Simple questions Braveheart refused to answer

[FDJ2]

Braveheart seems to either have a hard time answering some simple and straight forward questions or he is intentionally evading them. Why the sudden silence from the mouth piece of the RJDC?

1. Can the DAL pilot group, or any pilot group own/control their code?

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

3. 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 regardless of wholly owned status?

4. 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?

5. 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?

6. 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?

7. 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"

8. Is there any claim for relief in the RJDC lawsuit which would compel a single list or PWA? If so, which one?

There is no demagoguery or political slant to any of these questions. Straight froward questions deserve straight forward answers, not evasion. I look forward to Bravehearts straight forward answers.
Last edited by FDJ2 : Today at 02:09.

 

[Mmmmmm Burritos]

Every man dies. Not every man really lives.

 

[FDJ2]

Every man dies. Not every man really lives.

And some men have no problem being straight forward when asked straight forward questions. Others attack the questions and the questioner, while avoiding the questions, they're the ones you have to watch out for.

 

[braveheart]

Straight froward questions deserve 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