The RJDC is a cancer on the industry

[RJFlyer]

FDJ:

However, according to our contract, they must be flown by mainline pilots once exceeding the contractual limits.

If this is true, great. Can you post the language that states this? I think that your cap is meant to halt DCI growth, if anything, not have mainline fly RJs over the cap. You've spoken of 'intent' in the past. If the 'intent' was to have Delta fly RJ's over the limit, then why didn't you negotiate an RJ rate when negotiating the rest of your contract?

By the way, I could understand you not supporting our block hour grievance. But I find it pretty objectionable that you would not support our no furlough grievance.

It's not whether I support a particular grievance - to me they are one and the same, in that management has used your 'force majeure' clause to void both sections. I believe they are justified in using the force majeure clause, whatever effect it has. I've already said that it's not a good thing (I would prefer nobody was furloughed) but necessary for the recovery of the company. I would rather Delta still exist with 600+ furloughed pilots (who have a seniority # to go back to) than not exist with 10000 unemployed pilots (who don't). I am surprised your 'common sense' doesn't make you feel the same.

However, the contract specifically prevents them from furloughing for financial reasons.

We jump on this merry-go-round again. You say it was for financial reasons. I say it was a result of 2 specifically mentioned conditions in your contract - a grounding of the fleet by a govt agency and a war emergency. Of course, there were financial hardships created or multiplied by these events. That does not mitigate the primary cause of that hardship.

73GDog - I try to post questions, information, and opinions on the issue under discussion, and you choose to respond with a personal attack. If you want to get personal, I can do that. I choose not to. Please keep your comments on the subject at hand, and not whether you think I am a professional or not, or whether you think I'm a management's wet dream or not. Thank you.

To answer your question with a question, how many Americans died in the Bosnian mission? It is completely unrelated. You probably haven't noticed, but we stopped declaring war about the same time the UN was created. In case you've been hiding in your cave the last 6 months, we are involved in 'a new kind of war.' The Delta contract specifically mentions a 'war emergency.' It does not state 'declaration of war.' There is a difference between the two. Did 9/11 cause a 'war emergency?' Did the grounding of ALL non-military aircraft in the US result from a 'war emergency?' Did we not send troops and aircraft into battle as a result of a 'war emergency?' If the President is out and about, isn't Dick Cheney kept in an 'undisclosed location?' Did that happen during Bosnia or Somalia? If not for a 'war emergency,' then why did all those things happen? This is what the arbitrator will decide. Again, I am not glad that any Delta pilots are furloughed. I simply agree that there is reason behind it.

 

[~~~^~~~]

This whole "the mainline can operate RJ's" line is supposed proof that the RJDC is a bunch of liars. People, just use your common sense.

Ok, does anyone here believe that mainline pilots want to take a pay cut to fly a small jet? Where are your small jet rates in C2K? Why did not your MEC even propose operating the aircraft, or pay rates, in your "negotiator's notepad." Where has the Delta MEC ever notified its membership of a proposal to operate RJ's? Any proof at all to show the Delta MEC wants to do anything but restrict this aircraft? I thought so...

Ive heard - Oh' the pay rate would be settled by the same process that derailed the introduction of the 777. The pilots wanted the 777. They don't want a small jet with the commensurate pay structure. It is blatantly obvious that the mainline MEC has no interest in alllowing the company to operate small jets with a profitable cost structure. Even the US Air MEC, faced with the possible demise of their airline, can not reach an agreement. Since the airplane does not benefit the Delta MEC, they want to treat it as a threat - basically create artifical barriers to keep it out of the market to the extent they can.

The RJDC is not "lying" about this, it is simple common sense. Apply ocum's razor - "the simplest explanation that includes all the known facts is likely the truth."

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

All,

Whether the Delta pilots "want" to fly the rj is irrelevant. That is up to management. All that we have the power to do is to ensure that only they can only farm out a percentage of our flying. Once they exceed that percentage, the future growth airplanes must be flown by mainline. Rj asked me to post the language proving this. I would like to, but i don't have time...You see, it is the entire scope clause of our contract.


