RJDC Industry and Legal Update

[braveheart]

Again your arguments are flawed and intended to justify the continuation of unfair practices.

It's the union that has the duty to its members. So you can't argue that if objecting members don't submit proposals acceptable to the union, the union is free to continue violating its duties.

As for litigation "destroying" ALPA, you obviously aren't familiar with the history of ALPA's officers suing the union when they thought that their rights were violated.

 

[PCL_128]

Again your arguments are flawed and intended to justify the continuation of unfair practices.

Come on, Dan, you can do better than that! Let's hear some specifics, not more vague mumblings.

It's the union that has the duty to its members. So you can't argue that if objecting members don't submit proposals acceptable to the union, the union is free to continue violating its duties.

The union has not violated its duties to the point. Has the union always made the right choices and always come out ahead? Of course not, but there is nothing illegal here.

As for litigation "destroying" ALPA

It's not litigation in general that would destroy ALPA, it's your specific piece of litigation that would. Again, anyone can read your lawsuit and see what the results would be in plain black and white. Your dodges and continued mumblings cannot cover up what the ultimate result of your lawsuit would be.

 

[braveheart]

The idea that you're trying to compare your seniority/money grab to the plight of minority workers being discrimated against is simply unbelievable. But, I guess I should expect something like that from the RJDC.

PCL:

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that the same DFR standard that protects your rights emerged from litigation. More so, you're ignoring the point that the landmark case was a "scope" dispute in which one group believed it could unilaterally impose harmful terms and restrictions upon another group to whom the union also owed an equal duty.

www.rjdefense.com

 

[braveheart]

not more vague mumblings

PCL:

If you care to check the record, it's ALPA's officials who apparently feel the need to be vague. For example, the architect of ALPA's Jets-for-Jobs protocols can't seem to "recall" how it all came about...

http://www.rjdefense.com/legal_info.htm

 

[PCL_128]

PCL:

You're deliberately ignoring the fact that the same DFR standard that protects your rights emerged from litigation.

Nope, not ignoring that. I simply don't find that case to be analogous to your lawsuit which is nothing but an attempt to steal mainline jobs and Association money.

More so, you're ignoring the point that the landmark case was a "scope" dispute in which one group believed it could unilaterally impose harmful terms and restrictions upon another group to whom the union also owed an equal duty.

Nope, not ignoring that either. I simply don't believe that the Association has imposed harmful terms and restrictions on any of its members. There has been no breach of DFR here. It's all imagined in your head in an attempt to steal jobs from pilots who earned them the old fashioned way.

 

[braveheart]

It's all imagined in your head in an attempt to steal jobs from pilots who earned them the old fashioned way.

PCL:

Again your accusations against the RJDC don't square with the facts. The record clearly shows that it's ALPA's mainline interests who have done exactly what you accuse the RJDC of doing.

For example, at US Airways, not only did the mainline interests impose J4J at PSA, thereby violating the terms of the pre-existing PSA contract, but in LOA91 they unilaterally amended its terms after-the-fact in order to grant themselves monthly flight schedules to which their seniority didn't permit them to otherwise receive (a.k.a. "slotted bidding.")

So before you accuse the RJDC of attempting to "steal jobs", please consult the record.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/psa_loa_8.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/loa91.pdf

 

[PCL_128]

PCL:

Again your accusations against the RJDC don't square with the facts. The record clearly shows that it's ALPA's mainline interests who have done exactly what you accuse the RJDC of doing.

For example, at US Airways, not only did the mainline interests impose J4J at PSA, thereby violating the terms of the pre-existing PSA contract, but in LOA91 they unilaterally amended its terms after-the-fact in order to grant themselves monthly flight schedules to which their seniority didn't permit them to otherwise receive (a.k.a. "slotted bidding.")

So before you accuse the RJDC of attempting to "steal jobs", please consult the record.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/psa_loa_8.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/loa91.pdf

Dan, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand time: you can't steal flying that is already yours. All flying for USAir is owned and controlled by the USAir pilots. PSA doesn't own any flying that they do. They receive the flying that the USAir pilots have allowed them to borrow. If you don't like that, then get a job at a major where you own the code that you fly. It's really that simple.

 

[Sig]

one group believed it could unilaterally impose harmful terms and restrictions upon another group to whom the union also owed an equal duty.

That's as undiluted, clear and concise a description as I've ever read. Awesome.

