RJDC Litigation Update 06-12-07

[737 Pylt]

I'm hearing through the grape vine that Delta pilots are exploring a lawsuit against ALPA because they think the bankruptcy claim wasn't dispersed fairly. Yes?

If you get dan's hands off your ears long enough to know that what you're hearing is noise! But why try to confuse you morons with facts! you seem to have the same spokesperson as baghdad bob! Why not try to fix your (lack of education) and dui's and get on with a better airline? Or you could just wait for the huge garage sale! Hello Mesa fodder!:laugh:

737

 

[JoeMerchant]

I'd wager that Rez and I are far more educated on the subject than you, Joey, or any of the other RJDC cultists. You guys think you understand the lawsuit, but you seem to lack even a basic understanding of what it requests in relief, and what the unintended (and intended) consequences would be.

I suppose your talking about the lie that it would result in the end of scope, however that isn't true and you know it..... Please sight the wording that you believe would have negative consequences.....

 

[Jmoney]

Ouch!

That last barb at Mr. Merchant was harsh-yet funny!

-Will the real slim shady please stand up?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You RJDC Cheerleaders are real gems. When you got called out on your lawsuit your defense is..look.. other pilots are sueing ALPA... see its ok!

It doesn't matter if you were doctors, lawyers, architechs, whatever... you'd sue. You aren't here for the Air Line Pilot profession. You are here for you. You sue if things didn't go your way. If you were doctors you'd sue the insurance companies, the buy out corporation and the AMA.

You'd rather negatively impact the profession for your own special payout. Just as long as you got yours.

The fact is you got someone to sue. Professionals in ther industries that don't have representation get "slighted" and no recourse. No organization to sue. The realize life isn't fair and move on....

The difference between you and the Emery and TWA guys is they are no longer members. You still are. Act like it.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Please sight the wording that you believe would have negative consequences.....

I am waiting for you to tell us, how your lawsuit is in the best intrest of RJ pilots...

 

[JoeMerchant]

As I told your FAA registration friend.... As long as you guys keep feeling the deisre to politicize the RJDC by coming on FI and trying to peddle your poison to the new kids, I am going to call you out.

One of ALPA's problems is the way they define being an Air Line Pilot. They create high-mx school gilrs like you who expect to be given everything all for a cheap and lousy 1.95%. Before you know it you got professional airline pilots living on union welfare. There is little difference between you and a two dollah crack ho' on gov't welfare who sues the state cause they got high colresteral from buying steaks on food stamps....

Rez, I'm not demanding that my union give me "everything all for a cheap and lousy 1.95%". I don't want my union to use MY JOB as a bargaining chip at the mainline bargaining table. If this work hadn't been outsourced in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this debate. However it was, and now my job belongs to me, not to the DAL MEC. If scope is going to involve my job, and if my bargaining agent (ALPA) is going to sign the agreement, then I should have a say.

Joe, my son, the intent to bring up article VIII was to show the level of disdain for your actions. And what the equivilant of your actions against you would be...

I don't really care what the level of disdain is, in fact the more disdain from people like you, the more I know it is having an effect. Why don't you follow through with your threat and bring me up on article VIII charges? I have heard those idle threats for years now, and I respond the same way every time.... bring it on.... however much like ALPA, it's all bark and no bite..

It's called a democracy Joe.... maybe you should try respecting it...

What? I asked what you thought of an ALPA EVP suing ALPA for DFR? It can't be that bad if you still can rise to the level of EVP. Why don't you do a little history on Cress's lawsuit. What do you think would have happened if he hadn't sued for DFR when Alaska purchased JetAmerica?

By the way, pure democracy is mob rule if there aren't protections in place for the minority position......

I don't get it.... you lawsiut guys think ALPA plans to screw you....

I don't think they intended to screw the TWA guys or the Emery guys... sure there are others that thing ALPA did say screw 'em... but we all have our opinons

No Rez, you don't get it. I do not believe that anyone in ALPA wakes up in the morning and says "Hey let's screw the ASA pilots".

