JohnDoe said:
quote:
The way I see it, there is NO solution to this current problem.
There will always be those of us who see the glass as half empty and others who see it as half full.
I not only think there is a solution, I think there are several viable options. However, we can't ever find solutions if we don't first acknowledge problems.
Additionally, recognizing the existence of a problem is not enough, we must also want to solve it.
Attempts have been made to solve the problem already; unfortunately none of them have worked. One such attempt is the ever changing scope clause, which morphed from a legitimate vehicle designed to protect work, to a illegitimate vehicle designed to prevent work by others, prevent the operation of certain aircraft types and transfer work from one group to another. That has failed miserably.
From there we went (at the same time) to promoting "flow-throughs" as the panacea that would solve everything. It didn't, mainly because we invented a need to negotiate with each other, when we really needed to negotiate with the Company. Additionally, we created grossly unbalanced systems in favor of one group, and we arbitrarily decided to use this vehicle as furlough protection. Might over right on the part of the kings and naivete on the part of the dogs caused this idea to fail too.
Then we went to "Jets for Jobs", yet another scheme designed not to resolve problems but to favor some of us over others of us. An attempt to legitimize the theft of seniority and impose dictatorial policy by outright coercion and subterfuge. Some think it is working but in fact it is not. What could have been turned into an equitable solution has been made into little more than a revelation of treachery on the part of our National Union. A black mark on its very soul.
Now we're talking about "brand scope", yet another means of attempting to obscure the problem by giving one group of the favored control of the other group of the less favored. Doomed to failure for the same reasons, i.e., it's not really a solution, it's an attempt at maintaining the status quo. Keep the problem alive as long as I come out on top. A perfect example of the famous quotation "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." - G. B. Shaw.
Have any of us ever genuinely chosen to sit down with each other and even try to work out a viable solution?
NO, not on your life. Until we do, none will be found.
There are solutions out there, some better than others but solutions nonetheless. The powers that be are so drunk with their perceived power and the desire to keep it that they don't want a real solution. So, instead of talking
with each other we talk
to each other. Much is said but little is heard and even less is listened to.
We will not find the solutions in that way, even if they are handed to us on a silver platter. Truth is half of us want a solution (the under dogs) but the other half does not (the kings of the hill). Meanwhile the situation continues to deteriorate and the kings don't realize that their kingdoms are crumbling. By the time they no longer have kingdoms to rule over it will be too late for solutions, and the biggest losers will not be the dogs, it will be the kings.
As long as you have separate employee groups, with separate and vastly different contracts, being represented by the same union, and both trying to obtain the same jobs, it will never work.
I do not agree. You are taking the position that the problem is beyond resolution, just as you did above. As long as you believe that, you are probably correct. "It takes two to tango." The fact that we have separate employee groups and separate contracts is an obstacle, but it is one that can be overcome. We have to want to do that; at present, one of the parties does not. That is why we can't get over this obstacle. "Where there's a will there's a way."
When we agree to sit down with each other as equals and chose the best option from among available remedies, we will find the solution best applicable to each of the related groups. The soulution may not be the same in every affiliated group, for one size does not fit all, but each of the affiliated groups can find an equitable balance, if they want to. Right now the kings do not want to, they are more interested in being kings. Keep that up and they will eventually be kings without kingdoms. "I have seen the emperor without his clothes."
And the cry of "one list" to fix this is a dream. No airline management in this country is ever going to allow one list between mainline and regional. They stand to lose too much. And no employee group out there has the negotiating leverage to demand one list.
I agree with you on that. Even if the kings and the dogs in fact wanted "one list", which no king does, the third party is the real Emperor and will not agree. We waste time pursueing this option, it is not viable.
This is no different than any other situation in this country. There is always going to be a winner and loser. No way around it.
We disagree again. You're the pessimist, I'm the optimist. There does not have to be a winner and a loser in this situation. The win/win solutions are out there, but they all require compromise on both sides. As long as the kings remain uncompromising, nothing will happen and the day of reckoning I predict will come to pass.
If the rjdc wins, that means Dalpa lost. Does that mean they can then turn around and sue alpa themselves because they are now losing jobs to you, an alpa carrier??
This should not be about the RJDC "winning" and the ALPA losing, nor vice versa. As for Dalpa, that is not an entity of import. In fact it is not an entity at all. The problem extends far beyond them. The problem that we need to solve affects all "mainline" and all "regional" groups. It is not limited to the DAL/ASA/CMR groups. This is a problem within the ALPA as a whole. Delta pilots are but one of the many players as are ASA and Comair. Neither the universe nor the union revolves around those three airlines, only one of which thinks that it does.
This is an ALPA-wide problem and it needs an ALPA-wide solution. Solving it at Delta and keeping it going at NWA, AAA, UAL and CAL, is not the answer. There are already lawsuits related to AAA with more to come. If the subject of this thread is realized, there will be more related to NWA, etc.
If the RJDC "wins" it won't win against Dalpa, it will win against the ALPA, Int'l. and everyone will be affected. This should not have to come to that. In my opinion we do not need a "victory". What we need is an equitable settlement of the issues that divide us, variations of which can be applied to all carriers.
I'm a dreamer, but I'm also a pragmatist. 'The meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, the function of thought is to guide action, and truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief.' -- C.S. Pierce & William James
