New Representation at "Regionals"

[DrunkIrishman]

It is now more necessary than at any other time for "regional" airlines to have different representation from ALPA. ALPA National's refusal to change will have devastating effects on "regional" pilots. Deregulation has finally caught up to the regional carriers and will cause deflation in compensation as well as instability in jobs. If we do not do something about this as a collectivce whole, all our futures will be quite bleak.

I write this not just to complain, but also to get us to think about the future. What will we do?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Lets see how the RJDC effort works out. Should know in another 12 to 24 months (hopefully).

ALPA is our best hope for restoring this industry. Unfortunately ALPA will not reform without brute force coercion. Rumors are the new ALPA administration may be even more anti small jet pilot than the previous administration was.

Anyone know if we could pass resoultions at the LEC level asking for a voluntary change in representational status rather than fight about decertification? I don't think it is a good idea to decertify ALPA, but in the interest of knowing what all the options are....

 

[737 Pylt]

Lets see how the RJDC effort works out. Should know in another 12 to 24 months (hopefully).

I'll be glad when we finally put this dead dog to rest as well!

ALPA is our best hope for restoring this industry. Unfortunately ALPA will not reform without brute force coercion. Rumors are the new ALPA administration may be even more anti small jet pilot than the previous administration was.

You couldn't be more wrong, but that's become no surprise! Prater was at the latest national meeting, and impressed on everyone how "regionals" are an important part of ALPA and wants to change the ways of the past.

Anyone know if we could pass resoultions at the LEC level asking for a voluntary change in representational status rather than fight about decertification? I don't think it is a good idea to decertify ALPA, but in the interest of knowing what all the options are....

Fins:
You could always use the rjdc as your representation and see how that works!
BTW, for a guy that retired from the forum, you came back with a vengance! I think, in all fairness, you should retract your thread you started!

737

 

[HelloNewman]

There is no such thing as job security at a regional. There are too many 50 seat RJs out there. At some point more and more will be out there sitting in the desert. Just hope you still have a seat when the music stops. There is nothing ALPA or any other union can do to stop majors from getting rid of a lot of the 50 seaters if they don't want them anymore. ALPA can't even stop the whipsaw game. We are all just here for the ride and hope that we survive this mess. I would hate to be any airline with only 50 seat RJs right now.

 

[~~~^~~~]

You couldn't be more wrong, but that's become no surprise! Prater was at the latest national meeting, and impressed on everyone how "regionals" are an important part of ALPA and wants to change the ways of the past.

BTW, for a guy that retired from the forum, you came back with a vengance! I think, in all fairness, you should retract your thread you started!

737

I hope you are right about ALPA. The moderator already whacked my thread.

BTW - the discussions on the regional board started getting better, more a discussion of facts and useful information. It may be a sign that many of us are giving up and trying to help each other get to a carrier with a good chance of still being around in five or ten years.

I would have stayed here if it wasn't for the attack from our own union. ALPA's position is that they benefit us by destroying our job, that we will get better jobs (quoting Duane Woerth from our family awareness dinner). Again, I hope that ALPA is right.

But looking at this from a "mainline" perspective inclusive scope is even more important. As 50 seaters go away and airlines merge there will be more pressure to put airplanes in the 100 seat class at small jet carriers. ALPA's scope record is horrible.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Lets see how the RJDC effort works out. Should know in another 12 to 24 months (hopefully).

ALPA is our best hope for restoring this industry. Unfortunately ALPA will not reform without brute force coercion. Rumors are the new ALPA administration may be even more anti small jet pilot than the previous administration was.

Brute force coercion? Hey Condi Rice..this isn't N. Korea.

Fins... perhaps you don't have the skill set to show ALPA National a win win solution. have you ever thought of that....

Anyone know if we could pass resoultions at the LEC level asking for a voluntary change in representational status rather than fight about decertification? I don't think it is a good idea to decertify ALPA, but in the interest of knowing what all the options are....

