a MAJOR announcement @ SkyWest

[flying4food]

Who gives a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** about anyone's toes? Not I. Everyone for himself, and if it involves bruising egos or exremities, who really gives a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**.

And I thought it was the Alaska acquisition announcement...

That's right, the Alaska Board of Director's meeting is this week, what a coincidence. Look for Skywest to buy out Alaska and staple all the Horizon and Alaska pilots to the bottom of the list.

Just to mention a few!!

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ
Please answer my question as to the why. Why does it bother/scare DALPA that they had to have this (restriction on codeshare with airlines operating jets larger than 70 seats) written into the contract? You have dodged the issue. Don't you see it as unfare to SkyWest?

Yes FDJ, answer that question.

The answer is that ALPA negotiated the contract. This part of the contract had nothing to do with FDJ interests, or the interests of any pilot at Delta. It has to do with ALPA National.

ALPA's President has stated that fifty seats is a "natural dividing line" and the Presidents of Bombardier, Dornier, Embraer, Boeing and Aerospatial have reflected that it is impossible for them to market a 70 to 110 seat aircraft in the US due to the restraints placed on the operation of such an aircraft by ALPA and the major pilots' unions. These airplanes are being marketed in Europe, or not being built at all.

It is a clear anti trust problem. ALPA should not be able to decide where airplanes are being flown and what equipment is flown, but it is clearly the case.

Note that when it is in ALPA's interests to operate a regional aircraft with furloughed mainline pilots, ALPA always insists that the same size and weight restrictions are met and the airplanes are operated under a separate operating certificate. All of this exists so ALPA can continue to control the market and keep the undersireable aircraft out.

ALPA does not want the line blurred between the haves and the have nots. This is an internal ALPA problem that they are extrapolating to Skywest.

Skywest should get together with a Manufacturer and file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, or bring private litigation based on a unfair restraint of trade allegation. It is a good case, wish somebody would bring it.

 

[Splert]

The first post was not very helpful.

The second and third posts were clearly being sarcastic.

I am done, have a good day.

Splert

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Sorry guys, I must have missed that question addressed to me. The short answer is that we must have control over whom the company chooses as their codeshare partner. The clause in question gives us that. It prevents mgt from putting our code on other airlines without our permission, and using that to shrink mainline.

Another answer is one that fins already touched on. It is another attempt to curtail the shifting our flying from high paying airlines to those who have traditionally not paid as well, a la freedom. The natural dividing line, while it may not be natural, certainly seems to be necessary. Granted, some may deem it unfair, but the majority in this profession do not want to see some sort of limit to the amount of large airplanes flown by airlines who do not pay as well. We are seeing perfect examples right now with the LCC's of how that practice can damage the profession and lower pay across the industry.

The inevitable question will be why can't the regionals pay what mainline does. People always ask why Delta pilots automatically assume that our pay for certain airplanes would exceed that negotiated by CMR, ASA, etc. The answer is found both in history and in negotiating leverage. The legacy carriers have both on their side. We are working off of a pre-deregulation contract, which allows us to build off gains that took 70 years of pattern bargaining to earn. It is naive to assume that a traditional "regional" carrier could achieve in a few contracts what we achieved in our history. Also, regulation helped as well. You no longer have that advantage. When you factor in the increased leverage we have via our size and ability to shut the entire system down, most would agree that our chances of raising the bar on pay is better. Conversely, your chances of lowering it are also better. Is that a guarantee? Of course not. But it is almost a rule. I would ask those who disagree to name any post deregulation carrier (freight carriers excluded due to differences in their industry forces) with an industry leading contract. factoring in pay, benefits, retirement, etc. There are few out there.

However, the fact that it did not happen in the past does not mean that it could not happen now. If you did get 717's, I would hope that you achieved the best pay in the country. That would help us all. The odds, however, are against you, which is why ALPA (and DALPA) supports that dividing line. The potential to hurt all of us is greater than the potential to help all of us.

