InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
RJDC Update
February 1, 2003
Oral Arguments Completed
On Friday, January 31, 2003, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York heard oral arguments on ALPA’s motion to dismiss Ford v. ALPA and plaintiffs’ motion to add more than three hundred additional plaintiffs to the suit. At the start of the hearing, ALPA informed the court that in view of the new scope agreement at Delta Air Lines, which restored the scope ratios, it would withdraw its argument that plaintiff’s scope claims were moot. Consequently, the majority of the hearing focused on ALPA’s arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and that the complaint failed to state viable claims.
ALPA contended that the suit was a "disguised" attempt to circumvent the exclusive authority of the National Mediation Board to make class and craft certifications for bargaining purposes. Plaintiffs pointed out that the suit does not seek to disturb the NMB’s current certifications and that the obvious issue is ALPA’s perpetuation of an inherent conflict of interest and its support of the predatory mainline bargaining. In addition, plaintiffs point out that the Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) is a judicially created standard and that ALPA’s motion seeks to abrogate a half-century of DFR law. After considering the oral and written arguments, the court will render a decision on both motions.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/ansr2mtn.pdf
ALPA Loses Chicago Express Vote, Union's Mainline Scope at Forefront of Debate
On January 15th, the National Mediation Board announced that only forty-three percent of Chicago Express' eligible pilots had cast ballots in favor of ALPA representation. While an ALPA spokesman said the union was unable to explain the defeat, the fact that ALPA’s predatory scope policies were a frequent subject of ALPA’s own organizing "hotline" messages indicates otherwise. ALPA’s organizers cited the RJDC by name no less than twelve times and ALPA even published selective quotes from the RJDC’s materials.
Not only did ALPA's new scope at American Trans Air (ATA) raise serious questions about how the union really viewed the Chicago Express pilots, but the fact that ALPA is in court arguing that its mainline members are free to impose any restriction they wish on the union's "regional" members only made matters worse. When confronted with the facts, ALPA lamely attempted to argue that restricting the "small jet" (and thus the union members that fly them) is somehow good for the rest of the industry. Amazingly, ALPA still believed the Chicago Express pilots would vote to join ALPA, even though its own organizing materials said that the mainline scope restrictions that targeted Chicago Express pilots were good!
The rejection of ALPA at Chicago Express underscores the fact that the union's inherent conflict of interest is not going unnoticed. ALPA's refusal to address its growing internal problems in a credible fashion will continue to hinder its ability to organize the fastest growing segment of the airline industry.
Instead of telling prospective ALPA pilots they should ignore the lawful dissent of the union's own members, ALPA's organizing efforts would be much more effective if they could show how the union actually resolved its internal scope problems in a fair and equitable manner. Eight years of study committees and expensive publications that state ALPA's disenfranchised members don't understand scope isn't going to cut it anymore.
Related Links: http://www.windycitypilots.com (anti-ALPA) http://www.windycitypilots.org (pro-ALPA)
ALPA Adopts "Wait and See" Attitude as American's Pilots Attempt Take-over of Eagle's Flying and Contract
As previously reported, on December 19th, the pilots at American Airlines, represented by the Allied Pilots Association (APA), unilaterally proposed to AMR management that all flying now performed by American Eagle be brought "in house" and performed under a special provision in the APA's mainline working agreement. Under this plan, Eagle’s 70-passenger RJ’s would be transferred to mainline and then selected Eagle crews would be "permitted" to flow-through to their own aircraft once American’s 1000+ furloughed mainline pilots were recalled. Eagle’s remaining aircraft would still be numerically and operationally restricted under the APA’s plan.
In response, ALPA has told its members at American Eagle that it will adopt a "wait and see posture," and believes there is "no reason to be participating at the table" on the basis that any discussions without Eagle's pilots would be "purely speculative and hold no lasting obligation." Such statements overlook the fact that previous APA agreements have unilaterally determined what aircraft Eagle pilots could fly, where they could go, and how many they could operate. Indeed, nothing about these facts is "speculative" and the 250 furloughed Eagle pilots can attest to the "lasting obligations" of APA’s current scope language. While Eagle pilots agreed to a bi-directional flow-through several years ago, they had no voice whatsoever in the negotiations that artificially restricted and subsequently idled their aircraft operations and jobs.
ALPA's apparent failure to intercede on behalf of the Eagle pilots is undoubtedly rooted in the fact that the APA proposal is very similar to ALPA's own "Jets for Jobs" protocols that coerce "regional" pilots into accepting contracts which grant mainline pilots special employment and seniority rights in exchange for the union's "permission" to deploy more RJ's. Perhaps equally disturbing is the fact that while ALPA gives lip service to the elimination of the two-tiered system, both its own scope proposals and that of the APA still seek to restrict the rights and protections of pilot union members based upon what aircraft they fly.