The argument that we don't want the rjs because we didn't negotiate a rate is bogus. We did not negotiate a 747 rate, either, but that does not mean we don't want them. As far as the comment made that we would negotiate a rate the same way we did for the 777, it must have been made by someone who does not have much knowledge of our contract. The 777 was negotiated under section 3 B 6 of our old contract. That does not exist any more. The new PWA calls for binding arbitration in the event a new rate cannot be negotiated for a new airplane.

The fact is, all this talk is academic. Arguing whether or not we "want" the rj now, or did in the past is pointless. It simply doesn't matter. What does matter is that we have negotiated a contract. Delta is violating it, claiming "circumstances beyond their control." I think that I have proven that they do have the control to comply with our restrictions. I also think that I have proven that the rjdc's claim that ALPA even has the power to limit rjs is bogus.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

RJ,

If our fleet was still grounded, I would agree with you. It is not. Delta can operate as many flights as they want.

During the grievance hearing, the arbitrator asked one of ALPA's lawyers "So what you are saying is, Delta is not 'prevented' from flying airplanes, it is just more expensive for them to do so?"

That sums up the grievance in a nutshell.

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ:

If our fleet was still grounded, I would agree with you. It is not. Delta can operate as many flights as they want.

So then your contract states that the furloughs can only last as long as the grounding? That must be right next to the language that states war must be declared, that's why I missed it.

During the grievance hearing, the arbitrator asked one of ALPA's lawyers "So what you are saying is, Delta is not 'prevented' from flying airplanes, it is just more expensive for them to do so?"

Why wasn't this asked to the DAL lawyers? The question - and answer - would be much more telling.

Once they exceed that percentage, the future growth airplanes must be flown by mainline... You see, it is the entire scope clause of our contract.

Come on, you're just looking for an easy way out of answering the question. It states nothing about RJ's, other than when we can't fly them, and how large they can be. Please post the scope clause. I really would like to see it. Could the reason the Delta pilots didn't include any allowances for mainline RJ's be that it would put you waaaay to close to 'operational integration?' Nah.

I found this on Brittanica.com, from an Air Transport World May 2001 article:
"A big challenge to the prospects for any large-RJ program remains the scope clauses in place at most US Majors (see chart, p. 71). Because of these, 70/90-seat RJs may face a tough sell in the US, by far the largest market for such aircraft. 'It will have to be resolved,' says Tulinda Larson of BACK Aviation. 'It will most likely be Delta or American that will set industry standards. It will eventually lead to an integrated fleet and workforce.'"

We can only hope.

 

[73GDog]

RJFlyer,
You say we stopped declaring war about the same time the UN was created. Can you provide a reference source to back this up. I searched many resources, free republic website, several legal libraries relating to war and a UN source and cannot confirm nor deny your statement. As to the personal statement I made about you, all I can say is I call them like I see them. You never did answer my questions, what country are we at war with, what government and why are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay not POWs but rather, Detainees? I too had rather be furloughed and have a healthy Delta to come back to but, from your previous posts I sensed that you, unlike myself, derived some sort of pleasure out of seeing Delta pilots hit the street. If I am wrong about that then I apologize for any mischaracterization of you.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

RJ,

You'll have to aks the arbitrator why he didn't ask the company the same question. I was just glad he asked it...So were our lawyers. It proves that he at least understands our arguments, even if he doesn't agree with them.

Regarding our PWA. I am sorry, but I am not about to type out the entire scope clause of our contract. It is several pages long. However, I will tell you that it mentions nothing about airplane size on mainline. All that it does is give size and percentage limits of connection flying. It never states a minimum size of airplane to be operated by mainline.

Regarding your operational integration statement. You will have to look for an argument from someone else on this one. I support onelist (with a staple) and have never said that the two groups are not operationally integrated.

