Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 980200)

Good point.

The smartest lawyers wouldve written a scope clause that resembled SWA or RAHs, not our 16,000 word behemoth. Good lawyers would also enforce it or risk raising the question of why enforce any of it if you're not going to enforce the #1 section of the pwa. Good lawyers would also be consistent, if ALPA believes there is STS with RAH on one account they should believe there is STS on every account.

The pushback here is troubling but when i read what the IBT and ALPA testified to the NMB I believe that ALPA will indeed find STS and pursue a scope violation against RAH.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wgh3P0eqLm...r-simpson4.jpg

Originally Posted by Rudder (Post 980161)

It has been insinuated on here that 'all' south guys go along with tsquare's opinion of the NW strike and I want to say that is NOT the case at all. The north guys put it on the line for what they believed in and I for one admire them for going thru all of that and they deserve praise for having the where with all to pull it off. Those waters have not been tested by the south side so to diminish what the north went thru is an insult in my book.

ACL, normally I agree with you but on this republic thing, if ALPA cannot get this right for the 12,000 of us dues paying members I will be excusing myself from their ranks and calling the DPA folks to see what I can do to help them out.

This crap has gone on too long and has to stop, NOW!!!

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 980291)

Let me put it this way:
I am not agreeing with the position on RJET, I am explaining the logic behind the position. Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by unit monster (Post 980320)

cliff notes question: Has DALPA confirmed that they intend not to pursue scope violations in the case of RAH?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 980317)

There is no logic behind it. It is a political move. It is ALPA accepting a short term tactical loss by not enforcing Delta's scope, in order to gain the long term "benefit" of getting RAH pilots into ALPA.

Carl

Originally Posted by Luftwaffe (Post 979436)

The FAA certificate determines a scope violation.

Originally Posted by Check Essential (Post 979527)

Says who?

This is the crux of the problem. I hope we get a thorough explanation of where this notion comes from. The contract says nothing about certificates and neither does the federal definition of an air carrier.
This certificate thing just seems like a convenient explanation that the ALPA lawyers made up out of thin air in order to justify their reluctance to enforce any part of any mainline scope clause. Can they point to any instances in the past where the government defined "air carrier" by certificate? The govt uses the same criteria as the NMB. Ownership and control. Common or interlocking management, Boards of Directors, operational integration, etc. etc.
They "pierce the corporate veil". They look beyond the legal fiction to the reality of the situation. A "certificate" is nothing more than a piece of paper in some FAA bureaucrat's desk drawer. It has no bearing on how Bedford manages his empire.
Most importantly for our purposes, separate certificates does not prevent RAH from using the money they make from their Delta guaranteed profit flights to set up and subsidize other flights that directly compete with Delta.
If you believe the certificate reasoning then what is the purpose of that paragraph in our contract? Its useless. How could it ever be enforced if all an airline has to do is put their large aircraft on separate certificates?