RJDC 05-10-07 Industry Update

[braveheart]

RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com

Industry Update
May 10, 2007​

The May 10th RJDC industry update is now available for download from the RJDC's web site.

This update includes:

1. Empty "Brand Scope" Promises Leads to Tenth DCI Carrier
2. As Delta hints at Possible Comair Sale, More Scope Problems Loom
3. ALPA's Conduct Stalls SkyWest Organizing Drive
4. Will Industry Consolidation Trigger an ALPA Exodus?

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]LINK: [/FONT][FONT=Arial,sans-serif]http://www.rjdefense.com/2007/051007upd.pdf[/FONT]​

 

[WWEfan]

I can't wait to read it.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Biggest lie: Ensuring One Level of Representation

Then why are they only seeking cash in their lawsuit against ALPA? Not "representation"...just money.

Liars.

 

[braveheart]

Then why are they only seeking cash in their lawsuit against ALPA? Not "representation"...just money.

Liars.

Please take the time to read the documentation. You'll see that the suit(s) seek numerous forms of relief. Even ALPA's legal papers acknowledge this.

http://www.rjdefense.com/legal_info.htm
http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/ASALitigationFactSheet111803.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/Cmrlitigationfactsheet111803.pdf

 

[JoeMerchant]

Biggest lie: Ensuring One Level of Representation

Then why are they only seeking cash in their lawsuit against ALPA? Not "representation"...just money.

Liars.

Occam,

I thought your reading comprehension was better than that.... read the relief sections again.... It is you that is a liar.....

 

[Occam's Razor]

Please take the time to read the documentation. You'll see that the suit(s) seek numerous forms of relief. Even ALPA's legal papers acknowledge this.

http://www.rjdefense.com/legal_info.htm
http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/ASALitigationFactSheet111803.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/Cmrlitigationfactsheet111803.pdf

Cool! So youi guys are ready to drop the monetary damages part? It's all about "representation"...right?

Let's hear it!

 

[braveheart]

So you guys are ready to drop the monetary damages part?

Again, please take the time to read the documentation. In ALPA's own documents, they contend that a damages claim is a legal requirement.

But better yet, why not demand that ALPA enact reforms? Then there won't be a need waste good web board space debating legal points.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2006/alpa_motion_121506.pdf

 

[Occam's Razor]

Again, please take the time to read the documentation. In ALPA's own documents, they contend that a damages claim is a legal requirement.

But better yet, why not demand that ALPA enact reforms? Then there won't be a need waste good web board space debating legal points.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2006/alpa_motion_121506.pdf

Riiiiight!

"ALPA's making us demand money!"

All-Conference chutzpah, that.

 

[doh]

Cool! So youi guys are ready to drop the monetary damages part? It's all about "representation"...right?

Let's hear it!

What is a "youi"? Or what are "youi"?

 

[PunchTheClown]

on second thought, I'll hold tounge

 

[scott hall]

Thanks for the update, John. Hopefully you will help the ALPA diehards see the light.

 

[Occam's Razor]

What is a "youi"? Or what are "youi"?

It was a vague reference to the "Eloi". The race of humans that are used as a food source for Morlocks in HG Wells "The Time Machine".

I actually found one web site that helps me understand the RJDC.

TheEssentialRJDC.com



http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

 

[scott hall]

Any updates on the actual lawsuit?

 

[Sig]

It was a vague reference to the "Eloi".

Oooh, you bastard. You snatched a great one right outta my brainium!

If this is proof that I think like you, and great likes think a mind, then there's hope for me yet!


** And that's a syllogism, NOT X-RATED.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Oooh, you bastard. You snatched a great one right outta my brainium!

Weena loves you!

 

[FDJ2]

Empty "Brand Scope" Promises Leads to Tenth DCI Carrier

LMAO. The RJDC does not believe pilots can control a company's code. If that is true, then how can a contract prevent a company from outsourcing its flying.:laugh:

 

[FDJ2]

Again, please take the time to read the documentation. In ALPA's own documents, they contend that a damages claim is a legal requirement.

You do not need to sue for $$$ if all you want is injunctive relief to prevent an ALPA MEC from controlling the outsourcing of its code.

