Questions the RJDC doesn't want to answer

[FDJ2]

According to the RJDC, does any pilot group own any DL code flying?

Can any pilot group own any code flying?

If you can't control (own) the code, then how can you prevent outsourcing?

According to the RJDC lawsuit, can ALPA negotiate scope language for the DAL pilots that limits another ALPA pilot group access to the DL code?

According to the RJDC, does CMR/ASA being wholly owned or not have any effect on the RJDC lawsuit? If so, what does it change?

According to the RJDC lawsuit, would ALPA be allowed to negotiate scope limits on the DL code which would prevent another ALPA pilot group from flying DL code passengers on 90 seat, 110 seat or 150 seat aircraft?

If the RJDC lawsuit were to prevail, would a combined DAL/ASA PWA be able to apply DL code scope restrictions on CMR if CMR were a wholly owned or spun off? How about scope restrictions limiting DL code access to Mesa or Freedom?

Explain the following from your lawsuit and how it prevents whipsawing and outsourcing:

Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated

 

[acarpe3448]

Simply put, THE RJDC geeks want all the flying they can get, as big a airplanes as they can get, and they will cry that their careers are hurt if they dont get their way. Look for the RJDC to add Mesa to the lawsuit saying that their lower pay hurts their career potential earnings.

 

[FDJ2]

The silence from the RJDC is telling. Come on, what are you afraid of.

 

[FN FAL]

Now that you mention it, I haven't heard much on the RJDC lately...

What's up?

 

[BeCareful!]

Now that you mention it, I haven't heard much on the RJDC lately...

What's up?

I think that, in a post 9/11 concessionary world, they see more clearly what they were doing to the industry. Really, now that major airline pilots aren't even making that much, it would seem fool hearty to go after that flying with a CRJ900 when you know your going to get raped on the wages.

I mean, how far do you want to undercut a major airline FO by these days? Their first year pay, even 2nd year, ain't that much. Even the captain wages are modest by today's standards. So, perhaps the RJDICS just decided they would cool it for a while.

 

[bvt1151]

I imagine they're starting to tire of your ignorance.

 

[FDJ2]

I imagine they're starting to tire of your ignorance.

More like afraid to reveal their own "rape scope" agenda. Wake up and smell the coffee BVT. In the meantime they still haven't answered any of these questions. Noted.

 

[~~~^~~~]

First - I am not "official" RJDC, but these are straightforward questions....

According to the RJDC, does any pilot group own any DL code flying?

Yes, absolutely.

However, there is a problem when one airline buys another airline, ALPA refuses to follow merger and fragmentation policy, then locks out the MEC's of the other ALPA represented groups under the operational control of Delta. Then after locking them out, proceeds to negotiate predatory revisions in scope language.

Can any pilot group own any code flying?

Refer to previous answer - yes.

If you can't control (own) the code, then how can you prevent outsourcing?

You can't. But the Delta MEC has tried to control, but yet not fly, outsourced flying. It is problematic to control flying you do not intend to perform. The Delta MEC has no right to control the representational rights of other ALPA members. Like cake and eating it too, it just does not work when one union has obligations to everyone on the property.

According to the RJDC lawsuit, can ALPA negotiate scope language for the DAL pilots that limits another ALPA pilot group access to the DL code?

According to the RJDC lawsuit, would ALPA be allowed to negotiate scope limits on the DL code which would prevent another ALPA pilot group from flying DL code passengers on 90 seat, 110 seat or 150 seat aircraft?

If the RJDC lawsuit were to prevail, would a combined DAL/ASA PWA be able to apply DL code scope restrictions on CMR if CMR were a wholly owned or spun off? How about scope restrictions limiting DL code access to Mesa or Freedom?

Yes, yes and yes - again the problem is that ALPA has denied the rights of ALPA members to be represented in the process of negotiating their wages and working conditions, ie scope. All these things can be accomplished, but in current form these contracts excluded ALPA members who had rights to be included. An illegal contract can not properly be enforced. ALPA's scope policy has not been effective because it was not done correctly. ALPA needs to leave the bigotry behind and focus on what meets the objective needs of its members.

Explain the following from your lawsuit and how it prevents whipsawing and outsourcing:

Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated

Your often repeated quote ( without the rest of the document ) is self explanitory. The RJDC's position is that ALPA can not lock out ALPA members with a right to participate, then use their absence to harm their careers. The union has a duty to represent all of its members. If the union chooses to ignore its obligation to its membership, then the resulting harm should be voided and the process corrected. This is not rocket science, it is just basic fair play.

Without fairness, our union loses it moral legitimacy and becomes little more than an ineffective group of thugs as each little MEC mafioso tries to take all the turf he can get. Unionism is about unity, bringing pilots together. To the extent ALPA has failed to bring pilots together, ALPA has failed.

