Originally Posted by
sailingfun
The RAH thing is quite simple. Its legal under our contract. This issue actually had come up and dates all the way back to the early 90's with other feeder agreements. There is not a question on the intent of the contract. We have zero chance to win a arbitration on the issues since it was decided long ago. To effect a change in this situation and I agree its a bad situation the contract has to be changed. The contract does not become amendable until 31 Dec 2012. Put your feelings into the contract survey.
The job of a representative is not to tell his constituency what to think. It is the job of the representative to be told what to think by his constituency.
If the people which voted a person into an office want an agenda followed through, it is the job of the representation to carry out the wishes of the people. If the courts then decide it cannot be done, so be it. The job of the representative is not to tell the constituency that "it simply cannot be pursued".
Both ALPA and DC have gotten this wrong.