Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Is it possible, just possible, that your legal training is somehow less stringent than the lawyers who advise ALPA? Our general counsel is considered the nation's leading expert on the RLA and is quoted by judges in their rulings. Could it be possible that you may have made a mistake in your interpretation of the language? So you claim you are misled, when in fact there is an overwhelming chance that you are just wrong, because you are not a lawyer. Seriously, what do you think when there is some delay on your flight and some lawyer comes up to the cockpit and starts bloviating about the airlines. Probably, "What a tool" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Look Carl, is just a blowhard who makes things up. ALPA has filed several grievances over Scope and will continue, WHENEVER IT IS ACTUALLY VIOLATED, not when some pilot who thinks he's a lawyer thinks it has been violated. I have no idea what the implications are of this ruling by the NMB, because I am a stupid pilot and not a lawyer, certainly not one of the most experienced, most respected labor attorneys in the country. If this changes the circumstances of our scope clause then a cease and desist letter will be sent to management and if they don't comply, a grievance will be filed.
Volunteers are always wanted, it you want to volunteer, then give me a PM and I will help you get started. Virtually every pilot who works in ALPA started out because their hair was on fire and they wanted to change the world. It's actually much tougher to change the world than it looks on the outside.
I'm not a DPA guy, and I've generally been supportive of this MEC. I don't think Moak's the antechrist, and I don't really think National dicates our actions. I think proactively engagement the company is certainly a worthy tool. I don't think every issue that's brought up on the forum is an actual crisis.
And still, your post rings hollow with me.
I've never been super-impressed with the North's grievance count, because it tells me they were doing something wrong, but then again, I would expect us to have
some disagreements with the company. It's
OK to have arguments. It's
OK to show you're a pilot advocate. It's
OK to take on a long shot fight if the intent of the rule clearly favors your argument, even if your lawyer tells you it's not the strongest argument.
I've read some of the stuff from a couple of the "North" councils, and it's pretty obvious they live in a place where huffing and puffing and looking angry is good enough, even in the absence of results. I get that.
But why do we always have to act like a shy, shy, little girl that's embarassed she wet her bed and tries to hide in the closet so we don't get in trouble?