8 Simple Questions for the RJDC

[surplus1]

FDJ2,
Here is the document that I was asking for your reaction about. It is an exact quote from the RJDC update and may be found on their website. What I really want to know is how you would react if ALPA negotiated for Comair or ASA a scope clause that imposed on Delta pilots, the same restrictions that Delta pilots want to impose on ASA and Comair.

If you decide it is OK for Delta pilots to do it to CMR and ASA pilots, then please tell my why it would not be OK for CMR or ASA pilots to do the same thing to Delta pilots.

If you don’t know already you should know that everything contained in the following hypothetical scenario has already been done by a “large jet” ALPA carrier to a “small jet ALPA carrier.

Commentary: Take a Walk in Our Shoes

ALPA’s mainline scope clauses often define “control” as when one company directs the operation of another company or retains the right to direct its operation. Looking at the details of the Air Wisconsin and Republic investment in USAirways, it’s obvious that the two “small jet” carriers my soon be exercising a great deal of control over USAirways, including the right to reject its business plans.

This raises some interesting questions. What would happen to the USAirways pilots if the Air Wisconsin or Republic pilots adopted ALPA’s “might makes right” attitude? To illustrate the magnitude of ALPA’s bad faith conduct on behalf of its mainline interests, let’s see how the “new” Air Wisconsin scope would look if it were to be renegotiated and implemented along the lines of ALPA’s current mainline scope clauses.

• The operation, number, and routes flown by USAirways' "large” aircraft are to be unilaterally restricted by the Air Wisconsin pilot agreement.
o USAirways flying is now termed “permitted large jet flying.”
o The “permissible” size of USAirways “large jet” fleet is arbitrarily linked to the size of the Air Wisconsin “small jet” fleet.
o In the event of a reduction in Air Wisconsin’s small jet flying, USAirways “large jet” flying must be reduced in proportion.
o Rather than “allowing” USAirways to operate the new Boeing 787, the Air Wisconsin pilots create the “Boeing” division of Air Wisconsin, a “preferred” large jet alter ego subsidiary.

• ALPA negotiates on behalf of its Air Wisconsin pilots terms that conflict with numerous sections of its preexisting USAirways working agreement.
o Before USAirways can acquire additional wide-body aircraft, the USAirways pilots must first agree to allow them to be flown by Air Wisconsin pilots.
o Every other monthly schedule at USAirways would have to be awarded to an Air Wisconsin pilot regardless of seniority (i.e. slotted bidding.)
o Air Wisconsin’s pilots are granted special furlough protections not available to the USAirways pilots.

• When the USAirways pilots object to the bargaining of the Air Wisconsin pilots, ALPA’s officials refuse to take action.
o ALPA’s officials state that they are “unaware” of Air Wisconsin’s bargaining plans.
o ALPA refers the objections of the USAirways pilots to an advisory committee.
o ALPA’s leadership dismisses the objections of the USAirways pilots as mere “feelings” and “perceptions.”
o The USAirways pilots are “advised” by ALPA that if they don’t accept the terms of the Air Wisconsin pilots, all new aircraft will be diverted to other carriers.
o Over the objections of the USAirways pilots, ALPA’s President authorizes the Air Wisconsin bargaining and continues to sign every agreement and modification.

• The Air Wisconsin pilots justify their actions by claiming that it’s their “right” to bargain as they please since “they” purchased USAirways and it is “their” money that is now funding USAirways.

Does the “new” Air Wisconsin scope clause appear to be unfair, absurd, and economically untenable? It should: Every item in this hypothetical example is drawn from ALPA’s “mainline scope clauses or ALPA’s defense of its arbitrary actions.

One way to test the fairness and efficacy of ALPA’s small jet restrictions is to switch the identities of the participating carriers or change the size of the affected aircraft. If the transposed scope clause claims that restricting the number of 7678’s will promote the use of small jets which is obviously false, then the economic rationale for “fleet ratios” has rightly been exposed as fundamentally flawed.

