Allegheny Furloughs?

[surplus1]

We can only hope that the terminations at ALLEGHENY are not being driven by the need to bring USAIR guys in and that they are just shrinking. If it is as you say that they are preparing to bring USAIR pilots onboard and they fired current employees to do so I am sure there has to be more than one labor lawyer that would be happy to make ALLEGHENY pay dearly for that mistake.

Are you really serious or are you just being facetious?

The happenings at ALG and PDT are unquestionably triggered by LOA 81 that ALPA and USAirways just agreed to. Whether the new regional jets go to Potomac (all to be flown by USAir pilots), to the subcontractors (half to be flown by USAir pilots) or to the WO's (half to be flown by USAir pilots), the fact is the implementation of this LOA makes the current Allegheny and Piedmont and PSA pilots, redundant. That is exactly why their aircraft are being retired without replacement and their pilots let go.

These pilots jobs have been bargained away by the union they pay to represent their interest. That's it plain and simple. They DO need a good labor lawyer and they need him now.

What a nasty stinking mess and hopefully no alpa member would touch an RJ on the property until their Illegally fired ALPA brothers/sisiters are back on the pay roll. Anything else would be grounds for de-certifying the USAIR ALPA group.

Either you're pulling our chain or you just don't really understand what is happening. I'm not sure which.

This RJ situation at USAirways was created by the ALPA and the mainline pilots. It is not an accident of circumstance, it is the result of deliberate action.

The USAir MEC, supported and aided by ALPA, has consistently prevented the USAir WO's from operating ANY regional jets, thereby forcing the Company to sub-contract the flying.

The J4J protocol would send any new regional jets to additional subcontractors or a new alter ego subsidiary.

The whole process is the brainchild of ALPA and the USAirways MEC. ALPA pilots are the one's that are doing this to other ALPA pilots. It is not an accident, it is intentional! Trying to sugar-coat it is simply denial of reality.

Whatever your opinions, we need to call a spade, a spade.

 

[Deltoid]

"The USAir MEC, supported and aided by ALPA, has consistently prevented the USAir WO's from operating ANY regional jets, thereby forcing the Company to sub-contract the flying. "


Not true. Having come from Allegheny I can speak about this. There scope did not force Mainline to go to sub contractors. There was no language to that fact. Only a seat and aircraft limit. What happened is the door was left open for management to go anywhere for the cheapest bidder. That was very unfortunate for us. There was nothing stopping management from giving us the A/C. We even test flew different A/C but Mesa undercut us. It should have had language in it forcing the flying into the Wholly owneds but it did not. This was the fault of the US AIR MEC and to some degree our MEC for not insisting on protecting us from out sourcing, so they sat back and did nothing thinking we would be taken care of, NOT. Since we were leading in DHC-8 Pay rates and work rules compared to other regionals we simply were not competitive. It sucked but its the ugly truth. When I saw things would never change I moved on as fast as I could. I feel really bad about whats happening to those guys now, with the furlughs and all. ALG has so much potetntial but management fails everytime to see it. So in a nut shell there was nothing preventing jets from going to the Wholly owneds just the fact cheaper labor and no need to spend capatal since someone else will buy the A/C is what screwed us.

Joe D. (Former DHC-8 CPT ALG)

 

[alek]

good luck!

I think it is management problem at Allegheny or USAirways to hire 45 people from January and then furlough/terminate all of them.
It is interesting that even ALPA National didn't sign on the,J4Jbut the Management from WO's wants their own pilots to do first and then everybody will sign on it ?!!
I don't thinkALPA National will sign it, because if you furlough your own employee and then USAirways pilots come on the property, to me that is clearly scabing.
I think,important thing is who signs first. If WO's do first, then ALPA National has excuse if not, then it will be interesting.
Let me be clear LOA without signed document doesn't mean anything. It can be changed many times.
I feel sorry for my brother who got furloughed second time within 8 months, now from Allegheny.
Good luck to you Allegheny/PSA/Pedmont Pilots don't give up. Remember, let the Mainline pilots and ALPA National sign first and then decide for yourself. If you sign first, they can change
agreement many times.

 

[surplus1]

Originally posted by Deltoid

I wrote: "The USAir MEC, supported and aided by ALPA, has consistently prevented the USAir WO's from operating ANY regional jets, thereby forcing the Company to sub-contract the flying. "

You replied:

Not true. Having come from Allegheny I can speak about this. There scope did not force Mainline to go to sub contractors. There was no language to that fact. So in a nut shell there was nothing preventing jets from going to the Wholly owned just the fact cheaper labor and no need to spend capital since someone else will buy the A/C is what screwed us.

