that the differences of opinion are not casual and the debate will be heated. When you make that kind of statement it will generate a similar response. That's what you got from me, not a personal attack. You are entitled to your opinions on the issues and I am equally entitled to mine. They just happen to be different.

The bottom line is that the issues involved are not going to be resolved in any "committee" no matter what you call it. They are going to be resolved in a court of law. Whoever "loses" isn't going to be happy but the battle will be over.

There is another way to resolve this but the current administration of the ALPA obviously has no intention of doing that. So, unless the administration and its policies change, the solution will have to come from a court. Once the court has delivered its order, no "committee" will matter, and neither will your opinion or mine. Unfortunately, that is the reality of the situation. Either the Association changes its policy and provides fair representation to ALL its members, regardless of their airline affiliation or the litigation will continue to its final conclusion.

The first "committe" formed to deal with these issues tried very hard to make a balanced report and did so. However, that report was repeatedly voted down by 4 airlines, UAL, DAL, NWA and USA, until the final report had been wartered down to meaningless babble. Some call that "democracy", I call it oligarchy. A so-called democracy that does not protect the rights of the minority is doomed to eventual failure, often preceeded by revolution. In my opinion, that's exactly where the ALPA finds itself today.

Four or five large airlines seek to control and dictate to the 35 small airlines. They have decided unilaterally that their rights exceed those of everyone else. Well they don't! Since the dispute isn't being resolved internally, the only recourse is the courts. If the ALPA has in fact complied with the law, then it has nothing to fear. However, whether it has or not is not going to be determined in a "committee" or a "council", it is going to be determined in a court of law.

ALPA can call the litigation "meaningless" and you can call the opinions of the RJDC "vitriolic yellow journalism" to your hearts content. The only thing that really matters is the final decision of the courts.

Meanwhile the ALPA's flawed policies continue unabated, and the number of lawsuits against those actions continues to increase. It is often the polcy of a big corporation to delay litigation (against which it has no true defense) in hopes that the plaintiff will eventually run out of money and the suit will go away. Well, that isn't going to happen this time. That's a risky strategy for a defendant and when it doesn't work the outcome can have very serious ramifications. What is lost could be far worse than what ALPA hopes to gain. That's a big price to pay for the bad policies of one administration.

The problem isn't the institution, it's the people that are running it.

 

[PCL_128]

Come on, surplus! You know very well that ALPA has plenty of reasons to be delaying this silly lawsuit, and none of it has to do with not having a valid defense. The truth is, the burdon of proof on the part of the RJDC is extremely high. DFR is notoriously difficult to prove. You're fighting an uphill battle, and I guarantee that ALPA isn't delaying because they are worried about having a defense.

ALPA has real battles to fight right now. NWA and DAL are in big fights to preserve their CBAs to the greatest extent possible. NWA could go on strike and end up liquidating in a matter of weeks. Pension reform is a top priority. The list goes on and on. ALPA has been pretty busy for the past 5 years, and your unfounded lawsuit isn't exactly on the top of the priority list since you have very little chance of being successful anyway. This is the real reason that ALPA is delaying. The ALPA legal department has real concerns that affect many thousands of pilots to deal with. Responding to a lawsuit filed by a few malcontent whiners is the least of their concerns.

 

[surplus1]

I wonder, PCL, did you ever hear of Duke-Spellacy? How about Bernard v ALPA?. Your tune is a replay of ALPA's during those cases. I can only hope that the outcome is also a replay.

You're right DFR litigation is indeed difficult to win. However, alsmost every day ALPA makes it just a little bit easier.

 

[N2264J]

I get so sick and tired of people saying BS like: "I thought it would be better to make $XX / hour than have no job at all. With that mentality, you might as well give up now. Some things are worth fighting for and pilots deserve a fair wage. Making $20 an hour is ludicrous and anyone agreeing to it is a moron. For God sake, stand up for yourselves. Have some dignity.

Point taken, you sexy, sexy man-boy!

By the way, how's that Brand Scope workin' out for ya?