The simple fact remains that there is nothing in our contract preventing management from operating rjs on mainline. I cannot prove a negative, so if someone would like to take up the rjdc's postition that we are attempting to limit rjs, would you please post the language in our contract that gives us such power. I am confident that it does not exist.

 

[av8instyle]

by Boeingman:

I spent 25 months honoring an ALPA picket line. I do not need some hothead like you (who sounds like he was in grade school at the time) to tell me what opinions I should form about anyone.

Are you sure it was "honoring" the line, because you seem like the type that was crossing the line.
BTW, you're not gonna beat me up like you said you were gonna beat up the last guy are you? (since we're on the hothead/gradeschool theme)

I don't think I'll reply to you anymore since all you know how to do is insult, criticize, SCAB, not admit your mistakes, and not take constructive criticism.

Good day, sir.

 

[DaveGriffin]

RJFlyer,
You say we stopped declaring war about the same time the UN was created. Can you provide a reference source to back this up. I searched many resources, free republic website, several legal libraries relating to war and a UN source and cannot confirm nor deny your statement...............what country are we at war with, what government and why are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay not POWs but rather, Detainees

73GDOG:
Only Congress can declare war. The last time the US Congress declared war was December 9th - two days after Pearl Harbor - 60 years ago, against Italy. We never declared war against Japan. We just went to war; and the vast majority of reasonable citizens recognized that we needed to be at war. Since the attacks of 9/11 took more life (mostly civilian) than the attack on Peal Harbor and occurred on the mainland and in our business and political capitols, the vast majority of US citizens also recognize the fact we are at war and fighting for our national security and survival.

After reading your pathetic and self-serving arguments on this board, trying to spin the war as nonexistent or less than consequential, I guess you and a few others here fall into the small group that feels we are not at war or shouldn’t be at war because it violates your PWA. You need to be whining to ObL and al Qaeda.

The detainees are classified as "unlawful combatants," a designation that exempts them from requirements under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The detainees are considered members of a criminal organization, not a recognized army, and are therefore not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Classifying them as POW’s could be interpreted as entitling them to the protections of the Geneva Conventions even though al Qaeda and the Taliban are not parties to the Geneva Conventions.

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ: I am very surprised you do not have your contract available to you in electronic form. Mine is available on my MEC's portion of the ALPA website. If yours is available electronically, I'm sure it wouldn't take more than a few seconds to cut and paste.

It proves that he at least understands our arguments, even if he doesn't agree with them.

I understand your argument, too. I just don't agree with it.

Regarding the operational integration statement - it wasn't specifically directed at you. It was a generalization of what I perceive to be the Delta pilots' attitude toward the wholly-owned subsidiaries.

if someone would like to take up the rjdc's postition that we are attempting to limit rjs, would you please post the language in our contract that gives us such power.

On behalf of myself, I believe your scope clause does not mention anywhere that once the RJ limit for DCI is reached, mainline will then begin flying RJ's. I ask again, if that was the intent, why was it not specifically addressed in the contract? The language that limits RJ's is specifically language that limits RJ's (actually, all flying) at DCI. This is specifically where I believe RJDC is right on the money. ALPA, as your - and my - sole bargaining agent, has entered into negotiations which specifically limits my career growth and opportunities, by limiting the block hours we can fly (whether RJ or turboprop), without the consent of the pilots affected by that agreement. I acknowledge that if I were at ACA or Skywest, I would not have a leg to stand on. But ASA and Comair are a part of Delta. For this reason, we should have had a voice in that part of the negotiation process. This is the primary issue on which I agree wholeheartedly with the RJDC.

 

[RJFlyer]

Dave Griffin - Exactly!

73GDog - here is a reference for you, from Encyclopedia Brittanica:

United Nations - international organization established by charter on Oct. 24, 1945. It was the second multi-purpose international organization established in the 20th century that was worldwide in scope and membership, the first such organization being the League of Nations, established by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

The UN was formed after WWII, which coincidentally (and as Dave Griffin pointed out) was the last time the US declared war. It has since become 'politically incorrect' to unilaterally declare war on another country, hence all the coalitions and UN peacekeeping missions. We were not the only Western nation to fight in Korea, Vietnam, or the Gulf Wars. But if you want to bury your head in the sand and maintain that none of those was a war, knock yourself out - and watch out for sand fleas.

