Originally Posted by Bucking Bar

Well, his outline follows that of Bill Roberts. But, his thoughts could be independent of ALPA national's attorney.

His post is consistent with the legal justifications ALPA has made to rationalize their participation in outsourcing. ALPA has been trying to distance itself from ever seeing an "alter ego" since they developed this rationale for denying the ASA and Comair requests for a merger.

The new development is the idea that scope is not scope and is not enforceable. Just as we saw with Republic Airlines Holdings and the "Moak Jet" grievance settlement, when language prevents outsourcing they find a reason that such language is inoperative. (just ignore what is not convenient)

In this latest twist, Pinnacle's job protection provisions are not really scope because they are physically located on the next page over. The intent of the contract language is clearly job protection and is clearly scope.

It is my personal opinion our administration will do anything to stay in the outsourcing business. The more they are pressed the more outrageous and nonsensical their justifications are.

Nothing personal about reroute, or whether he cooked this up on his own or is repeating MEC's talking points. He makes a cogent debate and comes at the issue objectively.