BTW, how can you prevent outsourcing and be in compliance with the relief section of the RJDC lawsuit? Can a pilot group limit the outsourcing of its code or not?

 

[FDJ2]

Any updates on the actual lawsuit?

Going no where.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Ask SkyWestALPA (In ALPA's own words)

Submit a question to Ask SkyWestALPA​

Question:The website: www.rjdefense.com, doesn't give ALPA many accolades for their attention to the needs to regional pilots in light of their major partners. How can we be assured our interests will be protected in regard to the scope clauses, etc. promoted by ALPA to their major airline pilots to settle their contracts, which then ultimately influence us?

Answer:Short answer is that this is small group of pilots that have been working for change in ALPA for many years now. ALPA is imperfect and these pilots have the right to pursue change in ALPA because of the democratic structure of the union.

The conclusion that ALPA does not give much attention to the regional carriers fails to give weight to the fact that the Comair pilots got millions in strirke funds in 2000 during their time of great need. Also regional carriers represented by ALPA now have a huge voice in the Association and with growing numbers will have an even bigger voice in the future.

ALPA Safety has been mainly focused on regional carriers for the last ten years to help make improvements in pilot training, and equipment flown by regional carriers. ALPA's infuence and support in the area of Safety has benefitted the regionals both indirectly and directly over the years.

So could some things be improved, yes, but remember the influence of ALPA is the very reason that we enjoy many of the features we have at SkyWest in our pay and work rules. Wouldn't it be nice to have all of what we have worked for over the years protected by a binding contract?

 

[PCL_128]

Occam, you're wasting your time with this guy. Braveheart is Dan Ford. Ignore him and he'll crawl back into his hole and send some more checks to that twit Haber.

I actually found one web site that helps me understand the RJDC.

TheEssentialRJDC.com

Now that's some funny stuff!!! Have you ordered yours, yet, Johnny?

 

[701EV]

ALPA has postponed calling for a NMB ballot of the Skywest pilots it will insteadt wait for a larger margin.

Are you kidding me!

Larger margin my a$$!

What is ALPA afraid of?

It sure looks like ALPA F*#ked this up.

No wonder the Skywest pilots don't want ALPA.

701EV

 

[braveheart]

Any updates on the actual lawsuit?

Additional legal info has been posted at:

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

 

[WWEfan]

ALPA Files Motion to Dismiss ASA and Comair DFR Lawsuits


Pursuant to the 11-09-06 litigation schedule, ALPA has filed their motion for summary judgment asking that both the ASA and Comair lawsuits be dismissed with prejudice. Per the schedule, Plaintiffs have until January 16, 2006 to file their written response.





That was a cut/paste from the article. You may want to check your dates or have someone proofread this stuff before it goes public. I doesn't really help your cause when I find mistakes in the first couple paragraphs on your website.​

 

[~~~^~~~]

WWE: How is that a misprint? The Court sets the deadlines, then the parties submit their arguements and wait for rulings. The wait can be more than 6 months depending on what arguements and counter arguements are allowed and considered by the Court. This is not a one hour Television show.

ALPA has postponed calling for a NMB ballot of the Skywest pilots it will insteadt wait for a larger margin.

Are you kidding me!

Larger margin my a$$!

What is ALPA afraid of?

It sure looks like ALPA F*#ked this up.

No wonder the Skywest pilots don't want ALPA.

701EV

ALPA has lost its previous 4 representational votes. ALPA does not want to make it 0/5, so they are waiting for a clear majority.

Yes, ALPA did screw this up. If they had fought for OneList when ASA was acquired ALPA would have the momentum and would be widely percieved of having taken the correct aggressive action to best represent its members.

ALPA was afraid they would not win a representational vote taken from the combined ASA/SkyWest group. They want the SkyWest pilots to vote ALPA and remove the risk. I think asking the SkyWest pilots to save ALPA from its own representational quagmire was foolish. Now the numbers of SkyWest pilots have increased while the number of ASA pilots has decreased. The ASA pilots are now a minority. (and I made these arguements to our LEC / MEC Representatives)

I don't know how to save ALPA from ALPA's own management. We have tried suing them, some say we should decertify. I don't think ALPA can be threatened into action unless you are the Delta MEC, which obviously we aren't.