I sensed that you, unlike myself, derived some sort of pleasure out of seeing Delta pilots hit the street

I could quote you several times where I stated that I don't think it's a good thing, but rather a necessary thing. I thought I was also pretty clear on why I believe that to be so. No I do not take pleasure in it - period. Your apology is accepted.

 

[73GDog]

DaveGriffin/RJFlyer,
Again I ask, who are we at war against? What country, what government. Of course I believe we should be going after the terrorists organizations however; I do not see a distinction between the current fighting and what occured as a result of the 1993(not sure of the year) bombing of the world trade center. We have been fighting terrorism for as long as I have been alive. Americans both here and abroad have been killed by both foreign and domestic terrorists(McVeigh). My point is that I do not consider us to be in a war emergency. To characterize our current situatiion as a new sort of war, as RJFlyer has done is false in my eyes. We have been fighting terrorists for decades and will continue to do so well after we are all dead and buried. I have a brother who flies B-52s out of Barksdale(2nd bomb wing) and is involved with our current fight against terrorism and I believe he is fighting for a very noble cause as are police officers and FBI agents who fight against organized crime. I do not believe we are involved in a war emergency and you all and I will never see eye to eye on this issue. By the way Dave, you say the detainees in G. Bay are considered part of a criminal organization, not an army. What is the difference between them and the mafia which by the way, the U.S. government fought for many years and resulted in the death of a substantial number of U.S. citizens. We are currently fighting organized criminals, not an army, not a country and not a government.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

RJ,

I believe we are going in circles. Our contract does not address mainline flying rj's because we do not have the power to make that decision. All it does is list block hour percentages allowed. It is up to management to decide what to do when they hit those limits. Our contract does not prevent them from putting additional rjs on mainline. Therefore, it is incorrect to say we are trying to limit rjs. We simply do not have the power.

Secondly, we may or may not have harmed your career. That is not the issue. The issue is, were any laws broken in doing so? I believe that none have been, and that is why I believe the rjdc will lose in court. I think I demonstrated this in an earlier post. You can accept my reasoning or not, it is your decision. But please stop posting the same argument. I cannot state the same response in any other way. There is nothing in our contract which would prevent management from operating any airplane. If you disagree, I invite you to post the language. Until you do so, I think this argument is becoming redundant.

 

[surplus1]

Part I of Two Parts

Surplus,

Another good post. I will concede a few things, then get to the meat of the discussion. Some things, like the seniority issue and the amount of money sought, we will never agree on, so we will have to agree to disagree.

Thanks. I feel the same about your posts. Yes, we do have to agree to disagree on some things. Even so, the more consensus we can reach the better. The less on the table the easier to reach a solution.

Befpre I get started, however, I would like to make a small point. I know that you do not mean to insult, but some of your post made it sound like you have done more research than I, and I am being mislead by my MEC.

My apologies. I did not mean to insult you personally or to disparage your research. It is obvious that you have done a lot of good research and candidly, that is why I am having an exchange of thoughts with you. I formed the opinion that you have something to say that's worth hearing. Quite different from a majority of the posts on your side of the equation. Do I believe you were misled by your MEC? In the matter of our alleged demand for DOH integration, the answer to that question is, YES (unless of course you are a member of that MEC. If you are, then you are party to the misleading of your DAL peers.)

I have done some research as well but more importantly, I think, my opinions are based on having lived through the events on an "I was there basis." That fact plus my own research leads me to form the opinions that I share with you.

Again I want to reiterate that nothing I may say is intended to disparage or insult you (or anyone else) personally. The issues are much bigger that either you or me. Even if we were to disagree on everything, I don't think of you as inferior in any respect. When I have those thoughts about a post, I seldom if ever reply. I hope that clears it up.