I do however think that ALPA will do what it thinks is best for the mainline pilots EVEN IF IT HAS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR REGIONAL PILOTS... In other words the needs of the many outway the needs of the few...

If ALPA continues with that behavior, then it will continue to find itself in court over DFR.... If it reforms it's behavior, then the lawsuits will go away...

 

[PCL_128]

I suppose your talking about the lie that it would result in the end of scope, however that isn't true and you know it..... Please sight the wording that you believe would have negative consequences.....

Sorry, but I've played that game with you too many times before to no avail. Both FJD2 and I have repeatedly quoted the relief section of the litigation that seeks an end to all effective scope language. You know it's there.

 

[JoeMerchant]

You RJDC Cheerleaders are real gems. When you got called out on your lawsuit your defense is..look.. other pilots are sueing ALPA... see its ok!

It doesn't matter if you were doctors, lawyers, architechs, whatever... you'd sue. You aren't here for the Air Line Pilot profession. You are here for you. You sue if things didn't go your way. If you were doctors you'd sue the insurance companies, the buy out corporation and the AMA.

You'd rather negatively impact the profession for your own special payout. Just as long as you got yours.

....and you are real ALPA spin doctor....

We don't really care what YOU think of it, we are countering YOUR argument that you can't sue and still be a good member of ALPA. THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT, and to that we have pointed numerous other lawsuits, including those of ALPA EVPs and the former UAL MEC Chairman.

As to the comparison to "doctors, lawyers, architects", we would also have the ability to transport our level of experience across company lines.... that would solve many of ALPA's problems right there.....

 

[JoeMerchant]

Sorry, John, but I've played that game with you too many times before to no avail. Both FJD2 and I have repeatedly quoted the relief section of the litigation that seeks an end to all effective scope language. You know it's there.

No it's not there the way you are spinning it. Are you implying that including other ALPA groups in the scope would make it "ineffective"? Is the current approach "effective". Is having 9 DCI carriers "effective"?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Rez, I'm not demanding that my union give me "everything all for a cheap and lousy 1.95%". I don't want my union to use MY JOB as a bargaining chip at the mainline bargaining table. If this work hadn't been outsourced in the first place, we wouldn't even be having this debate. However it was, and now my job belongs to me, not to the DAL MEC. If scope is going to involve my job, and if my bargaining agent (ALPA) is going to sign the agreement, then I should have a say.

If the work had never been outsourced in the first place then you wouldn't have a job. The reason why DCI and all the other brand regionals exist is pure market forces.

How were the mainline guys supposed to stop their companies from creating outside venders?

I don't really care what the level of disdain is, in fact the more disdain from people like you, the more I know it is having an effect.

Wrong... if you want your political movement that you call the RJDC coalition, to be succesful you need as much support as you can get...

Why don't you follow through with your threat and bring me up on article VIII charges? I have heard those idle threats for years now, and I respond the same way every time.... bring it on.... however much like ALPA, it's all bark and no bite..

There have only been four successful AVIII hearings in ALPA's history.

What? I asked what you thought of an ALPA EVP suing ALPA for DFR? It can't be that bad if you still can rise to the level of EVP. Why don't you do a little history on Cress's lawsuit. What do you think would have happened if he hadn't sued for DFR when Alaska purchased JetAmerica?

I am not educated on that. School me. In fact do you have it as an example on your website?

By the way, pure democracy is mob rule if there aren't protections in place for the minority position......

Aww..how cute...too bad ALPA is a representational demoracy...

No Rez, you don't get it. I do not believe that anyone in ALPA wakes up in the morning and says "Hey let's screw the ASA pilots".

Then have some objectivity....

I do however think that ALPA will do what it thinks is best for the mainline pilots EVEN IF IT HAS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR REGIONAL PILOTS... In other words the needs of the many outway the needs of the few...