It is frustrating. We know that ALPA is the best way to restore our profession, but they just refuse to provide small jet carriers the same representation that our mainline brothers enjoy.

If ALPA was effective, if ALPA would fight to stop alter ego replacement flying, if ALPA would quit selling us out for "bargaining credits" then SkyWest pilots would want to join. ALPA should put one hell of a pro-ASA scope section on the table and see what effect it has on the SkyWest pilots.

The SkyWest pilots will want a seat at the table when they see evidence that the ability to sit at the table is worth while.

But after DHL and AStar, TWA/AA candidly I'm concerned to the point of seeking other employment.

The best advice for any of us is to call our Representatives and beg them.

 

[JoeMerchant]

WWE: How is that a misprint? The Court sets the deadlines, then the parties submit their arguements and wait for rulings. The wait can be more than 6 months depending on what arguements and counter arguements are allowed and considered by the Court. This is not a one hour Television show.

ALPA has lost its previous 4 representational votes. ALPA does not want to make it 0/5, so they are waiting for a clear majority.

Yes, ALPA did screw this up. If they had fought for OneList when ASA was acquired ALPA would have the momentum and would be widely percieved of having taken the correct aggressive action to best represent its members.

ALPA was afraid they would not win a representational vote taken from the combined ASA/SkyWest group. They want the SkyWest pilots to vote ALPA and remove the risk. I think asking the SkyWest pilots to save ALPA from its own representational quagmire was foolish. Now the numbers of SkyWest pilots have increased while the number of ASA pilots has decreased. The ASA pilots are now a minority. (and I made these arguements to our LEC / MEC Representatives)

I don't know how to save ALPA from ALPA's own management. We have tried suing them, some say we should decertify. I don't think ALPA can be threatened into action unless you are the Delta MEC, which obviously we aren't.

It is frustrating. We know that ALPA is the best way to restore our profession, but they just refuse to provide small jet carriers the same representation that our mainline brothers enjoy.

If ALPA was effective, if ALPA would fight to stop alter ego replacement flying, if ALPA would quit selling us out for "bargaining credits" then SkyWest pilots would want to join. ALPA should put one hell of a pro-ASA scope section on the table and see what effect it has on the SkyWest pilots.

The SkyWest pilots will want a seat at the table when they see evidence that the ability to sit at the table is worth while.

But after DHL and AStar, TWA/AA candidly I'm concerned to the point of seeking other employment.

The best advice for any of us is to call our Representatives and beg them.

Fins,

The USAirways MEC is now threatening decertification of ALPA. Along with ASTAR, now maybe the time to put pressure on ALPA. ALPA won't change until it's very existence is threatened.... a little "self-help" within ALPA CAN work.....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Fins,

The USAirways MEC is now threatening decertification of ALPA. Along with ASTAR, now maybe the time to put pressure on ALPA. ALPA won't change until it's very existence is threatened.... a little "self-help" within ALPA CAN work.....

Hi Joe!

I heard the same rumblings over at UAL for a while but that seems to have settled down....

The ol' saying goes... Don't change the union...change the leadership. In addition, an increase in membership particaption would't hurt either....


Rezfully yours...

 

[flyboyike]

It is frustrating. We know that ALPA is the best way to restore our profession, but they just refuse to provide small jet carriers the same representation that our mainline brothers enjoy.

From the looks of it, our mainline brothers haven't enjoyed much either.

 

[braveheart]

Ask SkyWestALPA (In ALPA's own words)

Submit a question to Ask SkyWestALPA​

Question:The website: www.rjdefense.com, doesn't give ALPA many accolades for their attention to the needs to regional pilots in light of their major partners. How can we be assured our interests will be protected in regard to the scope clauses, etc. promoted by ALPA to their major airline pilots to settle their contracts, which then ultimately influence us?

Answer:Short answer is that this is small group of pilots that have been working for change in ALPA for many years now. ALPA is imperfect and these pilots have the right to pursue change in ALPA because of the democratic structure of the union.

Fins,

Although the Skywestalpa.org web site is more courteous towards the RJDC than some of ALPA's other publications, it does more harm than good to the organizing effort as it's obvious to the reader how hard ALPA is kicking the rudder to avoid the real issue of its own conduct.