 

[Sig]

It's all imagined in your head in an attempt to steal jobs from pilots who earned them the old fashioned way.

Uhh...

 

[JoeMerchant]

Dan, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand time: you can't steal flying that is already yours. All flying for USAir is owned and controlled by the USAir pilots. PSA doesn't own any flying that they do. They receive the flying that the USAir pilots have allowed them to borrow. If you don't like that, then get a job at a major where you own the code that you fly. It's really that simple.

So my ASA job flying an ATR belongs to the Delta MEC and the Delta pilots, and your PNCL job flying a CRJ belongs to the NWA MEC and the NWA pilots? Using that logic, would it be OK for either the DAL MEC, or the NWA MEC to negotiate an agreement that forced either one of us out of our seats for the benefit of the mainline group?

Aside from the fact that this logic has done nothing to protect mainline jobs, how exactly does this logic promote any type of unity that is necessary to achieve any type of "brand scope"?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Nope, not ignoring that. I simply don't find that case to be analogous to your lawsuit which is nothing but an attempt to steal mainline jobs and Association money.

According to some, we have already "stolen" mainline jobs. How exactly would this lawsuit "steal" mainline jobs? What is a "mainline job" - is there a definition of "mainline job"?

 

[PCL_128]

So my ASA job flying an ATR belongs to the Delta MEC and the Delta pilots, and your PNCL job flying a CRJ belongs to the NWA MEC and the NWA pilots?

All DL code flying belongs to the DAL MEC, and all NW code flying belongs to the NWA MEC. They negotiate for what limitations on outsourcing that they will allow, and their pilots vote on it. The flying that you and I do is basically "borrowed" flying that these MECs and pilot groups have allowed to be outsourced. You and your MEC don't own that ATR flying, and I don't own the CRJ flying that I do for Pinnacle. This isn't new, John. Pretty simple stuff.

Using that logic, would it be OK for either the DAL MEC, or the NWA MEC to negotiate an agreement that forced either one of us out of our seats for the benefit of the mainline group?

If either MEC were to negotiate new scope clauses that further limited outsourcing (example: if the DAL MEC were to negotiate scope back down to a 50-seat limit), then that is perfectly acceptable in my mind. They own the flying, they can limit or allow whatever they choose.

Aside from the fact that this logic has done nothing to protect mainline jobs, how exactly does this logic promote any type of unity that is necessary to achieve any type of "brand scope"?

I'm not telling you that this type of logic is preferable to enhance unity, I'm just telling you what is legal and acceptable. Obviously, it would be far more preferable for mainline groups to negotiate "family scope" or single seniority lists, but a lawsuit should not be used as a mechanism to force that. We need to come to those conclusions through discussion and concensus building, not through bitter court fights. If you want to change things, then the first step is to actually get involved, John. Refusing to participate even in your Local Council meetings isn't the way to solve these problems.

 

[PCL_128]

According to some, we have already "stolen" mainline jobs.

I think you know that I don't believe that regional pilots have "stolen" any jobs at this point. All flying that the regionals do has been done as a result of voluntary changes in scope language. Nothing has been "stolen."

How exactly would this lawsuit "steal" mainline jobs? What is a "mainline job" - is there a definition of "mainline job"?

Your lawsuit attempts to eliminate all scope language that limits what you may fly at your code-share airline. Since mainline jobs are protected by that scope language. eliminating it would in effect "steal" those jobs from the mainline pilots. What is a "mainline job?" Whatever the mainline pilot group is able to negotiate through the RLA process. What you are attempting to do is circumvent that collective bargaining process and take flying that is not rightfully yours.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Your lawsuit attempts to eliminate all scope language that limits what you may fly at your code-share airline. Since mainline jobs are protected by that scope language. eliminating it would in effect "steal" those jobs from the mainline pilots.

No Sir, you are wrong. The RJDC would make scope stronger and much more effective if they win. Let me explain.

Scope should be negotiated by ALPA with the participation of the ALPA members who's jobs and working conditions are being negotiated. In practice, when all of this began in 2000, scope should have been negotiated with the participation of all ALPA members performing Delta flying. (at the time SkyWest flew 11 aircraft for Delta and ACA pulled itself out of the codeshare with I-Air) This would not have harmed the Delta pilots, but at the same time, ASA and Comair pilots could have had effective scope, if all participating ALPA members were represented at the table. Instead, the Delta pilots shut out the Connection guys, sold their flying down the river and thus far the non-union carriers are wining the resulting race for the bottom.

