N2264J said:You still refuse to answer the questions Surplus put to you.
Your avoidance of Surplus' questions is itself, a revealing answer.
It's been noted.
I'll try yet again for you N, then I suspect you'll keep avoiding my questions.
What is your take on the hypothetical outline of the "new" Air Wisconsin scope re US Airways? I haven't read it.
Would you be content if that type of scope appeared in a contract affecting the Delta pilots?
I haven't read it. But if I understand where you are coming from with this question, I'll say that I've worked for a contract carrier before, I saw the limitations of that type of career and that's why I moved on to a carrier that has scope over its flying. Would I be happy if we lost scope over our flying? No, that's why I oppose the RJDC's efforts to eliminate scope protections and increase whipsawing. I would not be content if I loss parts of the scope protections which are in my CBA.
Would you feel that efforts to prevent it were unrreasonable and without legal merit?
As a general principle, I would oppose the loss of DL scope protections which are in my CBA. That being said, negotiations are negotiations and you don't always get what you want. The collective bargaining process, as outlined in the RLA, governs the process, my efforts to protect the scope language in my contract involves collective bargaining, which is legal. I feel that it is reasonable to protect your CBA.
I just wonder how double your standard really is?
It's not a double standard at all, I believe in the collective bargaining process and I believe we should respect each others CBAs.
Do you have the guts to tell me and the rest of the audience?
I just did. How revealing is that, for the third or fourth time.
Now N, when are you going to finally answer my questions? Do you have the guts? Have I hit a raw nerve and exposed the hypocrisy of the RJDC, your lies and misleading statements? I'm waiting. Your avoidance is noted.
Last edited: