ALPA's Scope Defense - Incompetence?

[PuffDriver]

you said,

"IMO there is a big difference. Senoirity integration language in contracts usually talk about like aircraft."

Maybe this is the problem. Who cares about how big your airplane is, what does this have to do with anything. This is ALPA's way of furthering the division between regional pilots and "Big Airplane pilots". Don't Captains at Atlas Flying "BIG 747's make the same as some of the upper regional captain saleries? Am I less of an individual because I fly a small jet. ALPA must have realized they were creating some of this division due to the fact that "regional jet" is now replaced by the word "small jet". Didn't AirCal use to fly the BAE-146, well that is considered a small jet, Why didn't American toss those pilots to the curb because AMR did not fly similiar equipment. (yes I know AirCal flew other planes but this is an example) Your quote above proves my point about how divided we are because of Old Stlye thinking and contract language, Unions make this language not the company.

you stated,

"Further more we would have to give big concessions to get you stapled and then Delta could go to Chataqua, SkyWest, or any other similar airline and use them and stagnate the rest of us. I don't see the cost of a staple equating to the result. "

Negotiated, Strong scope language which limits flying of Non wholly owned carriers to a specific percentage would take care of this. In my opinion the biggest mistake DALPA ever made was to allow jets of any size to be flown outside of Delta Airlines. I am only offering suggestions to fix the problem. thanks for not flaming me to bad!

While it is easy to sit on the sidelines and point fingers at what should have been, it does little to further any cause. It is also IMPOSSIBLE to have all flying done by Delta by pilots on the seniority list.

As far as size of aircraft, the size of the aircraft determines its mission. ALPA's goal is to prevent an airline from operating two companies with the same mission by two different pilot groups. The RJ and the mainline aircraft all have a different mission. Of course the line has to be drawn somewhere as the 737 has a different mission than the 777. The line was drwan at 70 seats in the Delta PWA, 50 in the AAA PWA, etc. While the rule of thumb is antiquated, and may need changing, it certainly didn't fail the test of the PID filed by ASA and Comair. These are three different companies which had VASTLY different work rules, compensation, retirement rules, as well as very different missions. While the RJDC fanatics enjoy clouding these waters with baseless rhetoric such as the fact that we all use the same napkins, they don't meet the BS test. It was a no-brainer on the PID. Delta, Comair, and ASA are NOT alter ego airlines. Now Comair and ASA are a different story.

 

[surplus1]

While it is easy to sit on the sidelines and point fingers at what should have been, it does little to further any cause. It is also IMPOSSIBLE to have all flying done by Delta by pilots on the seniority list.

Why do you find it "impossible"? What exactly is impossible about it.? Inquisitive minds would really like to know. If it is impossible, could that be because you really don't own all the flying?

As far as size of aircraft, the size of the aircraft determines its mission. ALPA's goal is to prevent an airline from operating two companies with the same mission by two different pilot groups.

Is that really ALPA's goal? How exactly did you make that determination? Is that a goal that's written somewhere or is it just ALPA according to Puff?

The RJ and the mainline aircraft all have a different mission.

If the RJ and the mainline aircraft all have a different mission, why then are you complaing that the RJs are taking your flying? If the mission is "different" (and by the way I agree that it is), then that is a mission that has never been flown by the mainline.

Since you now want to fly the RJs yourselves, looks to me like you are trying to expand your "mission" into terriorty where you've never been before, by taking our flying. The word predatory comes to mind.

Of course the line has to be drawn somewhere as the 737 has a different mission than the 777. The line was drwan at 70 seats in the Delta PWA, 50 in the AAA PWA, etc. While the rule of thumb is antiquated, and may need changing, it certainly didn't fail the test of the PID filed by ASA and Comair.

Ok, I will agree that the "line" has to be drawn somewhere. Now who decides where that somewhere is, you? What gives you that right? Suppose you decide tomorrow that the line should be drawn at 30-seats or 19-seats? What if you decide to redraw the line between jets and props? What do we do then, punt?

You say the rule of thumb is antiquated. Interesting! I translate that to mean that the "line" was a WAG that you arbitratily selected, without justification, and wish to impose against our will. You also want the exclusive right to re-draw the line, wherever you choose and whenever you choose and, you believe that we are duty bound to accept whatever YOU do. Tell me, do you guys dream a lot?

We don't really mind if a line is drawn and we stay separate. The problem is basic: YOU do NOT have the right to unilaterally draw the line wherever you choose. You also do NOT have the right to unilaterally redraw the line whenever it suits your whims.

The fantasy of your self annointed importance in the scheme of things or your all powerful status and right to dictate our destiny is not something that we acknowledge or recognize. Please take note of that and understand that it is so. We do not recognize your Crown.

"So let it be written; so let it be done" appears to be your idea of your power and your right. We however, live in a Republic and there are no Pharos here. We did not elect you to represent our interests and do not recognize you as Lords or Masters of our destiny. The sooner you learn that, the better for all of us.

The PID didn't fail any test. There were no tests. The decision was arbitrary, descriminatory and based totally on the pre-conceived prejudices of the mainline pilots that made it. An abuse of political power and trust that tarnishes the integrity of the union and should shame its leaders.

The criteria established by the merger policy is "operational integration." Conveniently and solely for political reasons, the term is not defined in ALPA's dictionary (I wonder why?). Efforts to define it (within ALPA) have been met with outright opposition from the major airlines. That's not an opinion, it is a fact of which there is indisputable proof. The mainline pilot groups and the union they totally control, want the exclusive and unilateral right to determine the future of the RJ and the carreers of the pilots that fly it. That is demonstrated not only by their words, but their multiple actions. That's not only wrong, it will ultimately be shown to be illegal.

These are three different companies which had VASTLY different work rules, compensation, retirement rules, as well as very different missions.

I wonder how you determined that the work rules are vastly different. Is there even a remote chance that you have actually read the Comair contract or are you just assuming? Would you be kind enough to point out the VAST difference in work rules that you allege?

The compensation is different. On a linear scale that includes the productivity of the equipment operated, just how different is it? Would you perhaps care to tell us just what you think the pay rates should be? Would you also compare the remainder of Comair's Section 3 with your own Section 3 in the contracts and tell me where the VAST differnce lies between what we get paid for and what you get paid for? What kind of pay do you get for displacements from schedule? What kind of premium pay do you get and for what? What are you paid for picking up open time? Are you paid for training? How much? Do you have a line guarantee? What is it? Do you have a pay cap? Where does it take effect?

I really think you should do some reading before you start talking about things that you obviously have little knowledge of. There is far more to compensation than hourly pay rates for aircraft of substantially different productivity

Lets have some specifics please. It's time to put your money where your mouth is.

Retirement rules: This is an area in which you win hands down. Monitor your A plan closely, however. Strange things happen to A plans when companies are in financial trouble, and they are not portable. You're lucky that you also have a B plan. BTW, we have a B plan too, although it is admittedly inferior to yours.

Finally, we have 3 different companies on paper. That we know. In every other respect we have one company, with 3 different names.

I'll go back to your emphasis on the "different missions" one more time. If I accept your "different missions" concept, it will mean you have shot yourself in the proverbial foot. However, that's just fine with me. Since we have different missions, why don't you just leave us alone to do our successful mission and you, may continue to do your failing mission to your hearts content.

Oh, I'm sorry. You say you also have the right to unilaterally define the mission as well? I should have guessed.

While the RJDC fanatics enjoy clouding these waters with baseless rhetoric such as the fact that we all use the same napkins, they don't meet the BS test. It was a no-brainer on the PID. Delta, Comair, and ASA are NOT alter ego airlines. Now Comair and ASA are a different story.

With all due respect, the sentences you have written in your post reveal far more than you seem to realize about how you see yourselves and how you see us. You've done a lot to "clear the waters" and I thank you for that.

You may of course think of the RJDC exactly as you please. It will have no impact. Too bad we can't get you on the stand in court. Your testimony (unless of course you change your tune, which you folks seem to have a nack for doing) would be most helpful to our cause. There's nothing a jury likes better than to hear how the masters would treat the chattels.

You're right about the PID, it was a no-brainer. The fact that no brains were used in reaching that decision will be haunting ALPA for a long time to come.

When you have time, do a little reasearch into how ALPA has defined "alter ego" in the past and what its policy states ALPA will do about it. You'll find the record in the Admin. Manual. Look up what alter ego means (outside of ALPA). When you're finished, come back and tell me in black and white, why CMR and ASA are not alter egos to DAL. You might also lend your advice to ALPA's lawyers so they can use it in the defense.

I just had a thought about your reference to BS. If BS were music, you'd be a big brass band.

Have a nice weekend

 

[Freight Dog]

As a non-DCI pilot, yet in a similar situation, I have a couple of comments.

So even if Delta and DCI MEC's get together and staple Comair and ASA to Delta's seniority list, isn't the final say solely up to the management? I'm under the impression that it is.

However, I still maintain that RJDC is fighting a battle against the wrong enemy.

Personally, yes, I think it should be one list. Yes, it should be a staple. No, it's not ALPA's fault for protecting Delta pilots. It's what they're tasked to do - representing Delta pilots. In sheer numbers Delta pilots outnumber DCI by at least 2-1 ratio.
I do however disagree with the lawsuit and what's asked in it. Comair and ASA pilots should have negotiated a more restrictive scope clause. What would be the difference between Delta scoping you out and you scoping out "careers" of nonunion Skywest and non-ALPA CHQ? Personally, I think Comair should be flying ALL Delta Connection flying out of SLC. But they're not. SkyWest has NO business being in Texas flying for Delta. Yet, they're there. Why?? I would imagine it's the scope, or lack of scope at Comair/ASA. Growth and career potential? Well there ya go... think of the growth if you beat SkyWest out of SLC or CHQ out of MCO.

RJDC is fighting a battle against the wrong party.

My .02 cents.

 

[FR8mastr]

Ref. previous posts; what is PID? It's amazing reading thru all this how close mainline and WO pilots are in this whole mess. Yes there are several big issues but even on those issues we all agree on many points. If we could just get our collecive acts together.

 

[PuffDriver]

Why do you find it "impossible"? What exactly is impossible about it.? Inquisitive minds would really like to know. If it is impossible, could that be because you really don't own all the flying?




<<<<I take it you really have no idea how many airplanes it would take to go from "anywhere to everywhere" The capital outlay and the lack of any diversification whatsoever would both be tremendous. "All Delta flying done by Delta pilots," is THE premier naive statement of yours, ******. Actually, as long as Delta flying included you on the list, you really would'nt be concerned about the rest, would you?!?


Is that really ALPA's goal? How exactly did you make that determination? Is that a goal that's written somewhere or is it just ALPA according to Puff?



<<<Actually, it is written in the C&BL. read the part about alter ago airlines, ******.>>>

If the RJ and the mainline aircraft all have a different mission, why then are you complaing that the RJs are taking your flying? If the mission is "different" (and by the way I agree that it is), then that is a mission that has never been flown by the mainline.

<<<I am not complaining about the RJs taking my job. You must have me confused with somebody else.>>>>



Since you now want to fly the RJs yourselves, looks to me like you are trying to expand your "mission" into terriorty where you've never been before, by taking our flying. The word predatory comes to mind.



<<<The reason you "have" the flying to begin with was because of us. We cannot be scoped out of any aircraft, because we were the original entity. In short, there is no "your" flying. You live because the code, you die from it as well.>>>>



Ok, I will agree that the "line" has to be drawn somewhere. Now who decides where that somewhere is, you? What gives you that right? Suppose you decide tomorrow that the line should be drawn at 30-seats or 19-seats? What if you decide to redraw the line between jets and props? What do we do then, punt?

<<<Actually, the line is drawn by the only people who have the contractual right to do so, the Delta MEC. If we redraw it, you will just have to live with the new line, just as you benefitted when the line was moved the other way. I noticed you didn't complain when we were "controllong" your careers back then, were you ******?!?>>>>>

You say the rule of thumb is antiquated. Interesting! I translate that to mean that the "line" was a WAG that you arbitratily selected, without justification, and wish to impose against our will. You also want the exclusive right to re-draw the line, wherever you choose and whenever you choose and, you believe that we are duty bound to accept whatever YOU do. Tell me, do you guys dream a lot?

