Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
This whole thing is so underwhelming isn't it?
It's like a pilot who's run an aircraft off the end of the runway twice telling you how to fly your plane. It makes no sense to say these are the best lawyers in the business when they wrote our section 1, a colossal jewel of what not to do, and then don't even bother to enforce it anyways.
Who in the hell does ALPA have as lawyers?!?!?
If they don't try or win this redefine the definition of air carrier so as to beat back RAH then I sure as hell hope nobody has the gall to tell us to do anything but demand we go to court and have them fired.
BTW, my counter to the American Eagle/AMR thing would be to say AE was never Delta Connection carrier other than to serve as a codeshare in the same vein as Hawaiian. According to the 10K AE is a revenue proration agreement and DCI's are capacity purchase agreements, enough for me to say they have always operated different then RAH.
I think inaction by ALPA on this issue, not taking the offensive and fighting this blatant contract violation does more harm in the long run to our pilot group. If anything, at it's worst, it shows that any scope clauses we negotiate in the next contract may not be defended or enforced.
We can have all the best lawyers and negotiators in the world, but if we don't enforce what is negotiated it's all empty hearsay and conjecture, not even decent lip service.
This is what angers me personally, we are rapidly approaching contact negotiations as a soft, somewhat passive representative body. Anyway you look at that will play into managements' hands.
Of course, there is always the chance that working with our management "in good faith" on this issues will somehow assist in rapid, agreeable contract negotiations. However, I've never put much stock with "in good faith" agreements.