So how do you plan on making whole, or fixing what has been harmed for the regional guys.... what exactly is the intended results...

If ALPA continues with that behavior, then it will continue to find itself in court over DFR.... If it reforms it's behavior, then the lawsuits will go away...

How will ALPA reform its behavior? What will they or what should they do differently?


Let's look at the minority handicap in this country. In addition to stairs, ramps are built. Now both handicap and non handicap people can both have equal access to buidings...

How do you plan to have equal DFR by ALPA for both DCI and DAL pilots?

 

[PCL_128]

No it's not there the way you are spinning it. Are you implying that including other ALPA groups in the scope would make it "ineffective"? Is the current approach "effective". Is having 9 DCI carriers "effective"?

The relief section doesn't specify what form of scope would be acceptable to you guys. Dan has always said that scope should "include, not exclude," but that doesn't make any sense. Scope, by definition, excludes. If DAL negotiated scope that "includes" ASA and CMR exclusively for all 70-seat flying, then you'd claim that they were "excluding" you from the larger flying. Give me an example of mainline scope that would satisfy you and also fit within the definition of acceptable scope under the litigation.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

and you are real ALPA spin doctor....

No Joe...you are the minority here...

We don't really care what YOU think of it, we are countering YOUR argument that you can't sue and still be a good member of ALPA. THAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT, and to that we have pointed numerous other lawsuits, including those of ALPA EVPs and the former UAL MEC Chairman.

Yes you do care... that is why you keep posting/debating on the subject.. thinking that if you can win the popular contest of wit on the message boards then your silly lawsuit might have merit..

As to the comparison to "doctors, lawyers, architects", we would also have the ability to transport our level of experience across company lines.... that would solve many of ALPA's problems right there.....

Why is that ALPA's fault that we can't transport seniority? Hey superchief... you have to convince the next company to pay you at your seniority level....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

No it's not there the way you are spinning it. Are you implying that including other ALPA groups in the scope would make it "ineffective"? Is the current approach "effective". Is having 9 DCI carriers "effective"?

Why are the UAL regional guys not as smart as you? Is ignorance bliss over there in UAL world...? Have they not seen the RJDC light?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The relief section doesn't specify what form of scope would be acceptable to you guys. Dan has always said that scope should "include, not exclude," but that doesn't make any sense. Scope, by definition, excludes. If DAL negotiated scope that "includes" ASA and CMR exclusively for all 70-seat flying, then you'd claim that they were "excluding" you from the larger flying. Give me an example of mainline scope that would satisfy you and also fit within the definition of acceptable scope under the litigation.

It is more like Brand Scope or nextgen scope. But in order to do that you've got to build relationships and teams across lines. Not walls and lawsuits...

here is a cut and paste from a while ago...

Brand Scope is one pilot group’s negotiated right to fly the entire Brand. For Example: All UAL flying will be done by one pilot list. All DAL flying will be done by one pilot list. There would be no more United Express pilots or Delta Connection pilots. Only United Pilots and Delta Pilots. This basically amounts to flowthru and flowback.

This discussion isn’t about sacrificing one group for another. This is about blending multiple Brand pilot groups into One Brand Pilot Group.

Major airline pilots must resist the urge to shun this idea as degradation of their status. And this is for a couple of reasons; the degradation has already happened. Furloughed major Air Line Pilots are taking jobs at regionals. One Brand Pilot Group Unification must occur to stop the whipsawing and race to the bottom.

Why flow thru and back? Because it is currently being done reactively in concessionary agreements including J4J. AMR is doing it and so is UAL. These pilot groups negotiate employment for their furloughed pilots within the Regionals. The idea is to proactively place this into the CBA under terms and conditions favorable to all Brand pilots. If Legacy Carrier pilots are to stop losing flying to small jet operators they must take ownership of all their Brand flying.

While pilots that flow thru/back will work for different companies they do fly for the same Brand. The collective bargaining strength of all of the Brand pilots will prove long term to be win-win for all.

