I dont understand it either, but suspect the courting of RAH is only a tiny piece of the reason. In the game of hardball, if you really wanted to bring RAH into the ALPA fold, you would force the issue...by pushing against them. I think this due the relatively new ALPA policy manual requirement that both mainline and connection carriers get to make their input prior to any mainline scope changes. RAH isn't ALPA and is not afforded this benefit. Therefore, if ALPA was courting RAH, they would make every effort to marginalize them until they joined...just my opinion.
In contrast, I think the issue isn't being forced for other reasons, none of which have to do with our actual scope language. To see it thru my eyes, you have to believe ALPA is not your watchdog...as an example, the increased gross weight issue of one of our DCI's about 1.5-2 years ago. The pushback from ALPA against enforcing this, or even investigating it, against the individual pilot who broke the story...if the rumors are true, was quite amazing.
Income streams-cut out RAH, you cut out a hunk of feed, incur lawsuits and early contract termination fees. You cause angst in management to fill the gaps, you park airplanes which we basically funded thru the shell game and you breathe new life into Comair...in many ways...heaven forbid
.
Airline management collusion. On the sundrenched beaches somewhere, these guys plot their way forward. They devise elaborate plans which skirt ALPA contract language, use the minimum pilot required for insurance, and pay as little as possible for services in order to maintain control of the various workforces. It is such an elaborate web of shell games, I dont think a cray computer could tell you (if it ever happened) whether you were flying struck work or not. In other words which code is on which ticket and who owns the flying. Management doesnt want to lose control of their network and by not enforcing section 1 we are rewarding them.
ALPA and the stockholm syndrome. In an effort not to kill the golden goose, we are forced to walk a tightrope. The more time spent walking the tightrope, the more our reps begin to see things thru managements eyes. This is why we are told things like "we can't..." "we will lose..." etc. It is human nature. Do you think management does not know it is human nature? When ALPA goes native, we do have the recall process, but that hasn't been invoked too often...in fact, the opposite is more true. Those that WONT go native are asked to leave.
I am not even scratching the surface of what could be going on here, but I'm a slow typist who can ramble and lose my train of thought. Money and control are central to the scope issue. Everything else IMO is fluff.
I am a Delta pilot. I want a successful company. I want a strong bargaining agent. I want a great contract that allows me to put away my second career. I want management to be successful. I think some constructive engagement is essential. I want to retire with dignity. I disagree completely with our stance on section 1.