It was not a mistake. Moak really believes having the 76 seaters off the property benefits us.

As you know, 76 seats is arbitrary. So are 100, 122, 130, or 400 seats.

What I fear is that some people are so wedded to this "logic" that when the market deems 76 seats uneconomic, the arbitrary number will change. Worse, as we have seen repeatedly, arbitrary seat limits FAIL when the Company is under economic pressure to get them changed (reference 35, 40, 44, 50, 66, 70, 76, 90 and 120 seat limits which have all been tried and which have been modified during economic duress by ALPA carriers over the years)

Thus consolidation of power or any subversion of the democratic will IS a serious threat. It is my opinion ALL that prevents a 100 to 130 seat "scope sale" in Contract 2012 is the democratic will of our pilots. Those in power would sell us instantly if they could.
(1) Our Union Administration does not "get" unity.
(2) Junior pilots are an unmitigated PITA to these guys.

It couldn't have been ignorance. The "separate certificate trick" has been a pilot issue for a long time and even a DCI issue going back to at least 2004 with Independance Air. Mesa and Republic pilots got contractual protections against the separate certificate trick for their own holding companies a while ago. Yet our lawyers "missed" that? They missed the same trick with RAH that the RAH pilot group already had in their own contracts? Really? How is it reasonable to believe that "mistake" wasn't intentional?

Not a chance. That was no oversight, it was intentional. When finally cornered into admitting the extremely obvious (which some will try to deny) they will eventually morph into chaff popping arguements like "yeah, well, sure, but see we had to do it because of the DCI wholly owned airlines..." despite the fact that it is a separate issue entirely.

If XYZ airlines flies non permitted aircraft anywhere in their corporate structure or holding company they either need our permission on a case by case basis to do so, or else they must park them immediately unless those planes are flown by DL seniority list pilots IAW the DL pilot PWA. That doesn't mean we have to merge with the wholly owned airline(s) any more than we would have to merge with RAH. That is not a merger issue, it is a "you violated our language that was so elementary that several regionals already have said language...OR you are parked and can't fly for us anymore". Its not very complicated.

We aren't done with this issue either. When Jerry "the ego" Atkins tries his desperate manifest destiny pipe dream of running a real airline and whizzes through his billion dollars of fee for departure guaranteed profit easy money, we had better have langauge to pull the plug and let him drown rather than subsidizing him and his "ace dealers" who will limbo pretty low to help their little "start up" make it.

Gloopy's spot on (and we often disagree).

Bingo!!! Calculated Ignorance. Convenient and Potent!:mad:

TEN

nevermind ... I'm punching out of this fight. I am a tireless ALPA supporter, but, this just does not help.

I could see progress being made towards that end, but what I can't see is the motivation by those in the position to be doing that (from the "inside"). They say follow the money, I say follow the power (the two are strongly correlated of course) but why would "they" want to do that when they would lose money and power?

Why is it a "separate issue entirely"? Your MEC made it's bed when it argued that ASA and CMR were separate even though we were all owned by the same company. The chickens are coming home to roost and it looks like some of you are tired of wading thru the chicken $heet...So sorry, so sad....Enjoy the bed you made...

Actions have consequences and we are all seeing them now play out....Too bad ego's didn't want to fly little airplanes...

Hi Bar,

While, in theory, I agree, but as a rule, are there are still some things best kept inside.

If this was a semi-private forum, I'd say "fer shure, oh ya, you betcha", but it's not.

At one point, a bud had a semi-private forum lined up over at another space. We could have blabbered on in private, much like the SWA guys do over at PPRUNE. But in the end, no one was interested, so he bagged the idea.

I also have a rule about getting involved with possessed people...well, it's more of a guideline, than a rule.;)

Nu

(name that movie)

Carl's reprise in Ghostbusters! Good quote.

At least sign in from another IP Address.