Hi there FlyingSig,
Thanks for the detailed defense. If you read the third sentence of the first paragraph in my original reply to your post, you will note that I acknowledge the applicability of Section 1.E.5. You are correct about that and I never challenged it.
What I tried to point out and, you either missed or bypassed, was that there are two "triggers" in your contract either of which can remove the block hour ratios and restrictions. Which one you "prefer" is academic; both apply. One of them is the profitability that you focus on. The other is circumstance beyond the control per Section 1.E.6. Both apply jointly and severally.
I understand that many of you do not accept the applicability of force majeure as it relates to furloughs or to anything else. You are entitled to that opinion. However, the arbitrator has ruled against that opinion and until he reverses that ruling it does apply. While you have sought to revese his ruling, currently it remains in place.
It happens that the Company's lack of profitability does void some of your Scope restrictions, however if the company had continued to be profitable, force majeure would also have voided those provisions. That was my point and it was also the RJDC's point. It is not a false statement as you allege. You are as mistaken about this as you were about the furlough issue when you filed the grievance.
Yes, I know that your MEC has not "officially announced" its reasons for withdrawing the block hour grievance. That however is not unusual or particularly significant. Only a minimum of political savoir faire allows reasonable speculation as to why a grievance alleging violation of Section 1.E. was withdrawn.
I accept your premise that lack of profitablity is now more relavant than FM as it applies to the Scope restrictions. That doesn't make the statement false.
Your reference to loss of money from successful litigation is out of line. Yes, I am a strong supporter of the RJDC but I am not a listed litigant. Therefore, I will receive no monies personally regardless of the outcome. There is literally nothing whatever that I personally can gain from any of this. My motivation is not personal want, need or expectation of any kind (and yes, that includes your "list").
Your presumption that the RJDC litigants or supporters are motivated by money is misguided. I suspect it is a symptom of your personal situation and the erroneous belief prevalent among furloughed Delta pilots that RJs are somehow related to your furlough. They are not. While difficult to prove directly, the evidence clearly and overwhelmingly indicates that many more of you would be furloughed if the RJs did not exist. Your crusade against them is as detrimental to you as it is to us.
As for the RJDC, the fact is that the litigation has so far had no direct impact whatever on any Delta pilot. What it has done is temporarily restrain both ALPA and the DMEC from further predatory attempts in the near term. However, I have little doubt that as soon as the other circumstances permit, ALPA and you will once more attempt to limit what we do or engage in some other predatory and discriminatory behavior. ALPA is doing that now on other properties.
It is unfortunate that most of you won't accept that ALPA's and your MEC's actions or lack thereof are the cause of the conflicts that now exist. Many of you appear bent on pursuing and advocating continued conflict rather than seeking avenues to resolve the conflicts of interest. I can't tell you what to do, but I can and do tell you that your leader's actions are not in the best interests of Delta pilots. Particularly those that are currently furloughed.
With respect to your contract, I have a copy, have read it more than once and refer to it before positing. I'll continue to do that and yes, I do have a "good working knowledge" of your PWA that I would venture is at the very least equal to yours. Obviously, it doesn't avoid different interpretations of what it means or we would not be having this discussion, would we? I guess when we disagree on what it means, we will just have to agree to disagree.
One final but very important item. The inference that I would try to rub your furlough in your face troubles me greatly. I write a great deal on this and related issues in this forum and others. I have always expressed empathy with furlughed pilots and wished for their rapid return to work, provided it is not at another pilot's expense. Anyone who reads what I write knows that. I have been furloughed myself and I know what its financial and emotional impact means. It would never occur to me to wish bad fortune on another pilot, no matter how much we may disagree. The accusation is unwarranted, FlyingSig. Please do not allow your frustrations, whatever they may be, to cloud your judgment.
You may think that what I support and what I'm against in some way might keep you furloughed longer. There is no such intent. On the contrary, if what I would like to see happen were to take place, you would in fact be returned to work far sooner than you will be by maintaing the status quo with respect to the relationship between Delta and Comair pilots. If your group would work with us instead of against us, both of us could benefit greatly. If we have the collective will to do something constructive together, this sordid mess could be changed to a win/win situation for all concerned. Think about it.
I wish you the very best and a speedy return.