You want to pass me?

Don't point the gun unless you mean to shoot. IOW.. don't use scare threats of decertification unless you are ready to do it...



I think if the regional guys are savvy enough to decertify ALPA they would find themsleves in a world of hurt... out of the frying pan and into the fire voluntarily isn't too smart....

 

[DrunkIrishman]

I do not like the idea of decert. either. I would rather create a new branch of ALPA that would be separate but equal. Call it RALPA if you want to, but something has to change.

There are several important questions to ask: what to change, what to change to, and how to change. ALPA has not asked any of these questions (that I am aware of).

Any other thoughts on change.

 

[HelloNewman]

I was under the impression its difficult to impossible to get rid of a union. once they are on the property your basically stuck with em

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I was under the impression its difficult to impossible to get rid of a union. once they are on the property your basically stuck with em

AMR, FedEx and CAL.. who dumped ALPA.

Interestingly, Fedex and CAL.... came back...

 

[PCL_128]

Anyone know if we could pass resoultions at the LEC level asking for a voluntary change in representational status rather than fight about decertification? I don't think it is a good idea to decertify ALPA, but in the interest of knowing what all the options are....

I almost wish you guys could be successful in this decertification idea just so you could see what a world of $*^% you would be in without ALPA. You would be crawling back within a year.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Jeesh PCL - I said in my post "I don't think it is a good idea to decertify" Maybe I meant, I don't think it is a good idea to decertify. I also wrote that ALPA is our best hope for fixing the problem.

As far as what would happen to us - so far the Teamsters do have a much better track record than ALPA does on our level. But before that gets spun 180 degrees - I think ALPA is our best hope.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Don't point the gun unless you mean to shoot. IOW.. don't use scare threats of decertification unless you are ready to do it...

Somehow I don't think ALPA National would be "scared." The reaction would probably be giggles and a shrug of the shoulders. In fact, I'm curious to know if they would want us to simply walk away. It is a real question. A lot of MCF would be left in ALPA's bank account and they treat us like they hate us anyway.

We are locked out of most negotiations that effect our flying, job security, pay and working conditions. The flying we perform is used as "bargaining credits" to be traded away by other pilots. ALPA national really could not do a worse job of representing regional guys. So, based on the way they treat us, I assume we are not wanted, unless we are members of the club only so national can be in control of our negotiations and contract.

Don't get me wrong, ALPA is a tremendous benefit on a local level. But those guys are local volunteers.

ALPA only has benefit as a national union if they use their national power to coordinate an effort to raise this profession. Thus far, they have been unwilling to use the power of the national union to bring pilots together to raise this profession through collective bargaining.

But my hope runs eternal. I'm just a true blue unionist, looking for true red white and blue representation - don't you get it?

 

[PCL_128]

Jeesh PCL - I said in my post "I don't think it is a good idea to decertify" Maybe I meant, I don't think it is a good idea to decertify. I also wrote that ALPA is our best hope for fixing the problem.

Fins, I wasn't directing my comments to you. They were directed at the general idea of this thread that decertification is a valid solution to our problems.

As for the Teamsters, I don't think it's fair to compare their record to ALPA's. Consider the pilot groups that the IBT represents. No bankrupt legacy carriers and no wholly-owned regionals are represented by the IBT. ALPA has had to deal with the spectre of bankruptcy for the past few years while IBT has cruised right on through unscathed. Do you honestly think that IBT would have been capable of even beginning to represent any of the bankrupt carriers over the past few years?

 

[atrdriver]

There is no such thing as job security at a regional. There are too many 50 seat RJs out there.

You are right about no job security, but it has nothing to do with how many 50 seat RJs there are. There is no security because we don't fly our own code. As long as we fly someone elses code, we will have no job security. And since flying others code is the definition of "regional airline", or "feeder", there never will be job security. That is why people attempt to move on to bigger and better things.

 

[FDJ2]

I do not like the idea of decert. either. I would rather create a new branch of ALPA that would be separate but equal. Call it RALPA if you want to, but something has to change.