What follows is the exact language from the USAirways CBA (from Section 1. B.), with emphasis (bold italics) provided by me.

3. Sections 1(B)1 and 1(B)2 above shall not apply to a carrier that (i) is owned, controlled or operated by the Company or US Airways Group, whether directly or indirectly, or (ii) utilizes the name, designator code, logo, marks or marketing identity currently or in the future used by the Company, if and only if such carrier:
a. Does not operate any aircraft with a maximum certificated seating capacity in excess of 69 seats; and

b. Does not operate any F-28 aircraft; and

c. Does not operate any freight aircraft that carry freight on or above the cabin floor and that have a maximum certificated gross take-off weight of greater than 70,000 or fewer pounds, and

d. Does not operate any aircraft that utilizes a turbine-driven engine without an external propeller (“Jet Aircraft”) under the Company’s designator code, name, logo or marketing identity, except that Commuter Carriers may operate Jet Aircraft (other than F-28 aircraft) under the following limits:

Those "limits" are 12, for the 1st 12 months, increase to 25 during the 25th through 36th month (from effective date) and finally reach 35 regional jets after all USAir furloughed pilots are recalled (and event that occurred already and does not include the present furloughs).

While the language does not specify the wholly owned subsidiaries as differentiated from the sub contractors, the fact remains that the contract prevents the operation of any jet by the wholly owned subsidiaries initially and directly resulted in the subcontracting of the 35 RJs ultimately permitted under the exemption.

The cause of USAirways inability to effectively use regional jets is the ALPA scope clause in the USAirways CBA. That same scope clause has also de facto prevented the operation of jets by the USAir Group subsidiaries and literally forced the subcontracting of their work.

The most recent LOA 81 exacerbates that condition and further coerces the pilots of ALG, PDT and PSA, to either accept its onerous conditions, plus concessions to their CBA, or face increasing terminations, furloughs and perhaps even liquidation. Do I even have to mention that ALPA utilizes the dues of these pilots to negotiate contracts that will eliminate their work? It will be nothing short of miraculous if ALPA doesn't face multiple new litigation as a consequence.

I am quite confident that the cost structure of the WO's (negotiated by ALPA) was not lost on ALPA's attorneys or the USAir MEC when this contract was negotiated. Therefore, they had to be cognizant that the conditions they created would preclude the operation of regional jets by the wholly owned subsidiaries and literally force the subcontracting of their work to other "lowest bidder" carriers. That is exactly what happened in the past and is being repeated today.

While ALPA preaches to the high heavens its alleged effort to "raise the bar" and create higher compensation for regional pilots, ALPA (at the same time) writes mainline contractual provisions that make it impossible to do so. ALPA's efforts in fact operate to encourage subcontracting, create bidding wars among the small airlines, and force the lowering of regional pilot's compensation packages. All the while ALPA allegedly "represents" those regional pilots and collects their dues.

In 1999, ALPA sued Delta to prevent Comair pilots from flying certain routes, thereby attempting to deprive Comair pilots of a portion of their work. (Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Delta Air Lines, Inc, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 13196, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). [The suit was dismissed and deferred to the System Board]. This later resulted in the loss of work for Comair pilots.

In 2001 ALPA apparently "found religion" in it's public rhetoric with respect to Comair pilots. "Billed by ALPA president Duane Woerth as a crusade to recognize regional pilots as “real airline pilots” rather than de-facto trainees for the major airlines, the Comair negotiations were to become a “watershed event in reshaping how people think about and compensate pilots,” according to Woerth." Industry Braces for Fallout from Comair Strike Settlement, Aviation Int’l News, Aug. 2001.

Yet, with respect to the Comair strike, there is little doubt "the Air Line Pilots Association failed to achieve its ultimate goal in the minds of pilots and union officials alike." While ALPA fronted with the politically correct façade of support for the strike, in fact ALPA did nothing more than the absolute minimum legally required in backing the Comair pilots.

ALPA lawyers openly opposed the efforts of Comair pilot negotiators to achieve improved Scope of their own, more than once arguing (at the bargaining table) with management and against their own client. ALPA's Executive Administrator, I presume acting on behalf of ALPA's president, attempted to circumvent the Comair MEC by sending direct mailgrams to individual Comair pilots urging them to accept a contract that their own MEC had voted against recommending.