For example, while it refers to the RJDC has "working for change" it omits the glaring fact that it's is categorically opposed to the very changes it says the RJDC is advocating. Similarly, the more the response attempts to avoid the issue of ALPA's conduct (by citing the union's safety efforts and non-pertinent points) the more apparent it is that there's something ALPA doesn't want to discuss.

Anyone who's done organizing drives understands the importance of maintaining credibility when addressing a skeptical pilot group. Unfortunately, ALPA's conduct has put them well behind the power curve as their own writings and statements are used with great effect by the opposition. For example:

1. An ALPA Vice-President has admitted to withholding pertinent information from the Allegheny and Piedmont pilots during their concessionary negotiations (the fact that ALPA knew there would be no jets for them in its the Jets-for-Jobs agreement.)
2. At last count, the US Airways MEC had unilaterally changed the terms of the PSA J4J agreement three times (slotted bidding, definition of eligable pilots, etc.)
3. At Mesaba, an ALPA MEC Chairman/Vice-President writes the Mesaba pilots defending the NWA MEC's decision to prohibit Mesaba from getting any of the additional CRJ's authorized in the 2005 agreement.

The moral of the story is that the only way for ALPA to address this issue is to show how credible reforms have been enacted. Telling prospective members that they should join ALPA so they can "help fix it" is a loosing argument that merely affirms ALPA's refusal to enact reforms.

 

[PCL_128]

An ALPA Vice-President has admitted to withholding pertinent information from the Allegheny and Piedmont pilots during their concessionary negotiations (the fact that ALPA knew there would be no jets for them in its the Jets-for-Jobs agreement.)

For starters, that VP was an MEC Chair at the time who was under a confidentiality agreement. Many MEC Chairs have confidentiality agreements that don't even allow them to share some information with their own MEC members, let alone pilots from their feeder carriers.

Besides that, if memory serves, the VP didn't state that he knew for sure that there would be no jets for ALG and PDT; I believe he stated that he didn't think that there would be jets for them. Big difference.

At Mesaba, an ALPA MEC Chairman/Vice-President writes the Mesaba pilots defending the NWA MEC's decision to prohibit Mesaba from getting any of the additional CRJ's authorized in the 2005 agreement.

Do you have a copy of that letter? I don't recall it.

 

[braveheart]

For starters, that VP was an MEC Chair at the time who was under a confidentiality agreement. Many MEC Chairs have confidentiality agreements that don't even allow them to share some information with their own MEC members, let alone pilots from their feeder carriers.

Besides that, if memory serves, the VP didn't state that he knew for sure that there would be no jets for ALG and PDT; I believe he stated that he didn't think that there would be jets for them. Big difference.

Do you have a copy of that letter? I don't recall it.

PCL,

Confidentiality agreements cannot be used as an excuse for knowingly disseminating false information nor as a pretext for violating the union's duties to its members. While confidentiality agreements may limit the sharing of certain information, they do not dictate the union's conduct or permit official misconduct.

The suggestion that the ALPA Vice President wasn't certain about the information is disproved by his own attempt to use that very same information as an excuse for not acting upon the lawful objections of the ALG and PDT pilots. According to the transcripts, the question was why didn't ALPA act upon the objections of the PDT and ALG MEC's to J4J? The answer was (incredibly) that there wasn't any reason because ALPA knew the jets wouldn't be going to those carriers. See: http://www.rjdefense.com/2006/beebe_xscript.pdf

More important however is that ALPA attempted to use this information to skirt the larger issue of the unilateral negotiation and imposition of super-seniority rights for the union's mainline pilots that violated numerous sections of the ALG and PDT working agreements (the integrity of which ALPA, as the bargaining agent, is supposed to defend.) ALPA's unilateral negotiation of J4J and the related misconduct has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of an industry-standard confidentiality agreement.

As for ALPA's letter to the Mesaba pilots defending ALPA's diversion of small jets to other alter ego carriers, here's the link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/msa_hotline_102704.pdf

Nonetheless, your post illustrates the point that ALPA's ill-advised efforts to defend its conduct (rather than implementing reforms) seriously undermines its ability to bring other pilot groups into ALPA.

Imagine how much easier the SkyWest and Colgan drives would be if ALPA could say, "Yes we were wrong, but here's the safeguards we've put in place to ensure it can't happen again."