The legacy carrier will control the minimum hiring requirements, interviewing and selection process. Pilots will bid for what their seniority can hold. Flight experience may be a factor. In the interests of safety the union will be party to determining the minimum requirements.

One pilot group with one brand scope can prevent the losses of flying shifted from narrowbody jets to small jets and turboprops. The Brand Scope will also prevent management from placing Brand flying “up for bid” from other regional carriers who are willing to undercut the current operators. This is simply scope expanded to encompass the entire brand. The bankruptcy process still makes pilot groups vulnerable.

The problem with the above is airlines like Mesa and TSA that do flying for multiple brands. Which list do those pilots fall under? In addition there will be a big price the Legacy carrier pilots will have to pay to negotiate this thru. Haven't they been paying a pig price already.....??

 

[~~~^~~~]

The relief section doesn't specify what form of scope would be acceptable to you guys. Dan has always said that scope should "include, not exclude," but that doesn't make any sense. Scope, by definition, excludes. If DAL negotiated scope that "includes" ASA and CMR exclusively for all 70-seat flying, then you'd claim that they were "excluding" you from the larger flying. Give me an example of mainline scope that would satisfy you and also fit within the definition of acceptable scope under the litigation.

PCL, I think I've answered this before, so if this is redundant, my apologies.

Perfect scope is all Delta flying done by Delta pilots. This could have been achieved with ALPA's support for a PID when Delta acquired the airlines performing Connection flying in 1999 and 2000. (Inclusive Scope)

Not as good scope would be ALPA negotiating scope which would have limited Delta flying to Delta, Comair and ASA. Scope which limited outsourcing to non-Delta, non-ALPA, pilots. (again, Inclusive Scope)

Not as good as that scope, would be scope negotiations which at least allowed ASA and Comair pilots to represent their pilots to their Master, which in this case is Delta. (sort of Inclusive Scope, at least those affected ALPA members are invited to the table)

Even less effective scope would be a holding company letter. (Exclusive Scope)

No scope is "scope" achieved by underbidding other pilots for the work. (Exclusive Scope)

Right now we are in the "no scope" zone. To re-create better scope it would be necessary to first wipe the slate clean and bring the parties to the table to re-negotiate scope which includes all the involved parties.

It may seem events may have eclipsed the relief section that was drafted 7 years ago. (remember the suit is based on CY96 scope language and changes in the 2000 deal) Back then 10 Connection carriers was the nightmare scenario which was envisioned could result from ALPA's actions. Obviously now there are other ALPA members that would be negatively effected and I'm not sure a ASA new hire is in any different position than a Mesa / Freedom new hire who does Connection flying. But the litigation has to take a point to start from. What has happened since then is the measure of change.

The RJDC has never published their version of idea scope. They have written a lot on the basic tenets that I have extrapolated into a range of scope solutions. However, there are a million shades of gray and variations that pilots might want to negotiate. The RJDC has always deferred to the elected representatives as the party that has the authority and responsibility to negotiate on behalf of their pilots. And I actually saw this start to happen!

Once, when I thought tripartied negotiations were going to settle this mess, Dan Ford immediately stepped back and put the ASA and Comair MECs on notice that the elected representatives would go forward to negotiate on the behalf of their pilots. In effect, all Dan wanted to do was to give the ASA and Comair MEC's equal opportunity to work with the Delta MEC on mutually beneficial scope.

You who see yourself as true blue ALPA patriots do not seem to ever realize that the RJDC has never supported decertification, has supported ALPA in representational votes and has looked to ALPA's leadership to negotiate scope on behalf of its pilots.

This is not a divorce case. It is a paternity case. The RJDC litigation seeks to have the red headed stepchildren treated like the fair headed wonders. We want to be included in the family and treated like the other kids. How is that for a Father's Day pun?