So, while the Association's President makes highly publicized statements (such as those made during the Comair Strike, see above) about ALPA's efforts on behalf of regional pilots, the union quietly negotiates, behind the scenes, to achieve the exact opposite.

The hypocrisy manifest in the difference between ALPA's rhetoric pro regional pilots and ALPA's overt actions against regional pilots is legendary.

(The) …. "Union may be likened to that serpent of the fables who on one body had two heads that fighting each other with poisoned fangs, killed themselves. [ Peter F. Drucker, The New Society: The Anatomy of the Industrial Order 14 (1951).]

Surplus1

 

[Capt.SpongeBob]

I have a friend who was one of the furghlouged. He got a call the next day recinding the furghlough. I'ts a crazy industry.

 

[Humty72]

aiee

I have a friend who was one of the furghlouged. He got a call the next day recinding the furghlough. I'ts a crazy industry.

That is pretty crazy.... talk about an emotional rollercoaster.

 

[aceshigh]

Same stuff is happening at Piedmont

I was called by the PDT training dept. and told to bring all of my company issued stuff to SBY and that everyone who had not completed training was being let go. Got called the very next day and told not to come and to wait for them to call. Sounds like everyone at the WO's is getting the short end of the stick on this one.

Aceshigh

 

[Deltoid]

According to What your saying, if I understand this right, is that the following language prevented some how the Wholly owneds from flying RJ's and allowed the contract carriers to fly them. While reading that paragraph without being able to reference paragraph 1(B)1 and 1(B)2 is that it does no such thing. The way I read it is Paragraph 3 (i) pertains to the wholly owneds and Paragraph 3 (ii) pertains to the contract carriers because Mesa & Chataqua both used our designator codes, Logo's and marketing. What they did is all encompassing, then it goes to further state the restrictions which applies to both wholly owned & contract. Mesa & Chataqua fell under that language as evidenced by the fact they were restricted to 35 planes initially then allowed to fly more when a subsequent LOA was signed. The key word in that section 3 wording is "OR" not "AND".... The USAir guys tried to cover all avenues and plug any wholes by which management could get around the restrictions.


3. Sections 1(B)1 and 1(B)2 above shall not apply to a carrier that (i) is owned, controlled or operated by the Company or US Airways Group, whether directly or indirectly, or (ii) utilizes the name, designator code, logo, marks or marketing identity currently or in the future used by the Company, if and only if such carrier:


You Said:
"While the language does not specify the wholly owned subsidiaries as differentiated from the sub contractors, the fact remains that the contract prevents the operation of any jet by the wholly owned subsidiaries initially and directly resulted in the subcontracting of the 35 RJs ultimately permitted under the exemption. "

I say paragraph 3(i) is "very specific" to the wholly owneds. Read it again. Now, where does it say "specifically" a wholly owned is excluded from flying jets initially or otherwise. Paragraph d. states they may fly jets as long as it is not an F-28 but with restrictions. "except that Commuter Carriers may operate Jet Aircraft (other than F-28 aircraft) under the following limits: " So the big question is how does that language prevent a wholly owned from flying jets. The answer is it DOES NOT. So the other question is what happened.. ECONOMICS... MESA had RJ's waiting and ready the day it was signed. Why would USAIR group go out and spend the money out of their pockets to buy aircraft, simulators, training contracts for overflow, proving runs, training program development, use higher paid pilots with less efficient work rules ( in managements eyes, not mine) when some one else would do it for a fraction of the cost. Its that simple.

Another point is you state ALPA negotiated this and ALPA negotiated that. When I was ALG we had a negotiating team which consisted of elected seniority list active full time pilots of ALG. ALPA did not provide a negotiator just funds and an attorney who draws up the final language from the negotiating history, nothing different then any other airline. I, like everyone else there filled out a questionaire which essentially was a wish list of items our negotiators were to address. There was nothing ALPA forced on us or came up with. Finally the seniority list pilots of ALG voted and ratified the contract not ALPA. It was our unity which got us where we were in good pay and work rules not ALPA.

The negotiators of the scope language, LOA81 and priors were the act of elected seniority list active full time pilots of USAirways, Inc. not ALPA. Same as at Delta. It was our negotiators that came up with the scope language and our guys who voted on it, not ALPA. I did not hear anything from the Comair guys stating ALPA forced them into their contract or manipulated the negotiations.

No union is perfect but you have to place the blame where it belongs and thats the pilot group of the parent carrier and management. If the USAir mainline guys had any decency they would have put in their language that the wholly owned carriers get the jets with a nice flow through agreement, that way everyone wins.

