Originally Posted by
gloopy
This is a mainline problem and as such will require, 100%, a mainline solution.
Absolutely correct.
Originally Posted by
gloopy
If ALPA is really the one who keeps pulling the football away from Charlie Mainline pilot then ALPA needs to be replaced, but before that is a viable option we have to self educate to the point where a significant majority of the membership is loud and clear about scope being the number one issue. We are not there yet, but it appears we are finally making progress.
This is what is being missed. The pitch forks are not out for RAH or it’s pilots or any regional pilot, the pitch forks are out for ALPA if they don’t pursue this. Apologist HAVE ARGUED IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THIS SINGLE CERTIFICATE FINDING that we our laymen pilots, as in don’t know how to read a contract, and shall never question ALPA’s lawyers who are paid with our own dime. That is who the pitchforks are out for… period. We’re tired of ALPA national, we're tired of the union drives at regional's that are violating our scope. Tired of it and we're hoping a lot inside of DALPA are too.
-----
Boiler, I agree with gloopy, scope is solely our responsibility. I believe you believe that as well…
Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
From your responses, it is apparent you aren't willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions with regards to the sale of scope...or offer realistic options for recapturing it going forward.
Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
Funny thing...ALPA doesn't ratify contracts that sell mainline scope, mailine pilots do.
It is the mainline pilots responsibility, so why argue that pilots should not pursue a violation of our scope?
Seems to me you're telling mainline pilots it's their fault scope erosion has happened and at the same time you believe they should not pursue this obvious violation in our scope. How is it that you don't believe that RAH is a single entity and why not question ALPA's conflicted lawyers?
Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
Incorrect. I understand fully why you and others would think its a clear violation of your scope language...I also happen to see the legal argument of why its actually not a violation.
Just because I disagree with your conclusion doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.
Correct - the problem is that laypeople (you and me) can read something language on paper and think its black-and-white, while people to practicea living can see a multitude of holes, end-runs and workarounds....often on the meaning of a single word or phrase.
Hence the creation of "crewroom lawyers"...
So are you ready to fire up that DFR lawsuit?
Intent is considered...but so is past practice. The fact that a grievance wasn't pursued prior to this STS ruling, when RAH subsidiary Republic Airlines was already operating aircraft larger than DAL scope allows, *will* be considered.
There will have to be a compelling argument made of exactly what changed from the day before this ruling to the day after it, for this ruling to matter one hill of beans in the eyes of an Arbitrator.
This, to me, is the crux of the issue...one that my wife and I butted heads on MANY times during my tenure as an ALPA committe volunteer.
Pilots read contracts differently than attorneys do.
What a pilot thinks is black and white, or "bottom line common sense", isn't always that way when you start discussing ACTUAL language in a legal manner. Which is one reason why, historically, pilots get their asses handed to them by Ford & Harrison professionals.
But Delta doesn't have domestic codesharing with Frontier - that's the point.
Don't mistake my posts as meaning that I *want* Delta's scope clause to be weakened, because I don't. I'd love nothing more than for every mainline carrier to slowly recapture the scope they gave away over the last two decades.
But the fact remains that legal professionals with decades of experience have repeatedly told your reps that such a scope grievance is a loser. Its one's right to disagree with their analysis, but the opinion of your paid legal professionals on matters of contract law shouldn't be dismissed offhand simply because you don't like what they tell you.
Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
Serious question...how does a ruling of a Single Transportation System for Republic Airways Holdings change a thing with regards to Delta scope? After all, STS rulings are for union representation purposes, not operations.
Shuttle America and Chautauqua certificates are still flying DAL code, not Frontier and Republic certificates that operate the aircraft larger than DAL scope allows. This ruling will not change that.
I guess I fail to see the smoking gun here that would allow DALPA a successful grievance on Section 1 issues that they somehow didn't have before...am I missing something?
Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
I'm still not getting what has changed today vs. Monday; why would this be any more of a "slam-dunk" grievance today than it was previously when Republic was operating 99-seat E190s? Are those not considered "large aircraft" under the Delta scope clause?
Why would a STS ruling, that only considers employee union representation, strengthen such a case?
Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
If it was as slam-dunk a grievance as some here believe it to be, why wouldn't ALPA have pursued it by now? If they didn't pursue such a grievance due to politics (which Moak & needing "RJ pilot support" is moot in this case since RAH is represented by the IBT), then they'd be setting themselves up for a rather strong DFR case.
Originally Posted by
BoilerUP
If they didn't pursue such a grievance because lawyers who actually practice contract/labor law (unlike internet & crewroom lawyers all around the industry) are telling them the fight would be a loser, that's all together different.
Besides, a competent (and highly-paid) contract attorney would make the argument that Republic Airways Holdings is simply a holding company for a portfolio of airlines and does not itself undertake, either directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
Best of luck if this goes forward, but in my opinion, if the VERY experienced and VERY highly paid ALPA lawyers in Herndon think this is a loser...it probably is.