Part 4 of 4
In the status quo, ALPA has clearly chosen to benefit you at our expense. The choice is not accidental, it is patently deliberate. That is what we object to. You can’t see it that way because you have decided that your self-interest is more important than ours. That won’t fly. The numbers of you, the size of your airline, the dues you pay in the aggregate or the size of the aircraft you pilot do not confer superior rights within the Constitution of this union. We are all of the same “class and craft.” When you come to accept that reality, whether voluntarily or imposed by a court of law, these issues can be resolved.
If you decide to leave the union it will not have a negative effect on the litigation. It’s too late for that. The injury occurred while you were in the union and the ALPA is liable for its consequences whether you leave or not. The “crime” is committed under existing law and there are no retroactive exemptions. You cannot escape judgment in one State by moving to another State.
When the union makes a decision that it will not negotiate on our behalf with the entity that controls our livelihood, which it has done, it is also telling us that it refuses to represent our interests. In that we are members and pay dues to the union to represent those interests, it is not free to do that. Like it or not, we were accepted as members and our status as members is no different than yours.
Were we to permit ALPA and the Delta pilots to do what has been done in silence a new precedent would be established, i.e., that the Delta pilots thru the ALPA may, without limit, control not your DL code but the future and the careers of Comair pilots. From my perspective, we will never cede that right to you or to ALPA. If we did so you could tomorrow, with the stroke of a pen, terminate our very existence. I suspect you would love to do just that.
You originally had the right to contractually prevent your company from acquiring other airlines or from subcontracting any of its flying to other airlines. You voluntarily decided not to do so, either deliberately or through neglect. To think that you can now retroactively put us out of business with an ever more restrictive scope clause is error and ludicrous. It is too little and too late.
You express concern that what we do may in the future extend to aircraft with 90, 110 or 150 seats. Yes, it is possible. Not because we necessarily seek it but because Delta Air Lines may seek it. That will depend on the wishes of Delta Air Lines and ALPA’s ability to negotiate it on your behalf. It can only happen if you yourselves concede it in direct negotiations with your own company. Should your company declare bankruptcy and cancel your contract it could also become a reality. On the other hand, if we allow you to continue to do as you please with respect to us, the result is self evident. You have already gone from no restrictions to 70-seats with no limits, to 70-seats with severe limits, to 50-seats with limits. Tomorrow you may well try for no seats at all. I know where that would leave you. But, where would that leave us?
There is no such claim in the litigation and in my opinion there never was. The litigation is not against Delta Air Lines and a victory by the litigants will not force Delta, Inc. to do anything.
Originally there was mention of how ALPA dealt with the PID request. That however was merely an indicator of one more example of a lack of fair representation. The judge correctly, IMO, concluded that all of the separate claims, i.e., the counts that were dismissed, were all issues of DFR. He did not throw out the allegations. He merely stated that a DFR claim, which he allowed, encompassed them all. In other words we didn’t need 10 separate Counts to prove a single point. DFR is the salient issue and always was. I sincerely believe that the final outcome will substantiate the need to adhere to it.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to the demagoguery of your questions content. As for the political slant, well, that speaks for itself.
The answers given here are only my personal opinion and I don’t know how the litigants or the RJDC would view them. This is how I view them and that view is also why I support the efforts of the RJDC. ALPA is not your union it is our union, and it must represent my interests just as it represent yours, with equal vigor. Representatives of your carrier and others like it may control ALPA but neither you, nor they, nor may ALPA control my future and that of my fellow pilots against our will or without our consent.
In the status quo, ALPA has clearly chosen to benefit you at our expense. The choice is not accidental, it is patently deliberate. That is what we object to. You can’t see it that way because you have decided that your self-interest is more important than ours. That won’t fly. The numbers of you, the size of your airline, the dues you pay in the aggregate or the size of the aircraft you pilot do not confer superior rights within the Constitution of this union. We are all of the same “class and craft.” When you come to accept that reality, whether voluntarily or imposed by a court of law, these issues can be resolved.
If you decide to leave the union it will not have a negative effect on the litigation. It’s too late for that. The injury occurred while you were in the union and the ALPA is liable for its consequences whether you leave or not. The “crime” is committed under existing law and there are no retroactive exemptions. You cannot escape judgment in one State by moving to another State.
When the union makes a decision that it will not negotiate on our behalf with the entity that controls our livelihood, which it has done, it is also telling us that it refuses to represent our interests. In that we are members and pay dues to the union to represent those interests, it is not free to do that. Like it or not, we were accepted as members and our status as members is no different than yours.
Were we to permit ALPA and the Delta pilots to do what has been done in silence a new precedent would be established, i.e., that the Delta pilots thru the ALPA may, without limit, control not your DL code but the future and the careers of Comair pilots. From my perspective, we will never cede that right to you or to ALPA. If we did so you could tomorrow, with the stroke of a pen, terminate our very existence. I suspect you would love to do just that.
You originally had the right to contractually prevent your company from acquiring other airlines or from subcontracting any of its flying to other airlines. You voluntarily decided not to do so, either deliberately or through neglect. To think that you can now retroactively put us out of business with an ever more restrictive scope clause is error and ludicrous. It is too little and too late.
You express concern that what we do may in the future extend to aircraft with 90, 110 or 150 seats. Yes, it is possible. Not because we necessarily seek it but because Delta Air Lines may seek it. That will depend on the wishes of Delta Air Lines and ALPA’s ability to negotiate it on your behalf. It can only happen if you yourselves concede it in direct negotiations with your own company. Should your company declare bankruptcy and cancel your contract it could also become a reality. On the other hand, if we allow you to continue to do as you please with respect to us, the result is self evident. You have already gone from no restrictions to 70-seats with no limits, to 70-seats with severe limits, to 50-seats with limits. Tomorrow you may well try for no seats at all. I know where that would leave you. But, where would that leave us?
There is no such claim in the litigation and in my opinion there never was. The litigation is not against Delta Air Lines and a victory by the litigants will not force Delta, Inc. to do anything.
Originally there was mention of how ALPA dealt with the PID request. That however was merely an indicator of one more example of a lack of fair representation. The judge correctly, IMO, concluded that all of the separate claims, i.e., the counts that were dismissed, were all issues of DFR. He did not throw out the allegations. He merely stated that a DFR claim, which he allowed, encompassed them all. In other words we didn’t need 10 separate Counts to prove a single point. DFR is the salient issue and always was. I sincerely believe that the final outcome will substantiate the need to adhere to it.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to the demagoguery of your questions content. As for the political slant, well, that speaks for itself.
The answers given here are only my personal opinion and I don’t know how the litigants or the RJDC would view them. This is how I view them and that view is also why I support the efforts of the RJDC. ALPA is not your union it is our union, and it must represent my interests just as it represent yours, with equal vigor. Representatives of your carrier and others like it may control ALPA but neither you, nor they, nor may ALPA control my future and that of my fellow pilots against our will or without our consent.