 

[surplus1]

TO: Deltoid - Part 1 of 2

What I'm really saying is that ALPA's misguided agenda/effort to stop the RJ proliferation via the misapplication of scope, coupled with bigotry (on the part of mainline pilot leaders) towards regional pilot groups are the primary cause of the regeneration of alter ego airlines, the growing outsourcing of flying and the conflicts between ALPA members. Management has taken full advantage of this flawed policy to the detriment of all professional pilots.

When I say "ALPA" you must recognize that the organization is the people that control it at any given point in time. That includes the National Officers, all save two of the Executive Vice Presidents, and the MEC Officers of four major airlines. Those people are ALL mainline pilot leaders. They control ALPA and set its agenda. They are directly responsible for what is taking place.

I guess the bottom line is you have your opinions and I have mine. I'm not going to debate the fine points of the USAir CBA with you. Not because I don't think I can hold my own, but because it really will accomplish nothing and it is not the issue.

Contractual language is often interpreted according to the views of the interpreter. That is why we have grievance procedures and arbitration. Ten minutes after a contract is signed we begin to argue about what it means. Even the arbitration process doesn't change much as witnessed by your recent decision at Delta. You didn't like the Company's interpretation of the contract so you filed a grievance. I think your MEC knew very well that the company was right. They lacked the courage to tell the membership the truth, so they filed the grievance for political reasons rather than contractual reasons. Now that the arbitrator has told you what it means, you still don't like it, you refuse to admit the truth and instead you criticize the arbitrator and resort to calling him names. Much like what you folks do on the RJ issue and what most of your members do when they write in these forums.

You believe what you want to believe and no one can confuse you with the facts. There is no point in my trying.

The results of what the USAir contract has done are self-evident. The wholly owned have no jets and the company's flying has been subcontracted outside of USAir Group. For that you can thank ALPA.

Now we have the new LOA 81 and ALPA is doing it again. In this one ALPA permits an alter ego airline because the mainline pilots want it. It is OK because it will be a "union" alter ego. About a year ago ALPA was preparing to sue USAir Group to prevent Potomac from flying because it violated the contracts of ALG and PDT but now that the mainliners want it, why it's OK. At the same time ALPA screams against Freedom and calls the CEO that's starting it "another Lorenzo." In reality the ONLY difference between Freedom and Potomac, is the latter will be union and its pilots will be mainliners. Hypocrisy at its finest and a manifest double standard.

Additionally, the LOA will prevent the wholly owned from getting jets once again unless they agree to relinquish a portion of their seniority in favor of mainline pilots (with no guarantee that they'll get them anyway) and provide additional contractual concessions. The new jets will go to Potomac and the mainline pilots or to the subcontractors. Just like the basic CBA did. ALPA acts once more to discriminate against its regional members in favor of the mainline pilots and to force the creation of more outsourcing (while preaching in public that outsourcing is bad).

Another point is you state ALPA negotiated this and ALPA negotiated that.

Yes, that's what I said and that's what I mean. ALPA is the bargaining agent, not the USAir MEC or the Delta MEC or any other MEC. The agent is ALPA, period. ALPA is the legal entity and ALPA is responsible for everything that goes into the contract. It doesn't make any difference who else sits at the bargaining table.

I am totally familiar with how the negotiators are selected, who does the talking, who sits at the table, who provides the money, who the attorney's are and where they come from, the role of the Representation Department and everything else that happens in contract negotiations under ALPA. I'm also familiar with the ratification process, what's legal under the Constitution and what is not, the powers of the MEC and those retained by the bargaining agent, ALPA. I'm aware that ALPA frequently manipulates the ratification process to satisfy its political agenda, especially at the regional carriers. A prime example is the 16-year contract at Eagle which ALPA called "industry leading" at the time. Not surprisingly they didn't bother to tell the Eagle pilots which way it was leading and they did force it down their throats.

In the major airlines ALPA does not interfere much with the process and generally caters to the whims of the mainline MEC Chairmen. There is but one reason for that and that reason is money. ALPA's national leadership and bureaucracy are beholding financially to the major airline MEC's and it would be political suicide to take them on and stand up for what is right. There is today no statesman in the ALPA hierarchy with the courage to take on a Dubinsky or a Giambusco. That my friend is reality.