<<<WAG is your typing. Do you even read what you type??? I was actually referring to companies such as MIDWAY who meet the size requirement, but really lack the mission that Delta accomplishes. IMO, this is where the C&BL fall short by definition of our scope. Clear enough, or do you want to twist that statement around as well.>>>>>



We don't really mind if a line is drawn and we stay separate. The problem is basic: YOU do NOT have the right to unilaterally draw the line wherever you choose. You also do NOT have the right to unilaterally redraw the line whenever it suits your whims.

<<<Your whole argument is based on the fact that our relationship has changed based on the fact that Delta has purchased you. It hasn't>>>

The fantasy of your self annointed importance in the scheme of things or your all powerful status and right to dictate our destiny is not something that we acknowledge or recognize. Please take note of that and understand that it is so. We do not recognize your Crown.

<<<So? Do you think I care. This is just more of your martyr rhetoric and it falls on deaf ears. FACT: Your job exists because Delta pilots allowed it to. I noticed an abscence of crying back then. The Delta pilots giveth and the Delta pilots taketh away. EGO? NO. Just plain facts. The truth hurts sometimes, ******, but it is nonetheless the truth.>>>>

"So let it be written; so let it be done" appears to be your idea of your power and your right. We however, live in a Republic and there are no Pharos here. We did not elect you to represent our interests and do not recognize you as Lords or Masters of our destiny. The sooner you learn that, the better for all of us.


<<<<YAWN!!! Who has the ego again?!?>>>>>>

The PID didn't fail any test. There were no tests. The decision was arbitrary, descriminatory and based totally on the pre-conceived prejudices of the mainline pilots that made it. An abuse of political power and trust that tarnishes the integrity of the union and should shame its leaders.

<<<<I guess I might say these things if the decision hadn't gone the way I wanted it to. As it is, I wish they had declared a PID, because Delta would have squashed it by now and we could talk about more important things and ALPA wouldn't be getting sued, but laughing at the ASA and Comair pilots naivety.>>>>>

The criteria established by the merger policy is "operational integration." Conveniently and solely for political reasons, the term is not defined in ALPA's dictionary (I wonder why?).



<<<<Again, YAWN. It IS defined by each specific contract via scope. Ours happens to be drawn at 70 seats.>>>>



I wonder how you determined that the work rules are vastly different. Is there even a remote chance that you have actually read the Comair contract or are you just assuming? Would you be kind enough to point out the VAST difference in work rules that you allege?


<<<I've parused through it. I noticed a lack of several key work rules. I've also noticed a lack of REAL retirement. I've also noticed a lack of REAl medical. All of these things cost money, ******. They have been bought and paid for by the Delta pilots. They do not need to be paid for again for the ASA and Comair pilots.>>>>>



The compensation is different. On a linear scale that includes the productivity of the equipment operated, just how different is it? Would you perhaps care to tell us just what you think the pay rates should be? Would you also compare the remainder of Comair's Section 3 with your own Section 3 in the contracts and tell me where the VAST differnce lies between what we get paid for and what you get paid for? What kind of pay do you get for displacements from schedule? What kind of premium pay do you get and for what? What are you paid for picking up open time? Are you paid for training? How much? Do you have a line guarantee? What is it? Do you have a pay cap? Where does it take effect?

I really think you should do some reading before you start talking about things that you obviously have little knowledge of. There is far more to compensation than hourly pay rates for aircraft of substantially different productivity

<<<<I notice you fail to mention any specifics. I mentioned but a few of the vast differences. I suggest you read the contract of DALPA and see for yourself. I'll take half my pay and the rest of my contract over yours any day.>>>>>


Finally, we have 3 different companies on paper. That we know. In every other respect we have one company, with 3 different names.

<<<On paper??? Try again. Three very verifiable companies.>>>

I'll go back to your emphasis on the "different missions" one more time. If I accept your "different missions" concept, it will mean you have shot yourself in the proverbial foot. However, that's just fine with me. Since we have different missions, why don't you just leave us alone to do our successful mission and you, may continue to do your failing mission to your hearts content.

Oh, I'm sorry. You say you also have the right to unilaterally define the mission as well? I should have guessed.