ALPA even warmed up to the idea of "brand scope" which was somewhat similar - however, National refused to lead the large predatory MEC's to the table to work with the Connection carriers. Worse, the mainline MEC's began negotiating "bargaining credits" for RFP's and Pay Cuts at Connection Carriers with data supplied by ALPA's own Economic and Financial Analysis Department.

PCL - You and I can probably agree that ALPA needs to come at scope in a coordinated fashion. If ALPA would do so, they could take back flying from non union carriers (which would compel them to join ALPA). An ALPA that allows all members to participate will be stronger. In fact, if ALPA members as a whole decide flying needs to return to mainline (which I think would be best for the employers and the employees) this is how we get that accomplished.

The lawsuit wants to force the renegotiation of scope to bring ALPA's practice in line with its fiduciary duty to its membership. If we have good ideas, but no way to implement them, then the good ideas are worthless. If the lawsuit prevails, there has to be a mechanism to force a correction of past mistakes.

PCL, you, like me, want to restore this profession and you are a true patriot. Our difference is that I want to force change and you want to let ALPA follow its own internal mechanisms. You can be reassured by the fact that once all ALPA members are allowed to participate, then it is up to ALPA members where this union goes. The RJDC can't (and does not want to) control the union - all they want is a system which allows all members equal representation.

~~~^~~~

 

[PCL_128]

No Sir, you are wrong. The RJDC would make scope stronger and much more effective if they win. Let me explain......

What you explain is not what the lawsuit states. We've been over this before and I've even quoted the lawsuit on multiple occassions, but you still insist that the lawsuit states something that is not really there.

PCL - You and I can probably agree that ALPA needs to come at scope in a coordinated fashion. If ALPA would do so, they could take back flying from non union carriers (which would compel them to join ALPA). An ALPA that allows all members to participate will be stronger. In fact, if ALPA members as a whole decide flying needs to return to mainline (which I think would be best for the employers and the employees) this is how we get that accomplished.

Yes, we agree on this. However, a lawsuit is not the proper way to change ALPA policy and to direct various MECs. If you want to change the way ALPA does things, then get involved in the process and do it the right way.

 

[Sig]

Will you at least attempt to acknowledge the way the MEC at USAir mainline seems to think it can change my contract at will?

The union bureaucracy inherently violated the spirit of a union- do you advocate the idea that my job and quality thereof as outlined in my contract is expendable, malleable and they're entitled to change it without my consent/presence/knowledge? Or is this a ruse within the umbra of "stealing flying" and the penumbra of "eliminating scope"?

C'mon, PCL. Gimme an answer.​

 

[PCL_128]

PCL, you, like me, want to restore this profession and you are a true patriot. Our difference is that I want to force change and you want to let ALPA follow its own internal mechanisms. You can be reassured by the fact that once all ALPA members are allowed to participate, then it is up to ALPA members where this union goes. The RJDC can't (and does not want to) control the union - all they want is a system which allows all members equal representation.

All members do have equal representation. The problem is that most members choose not to participate in the process. Please, show up at your next Local Council meeting with a resolution to address your concerns about how ALPA handles scope.

Your lawsuit will fail, and then you'll have accomplished nothing during the years that this silly debacle has played out. Instead, maybe you should get involved in the process through the proper channels from within and effect some real change.

 

[FDJ2]

The last hysterical gasps from the RJDC as their lawsuit unwinds. I do love littlehearts spin effort. He has to be good at spinning the facts, because at the end of the day the facts don't support his failing lawsuit. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Hey fins, didn't you quit flightinfo?

 

[PCL_128]

Sig, I'm not an expert on AAA or PSA matters. ALPA is a large Association, and although I try to keep up with what is going on at all carriers, it's impossible for me to know the inner workings of each MEC. I would be happy to answer your question if I felt that I had enough information, but I don't.

 

[~~~^~~~]

All members do have equal representation. The problem is that most members choose not to participate in the process. Please, show up at your next Local Council meeting with a resolution to address your concerns about how ALPA handles scope.

Been there, done that - our MEC put resolutions to the BOD. ALPA National refused to hear grievances over the union's own conduct.

All means of internal resolution had to be exhausted before bringing litigation. Obviously internal resolution is much easier, quicker and less expensive - but ALPA would not participate.