 

[PCL_128]

Perfect scope is all Delta flying done by Delta pilots. This could have been achieved with ALPA's support for a PID when Delta acquired the airlines performing Connection flying in 1999 and 2000. (Inclusive Scope)

No it couldn't. None of the affected contracts required a merger. You can file PIDs until you're blue in the face, but management doesn't have to merge the lists unless your CBA requires it. I agree that the best scope would be all DAL flying performed by DAL pilots, but getting to a single list at this point is all but impossible. How do you handle Mesa, CHQ, and PCL, which all fly DAL feed but also fly feed for other carriers?

Not as good scope would be ALPA negotiating scope which would have limited Delta flying to Delta, Comair and ASA. Scope which limited outsourcing to non-Delta, non-ALPA, pilots. (again, Inclusive Scope)

That would certainly be better scope, but that scope "excludes" other ALPA members at carriers other than CMR and ASA. The problem with the lawsuit is that it requests an end to all scope that places limits on other ALPA carriers. That means that any scope that "excludes" PCL, MAG, or any other ALPA carrier in favor of CMR and ASA would not be allowed under the terms of the litigation's requested relief.

Not as good as that scope, would be scope negotiations which at least allowed ASA and Comair pilots to represent their pilots to their Master, which in this case is Delta. (sort of Inclusive Scope, at least those affected ALPA members are invited to the table)

This, by far, is the most absurd demand that the RJDC has made since the beginning. You work for ASA, not Delta. Demanding to negotiate with Delta management is simply ridiculous. If you want your issues to be heard by Delta management, then I suggest building a better relationship with the DAL MEC and have them carry your issues to management. (hint: building a better relationship with the DAL MEC requires you to stop acting like a union terrorist with this lawsuit)

Even less effective scope would be a holding company letter. (Exclusive Scope)

Are you referring to a letter with Delta?

No scope is "scope" achieved by underbidding other pilots for the work. (Exclusive Scope)

Right now we are in the "no scope" zone. To re-create better scope it would be necessary to first wipe the slate clean and bring the parties to the table to re-negotiate scope which includes all the involved parties.

Now events may have eclipsed the relief section that was drafted 7 years ago. Back then 10 Connection carriers was the nightmare scenario. Obviously now there are other ALPA members that would be negatively effected and I'm not sure a ASA new hire is in any different position than a Mesa / Freedom new hire who does Connection flying.

That's your biggest problem now. It's impossible for you to now get any sort of palatable resolution out of this lawsuit. You can't restrict all DCI flying to only CMR and ASA because ALPA members from other airlines would be "excluded." You also can't eliminate DAL scope because then DAL would just outsource flying of even bigger jets to your competitors who will do the flying for less than you will. You can't win in this situation. Your best strategy is to build a relationship with the DAL MEC so that mutual solutions can eventually be worked on. The first step is to put an end to this ridiculous lawsuit and organization.

The RJDC has never published their version of idea scope.

Of course not, because they were never interested in "inclusive" scope. They were interested in three things: a seniority windfall, a massive cash settlement, and revenge against the DAL pilots who they perceive as their enemies. That's all this has ever been about to "PETER PAN" and his ilk. You've just been sucked into it because you truly want to see ALPA better itself. This isn't the way to make ALPA better. You'll realize that eventually.

You who see yourself as true blue ALPA patriots do not seem to ever realize that the RJDC has never supported decertification, has supported ALPA in representational votes and has looked to ALPA's leadership to negotiate scope on behalf of its pilots.

"TINKERBELL" herself "CAPTAIN HOOK " has been on this board trying to tell the Skywest pilots not to certify ALPA. How is that "supporting ALPA representational votes?" "THE LOST BOYS" has done the same and has been very active in trying to get a decertification effort going at ASA. Granted, he isn't a named litigant or RJDC officer, but he is at the forefront of the RJDC movement. I've never seen anything magnanimous from Dan and his crew, and his bad reputation precedes him in ALPA circles.

The RJDC litigation seeks to have the red headed stepchildren treated like the fair headed wonders. We want to be included in the family and treated like the other kids.

