Carl,

These are very good, insightful, questions. Again, just my opinion.

1. I'm a trade unionist at heart. All of our vehicles were built by UAW members. I shop for the union label in my purchases and since we need a middle class to buy airline tickets, I figure "good goes round."

ALPA hires union labor and deals with the difficulties of having employees who bargain collectively. As I understand it, the DPA will not use union labor and seeks simply the lowest cost provider it can find. The DPA will actively outsource the services it provides. For me, my selection of representative is like my selection of cars, I prefer to buy the union product, even if I have to pay a little more to enjoy the quality of what I get.

2. ALPA may not have screwed up as bad as I've blamed them for in the TWA case and our airlines' bankruptcy proceedings. According to Lee Seham, it was possible that management could have gotten the Court to waive labor protective provisions (scope) during 113c. I've long stated the fact that no management ever has gotten a non voluntary scope waiver as the last word, but Lee Seham seems to agree with ALPA's Counsel on this point. This concurrence has me re-thinking my long time argument with folks like Alpha and Sailing since my total reliance of precedent may not be as black and white as I've concluded in the past. Until management actually tries and a union actually fights, we'll just never know for sure.

TWA was in fact assumed to be a dead player in the industry. Of course, we've made similar assumptions about Virgin, Continental, Frontier and US Air before and they are still with us. We'll never know, but we do know which version American Airlines was going to argue. Further, there is little doubt TWA would have survived the post 9/11 downturn.

The Jury that decides this matter will not know as much as you and I do about this industry. They will be told that TWA had a bright future and deserved DOH. The result will be whatever a jury believes.

3. Carl, you hit the nail on the head with your question, "why not kill the DPA" by providing an assurance scope is not on the table?

First, T.C. and ALPA state pretty much the same thing on the subject, that they want the pilot survey results before taking positions on C2012. After those results are known, I think there is a good possibility that assurances will be made from both the DPA and ALPA that scope sales are not on the table. Of course, that depends on what pilots tell the DPA and D-ALPA. (I appreciate your help in getting the word out on scope).

T.C. has a lot of street cred on scope (IMHO). He was the publisher of the scope report card and scope hawks at (f-DAL, D-ALPA S, what ever we're called) have used Tim's work as a reference and foundation.

Unfortunately, T.C. was so well trained on the ALPA party line at the time that he really has not yet moved on to the truth of why his MEC sold his job. He blames a "conflict of interest" when the truth was written by your MEC Chair and published in your own ziplines.

If we end up with DPA representation it will be up to folks like me, ACL and perhaps you, to try to educate their leadership on what failed in our scope and how it needs to be fixed. ALPA's about 24 to 36 months ahead of where the DPA is on this topic. The DPA could catch up fast, but by making a fictitious "conflict of interest" issue a plank in their platform, it will be hard for them to move past it, even when it is removed by virtue of having an "independent" bargaining agent.

In effect, Tim is saluting a straw man. He needs to see the "conflict of interest" for what it was ... a justification for ALPA malfeasance and an excuse for selling out members. That is all it was. We hope the reasons for those sales are behind us.