On to the issues ........

You said

..... mainline pilots are more powerful in ALPA, but I will not concede that this is unjust. We make up the majority of pilots in the union, and thus are entitled to more votes. It is akin to the system used in the House of Representatives, where the more populous states get more votes. Perhaps the executive board should have more regional members, but only if we (mainline) get enough members to appropriately represent our numbers. If that were to occur, we would still control the vote. As we represent the majority of the members, I do not feel that this would be inappropriate.

There is merit to what you say there but I think the picture you paint is incomplete and misconstrues my remarks. I said that the ALPA was not a democracy but an oligarchy. The current president of the organization once told me that --- the day would never come when the mainline carriers give up any of their power. While I believe that was an accurate assessment, that does NOT mean that it's OK as is. I do not want a system in which the small carriers lord it over the large carriers. Neither do I believe we should have more votes. That would be equally bad. What I want is a balanced system, where participation by the small carriers is meaningful and amounts to more that listening quietly then raising your right hand whenever one or more of the important MEC Chairmen thinks you should. If you, as a regional Chairman should dare to cross a Dubinsky or a Giambusso, you'd best watch your 6 closely and even if you do, your airline will pay the price of your "indiscretion".

I maintain that a "pure democracy" in which the majority can ignore, oppress or remove the rights of the minority whenever they choose cannot endure forever. The concept of a totalitarian regime is no less palatable because the dictators number more than one.

To an extent you are also correct when you point out that the system is akin to the House of Representatives. My point was that if the Government of the United States consisted only of the House, we would have another Civil War. Our Government has endured because law shares power. Our Union should be no less. Don't overlook the reality that ALPA membership today is quite different from what it was in the beginning (as is the ethnic background of our nation). Once the decision was made to admit the unwashed, the system needed modification. That has never occurred in ALPA except in the form of lip service. Maintenance of what amounts to a caste system within the union is not, in my opinion, in the best interests of anyone other than management. We are harvesting that flawed policy today.

Do not overlook that while representation in the House is based on population of each of the several States, representation in the Senate is not. In the Senate (as I am sure you know) there are 2 members from each state, regardless of population. This establishes a balance between the States. Thus CA, TX, NY and FL (as examples) are not able to dictate to the entire Nation. Even Rhode Island has a voice that must be heard. Both houses of the Congress must agree before we have legislation. Additionally, the Executive Branch has the power of the veto and finally the judicial branch, independent of the others, determines the constitutionality of legislation. As Americans, I find it difficult to comprehend why the ALPA seems to believe that a similar system is anathema.

Contrary to what you imply, the Executive Board does in fact have more "regional members" than mainline members. Nevertheless, only 3 of those mainline members can themselves outvote all other members combined. They can therefore do as they please and they often do.

The Executive Council determines constitutionality. However, the Executive Council is composed of the 4 National Officers (all of whom are mainline pilots). With the exception of 2, all other members of the EC are also mainline pilots. 4-5 of them are there by the grace of their MEC. The others are "elected" by a grouping that consists of them, created by themselves.

The fact is that the various Groups from which the Executive Council is structured are carefully created and manipulated by mainline pilots. Whenever it appears that the "structure" might afford some additional political power to the small carriers, the structure is modified to prevent that from happening. That is not a secret and it is not an accident either. It is reality.

At the National level, the ALPA utilizes a unicameral system. I think that affords the opportunity for the abuse of power. A bicameral system, with an independent equivalent of the judicial branch of government (as we have in the USA) would undoubtedly be a much better system that it would be difficult to call unfair. I concede that we will not see such a system in the ALPA in my lifetime.

Within MEC's, the true leadership, i.e., the Officers are not elected by the membership. Only voting members of the MEC (status representatives) elect them. The MEC Chairman controls the purse strings and has the power (with rare exception) to appoint all Committee members, whose budgets he also controls. Those factors result in another "interesting" political power structure within MEC's. If I had my druthers, the MEC Chairman would be elected by the membership at large and removed only by a system similar to impeachment.