Likewise, if the transposed scope illustrates that it would be unfair for ALPA’s small jet pilots to unilaterally impose any restrictions they please upon ALPA’s large jet pilots, then what’s going on today is no only equally unfair, but in conflict with ALPA’s duty of fair representation.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus, I'm impressed. That's some of the most skillful dodging of questions I've ever seen.

I am pleased that you are so impressionable. Thanks for the gold star.

In any case, FDJ and I were right. No one that supports the RJDC is willing to answer some simple questions. Your assertion that your answers could show up in court is laughable at best.

Fair enough. Enjoy the laugh but remember, "he who laughs last laughs best."

You're not dumb enough to truly believe that a post from an anonymous message board will be deemed suitable as court evidence, even in a civil case such as this. Again, some simple answers are all we're looking for. Can you not answer just one of the questions? Is your case so flimsy that you're really that afraid to talk about it? If so, that's just pathetic.

You're right, I'm not dumb enough to belieive that. I'm smart enough to know that ALPA will stop at nothing to get its way. I've been involved with ALPA long enough to know it for what it is, as well as what it is not.

I suspect you're personally quite innocent of the whole charade. The other fellow is a horse of a different color.

I could answer all of the questions from my own perspective but that would tell you no more about what the RJDC thinks officially than you already know, which seems to be not very much at all.

I would refer you to the url for their official opinion, but you already know what that is as well.

As for the strength of the case, that will be determined when it is heard.

 

[surplus1]

Fact. Delta had stronger scope in the past= Comair and ASA not having to compete for flying with Mesa. Our scope is now closer to what the rjdc wants...enter mesa. If we get rid of all scope, mesa will be flying all of Delta's trips, and NW's, CAL's, AA's etc, etc....simple as that...

NYR,

I don't want you to get rid of all scope and neither does the RJDC. What I want is for the Air Line Pilots Association to comply with the law and represent all of its members fairly and equally, as Federal law requires. No more, no less.

As for the "strength" or your prior scope or lack thereof, I refer you to prior versions of the Delta PWA. Go back beyond your 1996 Agreement.

 

[FDJ2]

You should have stuck with the first of your answers and left it there. You say you haven't read the scenario to which I made reference, therefore it is not possible for you to answer questions that are related to that document. I will publish it for your reference later and then you may answer if you wish.

If I do, will you answer my questions? If so, I look forward to answering your questions since I have nothing to hide.

In the mean time, I concede that you're trying to solicit statements concerning the lawsuit.

First, if you took the time to read the entire complaint, you'd know that the RJDC is not a party to the suit and therefore there is no such thing as the 'RJDC lawsuit.' It may sound trivial, but if you're going to pretend to be knowledgeable on the litigation, you'd better pay closer attention to such details.

You got me on that one, I should have said the lawsuit filed by the RJDC President. Isn't the RJDC funding the lawsuit and aren't the litigants RJDC officers?

Second, by aggressively pressing for an on-line debate concerning the litigation, you're making it readily apparent that the questions most probably aren't even yours.

They are absolutely my questions. They are very basic and simple questions to answer and would clarify the RJDC/Litigants position. If you are as knowledgeable about the lawsuit as you claim you are you should also be able to answer these very basic questions.

I think you should go back to whomever you got them from (probably ALPA or the Delta MEC) and tell them that if these questions are so relevant and they really want to know the answers, then they can ask them in court.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. No, Surplus your assumptions are dead wrong. No discussion was held with the Delta MEC or ALPA legal when I formulated these questions. These questions are simply geared to determine the ramifications of the lawsuit filed by the RJDC President and to better understand the RJDC agenda. Again, if there is nothing to hide, why avoid simple straight forward questions?

My point is that I think I've heard these very same questions before, if not identical unbelievably close, asked by ALPA lawyers or the Delta MEC through their lawyers (who also work for ALPA).

I am not an ALPA lawyer and these questions did not come from ALPA legal or the DMEC, just from my keyboard.