The RJDC seeks a seniority grab, a bunch of money, and revenge. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[~~~^~~~]

This, by far, is the most absurd demand that the RJDC has made since the beginning. You work for ASA, not Delta. Demanding to negotiate with Delta management is simply ridiculous. If you want your issues to be heard by Delta management, then I suggest building a better relationship with the DAL MEC and have them carry your issues to management. (hint: building a better relationship with the DAL MEC requires you to stop acting like a union terrorist with this lawsuit)

But this is "Brand Scope" by ALPA's own definition and Comair just did it with ALPA's support. Even ALPA is coming around on this.

We agree on my greatest concern about this litigation. I too am coming to the opinion that ALPA will not reform. Its' intransigence will result in a loss which awards a large settlement to a handful of Plaintiffs. You are correct that the situation at DCI has deteriorated to the point where it probably can't be fixed, which is exactly what documents the Plaintiff's damage claims.

Couple of other minor points:

I don't think "Braveheart" is Capt. Ford. Also, he had an excellent reputation prior to his effort to reform ALPA. Had ALPA not taken action which resulted in his flying being redistributed to 10 cut rate competitors while locking his Reps out of scope negotiations he would have remained a safety nerd.

A seniority list across companies within a brand is possible. Look at all the variations of seniority lists ALPA negotiated on the US Air property. Look at the Republic, MidAtlantic, Chautaqua, Shuttle America single list. I'm not saying that should serve as a model, but Pinnacle, SkyWest and Mesa already have preferred deals at DAL that was negotiated by the DAL MEC.

There is precedent and a general trend already. Brand Scope would take National leadership and something to make the mainline guys want it too. A carrot, a stick, I don't know....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

but management doesn't have to

Stop right there. Readers..... soak this in for a minute. With the RLA, current administration and political environement..... management doesn't have to do anything....

They have lawyers telling them how to get our of current CBA's and they certainly don't have to agree to a National Single list, National Pay rates.. Brand seniority lists... The traveling public wants to show up at the airport and fly to point B. they don't want labor issues.....

That would certainly be better scope, but that scope "excludes" other ALPA members at carriers other than CMR and ASA. The problem with the lawsuit is that it requests an end to all scope that places limits on other ALPA carriers. That means that any scope that "excludes" PCL, MAG, or any other ALPA carrier in favor of CMR and ASA would not be allowed under the terms of the litigation's requested relief.

Does that mean that the pilots of MAG, PCL or other ALPA carriers can sue the RJDC for the same reason the RJDC is sueing ALPA?

This, by far, is the most absurd demand that the RJDC has made since the beginning. You work for ASA, not Delta. Demanding to negotiate with Delta management is simply ridiculous. If you want your issues to be heard by Delta management, then I suggest building a better relationship with the DAL MEC and have them carry your issues to management. (hint: building a better relationship with the DAL MEC requires you to stop acting like a union terrorist with this lawsuit)

Exactly.... it is like sueing the US Gov't for the bahavior of a foreign state.

That's your biggest problem now. It's impossible for you to now get any sort of palatable resolution out of this lawsuit. You can't restrict all DCI flying to only CMR and ASA because ALPA members from other airlines would be "excluded." You also can't eliminate DAL scope because then DAL would just outsource flying of even bigger jets to your competitors who will do the flying for less than you will. You can't win in this situation. Your best strategy is to build a relationship with the DAL MEC so that mutual solutions can eventually be worked on. The first step is to put an end to this ridiculous lawsuit and organization.

Well said....

Of course not, because they were never interested in "inclusive" scope. They were interested in three things: a seniority windfall, a massive cash settlement, and revenge against the DAL pilots who they perceive as their enemies. That's all this has ever been about to Dan and his ilk. You've just been sucked into it because you truly want to see ALPA better itself. This isn't the way to make ALPA better. You'll realize that eventually.

Well said...

