Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
PG isn't correct. You were correct in your multiple posts on the subject over the last few months. As you well know, those changes did not "sanction" alter egos by ALPA. Sanction only happens when you actually sanction something. You're now trying to claim that omission of something equals sanction. It's a poor moot court style debating point and very weak. Mr Moak's signature on the Pinnacle bridge agreement created an integrated alter ego that has never occurred within ALPA before. The old ALPA fought that stuff. You know that's correct, but those previous posts of yours are now proving inconvenient for you as you pursue your latest attempt at supporting ALPA national.
Carl
Carl,
In my opinion, Endeavor is clearly an alter ego.
On the basis of ALPA's regulatory framework; Endeavor is an airline performing flying which we permit in our Section 1. In ALPA's opinion, Endeavor is not an alter ego.
My (and your) opinion does not matter unless we get the help of men like us to change the political landscape and the policies that result.
Say DPA wins and becomes the enforcer of our current PWA, as well as the negotiator for C2015, what then? Is DPA going to require the sunset of our express jet flying? What about economic reality? What about feed and the fact that increasing express costs too much will result in less feed, feed which eventually finds its way to your jet at the top of the food chain? Economically, I do not know that we can get any progress without enormous flexibility.
The cost of extending our seniority list down, as Pan Am did with Ransome, is much smaller than any other alternative. IMHO, our best, most pragmatic, option for scope restoration is unity. Expanding as ancient Rome did, by making those conquered "Romans."
The DPA just isn't going that direction. ALPA, sorta, is. ALPA gives us the ability to coordinate and work together for our common goals. DPA does not.