BluDevAv8r said:
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.
