I didn't say "meet and agree". Are you back to distorting people's posts when you get proven wrong...again? Here is my post again for your review:

Our section 1 opener CANNOT be produced until after our meetings with the unions of our direct RJ competitors. If no consensus is reached, the ALPA president becomes involved. Those meetings may well be going on as we speak, but my bet is that the MEC will be silent on this. And they will also be silent on what was said in those meetings.

Carl

That is your opinion. I'm certain it's your opinion because you're trying to shout out your worth to the MEC as a shameless spinmeister. There is a great need for that in our MEC. But this is from my legal dictionary:

Conflict of Interest n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.

I'll let others decide what it is we have with ALPA lawyers and other ALPA experts advising both us and the unions of our direct RJ competitors.

Carl

Carl, our biggest problem is outsourcing period. All levels. Taking SWAPA's contract that has no production balances, etc in it is short sighted. Our Scope section need a major rework. Not stating it doesn't. I have SWAPA's contract on my computer. There is a ton of it I do not like. There is a ton of it that I do not want to take with your suggestion to take it in whole.

If you want the goodies out of their contract and add it to the decent stuff in ours, I am all for that, but I also want items out of FDX's PWA as well as a few others. SWAPA's contract deals with their current business model, and will have to be significantly changed with the FT/DT. Ours on the other hand does not. You think a commuter like the possibility of all SC periods on reserve? I think not.


Wrong Carl. What has Art Aaron been writing about? What other LEC's are telling their pilots to read his writings? Who is on the MEC? Yep those reps? They are looking at SWA rates and other contract items. Stating what you state above is a mis-characterization of what they are doing.


They just got done with the first planning meeting and two more are scheduled. I do not know how you can make this assertion. There is a plan, and I know it drives you nuts not to see it, but for tactical reasons they are not going to share it just yet.


Lee does not tell the negotiators what to go for, your reps do. Guess what, the reps are not going to be bended in this position. Ask em. Lee gets to deal with the Export-Import Bank issues, and when we are done wit this agreement he gets to sign it. That's it. If anyone on the admin tried to allow him to overtake the process from the reps, the reps would call them out. The reps I talk to know that the pilots are watching, and they are not stupid.


That is an opinion. I see some of the work done, and how it is done, and to state that you know better without being involved in anything but their demise leads one to wonder why if you are so sure of these items why you do not deliver hard proof.

This is the first Section 6 where Ford-Cooksey has been in place. You claim no pressure from National will be exerted on us regarding scope. Will we be able to determine if your claim is correct this time by reading transcripts of the meetings between our MEC and National? Or must we just agree to your claim...because you claim it?

Carl

Wrong. UAL, CAL and now UCAL have been dealing with it. Our JPWA had it in place. Hawaiian had it in place.

Like I said, there is no proof only speculation. Until there is hard proof of it, it is just a scare tactic. If we do see proof of it, I will agree with there being a serious conflict. Seeing what I see wrt to that, we will confer, but carry on with what we choose to do, no matter what they say. If that changes, and you can provide factual proof, show it.

Ohhhh grasshopper. Think leverage.

No ALPA president would NEED to refuse to sign. You just need to threaten to withhold expertise, and funding. Lee has been extremely clear (in writing) that ALPA national will use ALL ITS RESOURCES to ensure future pilot contracts are not "self-serving", but rather reflect what is best for the pilot profession "as a whole." These are Lee's words. From those words and his history, I think it is clear that Lee will define what is best for the profession as a whole.

Carl

This whining over the opener is getting pretty old. It's right at 2 months away, and that will go by quick. If we don't get shown it, then there is good reason for a massive uproar.

The past few pages has been nothing but

It's more than just perception. What ALPA is trying to do is the very definition of a conflict of interest. Conflict of Interest defined:

Conflict of Interest n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties. This includes when an individual's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best for a customer, or when a public official's personal interests are contrary to his/her loyalty to public business. An attorney, an accountant, a business adviser or realtor cannot represent two parties in a dispute and must avoid even the appearance of conflict. He/she may not join with a client in business without making full disclosure of his/her potential conflicts, he/she must avoid commingling funds with the client, and never, never take a position adverse to the customer.


You decide.

Carl

Ok Carl;
Have did the ALPA lawyers represent both Ford and Cooksey as well as us when the lawsuit was going on?

When there is a direct conflict of a regional with a mainline do the ALPA lawyers represent both?

The answer is, no.

When it comes to the company, When was the last time that a regional was negotiating with Delta Air Lines? The flow agreements are two party agreements that have a regional agreement and a mainline agreement that mirrors each other for that very reason. Comair dealt with their management and ASA with theirs.