Surplus1
CMR
Thanks for the detailed defense. If you read the third sentence of the first paragraph in my original reply to your post, you will note that I acknowledge the applicability of Section 1.E.5. You are correct about that and I never challenged it.
What I tried to point out and, you either missed or bypassed, was that there are two "triggers" in your contract either of which can remove the block hour ratios and restrictions. Which one you "prefer" is academic; both apply. One of them is the profitability that you focus on. The other is circumstance beyond the control per Section 1.E.6. Both apply jointly and severally.
I understand that many of you do not accept the applicability of force majeure as it relates to furloughs or to anything else. You are entitled to that opinion. However, the arbitrator has ruled against that opinion and until he reverses that ruling it does apply. While you have sought to revese his ruling, currently it remains in place.
It happens that the Company's lack of profitability does void some of your Scope restrictions, however if the company had continued to be profitable, force majeure would also have voided those provisions. That was my point and it was also the RJDC's point. It is not a false statement as you allege. You are as mistaken about this as you were about the furlough issue when you filed the grievance.
Yes, I know that your MEC has not "officially announced" its reasons for withdrawing the block hour grievance. That however is not unusual or particularly significant. Only a minimum of political savoir faire allows reasonable speculation as to why a grievance alleging violation of Section 1.E. was withdrawn.
I accept your premise that lack of profitablity is now more relavant than FM as it applies to the Scope restrictions. That doesn't make the statement false.
Your reference to loss of money from successful litigation is out of line. Yes, I am a strong supporter of the RJDC but I am not a listed litigant. Therefore, I will receive no monies personally regardless of the outcome. There is literally nothing whatever that I personally can gain from any of this. My motivation is not personal want, need or expectation of any kind (and yes, that includes your "list").
Your presumption that the RJDC litigants or supporters are motivated by money is misguided. I suspect it is a symptom of your personal situation and the erroneous belief prevalent among furloughed Delta pilots that RJs are somehow related to your furlough. They are not. While difficult to prove directly, the evidence clearly and overwhelmingly indicates that many more of you would be furloughed if the RJs did not exist. Your crusade against them is as detrimental to you as it is to us.
As for the RJDC, the fact is that the litigation has so far had no direct impact whatever on any Delta pilot. What it has done is temporarily restrain both ALPA and the DMEC from further predatory attempts in the near term. However, I have little doubt that as soon as the other circumstances permit, ALPA and you will once more attempt to limit what we do or engage in some other predatory and discriminatory behavior. ALPA is doing that now on other properties.
It is unfortunate that most of you won't accept that ALPA's and your MEC's actions or lack thereof are the cause of the conflicts that now exist. Many of you appear bent on pursuing and advocating continued conflict rather than seeking avenues to resolve the conflicts of interest. I can't tell you what to do, but I can and do tell you that your leader's actions are not in the best interests of Delta pilots. Particularly those that are currently furloughed.
With respect to your contract, I have a copy, have read it more than once and refer to it before positing. I'll continue to do that and yes, I do have a "good working knowledge" of your PWA that I would venture is at the very least equal to yours. Obviously, it doesn't avoid different interpretations of what it means or we would not be having this discussion, would we? I guess when we disagree on what it means, we will just have to agree to disagree.
One final but very important item. The inference that I would try to rub your furlough in your face troubles me greatly. I write a great deal on this and related issues in this forum and others. I have always expressed empathy with furlughed pilots and wished for their rapid return to work, provided it is not at another pilot's expense. Anyone who reads what I write knows that. I have been furloughed myself and I know what its financial and emotional impact means. It would never occur to me to wish bad fortune on another pilot, no matter how much we may disagree. The accusation is unwarranted, FlyingSig. Please do not allow your frustrations, whatever they may be, to cloud your judgment.
You may think that what I support and what I'm against in some way might keep you furloughed longer. There is no such intent. On the contrary, if what I would like to see happen were to take place, you would in fact be returned to work far sooner than you will be by maintaing the status quo with respect to the relationship between Delta and Comair pilots. If your group would work with us instead of against us, both of us could benefit greatly. If we have the collective will to do something constructive together, this sordid mess could be changed to a win/win situation for all concerned. Think about it.
I wish you the very best and a speedy return.
Surplus1
CMR
