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.

The concern is the influence that the lawyers and their talking points have over those who represent us. DALPA tends to only do what the lawyers tell them to do, and there is a major conflict of interest with the lawyers in this case as it would attacking who employs them (National). So, they will spin this every way possible instead of face the issue, despite the downrange consequences.

Reroute, prior to that settlement we has similar language in our Admin Manual. ALPA's re-write was an attempt to clarify that language so as to avoid a repeat of Ford - Cooksey.

If we were to delete page 5 from Section 40, what would we replace it with? How would we ensure conflicts of interest are resolved BEFORE ALPA sits down with management?

I am open to suggestions for improvement. Resolutions need to be drafted to accomplish that goal. What do you think of something along the lines of:

"The Delta MEC will seek a Letter of Agreement which stipulates the Delta MEC be a full participant in any pilot labor negotiations with Delta Air Lines, Inc., airlines it controls, or subsidiaries and further that such agreement be binding on any successor companies, or in the event Delta is acquired, the acquiring entity."

Is there an alternative which would be acceptable to your line of thinking which would result in Delta Reps being at the table when ever Delta management does a deal for pilot labor?

Lets pretend this resolution just got introduced at your local council. Yay or Nay, modifications from the floor?

Have I mentioned recently that my last name is not Lawson? :D

http://www.dentistryjust4kids.com/im..._thumbs-up.jpg

Can we please put an order in for some of these? :)

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/medi...eo_AIB_CFM.jpg

This is beyond worth watching.

We have to wait until they are used and 10 years old. Gotta get those brand new RJ's first.

Hell, by then, some on here would have tried to convince us these should be flown at the regionals. ;(

The windows aren't nearly scratched up enough.

Segue
 

I interrupt your regularly scheduled programming : When you have a chance, take a trip over to the Cargo Forum and read the posts concerning China Southern (CZ) a member of the Skyteam Alliance.

You might find the posted pics a bit interesting.

Regards,
BG