Originally Posted by
georgetg
Here is the key: the NMB found RAH to be a single transportation system for pilot representation purposes. Sure we cant use that ruling, but that doesn't mean that their published findings are invalid.
In other words -- in order to rule STS the NMB had to investigate RAH and has published the "evidence". All we have to do is use the already established "evidence" to bring our case.
Why any of this matters?
If we don't defend the contract we have, what else is there to defend?
ALPA will never file that grievance. Doing so could bring their conflict of interest into full view. A ruling in favor of our scope clause could trigger lawsuits against ALPA for violating their duty of fair representation to RJ pilots.
That may be the real reason for the prior scope settlement as well. If Moak had proceeded with the grievance and forced DAL to park those 76 seaters then the DCI pilots would have sued ALPA.
The relevant portions of our scope clause were negotiated without going through ALPA's stated policy of consulting with the RJ guys as called for in the RJDC settlement agreement.
Its a fine mess were in.
Now we've apparently lost the TWA suit. We're all going to get to pay for that too. ALPA's legal team is on a roll.