<<We did leave you alone. Did you lose any aircraft? I think not. Maybe we just forced Delta's hand to decide if they really need these RJs or not.>>


With all due respect, the sentences you have written in your post reveal far more than you seem to realize about how you see yourselves and how you see us. You've done a lot to "clear the waters" and I thank you for that.

<<Blah, blah,blah>>
You may of course think of the RJDC exactly as you please. It will have no impact. Too bad we can't get you on the stand in court. Your testimony (unless of course you change your tune, which you folks seem to have a nack for doing) would be most helpful to our cause. There's nothing a jury likes better than to hear how the masters would treat the chattels.

<<<<Yawn>>>>


You're right about the PID, it was a no-brainer. The fact that no brains were used in reaching that decision will be haunting ALPA for a long time to come.

<<<Careful, ******, don't cry.>>>>


I just had a thought about your reference to BS. If BS were music, you'd be a big brass band.


<<<I'll let you have that one. It seems to be all you are good at. Look where we are at the end of the day???? You're still at ASA and I'm still here. See how good the mudslinging did, ******??? Why are you trying so hard to be one of us egotistical, greedy SOBs via your lawsuit if you hate us so much?!? Oh yeah, you don't want to BE one of us, you just want to be left alone. Try reading the lawsuit again, ******.>>>

Puff

NOTICE: THIS POST HAS BEEN EDITED TO REMOVE REFERENCES TO ANOTHER MEMBERS NAME. ATTEMPTS TO "OUT" ANOTHER MEMBER WILL NOT BE TOLERATED ON THIS BOARD. POSTERS WHO DISOBEY THIS WILL HAVE THEIR POSTS EDITED AND RISK BEING BANNED FROM POSTING.

If4f,
Moderator

 

[bdejong]

A prenup with a staple would lead to many more people joining us in our desire for onelist. Without a staple, I'm afraid it will just be the status quo, which ain't no good for none of us! [/B][/QUOTE]
Fly,
I didn't want to clutter my reply with your whole post, but I could not possibly agree more with every thing you wrote!!!!
Brian De Jong

 

[skydiverdriver]

Freight Dog,
So, who is it that you think we should be suing? I didn't get that in your message. You are correct that Delta Mainline pilots currently outnumber DCI pilots. However, the union has what is called a duty of fair representation, which is a set of federal laws requiring them to treat all of it's members the same, reguardless of their numbers. I suppose with your line of reasoning, we should treat minorities in any situation the way the majority wants to treat them. Well, I think we are better than that.

Yes, an integration would be at the discretion of the company. So what's your point? ALPA has a duty, and a rule in their bylaws to do everything they can to make the integration work. All they have to do is try, not succeed. Now, if like most people, you believe they would never do it, why wouldn't ALPA want to try?

I'm glad that you understand that Comair pilots "should" have negotiated a better scope clause. Well, should's only describe a perfect world, and we don't have one yet. Comair pilots were negotiating with the wrong people, and the real control came from Delta. Also, I think we did all we could, and a lot more than you have ever had to do, to get what we did. What more do you think we could have done? We went farther than any other regional ever has. I suppose you would be happier if we had gone out of business, since that is what the company said was going to happen. Thanks for your time.

 

[Freight Dog]

SDD,

First of all, I think you should be suing Delta, and we've discussed this before. They own you. They are the ones who sign Delta ALPA's contract in addition to MEC and Uncle Duane. It's totally within their power to merge you with the mainline. ALPA can scream all they want about one list, and if the management doesn't want to do it, guess what list you'll be on... There is ABSOLUTELY nothing that Delta MEC can do for you except show SYMBOLIC support for onelist. Look at AA/Eagle and APA's proposal to AMR. After a bellyful of laughs, the management said.. UH NO!

Is that symbolic support worth bankrupting ALPA? I don't think so.

Observing DCI operations, I see overlaps of routes by all DCI carriers. Doesn't that significantly diminish a strike threat at another DCI carrier? You bet! So what's going on here? We have CMR pilots and some ASA pilots pissed off at ALPA, so they're suing ALPA for "fair representation" by trying to bankrupt it. Isn't ASA coming up for contract talks? What is Delta management doing all across the country? Let's see.. on the East Coast, they use ACA, in Florida they use CHQ (non-ALPA), out west they use SkyWest (non-union) and out of LAX, I think they use Eagle.

