Originally Posted by
DAL 88 Driver
Oh, I just noticed I glossed over that last question. Sorry.
Actually, I think our ALPA lawyers have already done a pretty good job of "tanking our scope clause", wouldn't you say? We've had loopholes Carl could fly his 747-400 through!
But to answer your question. I'm not talking about further "tanking" our existing scope. I'm talking about improving our scope and reversing the outsourcing. If we begin bringing flying back to Delta (and away from the regionals), then those guys will need fewer pilots. The guys who have decided they want to stay at the regionals are really screwed. And a lot of the junior guys, while I'm sure they will be glad to see more hiring at mainline, would be furloughed... i.e. unemployed without a paycheck. So what's an attorney to do? Help us reverse outsourcing and screw over some of the regional pilots he represents? Or try to keep things on a pretty even keel so nobody benefits any further at the expense of anybody else? Tough choice... for an ethical attorney.
What Pinnacle Inc. does with its aircraft and how it handles the employees isn't the concern of Delta Pilots. The pilots of Pinnacle only need to be concerned with how their company chooses to comply with their respective scope clause.
An attorney is bound to the attorney-client privilege, and cannot be influenced by other clients..... well an ethical attorney anyway.
Didn't the JPWA reduce the number of "permitted aircraft types"? How did the ALPA lawyers let that happen?
(Aside: You and I disagree often, but it is appreciated and noticed that you haven't ever resorted to insults or negative comments in our discussions. Thank you.)