In the regional airlines there is no financial or political power and, ALPA interferes constantly with the process, works to lower the expectations of the pilot group, end-runs around the pilot negotiators, holds secret meetings with the management, pressures the regional MEC, threatens to withhold the funding when they don’t agree, browbeats the negotiators with the contract administrators and other attorneys from the representation and legal departments of ALPA, misuses the financial analysis department and manipulates and influences the mediators and the NMB Board members. ALL to achieve ALPA's political agendas, i.e., the mainline agenda, with little or no regard for the affect on the particular regional pilot group, the true interests of that pilot group or the impact on regional pilot members overall.

ALPA, totally controlled by mainline pilots in every aspect, also routinely engages in a systematic attempt to manipulate and control regional pilot leaders whenever or wherever their views deviate from those of the mainline ALPA leadership. You may not like that, I definitely do not like it and you may not even believe it. Nevertheless, every word of it is true.

If you do NOT know these things it doesn't surprise me at all. Most line pilots don't have a clue as to what really goes on behind the scenes even on their own property, yet alone at the National level. You pretty much have to be a negotiator or an officer of the MEC before you can really understand or know.

You may have been an ALG pilot and you may think you had a good handle on the process, but I'll go so far as to say that 75% - 85% of the time you didn't have a clue as to what K was really doing or why. You know what he told you, but you know very little else, unless of course you were an officer of the ALG MEC.

When I was ALG …. It was our unity which got us where we were in good pay and work rules not ALPA.

I have no argument with the unity of the ALG pilot group and I agree that unity determines what you achieve contractually. Provided ALPA does not object to anything you want or are doing and provided your activities don't cost more money than ALPA is willing to expend, you can do a lot. If your perceived wants conflict with ALPA's agenda you will quickly learn who calls the shots. The idea of MEC autonomy is a nice sounding cliché. In the real world the realities of a small airline are quite different from ALPA's public spin. MEC's are internal ALPA units, they are not legal entities. The ALPA, Int'l., is the sole legal entity.

The negotiators of the scope language, LOA81 and priors were the act of elected seniority list active full time pilots of USAirways, Inc. not ALPA. Same as at Delta. It was our negotiators that came up with the scope language and our guys who voted on it, not ALPA.

I have no doubt that you really believe what you're saying, but that doesn't make it so. Yes, there were negotiators from USAir and there were negotiators from Delta. Those negotiators agreed to the language, but they didn't come up with it and they didn't write it. Scope language of the type you have in major airline contracts is written by attorneys from the law firm of Cohen & Weiss, which is retained by ALPA. Regional carriers don't get to use C&W lawyers, because we can't afford their fees (which ALPA does NOT pay for us). We get our scope stuff written by lawyers on the ALPA staff. Some of them are good, but they are not the experts like C&W.

Many would argue and I would be one of them that C&W isn't really as hot as they think they are. The evidence is manifest in that management has been able to get around every scope clause that they have ever written when it chose to do so.

Yes, you guys voted on your new Delta contract and it's a good one. While you may have a better understanding of its language than any other pilot group (I'll give you that for free), you are not nearly as different as you think you are. I would venture that a majority of your line pilots (just like those at other airlines) do not fully comprehend the intricacies of your Scope section and many other provisions of your CBA. Your own leaders don't understand it fully or you wouldn't be filing and losing political grievances.

Please continue to Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

I did not hear anything from the Comair guys stating ALPA forced them into their contract or manipulated the negotiations.

Several reasons why you didn't hear, 1) you're not a Comair pilot; 2) you haven't been listening; 3) we don't normally air the dirty laundry in public.

In fact, attempts to manipulate the Comair negotiators and leaders were rampant and continuous throughout the bargaining process. Ultimately, several decisions were forced under implied threat. The Comair group for the most part resisted the manipulation vigorously and did not yield to any of the attempts at intimidation until the very end. That is exactly why the Comair leadership and members are perhaps the most resented and despised (by national leaders) group currently in the union. As a Comair pilot I'm proud of our leadership. I don't care if we're "unpopular". Thank God they stood their ground against ALPA, Delta, Comair and even the NMB. Maybe we didn't win, but our honor and integrity remains intact and the equal of any.

No union is perfect but you have to place the blame where it belongs and thats the pilot group of the parent carrier and management. If the USAir mainline guys had any decency they would have put in their language that the wholly owned carriers get the jets with a nice flow through agreement, that way everyone wins.

Placing the blame where it belongs is exactly what I am doing. Your first sentence above is close, but you left out ALPA, Int'l.

Your use of the term "decency" interests me but you should not focus only on the USAir mainline group. The following are some examples of indecency.