Fins keeps advocating a lawsuit (naturally). What he neglects is that ALPA (or DALPA) has done nothing that prevents you from operating any airplane you want (just as we have not prevented Delta from operating all the rjs they want). We do, however, have a contractual and legal right to some control over with whom mgt codeshares. Does the fact that they could not run out and put their code on any other carrier limit that carriers ability to operate? Heck no. If Skywest mgt wants 717's, they can buy as many as they want and we could not do a thing (which is why any suit would be doomed to failure). We would, however, then have a right to force OUR mgt to stop putting OUR code on your flights.

Would we do that? I don't know. It would naturally depend on a lot of factors. The short answer to the original rumor, and the only reason that I even entered this thread, is that we COULD do that. There is no grey area to that section of our contract, and absent a BK judge throwing our contract our (which doesn't seem likely, at least in the forseeable future), Delta would be forced to comply. The language is clear and unambiguous. Would we allow them to violate it. I guess that remains to be seen (IF, of course, the rumor has any validity).

 

[~~~^~~~]

It prevents mgt from putting our code on other airlines without our permission, and using that to shrink mainline.

And if Skywest is operating their airplanes under a non DL code - how does that allow Delta management to shrink mainline?

Clearly the effect of your contract is to reduce the number of competitors in the marketplace. Management shares your interest in reducing competition. Everyone benefits, right?

Well, what about the consumer. The consumer is who is law is designed to protect.

What your contract does is establish a horizontal restraint on trade. It goes beyond labor protections by establishing a de facto size limit on aircraft Skywest, or as your contract reads, any commercial air carrier, can operate - if they in any way, under any separate subsidiary, perform any service for Delta.

I don't argue with the intent of DALPA, but clearly the contract is too broad to be legal and is not enforceable if challenged.

Oh, by the way, I thought you wrote that the RJDC suit was going to be dismissed. What happened?

 

[sleepy]

And if Skywest is operating their airplanes under a non DL code - how does that allow Delta management to shrink mainline?

Clearly the effect of your contract is to reduce the number of competitors in the marketplace. Management shares your interest in reducing competition. Everyone benefits, right?

Well, what about the consumer. The consumer is who is law is designed to protect.

What your contract does is establish a horizontal restraint on trade. It goes beyond labor protections by establishing a de facto size limit on aircraft Skywest, or as your contract reads, any commercial air carrier, can operate - if they in any way, under any separate subsidiary, perform any service for Delta.

I don't argue with the intent of DALPA, but clearly the contract is too broad to be legal and is not enforceable if challenged.

Oh, by the way, I thought you wrote that the RJDC suit was going to be dismissed. What happened?

No, it does not limit Skywest's size. They can do anything they want to, they just can't keep the DAL flying if they want to compete with DAL by flying aircraft that are prohibited by the agreement between Skywest and DAL.

Who is going to challenge this? Skywest can't because they agree to the terms of the contract they signed with DAL. I'm sure that they can terminate the contract, both parties have an out clause. The Skywest pilots? Hummm, I'm not a lawyer but I don't know what standing they would have in this matter. The RJDC, maybe, are Skywest pilots going to become RJDC members?

If the DAL PWA did not have this provision, ASA and Comair would be flying 777's, this is the basis of the scope clause. This is wat the RJDC people want.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Oh, by the way, I thought you wrote that the RJDC suit was going to be dismissed. What happened?

I never wrote that that steaming pile of manure you call a lawsuit would be dismissed. I wrote that you would lose. You will.

 

[Russ]

I am not sure this provision would pass the sniff test in court. Yeah, I know its been reviewed ad nauseam by D and ALPA, but I wonder how it would do in a court of law as oppossed to a court of public(pilot) opinion.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Why wouldn't it? Despite what fins says, Skywest is free to operate whatever airplanes they want. Delta is free to choose their codeshare partners. Delta has agreed to give us a say in that matter. It is perfectly legal.

 

[Russ]

I say that because of an unpalatable level of coercion exists. I don't feel like looking through all your posts, so to paraphrase you, SkyWest is free to operate larger jets for UA, but it comes at the cost of losing the contract with Delta. That is not even implied, its an out right threat. I know you don't speak other than for yourself, I however can see the writing on the wall. What SkyWest does with another company should be of no concern to you. You would much rather have SkyWest or any other large regional working for you than against you.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

It is not a threat, it is a condition of doing business with us, one your mgt knew all along. To imply otherwise makes it seem much more ominous than it really is.