Because of this I think you're disingenuous and either acting as an undercover plant or being fed information from ALPA or the DMEC. I don't think you're acting as an interested individual.

I am an interested party and nothing more.

I would not want unofficial answers that I give you as an outsider to appear in court at a later date as being "from the RJDC" or one of the principals.

In what way would answering these simple questions about the ramifications of the RJDC sponsored lawsuit prejudice your case? These questions do not go to findings of fact, but rather to your claims for relief and what the RJDC seeks through their lawsuit. Do you intent to keep this a secret? Why keep what you are after a secret? What is it you don't want us to know?

I don't mind debating the issues but I don't want to attempt to argue their case in a forum.

None of these questions is arguing the case. Not one. They are all about understanding what the RJDC seeks as relief from the courts.


If ALPA's lawyers want those specific questions answered, tell them to ask the questions in court. That way the judge and the jury can hear the qestions and the answers, and your lawyers can argue as they see fit.

Sorry Surplus, but but that dog won't hunt. I haven't talked to an ALPA lawyer and these questions don't go to the merit, or lack of merit of the lawsuit. It seems odd that you would claim that we are ignorant of the lawsuit, but then when we ask basic straight forward questions you at first state that all these questions have been answered time after time, then you state that you can't answer these questions because it would prejudice your lawsuit. Just a little contradiction there. What are you afraid of?

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2,
Here is the document that I was asking for your reaction about. It is an exact quote from the RJDC update and may be found on their website. What I really want to know is how you would react if ALPA negotiated for Comair or ASA a scope clause that imposed on Delta pilots, the same restrictions that Delta pilots want to impose on ASA and Comair.

I would have no problem with the ASA or CMR pilots negotiating for their best interests with their employer, even if it is to my detriment. I am not entitled to be a part of ASA or CMR negotiations. So long as my CBA is honored, I have no problem with it.

Just out of curiosity, your hypothetical contains the following:

• ALPA negotiates on behalf of its Air Wisconsin pilots terms that conflict with numerous sections of its preexisting USAirways working agreement.

If I understand you correctly, you also claim that this has happened to you or to other small jet pilots. Could you be specific as to exactly what sections of your contract have been violated by the DAL PWA? Have the CMR pilots filed a grievance to have CMR honor their PWA?

 

[HowlinMadMurdoc]

ENOUGH of this bickering! Both sides sound like a bunch of old ladies.

Here's a really freakin' simple solution to pacify the Anti-RJDC and RDJC crowd.

DAL pilots:

1. Agree to a list integration of DAL/CMR/ASA pilots at a 10:1/12:1 ratio.

2. Create competitive payscales for the E-series and C-series planes.

3. Agree and modify your DAL contract so that ALL Delta flying shall be done by a combined DAL/CMR/ASA pilot list. That would eliminate Skywest, CHQ/Republic, and Mesa from flying Delta passengers.

CMR/ASA pilots:

1. Agree to a list integration at 10:1/12:1

2. Agree to either a 24 month current equipment lock or a 24 month fence so that senior CMR/ASA pilots can't jump immediately into a bigger airframe at the expense of current DAL pilots.

3. DAL furloughees will get recalled before anymore hiring at CMR/ASA.

This constant bickering is a monumental waste of time and idiotic. BOTH sides have to SUCK it up and accept certain realities. So that all Delta flying is done by Delta pilots, DAL pilots have to understand that list integration and strong scope (ala NWA) is the only way to keep all Delta flying in-house. If Delta wants to outsource any flying, tighten the contract so that outsourced flying is limited to an airframe 19 seats or less. Anything above 19 is done by Delta pilots (DAL/CMR/ASA). CMR/ASA pilots have to understand that they are NOT entitled to an integration where the senior pilots can just jump into a 777.

Do these simple things and life might actually get better for everyone involved.

Drop the attitudes and egos. It's not getting anyone anywhere.

Rant over...

