That's actually a valid point. I'd say yes it would. So IMO ALPA will be severely pressured to try and get DALPA to tread water or willingly give up more scope. Either way no DFR suit. Not only that, but all the Scope Subcommittee junk is full of injunction and delay opportunities. Nevermind that the regionals who we apparently owe some level of our scope to themselves scope us out of "their" flying completely. Not if but when Jerry Atkin's ego goes Howard Huges supernova will the ALPA carriers in the SkyWest Air Group ordering mainline planes give us a piece of the action?

 

It will be very interesting to see how RA handles this if the above is really true. At every opportunity he's had we've seen large RJ's bump right up against the maximum limit including subsidizing a direct competitor as well as an entire coast outsourced including extremely high frequency and density mainline markets like LA-SEA among others. And now we have the mainline massacre in LGA. So RA and his team is at bat now. Will he strike out, hit a home run, or charge the mound? I'd love to be able to at least say "we'll see" but there's whole lot of very recent history where someone who "knows we're not happy" just did the very thing to us that makes us not happy.

Whatever, we'll see. Batter up.

 

It doesn't matter, you're going anyway.

 

I was thinking because he put in 31 when for pay purposes Jan 31 is in the Feb pay period.

JAN for sked purposes is 01-30

 

Carl;
These points and rebuttals are more than just on the last few pages. These go back years now.

DAL 88 has long stated, as you have that there is a conflict at national because or regionals and mainline. We got that. It has also been stated, and many agree that National has helped the RJ drivers to our detriment. Many wonder if there would be a DFR lawsuit if we recaptured scope, many state that our attorneys cannot effectively represent us because they are representing the regionals.

DAL88 uses the analogy of a divorce attorney versus the ALPA National attorneys and which I would prefer. How can they represent both? I clearly stated how, and everyone seems to skim over that part.

He did not use the word scheming, I did. If he does not feel that way, great, I apologize, but it is how I interpret his tone and word usage.

Sitting down with the pilots and lawyers that do this work on or behalf is where the whole, you need to see it to understand it came. If you recall way back in 2007 I stated that there is a conflict at National. Well I was right. It is a perceived conflict, not a real one. ALPA needs to do a better job of explaining it.

As for your charge, that I respond to my own posts and arguments, I do that because there are points I make that are important that no one wants to consider. They are points that do not work for your argument. Facts like we are the sole bargaining agent that deals with DAL sets all of this conflict stuff to rest. If we were dumb enough to ever give that away, it would not matter if we were ALPA or not, everyone would be bargaining with DAL. As of now, we are the only ones that get to do that, and even if DAL tried to do that say with RJET, it would easily be thrown out in an arbitration or court of law.

 

Thats true, if you get paperwork then you're good to go.

 

So for ALPA National you are guaranteed a lawsuit by someone if DALPA demands scope recapture, but if DALPA never asks then no lawsuits.

So who wins? DCI.

 

The whole problem with that line of thinking is that DALPA is totally within their bounds to ask for a scope recapture. They are the ones allowing it to be performed by other pilots groups. Of course someone will probably file a DFR, the fact still remains that the flying is ours, as the sole bargaining agent with DAL airlines to have that flying performed here. A DFR suit in this case would be thrown out for the reasons listed above.

 

I honestly do not know, but I would hope that since it is OUR contract, that whether LM signs it or not could be made irrelevant. Kind of like SLim PIckins in Blazing Saddles at the end when he punches Dom Deluise and says "I work for Mel Brooks". WE do not work for Lee Moak. We don't work for Tim O either I know, but I would HOPE that he tells Lee to sign or he (Tim) will sign it himself. I honestly do not know. They have very high priced lawyers in DC that our dues are paying for, and it is their problem as to how to deal with it. Holding OUR contract hostage is not an acceptable answer. That could very well be the death of ALPA if they tried something like that. (If, of course those details ever saw the light of day).

All that being said, I think you might be jumping the gun just a little. Let's see how this all plays out. Besides, there is nothing we can do about it at this point anyway.

 

My only comment to this is that I would like you to justify how we can be members of a group that will turn and sue members of that same association. I think there should be some kind of indemnification, hold harmless clause to the by laws that would prevent this kind of CRAP. It is totally unacceptable to me that this kind of subject is even broached. This is why national sucks. Just like the bridge builder that built a thousand bridges and is not remembered for that...