Just curious why you think ALPA would reform on its own? The union was effectively hijacked by narrow minded politicians who don't even state an allegiance to ALPA. In our case the Delta MEC Chairman said he was a Navy / Marine pilot long before he was an ALPA member and that his loyalty was to the Marines, not to ALPA membership.

If ALPA was led by true trade unionists, we might have a chance - but without an effective governance structure, there is no way that a minority with a good idea will ever rise to the top.

 

[PCL_128]

Been there, done that - our MEC put resolutions to the BOD. ALPA National refused to hear grievances over the union's own conduct.

That's not how the process works. "National" is really only four Officers, and they don't decide what happens with resolutions that are brought to the BOD. All resolutions that are brough as agenda items to the BOD are discussed in committee and a recommendation brought to the floor of the BOD. The National Officers don't have a vote at all. Only the voting delegates (the status reps) have a vote. If the resolutions failed at the BOD, then it was because delegates at the committee level or the BOD level didn't vote for them. It had nothing to do with "national." These resolutions were before my time, so I don't know the specifics of what happened when they were brought to the BOD.

Just curious why you think ALPA would reform on its own? The union was effectively hijacked by narrow minded politicians who don't even state an allegiance to ALPA.

Narrow minded politicians? Who are you speaking of? The BOD is composed of your own status reps. These are line pilots that you vote on. Are you refering to the National Officers? If so, then they have a lot less power than you give them credit for. The real work within ALPA is done at the Executive Council, Executive Board, and BOD levels. The National Officers have little leeway to create policy. They merely follow policy and keep the Association running on a day-to-day basis.

If ALPA was led by true trade unionists, we might have a chance

I assume you are refering to the National Officers here. Have you ever met these people? You speak of them not being "true trade unionists," yet I doubt you have ever even had a conversation with them. You are going on second-hand information, and much of it from unreliable, biased sources such as Ford and Breiling. You're smarter than that.

 

[braveheart]

All flying for USAir is owned and controlled by the USAir pilots. PSA doesn't own any flying that they do. They receive the flying that the USAir pilots have allowed them to borrow.

PCL:

Thank you for cutting to the chase and demonstrating the true nature of the situation for all to see. After a whole day of web board demagoguery, you finally admitted that you believe that it doesn't matter what ALPA does--because it can--under the pretext that the union's mainline interests "own" all the flying.

The "because we can" ("BWC") argument cedes the entire factual argument and demonstrates the arbitrary and bad faith elements of the union's conduct. More so, the BWC argument simultaneously precludes any claim of fairness and demonstrates the insincerity of all past promises of redress.

www.rjdefense.com

 

[PCL_128]

After a whole day of web board demagoguery, you finally admitted that you believe that it doesn't matter what ALPA does--because it can--under the pretext that the union's mainline interests "own" all the flying.

It doesn't matter what ALPA does? I never said that. ALPA has a set of policies, as well as a C & BLs that it follows. An MEC can't simply ignore the Admin manual, the C & BLs, or any other policy simply "BWC" as you state. Each MEC follows ALPA policy, and ALPA policy is determined by the BOD, the EC, and the EB. Labor law gives each labor union wide latitude on what policies and procedures they may set up and follow. However, once those policies are put into place, they must be followed, and that's exactly what ALPA has done. No law has been violated, and no internal policy ignored.

P.S. I've been going through the depositions today, and I can't seem to find any of this "shocking" testimony that you guys keep referring to. Perhaps you could cite some examples?

 

[braveheart]

It doesn't matter what ALPA does? I never said that.

Yes you did.

Not a few minutes ago you made a post arguing that the US Airways MEC was within their rights to impose J4J and slotted bidding at PSA because they owned all the flying and that the PSA pilots had only "borrowed" it. That's the BWC argument, plain and simple.

Your "policy" arguments don't hold water because every lawful objection and request for formal determination on those points has been summarily ignored by ALPA's politicians using the same BWC argument as a pretext.

If you disagree with me, then go to the record and show us all where under ALPA's C&BL's one pilot group is empowered to make unilateral changes to another's PWA.

PS: In answer your "PS" go to http://www.rjdefense.com/2006/beebe_J4J_exrpts.pdf

 

[PCL_128]

Not a few minutes ago you made a post arguing that the US Airways MEC was within their rights to impose J4J and slotted bidding at PSA because they owned all the flying and that the PSA pilots had only "borrowed" it. That's the BWC argument, plain and simple.