There is nothing quite as indecent as standing in a room crowed with leaders of dozens of small ALPA airlines, wrestling with what for them is a critical issue; to have 4 MEC Chairmen (UAL, DAL, AAA & NWA) enter the room (uninvited) single file; move to the front and one by one issue the same ultimatum to the group with the final speaker ending his sentence with the phrase "sometimes you all just have to eat a s**t sandwich." That's ALPA today.

It's indecent when the annual budget to represent a 1,200 member airline is less than the salary of a single staff attorney who has never flown a day in his life and isn't even a "good" lawyer. It's pathetic when the MEC Chairman of a small regional carrier has to plead before the Executive Council and literally beg for enough money to process his grievances. It is even more pathetic when the MEC Chairman of a large and very powerful major airline tells the same Executive Council that unless it approves hundreds of thousands for him to hire "outside council" because he feels like it, his airline may leave ALPA (and he gets the money). It's morally degrading when the Executive Vice President of a powerful major airline successfully campaigns to cut off the funds of a small airline whose leaders have the gall to disagree with his MEC. It's disgusting when the 23 year old MEC Chairman of a tiny airline (and a novice by any measure) is threatened, in public, by a national officer, with the loss of his airline's jumpseat agreements because he cast a vote against that officer's favorite in a national election. Yes Deltoid, I could go on, and on, and on.

Books have been written about all the wonderful things that ALPA has accomplished for professional airmen and they make me proud. But there's another story that hasn't been told. It's a relatively recent story in that today's leadership of ALPA is somewhat different than yesterdays. There's a different breed in power now with a new standard of self-serving, money oriented back room politics that would curl your hair. Their attitudes, beliefs and practices have created and fostered the dispute that we are now facing. They have an agenda and that agenda is in direct conflict with the interests of thousands of regional pilots who are members of ALPA. If they maintain those attitudes and if they are not replaced with leaders willing to act in the true interest of ALL members, including the protection of minority rights, the Association as we know it will implode and self-destruct.

The issues that now divide us will not go away. If they are not dealt with and resolved in an equitable manner, much will change and the outcome will not be good for any of us, no matter where or what we fly.

As for the USAir mainline guys, they are little different from any other mainline group. Perhaps they had the leverage to force the company to agree to a flow-through or maybe even to place jets at the wholly owned but they would have had to pay for it and that they aren't going to.

ALPA dangles the flow-through carrot at many a regional pilot group (most are gullible enough to believe it's a good deal) and the mainliners pretend that "they" have the right to magically grant it. The fact is flow-through is not really ALPA's agenda, it's just a political manipulation tool and the mainline pilots do NOT have the power to "grant" any flow-through at any airline.

Management has that power and management alone. If they are going to grant it, they will charge for it, simply because that's what collective bargaining is all about. As long as they don't charge mainline pilots, mainline pilots don't really care for it does not affect them in any negative way. As a matter of fact, it's a benefit to them by providing furlough fodder. If they can get it for free they'll take it, but they aren't going to spend a nickel trying. The one flow-through at an ALPA regional is the Eagle debacle. The Eagle pilots paid a fortune for that and we all know it's been a pig in a poke from day one. Apparently their leaders were too naive to see it or they listened to the "good advice" they got in the Beltway.

Only a few years ago I would never have said a word about any of this, believing as a good member that I should work from within to correct the problems I perceive and not in a public forum. Today, I believe that the unfolding events so threaten the union that I once revered, that no one should remain silent. The Cancer must be revealed, acknowledged and actively treated. Otherwise the patient ALPA will die. It is time to aggressively begin the cure. That is why I choose to speak out.

I know all too well that I come from one of the minority pilot groups but I also know that minorities do have rights in this country and in this union. We can't expect to run the show but we do expect the union to protect our rights and defend our interests with vigor. It is not doing that. On the contrary it is violating those rights in a variety of ways and using its powers against us rather than in our behalf. That cannot be allowed to continue. Whatever the risk and whatever the cost we demand fair treatment and the rights to which we are entitled by law and the union's Constitution. No more and no less.

 

[Timebuilder]

I'm sorry to hear about the loss of the ALG jobs. I worked with a couple of now-ALG pilots over at Reading, and they will probably go.

Maybe I'll see some of you guys over at Kuppy's. I'll buy the first round of coffees.

 

[Deltoid]

In regards to your statement:

"I think your MEC knew very well that the company was right. They lacked the courage to tell the membership the truth, so they filed the grievance for political reasons rather than contractual reasons. Now that the arbitrator has told you what it means, you still don't like it, you refuse to admit the truth and instead you criticize the arbitrator and resort to calling him names."