Add all that up SDD, and what do you end up with? A major whipsaw and the victim is YOU. But you are not the victim of those greedy sonsab*tches Delta pilots, but Delta management. That's why your lawsuit is flawed.

My solution? Merge COMASA groups into one airline. At least then you'll have a stronger voice. Oh yeah.. it's still the management's call. As for merger with Delta mainline, it'd be nice, but the management will laugh you out of the building.

ALPA has no power to merge anything or anybody. The management does. If management calls to merge you with someone, whether you like it or not, you'll merge, and they'll leave it up to MEC's to hammer out how they're gonna do it, but the ultimate call is with the management.

Whether or not you should have negotiated a better scope clause, that's all your MEC's deal. It's all about what's important to you and how important is it. You guys wanted money and retirement, and job security wasn't that big of an issue. Well, you get what you negotiate. To Delta pilots, it seems that job security through scope clause protections was one of the top priorities and wasn't that one of the reasons they were gonna go on strike over? So you guys are stuck with a deal that allows whipsaw because there's not much in your contract that can prevent that.

So now, having these things laid out, I ask you...

1) What do you want from ALPA? Don't even give me the "fair representation" b.s. as you are outnumbered by the mainline and the management signs their contract.

2) Why don't you decertify ALPA on your property? Maybe you can transfer RJDC from a bunch of disgruntled pilots to an in-house union. You can also try to get the Teamsters on the property.

It'd be nice to see ONE Delta Connection carrier (merged Comair and ASA) doing ALL of Delta Connection flying in and out of ALL of Delta's hubs. But that's up to you and that's between you and DAL, Inc. You get what you negotiate.
Suing ALPA and causing rift and disunity is only gonna hurt you in the long run as it sends the wrong message to the wrong people.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Freight dog,
Well, you are saying the same things over and over again, so I'm not sure how to answer you. You have been given the answers many times, but you don't agree. Okay, that's fine.

The reason we are not suing Delta airlines is because they have done nothing illegal. However, our $25,000 lawyer tells us that ALPA did do something illegal, and that we have a good case. He is the only lawyer that has ever beaten the union, and he feels that we can win. If we were suing the wrong party, I think he, as an expert, would let us know.

So, again, we have discussed why we are suing ALPA, and about desertifying them, and how that would be counterproductive. It would be the same thing as leaving the country because we do not agree with their laws. Of course, in this case, leaving the country (or union) would still leave them in control of us, and that's not acceptable. So, we are trying to save the union from itself, and get it to follow it's own rules and the laws of our country. If you don't understand that, then I'm not sure how I could explain it any better.

Good luck to you.

 

[FL000]

So, again, we have discussed why we are suing ALPA, and about desertifying [sic] them, and how that would be counterproductive. It would be the same thing as leaving the country because we do not agree with their laws.

Actually, it would be more akin to staying in the country, but ousting your government because you didn't like the laws, which ain't such a bad idea. You RJDC guys can't seem to get your analogies straight. You're always putting out the smoke and mirrors to make the alternatives seem less attractive, and making your course of action seem like a "mission from God."

 

[Freight Dog]

Your $25000 lawyer

SDD,

I think you should just decertify ALPA on your property, and go with IBT or Ravers' Joke of a Disgruntled Coalition as an in-house union. You yourself said that IBT did more than ALPA for you while you were walking. Do you think the intent to bankrupt OUR union is gonna make you friends outside of your precious RJDC? Hardly..

Let alone your management and all others watching and laughing at you and your $25,000 lawyer.

Oh and a quick question...

Let's assume by some freak of nature you win this case... you said you're not about decertifying ALPA. I'm curious why would you want a bankrupt union on your property, or do you want to ruin ALPA altogether and then bail? I mean what's the story?

 

[surplus1]

Actually, it would be more akin to staying in the country, but ousting your government because you didn't like the laws, which ain't such a bad idea. You RJDC guys can't seem to get your analogies straight. You're always putting out the smoke and mirrors to make the alternatives seem less attractive, and making your course of action seem like a "mission from God."

Does that by any chance mean that you see the union/mainline point of view as the "true religion and mission from God" and the supporters of RJDC as the infidels?