The people that elect MEC Officers, only meet with each other (at the National level) when the BOD convenes every two years. Most business is conducted and most decisions are made outside of BOD meetings. As a result, the BOD is often little more than a rubber stamp for the actions of the Executive Board which in turn, is controlled by any 3 of the "big 4" men.

Following a controversial election of National Officers, we changed the voting system to avoid a repetition of the same "problem" (which IMO wasn't a problem at all). The result of that was the administration we have today. Four National Officers, each running for election without opposition and therefore, "appointed" by "acclamation". (I may be mistaken but I think that's a 1st in the history of the ALPA). Nothing less than amazing. I am sure that it has to be a "coincidence" that these 4 people just happen to come from the big-4 major airlines, i.e. NWA, DAL, UAL and AAA. Quite a show of solidarity. I can't help but wonder why there weren't 2 UAL pilots or 2 NWA pilots, etc. I am not saying there was any wrongdoing, but the appearance is less than kosher.

So much for Government of the people, by the people and for the people, ALPA style.

Please go to Part II - I apologize for being so verbose, this is a complex issue.

 

[surplus1]

Part II - Continued

To FlyDeltaJets

I do know that ALPA is about to submit a "Notice for Summary Judgement" (I believe that is the term) asking that the case be thrown out.

Standard legal practice and not at all surprising. The only thing that is surprising is that it has taken so long. If that motion is granted, it will most likely result in an appeal. Also a standard procedure. As you point out, the lawyers are paid to tell you what they did. There aren't many attorneys that will admit (in public) that they have anything but total confidence in the motions they file. That's the legal game. Remember, we don't have a real justice system, what we have is a legal system. You have spoken with "your" lawyer. Don't expect him to tell you that he thinks he will lose the case. If an ALPA lawyer does have that opinion, it is highly improbable that he would tell anyone other than the President.

I have no doubt whatever that the ALPA will not offer a "meaningful settlement" at this point in the battle. DFR lawsuits are very difficult to win. They aren't going to concede anything unless it appears they have no choice whatever. The precedent could open a Pandora's box.

Most DFR suits are decided in favor of unions. That is no secret either. Many that are won in the first round are subsequently reversed on appeal. Awards made by juries are often reduced or vacated by individual judges. None of this is new.

Before Lorenzo, every lawyer on the ALPA payroll would have sworn on his mother's grave that the CAL contract would not be abrogated by the Bankruptcy Court. ALPA litigated for years and didn't win much of anything. I doubt any lawyer in ALPA would do that today. When the Company sued ALPA and the DMEC over the open time issue, all of you thought Delta was wrong. Logic told you that you could refuse a "voluntary" provision of your CBA. ALPA defended you with vigor and the Company lost round one. On appeal, ALPA did not prevail and the injunction was granted. Efforts to overturn it also failed. Such is the legal system.

It is also well known that if you don't have a good case but you have a lot of money, outspending your opponent through a series of appeals may very well produce a victory for you. ALPA has a lot of money and will spend as much as it needs to prevent the loss of this action. The RJDC may well lose, not because the case has no merit, but because they run out of money to pursue it somewhere along the way. That strategy is also no secret and you can be very sure ALPA's lawyers have not overlooked it. Nevertheless, occasionally justice does prevail.

We will just have to wait and see how the cards are played out.

I concur that there is conflict of interest within every union. I also concur that the conflict itself is not illegal. How the union deals with that conflict and how it treats both its representational and fiduciary responsibilities is what's at issue, not the existence of conflict or the lack thereof.

I notice you claim that each bargaining unit within the ALPA represents only the respective airline. I hold that to be a popular misconception. The MEC is not a legal entity and has no legal status. It is but an internal tool of the organization that tends to facilitate whom physically does the work. There is but one collective bargaining agent. That is the ALPA. There is no contract between Delta, Inc. and the DALMEC. The parties to the contract are Delta, Inc. and the ALPA. Without the signature of the President of the ALPA, your contract is not valid, no matter who sat at the negotiating table. If your MEC (or any other) takes any action whatsoever that is not approved by the ALPA, that action is legally invalid. If your MEC does something that someone outside of ALPA thinks is wrong, they don't sue the MEC they sue the ALPA.