Dan Ford himself (Braveheart) has been on this board trying to tell the Skywest pilots not to certify ALPA. How is that "supporting ALPA representational votes?" Johnny has done the same and has been very active in trying to get a decertification effort going at ASA. Granted, he isn't a named litigant or RJDC officer, but he is at the forefront of the RJDC movement. I've never seen anything magnanimous from Dan and his crew, and his bad reputation precedes him in ALPA circles.

I don't see the other "brave" pilots who are sueing ALPA tryng to stop organizing efforts...

The RJDC seeks a seniority grab, a bunch of money, and revenge. Nothing more, nothing less.

In addition they cannot discuss the intended and unitended consequences of their actions....in terms of scope....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

But this is "Brand Scope" by ALPA's own definition and Comair just did it with ALPA's support. Even ALPA is coming around on this.

So let's keep working for change instead of lawsuits.... Part of the effort is to create a grassroots movement amongst the membership. Instead of defending silly divisive lawsuits you should be posting about how guys should be particapting in the democratic process to bring about brand scope...

If there was a such a grassroots movement amongts the membership then the leadership would have the political push and confidence to proceed.

We agree on my greatest concern about this litigation. I too am coming to the opinion that ALPA will not reform. Its' intransigence will result in a loss which awards a large settlement to a handful of Plaintiffs. You are correct that the situation at DCI has deteriorated to the point where it probably can't be fixed, which is exactly what documents the Plaintiff's damage claims.

Should the leadership stick out their necks? Maybe. Can you make them reform? One way to do it is to have a membership drive....

Couple of other minor points:

I don't think "Braveheart" is Capt. Ford. Also, he had an excellent reputation prior to his effort to reform ALPA. Had ALPA not taken action which resulted in his flying being redistributed to 10 cut rate competitors while locking his Reps out of scope negotiations he would have remained a safety nerd.

A leadership failure? why did he not stick with his vision.

A seniority list across companies within a brand is possible. Look at all the variations of seniority lists ALPA negotiated on the US Air property. Look at the Republic, MidAtlantic, Chautaqua, Shuttle America single list. I'm not saying that should serve as a model, but Pinnacle, SkyWest and Mesa already have preferred deals at DAL that was negotiated by the DAL MEC.

Of course it is possible.... I am not sure the leadership has time to address it. they are busy meeting with ALPA legal to address a lawsuit...

There is precedent and a general trend already. Brand Scope would take National leadership and something to make the mainline guys want it too. A carrot, a stick, I don't know....

First it starts with a membership grassroots movement. Then it takes the national leadership to get the MEC's together to work together. A dual front if you will..... the desire of the memebrship and the leadership of national ...meeting in the middle to effect positive change...


Note: no where is a lawsuit mentioned to make it work...... in fact when a lawsuit is mention the discussion is about how the lawsuit is counter productive.. and regressive...

Working for positive change takes time... and with the the BK era consumming so much time of course it will take longer...

But now that the BK era is over, there is true opportunity for you guys to drop your lawsuit and come to the table as workable players...

One of the reason why companies like brand scope is because of hiring. They don;t want to flow up a pilot at ASA to fly Delta B777 because said pilot didn't go thru the DAL interview....

However, with the incredible need for pilots, ALPA maybe in a position to push for Brand Scope on this issue.

It is a complex issue: getting companies to agree to something that is going to cost them money..... but sueing ALPA isn't going to make a company do something...

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't think the political environment in ALPA can be changed by the grass roots. Just look at age 60.

There was a tremendously strong grass roots movement at ASA and Comair from 1999 to 2001. This movement propelled the RJDC into existence. Back in those days when the LEC meetings had their own "RJDC Update" time in the same fashion that John Rice & the CNC closes out meetings today.

I understand your thought that litigation is controversial and harms the political response to the RJDC's mission. You make a good point, but the lawsuit does not prevent ALPA from doing the right thing. In fact, ALPA can destroy the litigation by doing the right thing and making the RJDC irrelevant.