 

[atrdriver]

Your often repeated quote ( without the rest of the document ) is self explanitory. The RJDC's position is that ALPA can not lock out ALPA members with a right to participate, then use their absence to harm their careers.

You're right, it is self explanitory. It's also the definition of scope. SWA apparantly has iron clad scope, because there is no one else flying SWA flights. Their scope affects the flying that you and I do, because we are not allowed to to it. UAL's scope clause affects us, because we don't do any UAL flying. Just because DAL's PWA allows us to do ONLY some of the flying that they own doesn't make it illegal.

 

[FDJ2]

You're right, it is self explanitory. It's also the definition of scope. SWA apparantly has iron clad scope, because there is no one else flying SWA flights. Their scope affects the flying that you and I do, because we are not allowed to to it. UAL's scope clause affects us, because we don't do any UAL flying. Just because DAL's PWA allows us to do ONLY some of the flying that they own doesn't make it illegal.

Excellent point ATRDRIVER. I applaud Fins for having the courage to at least express his personal take on the RJDC lawsuit, unfortunately as his disclaimer points out it is unofficial. I wonder if Braveheart, Inclusive, Surplus and N2264J would have the guts to answer these questions. My guess is they won't, and if they do, their answers would differ from Fins. Fins, thanks for answering the questions to the best of your ability, albeit from someone not connected with the RJDC, I hope we can discuss your take on the lawsuit in more detail in the near future.

 

[braveheart]

Questions ALPA Doesn't Want to Answer

Questions the RJDC Doesn't Want to Answer

FDJ2,

Your questions are based upon erroneous assumptions and demagoguery commonly spread by those who wish to avoid the real issue of the union's conduct. In fact, they're so predictable that the RJDC answered them over a year ago.

See: http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/mythsandfacts111803.pdf

Moreover, your questions attempt to perpetuate myths used by ALPA to justify its conduct. For instance, ALPA has long told its members that fleet and flying ratios would compel management to acquire large jets. Yet, when forced to answer questions under oath, ALPA stated that it "was not aware of having made any such study or determination."

See: http://www.rjdefense.com/2005/012905up.pdf

Not only does such an answer raise questions about the true purpose of ALPA’s small-jet restrictions, but it strongly suggests that ALPA’s leadership has misled the union’s “mainline” members as well. Had it not been for the litigation, this pertinent detail may never have been revealed to ALPA’s members.

So before you attempt to make further allegations under the guise of asking questions, please make sure they’re firmly rooted in the facts. If you wish to learn more about the RJDC’s views on scope, then please review their publication “Ten Things Every Airline Pilot Should Know About Scope.”

See: http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdf

Thanks

 

[FDJ2]

Braveheart, they are very straight forward questions and they ought to be simple to answer. There is absolutely no demagoguery in any of them. Your links did not answer these straight forward questions. Braveheart your unwillingness to answer simple straight forward questions is noteworthy. I didn't really expect for you to have the courage to answer them. Thanks for revealing yourself.

 

[FDJ2]

What is Braveheart afraid of?

Braveheart, perhaps you will muster up the fortitude to answer some straight forward questions with some straight forward answers. I'll give you your own thread so the questions won't be difficult to find. In the meantime your unwillingness to answer these simple questions, devoid of any demagoguery, is noted.

 

[braveheart]

Braveheart, perhaps you will muster up the fortitude to answer some straight forward questions with some straight forward answers.

FDJ2,

"Why did you beat your wife last night?" also appears to be a "straight forward" question but it too presupposes something that's totally false and is therefore more of an accusation than a question.

The so-called "questions" in your post are laced with red-herring issues that the RJDC's critics have attempted to raise for years in an attempt to distract folks from the real issues and to vilify those who advocate reform. For example, the interjection of 110 and 150-seat jets in the form of a question is merely a warmed over version of the false allegation that the RJDC seeks to strip the mainline pilots of their aircraft, jobs, and livelihoods.

For those who are new to the debate, here's the condensed version of "the script":

The RJDC seeks to end all scope.
The RJDC seeks to engage in class warfare against "mainline" pilots.
The RJDC seeks to strip "mainline" carriers of their aircraft.
The RJDC's efforts will reduce the number of high-paying "mainline" jobs.
The RJDC is anti-union.
The RJDC is management's puppet.
"Regional" pilots don't know how to bargain.
"Regional" pilots will work for nothing.
"Regional" pilots benefit from having their aircraft restricted.
The small-jet is a threat to the piloting profession.
The small-jet is a threat to the ATC system.
The small-jet is poorly constructed and unsafe.

Not only are such allegations totally false and irrelevant, but it's obvious that any questions drawn from "the script" are intended for purposes other than to illicit a rational discussion.

For those sincerely interested in the RJDC's views on scope, please read "Ten Things Every Airline Pilot Should Know About Scope" which can be downloaded at: http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdf .

You'll see that the very first item calls for pilots to differentiate between good scope and bad scope thereby disproving FDJ2's principle allegation that the RJDC seeks to destroy all scope.

Thanks

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2,

"Why did you beat your wife last night?" also appears to be a "straight forward" question but it too presupposes something that's totally false and is therefore more of an accusation than a question.

That question can be easily answered. Example:

Question. Why did you beat your wife last night?

Answer. I didn't beat my wife last night and I have never beaten my wife.

That dog don't hunt Braveheart, but nice try at dodging the simplest and most straight forward questions . Your unwillingness to answer some basic questions about the RJDC lawsuit and agenda is noteworthy. What are you afraid of?

 

[GogglesPisano]

My take

It seems to me that all flying done under the Delta name should be performed by Delta pilots (same for NWA, UAL ...) That pilot group may choose to allow Delta to subcontract some less desirable flying in smaller aircraft if they choose and with very strict limits.

Why does the RJDC have a problem with this very basic job protection?

 

[FDJ2]

cricket, cricket, cricket......


the sound of little crickets as the RJDC supporters continue to dodge some very basic and straight forward answers to what they are seeking from their lawsuit.

cricket, cricket, cricket......






Can any pilot group own any code flying?

If you can't control (own) the code, then how can you prevent outsourcing?

According to the RJDC lawsuit, can ALPA negotiate scope language for the DAL pilots that limits another ALPA pilot group access to the DL code?

According to the RJDC, does CMR/ASA being wholly owned or not have any effect on the RJDC lawsuit? If so, what does it change?

According to the RJDC lawsuit, would ALPA be allowed to negotiate scope limits on the DL code which would prevent another ALPA pilot group from flying DL code passengers on 90 seat, 110 seat or 150 seat aircraft?

If the RJDC lawsuit were to prevail, would a combined DAL/ASA PWA be able to apply DL code scope restrictions on CMR if CMR were a wholly owned or spun off? How about scope restrictions limiting DL code access to Mesa or Freedom?

Explain the following from your lawsuit and how it prevents whipsawing and outsourcing:

Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated

 

[SlapShot]

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck is the RJDC and what the hell do they do (or are trying to do)?

 

[FDJ2]

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck is the RJDC and what the hell do they do (or are trying to do)?

They won't say, that's the problem.

 

[Catbird]

Doesn't matter if ALPA's, Lap children don't understand the lawsuit. The judge is understanding it very well. He's use to babbling and tantrums from the "Superior class".

 

[FDJ2]

Doesn't matter if ALPA's, Lap children don't understand the lawsuit. The judge is understanding it very well. He's use to babbling and tantrums from the "Superior class".

I guess that explains why he summarily dismissed 90% of the RJDC claims before discovery. Not such a good showing for a lawsuit to have 9 out of 10 claims thrown out when the judge is required to consider all allegations as facts and give all inferences to the RJDC. I wonder how well the RJDC will do when the tables are turned on the 10% of their case that is remaining when the burden of proof is reversed.

But I digress, let's not argue the merits of the case here, let's just ask the RJDC folks to give some straight answers to some very straight questions. If they have the guts.

Don't you find it interesting that the RJDC won't answer the simplest questions about what it is they seek in court?

What do they have to hide?

 

[Catbird]

10% could become a avalanche. Save the pleading for the judge. Now get back under Duane's desk and collect those flight loss dollars!

 

[FDJ2]

10% could become a avalanche. Save the pleading for the judge.

None of these questions is about the merit of that last remaining claim. None of these questions have anything to do with pleading the case. The questions only relate to what the RJDC is asking for in their lawsuit. Why won't the RJDC tell us what are the ramifications of their lawsuit against scope protections? What is the RJDC so afraid of?

 

[Catbird]

Read the brief, when Duane gives you a breather. Make it snappy , he has your new kneepads waiting.

 

[FDJ2]

Read the brief.

I've read the decision. Reading how the RJDC lawsuit got shredded on the first motion to dismiss was fun.

Still no answer from RJDC on the simple questions regarding what they are seeking from the courts on what's left of their claims. Why does the RJDC leadership avoid telling us what they are seeking in their lawsuit? What are they so afraid of?

 

[Jetsetter]

What will happen to the RJDC lawsuit when Comair and ASA are sold to Mesa?

 

[FDJ2]

What will happen to the RJDC lawsuit when Comair and ASA are sold to Mesa?

Yet another good question.

Does the RJDC differentiate between its claims as a wholly owned subsidiary and those of any other ALPA contract carrier?

I very much doubt that Dan Ford and his cronies at the RJDC want the rest of us to know what their lawsuit is really about. That's why they repeatedly avoid answering the most basic questions about what they are seeking from the courts. Why is the RJDC so afraid of these questions? They pretend to be upfront, but then they dodge the most basic questions about their lawsuit.