Obviously I know that the ALPA President just isn't going to refuse anything that the DMEC really wants. He would not survive politically if he did. Legally however, he may. In contrast the same ALPA President will not hesitate to disallow something that the CMRMEC or the EWAMEC wants or does, if the DMEC finds it objectionable. That is reality. It can also be arbitrary, unreasonable in the extreme and irrational. In law as elsewhere, might often makes right, but not always. I can only hope this will be an instance where right prevails.

While I acknowledge that it would probably be impossible here is a hypothetical for you. Let us suppose that Comair, under the auspices of ALPA, was able to negotiate and enforce a Scope clause that limited the number of 737's operated by Delta to 100, flying only on certain routes and stage lengths, unless and until Comair acquired another 100 RJ's. How would you feel about that? Would you believe that ALPA had the right to sign such a contract? Suppose that enforcement of that provision resulted in your being furloughed, would you feel you had been injured? What if you asked for the right to help determine your own fate and were summarily dismissed?

Suppose instead that Comair negotiated a provision (again under the auspices of the ALPA) that prevented Delta from adding any more 737s to the fleet unless Comair added 2 more RJs for each new 737 or equivalent. How would you feel about that? Never mind what management might or might not do. If that were ALPA's position, what would YOU do?

Yes, the RJDC case will indeed be difficult. The burden of proof is heavy. The references you selected are good ones. They are however, not the only ones. Not all DFR litigation has been found in favor of the union. While precedent is a very valuable tool in legal proceedings, it is far from being the only tool. There are a variety of cases in which the courts have ignored or reversed precedent. Rare, yes. Impossible, no.

Much evidence is available for review. The discovery process may produce more. Will the case be interesting? You bet.

If the RJDC should fail that will result if maintenance of the status quo. If it should prevail then hopefully the courts will produce a remedy that does not injure any Delta pilot and also allows the Association to continue its role of representing the interests of most airline pilots. I know that the RJDC is not trying to destroy the ALPA. All they want is a fair shake. Money is a necessary evil, but it is not the objective of the suit.

I have noted that you and several other Delta pilots have threatened that Delta will leave ALPA if the RJDC prevails. That is of course your choice, but emulation of the Canadians does not appear to me to be beneficial. To me, that's like saying that because I did not agree with the Supreme Court's decision in our recent elections, I will oppose the President, renounce my citizenship and flee to Canada. Or perhaps Martin L. King and some 20 million Americans whose ancestry happens to be African all moving to Nigeria because it took the Supreme Court 150 years to right an obvious wrong. I'm sorry if I offend you, but I think that is a very childish response. I sincerely hope that your leaders of the moment will be wiser than that. However, if you did leave under those circumstances, I would not shed a single tear.

FDJ, an "equal voice" is not what regional pilots or the pilots of other small carriers want. It is not what I would want and I do not believe it is what the RJDC wants. They want a fair voice, consistent application of the rules, the right to participate actively in decisions that directly affect their future and the right to pursue their profession without undue interference from mainline pilots. They want their right to pursue their careers to wherever they might lead (within their own airlines), without artificial restrictions and restraints unilaterally imposed by the union they have employed to represent their interests. They want those things without a lifetime of worrying about what your group may do next to advance your own career at their expense. When the "unequal" condition of their size or number, results in oppression of their rights and arbitrary dismissal of their interests just because you can, the union risks being "outside the wide range of reasonableness" and in fact behaves in an irrational and discriminatory manner. If that is not against the law, it most definitely ought to be. Like beauty, what is reasonable, what is irrational, what is oppressive and what is discrimination, rests in the eye of the beholder. Accountability is not always pleasant but it is essential. As our current President GWB often says, the price of freedom is high. Some of us are prepared to pay it.