Mainline Concessionary Bargaining and the Threat to "Regional" Pilots
The post "9/11" wave of concessionary bargaining has raised a new concern among those who already find themselves victimized by predatory mainline scope clauses. When ALPA permits its mainline pilots to use their scope clauses to assert control over subsidiary pilot groups, the harm to those affected is not limited to restricted career growth or scope induced furloughs. The latest vulnerability stems from the fact that there is currently no way to ensure that the economic interests of the wholly owned pilots are not implicitly or explicitly part of the mainline concessionary bargaining equation.
Circumstantial evidence gives cause for concern. Immediately after ALPA reached a mainline scope agreement at US Airways, management demanded that the pilots at the company's wholly owned subsidiaries accept both ALPA's mainline "Jets for Jobs" protocol and Draconian cost concessions. Likewise, at American Airlines, the mainline pilots are offering to negotiate a whole new American Eagle contract coincidentally while management is demanding mainline cost concessions.
One possible solution is for ALPA to erect a "wall of separation" that would prohibit mainline pilots from using the interests of subsidiary pilots in their negotiations. But since ALPA's mainline leadership routinely uses the careers of wholly owned pilots as bargaining capital, ALPA's "regional" members have little reason thus far to hope that their rights and interests will be so protected.
Is the DOT's Special Conditions at Odds with ALPA's Scope Agenda?
On January 17th, the Department of Transportation conditionally approved the proposed marketing alliance between Continental, Northwest, and Delta Air Lines. But the DOT required that sixty percent of any new code-sharing flights resulting from the alliance would have to be operated to unserved, underserved or smaller communities. Ironically, while ALPA told its mainline members that the new alliance was needed to preserve mainline jobs, it now finds that its own scope clauses may be incompatible with the DOT's special conditions.
ALPA’s dilemma is that while its mainline pilots groups have used their scope clauses to artificially restrict the operation of certain aircraft, it appears that far more of those same airliners will be needed to receive any tangible benefit from the new alliances. The DOT's ruling again underscores the fact that the future of the union's "mainline" pilots is inexorably linked to the future of all airline pilots, irrespective of airframe size or powerplant.
Related Link: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/condition.htm
***END***
February 1, 2003
Oral Arguments Completed
On Friday, January 31, 2003, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York heard oral arguments on ALPA’s motion to dismiss Ford v. ALPA and plaintiffs’ motion to add more than three hundred additional plaintiffs to the suit. At the start of the hearing, ALPA informed the court that in view of the new scope agreement at Delta Air Lines, which restored the scope ratios, it would withdraw its argument that plaintiff’s scope claims were moot. Consequently, the majority of the hearing focused on ALPA’s arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and that the complaint failed to state viable claims.
ALPA contended that the suit was a "disguised" attempt to circumvent the exclusive authority of the National Mediation Board to make class and craft certifications for bargaining purposes. Plaintiffs pointed out that the suit does not seek to disturb the NMB’s current certifications and that the obvious issue is ALPA’s perpetuation of an inherent conflict of interest and its support of the predatory mainline bargaining. In addition, plaintiffs point out that the Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) is a judicially created standard and that ALPA’s motion seeks to abrogate a half-century of DFR law. After considering the oral and written arguments, the court will render a decision on both motions.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/ansr2mtn.pdf
ALPA Loses Chicago Express Vote, Union's Mainline Scope at Forefront of Debate
On January 15th, the National Mediation Board announced that only forty-three percent of Chicago Express' eligible pilots had cast ballots in favor of ALPA representation. While an ALPA spokesman said the union was unable to explain the defeat, the fact that ALPA’s predatory scope policies were a frequent subject of ALPA’s own organizing "hotline" messages indicates otherwise. ALPA’s organizers cited the RJDC by name no less than twelve times and ALPA even published selective quotes from the RJDC’s materials.
Not only did ALPA's new scope at American Trans Air (ATA) raise serious questions about how the union really viewed the Chicago Express pilots, but the fact that ALPA is in court arguing that its mainline members are free to impose any restriction they wish on the union's "regional" members only made matters worse. When confronted with the facts, ALPA lamely attempted to argue that restricting the "small jet" (and thus the union members that fly them) is somehow good for the rest of the industry. Amazingly, ALPA still believed the Chicago Express pilots would vote to join ALPA, even though its own organizing materials said that the mainline scope restrictions that targeted Chicago Express pilots were good!