HMM

 

[PCL_128]

There's just one huge problem Murdoc: the DAL pilots would have to make enormous concessions to get management to agree to a single seniority list. In fact, I doubt management would agree to a one-list proposal no matter how sweet the pilots make the deal. The whipsaw that Delta management has created is monumental. They'll never give that up. That's why all this whining from the RJDC about the PID is a waste of time. The PID doesn't force a one-list. It would have to be agreed to by management, and that just ain't gonna happen.

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

ENOUGH of this bickering! Both sides sound like a bunch of old ladies.

Here's a really freakin' simple solution to pacify the Anti-RJDC and RDJC crowd.

DAL pilots:

1. Agree to a list integration of DAL/CMR/ASA pilots at a 10:1/12:1 ratio.

2. Create competitive payscales for the E-series and C-series planes.

3. Agree and modify your DAL contract so that ALL Delta flying shall be done by a combined DAL/CMR/ASA pilot list. That would eliminate Skywest, CHQ/Republic, and Mesa from flying Delta passengers.

CMR/ASA pilots:

1. Agree to a list integration at 10:1/12:1

2. Agree to either a 24 month current equipment lock or a 24 month fence so that senior CMR/ASA pilots can't jump immediately into a bigger airframe at the expense of current DAL pilots.

3. DAL furloughees will get recalled before anymore hiring at CMR/ASA.

This constant bickering is a monumental waste of time and idiotic. BOTH sides have to SUCK it up and accept certain realities. So that all Delta flying is done by Delta pilots, DAL pilots have to understand that list integration and strong scope (ala NWA) is the only way to keep all Delta flying in-house. If Delta wants to outsource any flying, tighten the contract so that outsourced flying is limited to an airframe 19 seats or less. Anything above 19 is done by Delta pilots (DAL/CMR/ASA). CMR/ASA pilots have to understand that they are NOT entitled to an integration where the senior pilots can just jump into a 777.

Do these simple things and life might actually get better for everyone involved.

Drop the attitudes and egos. It's not getting anyone anywhere.

Rant over...

HMM

Ain't gonna happen. You must be a Comair or ASA pilot--or the like. 10:1? YGTBSM. Then you have the audacity to say that a Comair pilot shouldn't expect to jump into the left seat of the 777, which is just what the #10, #20, #30, #40, #50, #60, #70, #80, #90, 100, 110, 120 will do after your 2 year fence. No wonder the Delta pilots wouldn't cooperate, with expectations like those.

So glad to be out of that mess.

 

[FDJ2]

Surplus, you wrote:

My point is that I think I've heard these very same questions before, if not identical unbelievably close, asked by ALPA lawyers or the Delta MEC through their lawyers (who also work for ALPA).


Just a thought, but if ALPA lawyers asked these questions of the RJDC/Plaintiffs in deposition, as is their right, weren't the plaintiffs required to answer them? So wouldn't ALPA already have the truthful answers to these questions? If ALPA attorneys already have the answers, then what are you afraid of?

 

[FDJ2]

I'd really like to see you try to negotiate what you have done with respect to Comair and have it apply to United. There's just no way it would fly.

The DAL PWA applies to United just as much as it does to CMR.

If DAL purchased United, United would be treated in accordance with the DAL PWA. One advantage the CMR pilots have over united is that the DAL PWA allows air carrirs like CMR to fly permitted aircraft as part of a DCI contract. United would not be allowed to bid for Ejets on DCI.

 

[HowlinMadMurdoc]

Ain't gonna happen. You must be a Comair or ASA pilot--or the like. 10:1? YGTBSM. Then you have the audacity to say that a Comair pilot shouldn't expect to jump into the left seat of the 777, which is just what the #10, #20, #30, #40, #50, #60, #70, #80, #90, 100, 110, 120 will do after your 2 year fence. No wonder the Delta pilots wouldn't cooperate, with expectations like those.

So glad to be out of that mess.