Within any business relationship exists certain conditions which must be met. Those conditions are neither threats, nor illegal coercion. They are merely rules which must be followed. Not doing so could lead to the ending of that business relationship.

Let me give you an example. I own a building. You want to rent an apartment from you. The lease specifies no pets, and you agree to that clause. If halfway through the lease, you were to get a pet, would I then be justified to terminate our relationship? Regardless of whether or not I was justified in banning pets, you knew that they were banned, and agreed to the terms. Would I be threatening you if I reminded you of your lease if I saw you in the pet store?

The point is, if you want to move out, you can have all the pets you want!

 

[embdrvr]

We are working off of a pre-deregulation contract, which allows us to build off gains that took 70 years of pattern bargaining to earn.

Now if you could just get the LCC competition to pay their pilots the same kind of money......

Or what about bringing back 1960's style regualtion of the industry?

Is that pre-deregulation mindset a good or bad thing?

How long did dinosaurs roam the earth before their eventual demise?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Now if you could just get the LCC competition to pay their pilots the same kind of money......

Or what about bringing back 1960's style regualtion of the industry?

Is that pre-deregulation mindset a good or bad thing?

How long did dinosaurs roam the earth before their eventual demise?

I agree with your first line.

Regarding the second line, I think that deregulation was great for the consumer, lousy for the profession.

What do dinosaurs have to do with this conversation. Are you predicting the demise of Delta? High pay? I wouldn't put any money on either. We've been down this road before, and came out ok. We will do the same this time.

 

[embdrvr]

What do dinosaurs have to do with this conversation. Are you predicting the demise of Delta? High pay? I wouldn't put any money on either. We've been down this road before, and came out ok. We will do the same this time.

I respectfully disagree. Things are different now. LCC's are taking an increasingly larger share of the domestic market. Politically we are at risk with the potential demise of RLA thanks to Sen McCain. I don't think this recovery will be the same as previous ones. It just looks like a different landscape now. I was here for the last go-around and we simply didn't have the LCC presence that we have today.
I don't think Delta will meet its demise. Ultimately I don't think you can expect compensation to remain at the current levels. It's just a simple matter of economics.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

 

[VFR on Top]

Let me give you an example. I own a building. You want to rent an apartment from you. The lease specifies no pets, and you agree to that clause. If halfway through the lease, you were to get a pet, would I then be justified to terminate our relationship? Regardless of whether or not I was justified in banning pets, you knew that they were banned, and agreed to the terms. Would I be threatening you if I reminded you of your lease if I saw you in the pet store?

The point is, if you want to move out, you can have all the pets you want!

A weak analogy, dude. Here's a better one: I rent an apartment from you. I also rent an apartment from another complex where I keep my mistress. Your restrictions on pets or new paint or anything else have zero bearing on my contractual relationship with the other apartment complex, and any attempt by you to assert control over that relationship would never hold up in court.

Another example: your logic would seem to suggest that DL's toilet paper supplier, who supplies DL rolls of TP with 120 sheets per roll, cannot sell larger rolls to other airlines as it would put DL at an ass-sheet-mile cost disavantage to its competition.

Anyway, if the rumors are true, I guess we'll get to see what happens. I expect DALPA's assertion of purview over parts of SkyWest's business not related to DL codeshare will remain unaffected.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I never wrote that that steaming pile of manure you call a lawsuit would be dismissed. I wrote that you would lose. You will.

Is there any way to search for your post on that? I'm pretty darn sure you said ALPA would prevail on their motion for summary judgement. I would also like to find my initial post on C2K for a few more "I told you so's."

With regard to the outsome of the litigation, I doubt it will have an outcome. ALPA will try to delay the inevitable and then settle, just like they do in 90% of their cases.

After all, if your client was as terribly in the wrong as ALPA is on these issues, you would recommend settlement also.

It will never go to trial - ALPA would be insane to let this go forward in a fair and open Court of law.

 

[~~~^~~~]

It is not a threat, it is a condition of doing business with us, one your mgt knew all along. To imply otherwise makes it seem much more ominous than it really is.

Within any business relationship exists certain conditions which must be met. Those conditions are neither threats, nor illegal coercion. They are merely rules which must be followed. Not doing so could lead to the ending of that business relationship

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! ALPA, Delta and the Delta MEC all have an interest in limiting competition. So this cartel got together and came up with a contract which limits certain airlines from operating a competitive product.