BWC? Nope, just common sense. The pilots at AAA have every right to protect their jobs and defend their pilots. Nothing that was done by ALPA was improper as far as I can tell.

PS: In answer your "PS" go to http://www.rjdefense.com/2006/beebe_J4J_exrpts.pdf

I figured that was what you would point to. Of course, your complaints about those comments by Captain Beebe are completely unfounded. Confidential information in the context of negotiations between ALPA and management is necessary. The Association cannot function properly without sometimes agreeing to confidentiality by certain leaders. The MEC Chairman, members of the MEC, and members of the Negotiating Committee must sign confidentiality agreements at times to facilitate their work and to benefit their pilots. Sorry if this bothers you, but that's just how it has to work. Again, nothing improper here.

 

[JoeMerchant]

All members do have equal representation. The problem is that most members choose not to participate in the process. Please, show up at your next Local Council meeting with a resolution to address your concerns about how ALPA handles scope.

Your lawsuit will fail, and then you'll have accomplished nothing during the years that this silly debacle has played out. Instead, maybe you should get involved in the process through the proper channels from within and effect some real change.

The ASA and CMR MEC's did bring resolutions to the 2002 BOD regarding predatory use of scope within the association. However the BOD is controlled by mainline interests as they have the majority roll call votes.

 

[JoeMerchant]

That's not how the process works. "National" is really only four Officers, and they don't decide what happens with resolutions that are brought to the BOD. All resolutions that are brough as agenda items to the BOD are discussed in committee and a recommendation brought to the floor of the BOD. The National Officers don't have a vote at all. Only the voting delegates (the status reps) have a vote. If the resolutions failed at the BOD, then it was because delegates at the committee level or the BOD level didn't vote for them. It had nothing to do with "national." These resolutions were before my time, so I don't know the specifics of what happened when they were brought to the BOD.



Narrow minded politicians? Who are you speaking of? The BOD is composed of your own status reps. These are line pilots that you vote on. Are you refering to the National Officers? If so, then they have a lot less power than you give them credit for. The real work within ALPA is done at the Executive Council, Executive Board, and BOD levels. The National Officers have little leeway to create policy. They merely follow policy and keep the Association running on a day-to-day basis.



I assume you are refering to the National Officers here. Have you ever met these people? You speak of them not being "true trade unionists," yet I doubt you have ever even had a conversation with them. You are going on second-hand information, and much of it from unreliable, biased sources such as Ford and Breiling. You're smarter than that.

The BOD is controlled by mainline interests as they have the roll call votes. Maybe that will change someday, but if it does, I expect the mainline MECs to leave ALPA if the regionals start to change things.

 

[PCL_128]

John, when was the last BOD you attended? Have you ever attended a BOD meeting?

 

[braveheart]

BWC? Nope, just common sense. The pilots at AAA have every right to protect their jobs and defend their pilots.

PCL:

By voting themselves super-seniority at PSA, the US Airways MEC was not "protecting" jobs, they were taking jobs while violating ALPA's duty to protect and defend the integrity of the PSA working agreement. When you claim that the PSA pilots were only "borrowing" the flying, then you've admitted to the conduct and now you're attempting to craft an excuse.

Confidential information in the context of negotiations between ALPA and management is necessary.

Again you're sprinkling a little bit a fact on a plate full of excuses in hopes that no one will notice. Sorry, but by citing the US Airways-ALPA "confidentiality" agreement as an excuse, you're admitting that ALPA was in possession of critical information that contradicted both management's and ALPA's assertions that J4J would bring small jets to the ALG and PDT pilots.

Confidentiality agreements are binding upon ALPA and may limit what ALPA can disclose to the rank-and-file, but that doesn't preclude ALPA from acting upon that information and it doesn't excuse the union from misleading the ALG/PDT pilots concerning the purported benefits of the agreement.

 

[PCL_128]

Braveheart, as I stated to Sig earlier, I'm not an expert on AAA or PSA MEC matters. The details of the J4J agreement, slotted bidding, etc... are not things that I'm overly familiar with. I can only speak to the generalities of the ways that MECs are required to do business. Confidentiality agreements are one of these ways. As to the specific circumstances in the AAA J4J protocols, I don't have the information to speak to that.