Change for change sake, is that it? Exactly how would "RALPA" improve your situation?

 

[~~~^~~~]

You are right about no job security, ...There is no security because we don't fly our own code. As long as we fly someone elses code, we will have no job security. And since flying others code is the definition of "regional airline", or "feeder", there never will be job security.

You have bought off on management's plan - take flying protected by scope and outsource it to the lowest bidder.

ALPA certainly could negotiate "brand scope," or work towards "one list," across the lines of alter ego carriers. But ALPA lacks the leadership and political will to get it done.

Unfortunately ALPA and the management of major carriers have entered into an agreement where "bargaining credits" are traded for outsourcing of flying.

ATR Driver, you tell us to "move on." I ask, to what? US Air, Delta, and Northwest have put their 737 / DC9 replacement E - jets, & CRJ 7/9 at "Regional" carriers. The future will be in this seat range and ALPA's precedent is to sub that flying out. This gauge of aircraft is where the majority of flying always has been and where all the growth will be in the future.

So it is yours, and ALPA's position, that no one owns any flying outside of a major carrier. Therefore those pilots should not expect representation, or employment rights. I, and many other pilots, strongly disagree with your position.

 

[FDJ2]

So it is yours, and ALPA's position, that no one owns any flying outside of a major carrier. Therefore those pilots should not expect representation, or employment rights. I, and many other pilots, strongly disagree with your position.

Well it is the RJDC position that no pilot group is entitled to control an airlines code. So please tell us Fins, what scope language are you proposing that is consistent with the RJDC lawsuit, which seeks among other things to prevent any pilot group from limiting the ability of another pilot from doing the flying?

Please, give us you specific "inclusive scope language".

 

[PCL_128]

Well it is the RJDC position that no pilot group is entitled to control an airlines code. So please tell us Fins, what scope language are you proposing that is consistent with the RJDC lawsuit, which seeks among other things to prevent any pilot group from limiting the ability of another pilot from doing the flying?

Please, give us you specific "inclusive scope language".

Remember: bad scope excludes, and good scope includes. No one knows what the hell that means, but they keep saying it over and over again.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Good scope includes those who participate in the flying.

Bad scope excludes those who perform the flying.

Good scope = All Delta flying done by Delta pilots

Bad scope = Some Delta flying done by Delta pilots, excepting some flying, excluding other flying, with exceptions to the exclusions subject to arbitrary limits and management's whims.... blah blah blah for another 500 words which allow management to outsource while preventing anyone else from bargaining collectively to improve the profession.

 

[Palomino]

ATR Driver, you tell us to "move on." I ask, to what? US Air, Delta, and Northwest have put their 737 / DC9 replacement E - jets, & CRJ 7/9 at "Regional" carriers. The future will be in this seat range and ALPA's precedent is to sub that flying out. This gauge of aircraft is where the majority of flying always has been and where all the growth will be in the future.

So it is yours, and ALPA's position, that no one owns any flying outside of a major carrier. Therefore those pilots should not expect representation, or employment rights. I, and many other pilots, strongly disagree with your position.

disagree until your blue in the face, but the uncertainty of a regional/feeder becomes abundantly clear when the Capacity Purchase comes up for renewal and you lose 1/3 of your fleet. most regional/feeders are CPA arrangements. most of these type carriers do not do any amount of their own flying. it is a daunting reality and one that should affect your decision to seek employment with a major carrier.

where do you go? try Alaska, FedEx, CAL, SWA, AirTran, JetBlue and a host of others that should be hiring next year. these jobs can be had by anyone with the skill set and resume despite the rumblings of interns & nepotism.

just my angle on the situation. i wish all the planes were at the major carrier and we could stop the endless efforts of undercutting one another. i'd be perfectly happy flying a turboprop while on a major's seniority list...knowing that i have a ladder to climb and equipment-commensurate payscale to go with it.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Change for change sake, is that it? Exactly how would "RALPA" improve your situation?