The DOT has been inept and lazy about enforcing anti trust laws which exist to benefit the CONSUMER. I mean Delta management just came right out and said they were planning to ignore the DOT's conditions for the Continental and Northwest codeshare. Everyone has gotten used to the DOT failing to enforce competition under the guise of trying to allow the industry to regulate itself back into profitability. ~ BUT ~ Just because you drive 70 through a 25MPH School Zone and manage not to get caught does not mean you are not breaking the law. It means only that you are fortunate enough not to have caught the attention of any one willing to enforce the law.

Delta, the Delta MEC and ALPA have conspired to develop a horizontal restraint of trade when they stop independent airlines from operating a undesireable size of equipment under a non-Delta code. That conspiracy harms consumers and producers of aircraft, not to mention the pilots who fly for Skywest. Some body needs to take the offenders behind the woodshed and with treble damages on the table, somebody probably will eventually. If Skywest management challenged the illegal portions of the contract the conditions would not be enforceable.

This is similar to the claims that the RJDC would destroy scope by attacking the portions of the contract that are illegal.

It is true, a contract has to be for a legal purpose to be enforceable. This is why ALPA's current scope strategy is so flawed, the whole strategy is based on remote control. ALPA wants to control flying that it does not participate in - when challenged ALPA's position can't stand because it is a horizontal restraint on trade - an attempt at an illegal monopoly.

If ALPA is going to create enforceable scope, they have to return to their roots and the beginning of labor law in this Country - which is All Delta Flying performed by Delta Pilots. Trying to control the flying of other airlines and other pilots is simply going further than the law allows.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Well,
I think that you are smoking crack on both fronts, but to each his own.

Out of curiosity, where did you hear that the judge had ruled on the motion?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

A weak analogy, dude. Here's a better one: I rent an apartment from you. I also rent an apartment from another complex where I keep my mistress. Your restrictions on pets or new paint or anything else have zero bearing on my contractual relationship with the other apartment complex, and any attempt by you to assert control over that relationship would never hold up in court.

Actually, it would if my lease specified that you would have to move if you rented an apt for your mistriss. You signed the lease, you knew the rules. It's my building, you broke the lease, you have to move in with your mistress!


Another example: your logic would seem to suggest that DL's toilet paper supplier, who supplies DL rolls of TP with 120 sheets per roll, cannot sell larger rolls to other airlines as it would put DL at an ass-sheet-mile cost disavantage to its competition.

If the toilet paper supplier signed a contract with those conditions, then he would have to abide by them or lose my contract. I don't see why that concept is so difficult. Skywest can buy ANY airplane they want, and fly it wherever they want. However, Delta would have the right (and the contractual obligation) to cancell their agreement with Skywest.


Anyway, if the rumors are true, I guess we'll get to see what happens. I expect DALPA's assertion of purview over parts of SkyWest's business not related to DL codeshare will remain unaffected.

IF skywest bought large airplanes, and IF Delta did not cancell the c/s agreement, it would ONLY be because the Delta pilots granted Delta relief from that section of the contract.

Without a BK judge forcing it, Delta cannot just ignore our contract. If they did, we would grieve it, and we would win. There is NO grey area with which mgt could make an argument. There is no FM clause, etc. If you like, I could post the language.

 

[~~~^~~~]

IF skywest bought large airplanes, and IF Delta did not cancell the c/s agreement, it would ONLY be because the Delta pilots granted Delta relief from that section of the contract.

Without a BK judge forcing it, Delta cannot just ignore our contract. If they did, we would grieve it, and we would win. There is NO grey area with which mgt could make an argument. There is no FM clause, etc. If you like, I could post the language.

IF Skywest management expressed a documented desire to operate a >70 seat aircraft and Delta expressed an intent to cx codeshare = Then any party damaged by Delta's action could sue Delta and ALPA either seeking damages, or injunctive relief. Just as I could not enforce a contract to obtain my alleged crack habit, you can not enforce a contract to create a horizontal restraint on trade that harms consumers, or manufacturers, airlines, or their pilots.