Maybe I was being too subtle in my post. How about DAL pilots agree to a single seniority list with CMA and ASA pilots but instead of 10:1 or 12:1, something higher? Whatever the number (and I was just throwing out numbers for the sake of discussion), the integration could be offset by a fence. Okay, 24 months isn't long enough. How about five years? Ten years? Career-length? Maybe the list could be integrated akin to what NWA and the original Republic did back in the early 80's. Suppose Delta bought E170/E190 series planes and placed a fence so that the "highest" airframe a CMR/ASA pilot can reach for the length of the fence would be those airframes?

The moral of my post was this - both pilot groups and management need to suck it up and give a little (or a lot) if we are to stop the bleeding of mainline jobs to the regional ranks.

Otherwise, the career path of a airline pilot will continue spiraling downward.

As for me, I don't work for CMR/ASA or the like. I work for Skyway and about to be furloughed.

HMM

 

[FDJ2]

What, no answers to these very simple questions yet. Imagine that. Why is the RJDC so afraid of these simple questions?

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

Maybe I was being too subtle in my post. How about DAL pilots agree to a single seniority list with CMA and ASA pilots but instead of 10:1 or 12:1, something higher? Whatever the number (and I was just throwing out numbers for the sake of discussion), the integration could be offset by a fence. Okay, 24 months isn't long enough. How about five years? Ten years? Career-length? Maybe the list could be integrated akin to what NWA and the original Republic did back in the early 80's. Suppose Delta bought E170/E190 series planes and placed a fence so that the "highest" airframe a CMR/ASA pilot can reach for the length of the fence would be those airframes?

The moral of my post was this - both pilot groups and management need to suck it up and give a little (or a lot) if we are to stop the bleeding of mainline jobs to the regional ranks.

Otherwise, the career path of a airline pilot will continue spiraling downward.

As for me, I don't work for CMR/ASA or the like. I work for Skyway and about to be furloughed.

HMM

Sorry to hear about the furlough. As for a list integration, a staple would have been a windfall for the Comair and ASA group, and it wouldn't have been at anyone's expense. Regardless, the 3 to be 1 group would have never been able to convince Delta that it was in their best interest to have one list of 15K pilots rather than three lists of 7K, 2k, 2K pilots. It's all a moot point, which the Comair and ASA pilots also fail to grasp. Actually, they do grasp it, which is why there is a lawsuit. They know that they can't get it from Delta, know their careers are about to head even further south than they already are, and need to get the money from somewhere.

Glad to be gone

 

[FDJ2]

Why is the RJDC so afraid of these simple questions?

 

[FDJ2]

Dan Ford and his troupe of RJDCers sure don't seem to want to answer a few simple questions about their lawsuit. Their unwillingness to explain the ramifications of their lawsuit is noted.


8 Simple Questions for the RJDC
Simple questions Braveheart refused to answer

1. Can the DAL pilot group, or any pilot group own/control their code?

2. If you can't control (own) the code, then how can you prevent outsourcing?

3. According to the RJDC lawsuit, can ALPA negotiate scope language for the DAL pilots that limits another ALPA pilot group access to the DL code regardless of wholly owned status?

4. According to the RJDC, does CMR/ASA being wholly owned or not have any effect on the RJDC lawsuit? If so, what does it change?

5. According to the RJDC lawsuit, would ALPA be allowed to negotiate scope limits on the DL code which would prevent another ALPA pilot group from flying DL code passengers on 90 seat, 110 seat or 150 seat aircraft?

6. If the RJDC lawsuit were to prevail, would a combined DAL/ASA PWA be able to apply DL code scope restrictions on CMR if CMR were a wholly owned or spun off? How about scope restrictions limiting DL code access to Mesa or Freedom?

7. Explain the following from your lawsuit and how it prevents whipsawing and outsourcing:

"Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated"

8. Is there any claim for relief in the RJDC lawsuit which would compel a single list or PWA? If so, which one?

There is no demagoguery or political slant to any of these questions. Straight froward questions deserve straight forward answers, not evasion. I look forward to Braveheart's straight forward answers.