Huh? I do not advocate change just to change. I think you misunderstood me. As for the second question - it would benefit the regionals by getting everyone on the same page. Bargaining together would allow us to secure your flying without undercutting ourselves. I say your flying because that is who it belongs to.
Of course, the only reason I support this is because there is no support from the "legacy" pilot groups to merge. This seems like the next best solution to me. Do you disagree.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

just my angle on the situation. i wish all the planes were at the major carrier and we could stop the endless efforts of undercutting one another. i'd be perfectly happy flying a turboprop while on a major's seniority list...knowing that i have a ladder to climb and equipment-commensurate payscale to go with it.

Most of the world does it this way...why can't we? Wait, I'll answer...ego.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You have bought off on management's plan -

ALPA certainly could negotiate "brand scope," or work towards "one list," across the lines of alter ego carriers. But ALPA lacks the leadership and political will to get it done..

Wait....... you are ALPA. You lack the leadership. Let's not buy into managments blame game....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Bad scope = Some Delta flying done by Delta pilots, excepting some flying, excluding other flying, with exceptions to the exclusions subject to arbitrary limits and management's whims.... blah blah blah for another 500 words which allow management to outsource while preventing anyone else from bargaining collectively to improve the profession.

Sounds like a much bigger problem than just a RJDC/ALPA issue. In order to address the RJDC issues with ALPA ...alot more things have to be fixed.... that are outside of ALPA and thier control....

You have a valid concern but your methodology is lacking...

 

[atrdriver]

You have bought off on management's plan - take flying protected by scope and outsource it to the lowest bidder.

ALPA certainly could negotiate "brand scope," or work towards "one list," across the lines of alter ego carriers. But ALPA lacks the leadership and political will to get it done.

Unfortunately ALPA and the management of major carriers have entered into an agreement where "bargaining credits" are traded for outsourcing of flying.

ATR Driver, you tell us to "move on." I ask, to what? US Air, Delta, and Northwest have put their 737 / DC9 replacement E - jets, & CRJ 7/9 at "Regional" carriers. The future will be in this seat range and ALPA's precedent is to sub that flying out. This gauge of aircraft is where the majority of flying always has been and where all the growth will be in the future.

So it is yours, and ALPA's position, that no one owns any flying outside of a major carrier. Therefore those pilots should not expect representation, or employment rights. I, and many other pilots, strongly disagree with your position.

Fins, I have not bought off on anything. I would have liked nothing more than to have us stapled on to the bottom of the DAL list when we were bought. Had we gone to DALPA with a prenup proposing that, they might just have gone along with it. But we didn't. We had Captains telling DAL FOs on our jumpseats that when the lists were merged they (the Captains) would be senior to the FOs. Had we been merged then your definition of "good scope" would be great, all DAL flying done by DAL pilots. But we weren't, and the simple fact is that DAL owns DAL scope. They have allowed their pilots to control come of it through their PWA. Realistically, that is good for us, because if they didn't allow others to fly some of it neither you or I would have a job right now...at least not the job that we have.

I believe that it is criminal what airline management is doing to labor. And I hope that some pilot or FA group can shut down their airline to make the point that enough is enough. But as long as we let them get away with what they are doing, it isn't going to change.

 

[FDJ2]

Good scope includes those who participate in the flying.

And how would an RJDC victory accomplish this? Is it consistent with the RJDC relief section to exclude any pilot groups from being able to "participate in the flying?"

You state that Good Scope "includes" those who "participate" in the flying, yet the RJDC makes no distinction between those who "participate" and those who don't, nor does the RJDC distinguish between those who are currently flying "x" routes and aircraft and those who don't.

It sounds like your definition of "good scope" is a free for all RFP. No thanks.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It sounds like your definition of "good scope" is a free for all RFP. No thanks.

Pssstttt... look around... that is what we have now. Free for all RFPs are all around us.....