I don't believe the Judge has ruled yet in the matter of Ford v. ALPA but ALPA withdrew much of their motion since they already had argued facts contrary to their current position. The problem for ALPA's attorneys is the same problem ALPA National has - the Delta MEC is not under their control. It is tough to litigate when you can not control your client.

One allegation is that ALPA has violated its duty of fair representation to Comair pilots by attempting to transfer jobs to a favored employee group - well - when you are on trial for attempted murder, it is not smart to publicly threaten to murder the defendent.

ALPA will have to slap a muzzle on Bill Buergey, Duane Woerth and folks like J.A. These guys are politicians, not employees. It takes a certain mind set to want to run for MEC office and unfortunately for ALPA, these guys make terrible defense witnesses because the same things they have to say to get support are the same exact statements that threatens the defendants.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Fins,

I have to give it to you, you're wearing me out. If you keep repeating the same allegations, does that make them true?

The rjdc will lose in court. Perhaps the judge will throw it out, or perhaps they will lose at trial, but they will lose (thankfully for our profession). The supporters of the rjdc SHOULD then be removed from the union (time will tell if that will occur, but I have already started fighting for it). Our contract will withstand your selfish assault, just as it would if someone were to sue to change it regarding our ability to choose our codeshare partners.

Enjoy the last word here. I will enjoy it later.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Oh, and on what grounds are you going to have me removed from the union? Does that mean I don't have to pay dues for all the representation I'm getting? Oh please, what ever you do, don't throw Brier Rabbit in that there briar patch.

Somehow, if Duane Woerth is so pleased to get his picture taken eating cake and ice cream with Continental Scabs, he will not hold too much of a grudge about my support of pilots who are fighting for the right to bargain collectively with their employer.

ALPA actually has a history of offering Plaintiffs high office at National. We have an EVP who brought the Jet America litigation over a DFR claim. It is more likely that Dan Ford will rise in the ranks for fighting to restore the union than be tossed out. After all, continued malfeasance and retribution against RJDC supporters is illegal as well. Cheaper by the dozen just to buy 'em off. Unfortunately for ALPA, Ford can't be bought.

I will copy your post into my "I told you so" file that I'm starting.

 

[601Pilot]

????

The only flaw I see in that logic is that there will not be an
ALPA if the RJDC wins. I'm glad you are in the minority here at
ASA or I would think we were in trouble! Regionals are for
building time to move to the majors, always have been and
always will be and that's what the majority of us here are doing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting a better contract and
more money for the guys that will follow me and I'll be happy to
fight/picket/strike for it.

Buh-bye!

 

[Russ]

I suppose it is time to finish this dialogue as it serves only to to give the 3 of us a case of the red a$$.

All of our hypotheticals will end soon and the hardball starts thereafter. I don't believe we will get mainline size aircraft but the companies work seems to be centered around stretched RJ's.
SkyWest has a pretty forward leaning top management team. I find it hard to believe they would persue a course of action that would have us lose the contract with D. You might want to review your iron clad contract for leaks. A little background. The UA contract for the West came available in 97 or thereabouts. SkyWest approached D about it and was told absolutely no. No way would they code share with a carrier that was serving UA also. We would have to forfeit the contract with D. Well, as they say the rest is history.........

Finished here.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Russ,

There was nothing in our contract that would have prohibited that. I cannot answer for our mgt, but our contract has no loopholes where that is concerned. If mgt wanted to continue codesharing with skywest after skywest bought airplanes larger that 70 seat (72 seats for prop planes) they would need our permission.

I am not speculating whether or not that would be granted, just as I am not speculating whether you will buy those planes. All I am doing is pointing out contract language with which Delta must abide.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Re: ????

The only flaw I see in that logic is that there will not be an
ALPA if the RJDC wins. I'm glad you are in the minority here at
ASA or I would think we were in trouble! Regionals are for
building time to move to the majors, always have been and
always will be and that's what the majority of us here are doing.

So, you believe that pilots at regionals should recieve different representation by their union, or be under the control of the MEC's at major airlines?

The RJDC is not fighting to distroy ALPA. The RJDC is fighting for the principles our union was founded on, fighting alter ego airlines that undermine all of our collective bargaining efforts, including Delta's. Your post reflects that you genuinely do not understand the issues of representation involved.