The rejection of ALPA at Chicago Express underscores the fact that the union's inherent conflict of interest is not going unnoticed. ALPA's refusal to address its growing internal problems in a credible fashion will continue to hinder its ability to organize the fastest growing segment of the airline industry.
Instead of telling prospective ALPA pilots they should ignore the lawful dissent of the union's own members, ALPA's organizing efforts would be much more effective if they could show how the union actually resolved its internal scope problems in a fair and equitable manner. Eight years of study committees and expensive publications that state ALPA's disenfranchised members don't understand scope isn't going to cut it anymore.
Related Links: http://www.windycitypilots.com (anti-ALPA) http://www.windycitypilots.org (pro-ALPA)
ALPA Adopts "Wait and See" Attitude as American's Pilots Attempt Take-over of Eagle's Flying and Contract
As previously reported, on December 19th, the pilots at American Airlines, represented by the Allied Pilots Association (APA), unilaterally proposed to AMR management that all flying now performed by American Eagle be brought "in house" and performed under a special provision in the APA's mainline working agreement. Under this plan, Eagle’s 70-passenger RJ’s would be transferred to mainline and then selected Eagle crews would be "permitted" to flow-through to their own aircraft once American’s 1000+ furloughed mainline pilots were recalled. Eagle’s remaining aircraft would still be numerically and operationally restricted under the APA’s plan.
In response, ALPA has told its members at American Eagle that it will adopt a "wait and see posture," and believes there is "no reason to be participating at the table" on the basis that any discussions without Eagle's pilots would be "purely speculative and hold no lasting obligation." Such statements overlook the fact that previous APA agreements have unilaterally determined what aircraft Eagle pilots could fly, where they could go, and how many they could operate. Indeed, nothing about these facts is "speculative" and the 250 furloughed Eagle pilots can attest to the "lasting obligations" of APA’s current scope language. While Eagle pilots agreed to a bi-directional flow-through several years ago, they had no voice whatsoever in the negotiations that artificially restricted and subsequently idled their aircraft operations and jobs.
ALPA's apparent failure to intercede on behalf of the Eagle pilots is undoubtedly rooted in the fact that the APA proposal is very similar to ALPA's own "Jets for Jobs" protocols that coerce "regional" pilots into accepting contracts which grant mainline pilots special employment and seniority rights in exchange for the union's "permission" to deploy more RJ's. Perhaps equally disturbing is the fact that while ALPA gives lip service to the elimination of the two-tiered system, both its own scope proposals and that of the APA still seek to restrict the rights and protections of pilot union members based upon what aircraft they fly.
Mainline Concessionary Bargaining and the Threat to "Regional" Pilots
The post "9/11" wave of concessionary bargaining has raised a new concern among those who already find themselves victimized by predatory mainline scope clauses. When ALPA permits its mainline pilots to use their scope clauses to assert control over subsidiary pilot groups, the harm to those affected is not limited to restricted career growth or scope induced furloughs. The latest vulnerability stems from the fact that there is currently no way to ensure that the economic interests of the wholly owned pilots are not implicitly or explicitly part of the mainline concessionary bargaining equation.
Circumstantial evidence gives cause for concern. Immediately after ALPA reached a mainline scope agreement at US Airways, management demanded that the pilots at the company's wholly owned subsidiaries accept both ALPA's mainline "Jets for Jobs" protocol and Draconian cost concessions. Likewise, at American Airlines, the mainline pilots are offering to negotiate a whole new American Eagle contract coincidentally while management is demanding mainline cost concessions.
One possible solution is for ALPA to erect a "wall of separation" that would prohibit mainline pilots from using the interests of subsidiary pilots in their negotiations. But since ALPA's mainline leadership routinely uses the careers of wholly owned pilots as bargaining capital, ALPA's "regional" members have little reason thus far to hope that their rights and interests will be so protected.
Is the DOT's Special Conditions at Odds with ALPA's Scope Agenda?
On January 17th, the Department of Transportation conditionally approved the proposed marketing alliance between Continental, Northwest, and Delta Air Lines. But the DOT required that sixty percent of any new code-sharing flights resulting from the alliance would have to be operated to unserved, underserved or smaller communities. Ironically, while ALPA told its mainline members that the new alliance was needed to preserve mainline jobs, it now finds that its own scope clauses may be incompatible with the DOT's special conditions.
ALPA’s dilemma is that while its mainline pilots groups have used their scope clauses to artificially restrict the operation of certain aircraft, it appears that far more of those same airliners will be needed to receive any tangible benefit from the new alliances. The DOT's ruling again underscores the fact that the future of the union's "mainline" pilots is inexorably linked to the future of all airline pilots, irrespective of airframe size or powerplant.
Related Link: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/condition.htm
***END***