Its not that simple we did not like the language. You would not know because you're not a Delta pilot. Our no furlough forbids furlough for any economic reasons, period. Whether its the company's economics or the country's, it was very specific. While we all agreed 9/11 was a force majeur event which could allow the company out of the language, there were many economic factors that negated there claim to force majeur.

1.) Our own managements admission to our financial strength.
2.) 680 million cash payout from GB no strings attached.
3.) Access to 10 Billion in guaranteed loans.
4.) Equipment trust certificates which yield 1.6 Billion in cash.
5.) Two post 9/11 stock dividend payouts.
6.) No accross the board wage cuts were asked for.
7.) Purchasing RJ's.
8.) Hiring pilots at subsidiary's.
9.) Recalling flight attendents & Ramp workers.
10.) Did not ask us for any concessions

These and others I am sure I have not mentioned are not the sign of a financially ailing company nor would the company fail with option 3. Our argument was you can't furlough while these options were available to the company. Things were not beyond their control. A company can't hire on one end and fire on the other and claim its beyond their control. There was and still are things under there control. Mr. Bloch read the contract strickly in black or white and did not even consider these facts of the case. Language was his only concern. I know, I have Mr. Blochs legal brief at home and read it. There is no mention of anything we argued about just the applicabile language. As far as the MEC misleading us into thinking it was in the bag or not telling the truth. That was far from the truth. What little the MEC said about the grievence, and I mean little, was this was a tough battle it could go either way but there was a slight chance because of the above mentioned factors. No one was blowing smoke up or butts on this one. 9/11 was a very emotional tragedy for this country and would make for a tough case. I knew it was a long shot and so did many others I spoke to or read from the DALPA message boards.

In regards to your statement:

"Several reasons why you didn't hear, 1) you're not a Comair pilot; 2) you haven't been listening; 3) we don't normally air the dirty laundry in public."

All I have to say about dirty laundry is to check the AOL message boards under DELTA and ALPA boards you will see some dirty laundry. These guys come on our message board and air it out there. Plus I tend to listen to my friends over there when they speak and they did did not mention anything of what you wrote about ALPA did in the COMAIR negotiations. Something of that magnatude I am surprised, if its true, has not been out in the public message boards , ect...

In regards to your statement:

"You believe what you want to believe and no one can confuse you with the facts. There is no point in my trying. "

Likewise my friend.. 8)
There are two sides to every story yours and mine and the truth lies somewhere in between.. The truth is out there....

Safe flying

Deltoid

 

[Jack Hass]

Sorry to hear about the furloughs there.....hang in there all!

 

[surplus1]

In regards to your statement:

Its not that simple we did not like the language. You would not know because you're not a Delta pilot.

Although it is true I am not a Delta pilot, believe it or not I have many friends who are, so it happens I've seen the brief. That really isn't important though. What is important is your statement about not liking the language.

That thought process is what started this exchange between you and I. You didn't "like" my interpretation of the USAir CBA language and you challenged it. I responded and you did not "like" the response, etc. You "liked" your groups interpretation of the language in your contract. You and they and apparently your lawyers, thought you had covered all the bases. You focused on the part you "liked", i.e., the "beyond the control" phrase and your careful definition of control (as illustrated by your 10 valid points) in the contract.

In the process you evidently chose to avoid the FM clause because you didn't "like" it. In any System Board/Arbitration the board is convened because there is a dispute between the parties. When that dispute is a contractual dispute, there is always a disagreement over the meaning of the contractual provisions, i.e., the language.

Each party to the dispute will produce volumes of evidence supporting his view of the language that he "likes" while ignoring the langauge that he does not "like". The arbitrator is burdened by the law and the contract. He cannot indulge in the luxury of subjectively interpreting the often nebulous "intent" or the likes and dislikes of the parties to the duspute. The langauge is black and white and that's where he will go every time. That is exactly what Mr. Bloch did. I've met him and he is a very impartial judge.

We deal with the same concepts in the judicial system. More often than not, justices make decisions that appear to defy logic in the eyes of the public. Sometimes they do make errors, but those errors are mainly procedural mistakes, not errors of law. Most laymen have difficulty accepting the idea that "the law" often appears to be illogical. In reality they just don't understand it.