ALPA should be leading the charge to stop alter ego airlines which are a blockade run of unions' efforts to hold a company to a contract. ALPA National does understand the problem and says some of the right things, for example when they talk about "brand scope." The problem is that ALPA National is unwilling, or unable, to control the big MEC's - particularly the Delta MEC.

The Delta MEC speaks for the Delta pilots through ALPA and that is good. I have no problem with the Delta MEC promoting the interests of their pilots. The problem is that currently the Delta MEC speaks for Comair, ASA, and Skywest pilots while at the same time using our only bargaining agent, ALPA, to block us from negotiating with our employer. I do have a huge problem with the fact my job with my employer is controlled by another pilot group's MEC without my vote and without my participation.

I believe that everyone, Fly Delta Jets included, supports the principles that employees should be able to bargain collectively with their employer and be represented by a union. It is a core, founding principle of ALPA. Now explain to me, how that destroys ALPA?

Yes, there is a damages demand, a big one that ALPA can not pay. If it is proven that ALPA has not represented their pilots at ASA and Comair fairly the ALPA has a choice, they can fix their structure to allow ASA and Comair pilots the same representational rights as other ALPA pilot groups, or pay the money. The whole point of the damages demand is to force ALPA to act appropriately - because if they behave, they don't have to pay a dime.

ALPA is a political body. It is very difficult for ALPA National to control the politicians at the Delta MEC. They will not treat pilots at smaller airlines fairly unless forced to do so. Like you, I find a damages demand in the millions distasteful, but I realize it is necessary to secure the kind of representation needed to restore our industry and at the same time fix the problems that might cause ALPA to break down into a system of fiefdoms at war with each other.

Fly Delta's Jets and I agree on what is needed to fix the problem and we share the beliefs in the same core issues. We have very different opinions on how the repairs should be made. Restoring our industry requires unity - we all know that. Unity benefits you at ASA and pilots at Delta. But, throughout history employers have fought employees efforts to come together. At Delta we can expect a fight and it is easier for those in a comfortable position to enjoy the fat of the land rather than fight to fix problems that future mainline pilots, like you, are going to experience.

If the Delta MEC had not fought one list, their furloughed pilots would be CRJ700 Captains, you would have a career path, Skywest could operate whatever they wanted to fly under any code other than Delta's and it is unlikely we would have seven different groups of pilots flying Delta's narrow body domestic routes.

