First, the forced merger of an alter ego removes them from existence as an alter ego ... Lawson does your walk arounds and gets you coffee in that scenario.

Second, the stapled express guys become "furlough fodder" (although in reality they hired in much greater numbers than Delta furloughed.

Third, ASA flew it's own code, had it's own marketing, and had started as an independent, the allied with Eastern when it acquired Southeastern. It was a codeshare partner, like Alaska. It wasn't technically an "alter ego" until acquired by Delta. Comair was a different animal.

Fourth, the RJDC and Lawson were on different ends of the political spectrum. From our perspective the distinctions might be like trying to figure out the politics in the Middle East. What is really strange is that Tom Wychor just went far beyond anything the RJDC ever proposed and nobody is all that upset about it. (I am not criticizing your anger, just trying to understand why Lawson writes a letter which really had nearly no effect and everyone gets really angry ... and Wychor does a contract directly with Delta management, which does not include protections for Delta pilots and nobody's really bothered ... why? ... the reaction in the face of a real contract just does not makes sense if Lawson's letter was a big deal)

I don't think anger served us well. Unity would have prevented the furlough of our pilots. We just did not think it through.

Lawson petitioned his company not to hire Delta furloughees that failed to resign their seniority number, while we furloughed and CMR hired. When it comes to douche-bag Olympics, Lawson gets to carry the flame, medals in most events, and delivers a speech at the closing ceremony.

Your point about Wychor is well-taken.

I agree with points 1 and 2, and your conclusion. I shouldn't be angry, but I am. I'm willing to set it aside for the common good.

As far as point 3, it's not a material issue, in light of the number of alter-egos, but OK.

WRT 4, I make absolutely no distinction between Lawson and the RJDC. One's just the unofficial arm of the other, both are a gamble to force something through that was always a non-starter. Both are part of the reason we speak about network or national unity as hypotheticals.

I agree and while I wasn't quick enough to think of "douche bag Olympics" I did tell Lawson under gate C23 in Atlanta that his logic was flawed, he should be building bridges and his idea of trying to leverage furloughed pilots was "terrible."

The other side of the coin was that Lawson's concerns were dead accurate as proven by the disappearance of his airline. He had tried to get scope which bound Delta, but Woerth would not allow it. I think Prater later did allow a commitment from Delta to Comair and subsequently Moak authorized Pinnacle / Endeavor.

Carl, Purple, Cap'n, et al...

You can't have it both ways, either the company is telling the truth or it's not. Re:

Company: "If you don't sign this TA, we don't get 717's"
Vocal opposition: "BS, we are getting them anyway."

Company: "We will have to spend money on mx for old RJ's if we can't renegotiate their leases. "
Vocal opposition: "BS, they're gonna park em anyway."

Company: "This is all the money that's on the table for Contract 2012.
Vocal opposition: "BS, we have leverage, we're just afraid to use it."

Company: "This TA is cost neutral."
Vocal opposition: "This TA is cost neutral."

Which way is it fellas? RA and the board are obviously doing their best to raise the stock price, ie dividends, etc . Does anyone REALLY believe that no matter WHAT contract 2012 cost, that management wouldn't spin it any other way but positive?

OK, fair enough. I think a great way to alleviate his concerns (and more importantly, represent his people) would have been follow your advice, and work with us, rather than against.

I'll assume you're correct about your facts, in which case it would show an instance of Prater and Moak getting something wrong, and Woerth getting it right. I know of no instance of Prater getting anything right, but now we can score one positive for Woerth. I think Moak did many things right, but fell too deeply in love with his own irresistible ascent, and some of his most effective tactics.

But I think you're getting me to equate Lawson with Wychor. Am I correct? Take away the personal insult to the Delta furloughees, and the lawsuit via the RJDC proxy, and we're there.:)

Thanks, DeadHead. That's very helpful. I don't relish that much time behind the wheel, but I'd rather enjoy a comfortable drive while listening to an audiobook than bite my nails hoping I'll make the commuter flight out of Providence.

Sorry, but I must disagree. The change that made "network or national unity a hypothetical" was done in 1998 and affirmed at the 2000 BOD meeting.

Lawson, the RJDC, and furloughs were the unwitting fall out; reactions to, and effects of, a policy of disunity. All of those unfortunate things came after ALPA's policy change on alter-ego and were a result of the conflict created by that policy change.

Unity is the high ground. Whoever supports unity will eventually win.

Getting back to the topic of the DPA fight, this is like Gettysburg. The DPA may have even fought a hell of a battle up to now, but like the Confederate General, they don't have a map of this foreign soil they are about to fight on. ALPA may have screwed up and let the DPA within a couple days march to Herndon, but ALPA somewhere has maps. Those maps show where the high ground is ... unity.

Unity is there for the taking right now. The DPA has failed to sieze upon it.

Based on the similarity of Lawson's proposals to what we see in the Pinnacle Bridge Agreement, the only significant distinction between the men is that Wychor has been effective.

Good point. Alfa ticks me off, just wanted to throw some heat his way.