Your 10 points may all be logical and they may all refute the economic necessity of the furloughs, but that's not what the case was all about. The case was the validity of Force Majeure being used as a tool to void application of certain contractual provisions.
You yourself have acknowledged that FM did exist in the 9-11 tragedy. That provision was available to the company and they elected to use it. The fact that you didn't "like" it or you felt that it was not "fair" is irrelevant. It clearly existed, was provided for contractually and was applied by the Company. The arbitrator's decision was correct.

Your not "liking" the language being the basis of his brief is not relevant. The language was the only reason for the dispute in the first place and had to be the reason for the decision.

As a general rule, when we write contractual language it must be carefully constructed with a view to the probability that one day in the future, that language will become the subject of litigation. Unfortunately, pilot contracts often contain volumes of language that, while well intended, cannot stand the test of litigation. That is why unions lose so many arbitrations. The corporate lawyers that negotiate contracts and agree to their language are not as dumb as we pilots "like" to believe.

A company can't hire on one end and fire on the other and claim its beyond their control.

I find that sentence especially interesting and I am candidly surprised that you would use it. I see your choice as one of convenience (and consistent with the thinking of your MEC and ALPA national).

I argue, that the Company is not hiring on one end and firing on the other. YOUR company is furloughing; and MY company is hiring.Remember, we are separate companies and we are not operationally integrated. That's not my argument or belief, it is the argument of your MEC and your union. You have been literally salivating for months over your alleged victory in establishing the separate company farse.

When it was convenient for you to find that our companies were separate from each other, you did so without hesitation ignoring reality in pursuit of a political agenda. Now that you find yourselves being furloughed (which I truly regret) you find the company to be the same and accuse it of hiring on one end and firing on the other. It appears that once again your choice of interpreting language has come back to haunt you.

We tried to tell you that it was a mistake but you did not "like" what we were saying so you blocked out the truth and went with your "likes". That decision will haunt you in many more ways down the road.

I accused your MEC of filing the grievance for political reasons. You have disagreed. Perhaps I am wrong. On the issue of whether the companies are separate or whether they are operationally integrated, I believe that both your union and your MEC have misled you once more. Again, for political reasons. When our case comes to trial we shall see how the law views the language once again.

If the Allegheny/Piedmont pilots can raise the money needed to defend their rights there will be yet another lawsuit. When it is heard, we will learn difinitively what the language of the AAA CBA and LOA 81 really means and whether or not it constitutes a violation of the language in the ALPA Constitution and the Duty of Fair Representation.

While it is only my opinion, this isn't going nearly as well for ALPA as you all would "like" or are being led to believe. They could lose this case and lose it big and they d****d well know it but obviously will never admit it, at least not yet.

Perhaps your MEC, although you admit very silent on this grievance, was not blowing smoke. On the RJDC litigation they definitely are.

In regards to your statement:

All I have to say about dirty laundry is to check the AOL message boards under DELTA and ALPA boards you will see some dirty laundry.

I do check those boards but as you know, they are anonymous. While I can't be certain, I'm pretty sure that most of the messages are not originated by CMR pilots. They come principally from ASA pilots. The rhetoric is inconsistent with the views of most Comair pilots. There are of course exceptions.

As I said earlier, if you don't hear much detail about what actually happens in negotiations (behind the scenes) it is because most line pilots do not know. For political reasons, they don't get that info or detail in most cases. The same is true on every other property. Unless you know one of the negotiators or an MEC officer close enough to have him spill the beans, you won't know what really takes place. That's why it's not out in the public message boards. I have known a lot about this stuff for a long time and that post was the first in which I have said anything like that publicly. You can rest assured that if need be, I can back up what I said, but I still won't do that in a forum like this.

While right now I feel like I'm at war with the union, the truth is I don't want war, I want peace. If I put too much fuel on the fire there won't be much chance of that. We cannot make everything public all the time or nothing at all will function.

Our union is a highly political body and we have to be very prudent about what we say and to whom we say it. I'm very much aware of that. I could go much farther than I have but I won't. I may well have gone too far already.

There are two sides to every story yours and mine and the truth lies somewhere in between.. The truth is out there....

That's a valid comment and I don't disagree. However, let me point out that you made an error. You said "there are two sides to every story" but you listed 3 sides, i.e., yours, mine and the truth. See what I mean about language? It'll get you every time, unless you're extremely cautious. I know very well what you meant, but it is NOT what you said. As a judge, I would have to rule against you.

I'm sure you could catch me in similar mistakes.

Best regards,
Surplus1

 

[surplus1]

Hey ALG Guys,

How about an update? What are you all doing to protect your interests?

I hope you're not just going to bend over and take it again.