So why would that destroy ALPA? Just because the current political will at the Delta MEC favors military pilots over civillian? It is not that big a deal - ALPA could change in a moment and Duane Woerth could claim it was all his idea to return to the basic principles our union was founded on and the need for the RJDC would simply disappear.

~~~^~~~

 

[hawkowl88]

One list is the only solution

I've said before and I'll say it again. Contract, shmontract. Major airline pilot contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on in today's cutthroat, competitive, bankrupt environment. Ask UAL, USAIR, TWA. Christ what about Delta's no furlough clause? When the company's survival is at stake, everything is open to negotiation.

Scope can not survive across companies. A union only has as much bargaining power by admitting all qualified employees to the same list and affording equal protection. If the union sets up an artificial second class set of citizens it sows the seeds of its own demise via whipsawing. ALPA shouldn't be called a union it should be termed a dis-union. This attitude of I got mine and you can't have yours is suicidal. For christ sake staple everyone at the bottom and control the means of production.

Codeshare simply means you sell tickets for other airlines on specific routes DALPA can't control the airplanes of other companies. I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic. What are you going to strike over this scope clause? File CH11 and infuriate your non-pilot employees? I didn't think so. No credible threat, no bargaining power, no scope. Yeah, Yeah DALPA will sue. Whoopdedoo. All Delta has to do is point to UAL, & USAir farming out their flying as fast as they can shovel it out the door and scream "competitive disadvantage!" You won't be able to keep your payscale and your scope and your retirement and your workrules when everyone else is signing their lives away. Only brutal capitalist competition. Survival of the lowest bidder.

I hope as a good pilot you have an alternate, a 2nd alternate and a takeoff alternate and enough fuel to get there.

 

[PCL_128]

Fins, you need to look more closely at your cherished lawsuit. It doesn't ask for the elimination of "predatory" scope or damages assessments. It asks for BOTH. If Mr. Ford et al. win their lawsuit, it will mean the elimination of so-called "predatory" scope and the destruction of ALPA. ALPA would be required to pay hundreds of millions of dollars which they don't have.

You can try to make the RJDC and Mr. Ford seem like saints trying to save ALPA, but that doesn't ring true. Mr. Ford and his compatriots at the RJDC are nothing but greedy, whining, selfish litigants. They don't care about ALPA or what is best for the profession. They only care about getting absurd amounts of money from their own union.

Listen to 601Pilot. Most of your CMR/ASA brethren feel the way he does. You and your RJDC friends just won't listen to them.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Fins, you need to look more closely at your cherished lawsuit.

It is not my lawsuit, but I support the action.

You can try to make the RJDC and Mr. Ford seem like saints trying to save ALPA, but that doesn't ring true. Mr. Ford and his compatriots at the RJDC are nothing but greedy, whining, selfish litigants. They don't care about ALPA or what is best for the profession. They only care about getting absurd amounts of money from their own union.

You don't know any of the litigants and don't know their motives. Why is it so hard for you to believe that perhaps I am uncomfortable with another MEC negotiating my career? You are a radical, and probably feel I am too. You are this upset about the RJDC just trying to secure representation for our pilots - how would you feel if you were in our shoes? If I had control of your MEC and your employer, like DALPA effects control over ours?

Listen to 601Pilot. Most of your CMR/ASA brethren feel the way he does. You and your RJDC friends just won't listen to them.

Mr. 601 pilot does not have to support the RJDC and I bet he doesn't. He is confused and believes the RJDC can "destroy ALPA." They can't and they don't want to.

As a junior pilot, Mr. 601's job is effected more by the predatory actions of the Delta MEC than mine, but it is his choice. He has come along at a fortunate time and does not know the real harm that ALPA's scope policy can cause (after all, the effect has been felt most by the junior members of the Delta seniority list) {Also, by twarting much of the harm - the RJDC has helped Mr. 601 - he just does not know it} The ASA pilot group elected the officers that brought the PID and re-elected them. No one ran on the "lets let the Delta pilots take whatever they want and stop our attempts to secure job protection" platform. Yet, somehow, they were re-elected with great margins and pilot support.

Mr. 601 should have a voice that should be heard, not excluded. While I do disagree with him, I will fight for the right of his MEC to represent him. If the RJDC succeeds in securing representation for our pilots, then our MEC will have the power to act on Mr. 601's desires.

 

[PCL_128]

You don't know any of the litigants and don't know their motives. Why is it so hard for you to believe that perhaps I am uncomfortable with another MEC negotiating my career? You are a radical, and probably feel I am too. You are this upset about the RJDC just trying to secure representation for our pilots - how would you feel if you were in our shoes? If I had control of your MEC and your employer, like DALPA effects control over ours?

I am in your shoes. I work at Pinnacle (NWAirlink) where our flying is scoped by the NWA mainline contract. The NWA scope is a heck of a lot more restrictive than Delta's. We have to convert the new CRJs we are getting to 44-seat versions so that we can have more RJs. The NWA scope prevents us from having more than about 45 50-seat jets. We are completely prohibited from having ANYTHING over 50 seats. Mesaba had to get special permission to operate the Avro and they are limited to the number they currently have. I don't forsee the possibility of flying a 70 seater anytime in they near future. Certainly not a 90 seater.

Am I worried about my career being limited by mainline NWA scope? Absolutely not!!! ALPA is doing their best to make sure that the high paying mainline jobs will still be there when it's my time to apply. I don't want to be stuck at a regional the rest of my life. The scope at the majors is helping to keep the high paying jobs that I want someday. It is not limiting my career.

Mr. 601 pilot does not have to support the RJDC and I bet he doesn't. He is confused and believes the RJDC can "destroy ALPA." They can't and they don't want to.

Explain to me how a ruling in the RJDC's favor requiring hundreds of millions of dollars to be paid by ALPA would not bankrupt the union. ALPA simply does not have the money to pay in the event they lose this lawsuit. The RJDC can destroy ALPA, and I believe that is their ultimate objective.