Don't give me that condescending tone.
Which of my condescending tones would you prefer? My "
Not all the little turtles make it to the sea" tone? Or my "
When you get older you'll understand how the world works, son." tone? How about my, "
I'll type slower so you can understand the words." tone?
Lemme know. I'm flexible.
ALPA blew off its own merger and alter ego policy.
Nice try! ALPA
interpreted Merger Policy. There have been
6 such interpretations and modifications to the Policy since 1985. You are sore about
one of them.
If the members were or are upset at the Policy, all that has to be done is a resolution before the BOD...the highest governing body in ALPA. If a majority of the votes changes the Policies, the changes you want are done.
OK. Before the purchase, Comair, all by itself, had orders and options for 90 CL-700s, the flagship of our fleet and the highest paying equipment. At the time, the Delta scope clause allowed unlimited 70 seat flying. When Delta bought ASA and Comair that went to 165 orders and options - on profile with the original order. When the ASA and Comair MECs inquired before the TA was reached, they were told that they would be informed of the mainline pilot's scope agenda "in time to do damage control." When the dust settled on contract CY2K, Comair was allowed to operate only 27 and ASA 30.
Illuminating...but not germane. Did you come to CMR only because you thought you would CL-700's? B757's? B777's? Were you aware of the market niche served by CMR when you put on your interview suit? Did you tell youir interviewer that you'd only take the job if your equipment and earnings expectations were met? If you had those grander expectations why didn't you go to UAL, NWA, or DAL directly?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but my sense is that much of the objection to the concept of Brand Scope is the perception of an "
entitlement attitude" by those pushing the agenda. What's your sense?
I've often wondered why an employee group would want to hobble a profitable division of their company, especially if they had union brothers there.
Because they're human? Because all of us evaluate "
What's in it for me?" when we analyze significant career-impact decisions? If you prefer to think it's because everybody hates you, then
Thar She Blows!, Captain Ahab. You've discovered an itch that will never be scratched by ALPA.
My personal position on the issue of Brand Scope is simple, but not easy. We should all be on the same list under our respective brands. I think MSA and PCL pilots ought to be on our list. But I think the onus is on the DCI and Airlink pilots to recognize that the "
What's in it for me?" nut is gonna have to get cracked before spontaneous group hugs break out all over the system.
Right now, mainline pilots are feeling acute pressure from the smaller equiment segment of their flying. The size of the traditional feeder aircraft is growing, and mainline pilots would be well-advised to measure the value of their concerns (and their concerns are significant and reasonable!) against reducing pressure in that segment.
For me...the math works out. But that's just me...
Mr. Vegas!
As someone who professes to be pro union, I know you're not too dense to see a representational problem here.
Hey!
I'm the
condescending tone guy here! You stick to whining and screwing up the timeline in your effort to make your argument. Don't make me Scope your butt here too!
(I was gonna say, "
So sue me!" but
that lame effort is already underway by other "victims")