Nothing personal, I'm just trying to get a handle on your view of the "politically correct".

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

Originally posted by Puff Driver

<<<<I take it you really have no idea how many airplanes it would take to go from "anywhere to everywhere" The capital outlay and the lack of any diversification whatsoever would both be tremendous. "All Delta flying done by Delta pilots," is THE premier naive statement of yours, John. Actually, as long as Delta flying included you on the list, you really would'nt be concerned about the rest, would you?!?

First, I did not write those words about Delta flying. You are quoting some other person. Hate to burst your bubble but not only is not my premier statement, it's not my statement at all. I happen to be on record as opposed to one list so your comments are misplaced. So are your thoughts by the way, but we'll deal with that later.

Second, why do you insist on calling me John? You appear to have me confused with someone else. John isn't my name and actually I don't even know any pilots with that given name. I don't mind your arguing with me (although I would much prefer to discuss things than argue) but please try not to confuse me with others. Does your reference to "John" have some special significance that I'm perhaps missing?

Third, take a look at some of the postings by FlyDeltasJets who is one of your peers. He and I and others have been debating these issues for some time. We agree on several points and disagree on others. The discussion is always civil. May I suggest you follow his example? It will lend far more credibility to your remarks.

<<<Actually, it is written in the C&BL. read the part about alter ago airlines, John.>>>

My reading of the C&BL does not reveal any reference to the term "alter ego". Am I lost or are you misplacing your reference? Do me the favor and point out the Article, Section and paragraph, please.

Note: If you should be unable to locate the reference in the C&BL yourself, I'll be happy to point out which document you should search. Then we will no longer be dealing with ALPA according to Puff.

<<<I am not complaining about the RJs taking my job. You must have me confused with somebody else.>>>>

Pardon me for causing confusion. The word "you", as used in my remarks is plural. It did not refer to you personally but to the Delta pilot group as a whole. I hope that helps your understanding. The English language is troublesome at times isn't it?

<<<The reason you "have" the flying to begin with was because of us. We cannot be scoped out of any aircraft, because we were the original entity. In short, there is no "your" flying. You live because the code, you die from it as well.>>>>

I respect your right to your opinion however, your apparent lack of knowledge with respect to law and contracts may have you in over your head so to speak.

When my airline was incorporated some twenty-five years ago it was not affiliated in any way with Delta Air Lines. Our flying was ours. Approximately seven years later, my airline entered into a contract with Delta, Inc. to provide certain services on a revenue sharing basis. At that time the contract between Delta, Inc. and Comair, Inc. made no reference to recognition of any contract or contracts that may have existed between ALPA (representing Delta's pilots) and Delta Air Lines. Our flying remained ours. Subsequently, Comair's contract with Delta, Inc. was renegotiated and renewed. That new contract also did not recognize or even acknowledge any third party contract between ALPA and Delta Air Lines. Our flying remained ours.

Early in 2000 Delta, Inc. acquired Comair Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries by a tender offer for 100% of Comair's outstanding stock. Comair subsequently became a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta, Inc. Comair's flying, thus became the property of Delta, Inc. It did not become the property of the Delta pilots.

Go back to the contract you had before the 1996 contract. What was the content of your Scope clause in that contract? What do you believe you "gave" us in that contract?

I know that your 1996 contract with Delta Air Lines provided and exemption to that portion of Delta's flying conducted in aircraft with less than 70-seats. I also know that you believe that you "gave" us something by doing that. In fact, you gave us nothing. My company never recognized your contract with Delta, Inc. My Company's contract with Delta, Inc., made no reference to your contract with Delta. Therefore, your Scope (whether it exempted 70-seats or exempted nothing at all) in fact was never legally binding upon Comair and did not affect us legally in any way. You therefore had nothing to "give" us for you owned nothing and did not control that portion of Delta's flying that we do. Had Comair chosen to exceed the limits of your contract with Delta, Delta, Inc., had no legal means of imposing the provisions of your scope on Comair's flying, without the consent of Comair. That consent was never given.

Had Comair chosen to engage in flying that you thought your contract with Delta prohibited, Delta's only means of adhering to your scope provisions would have been the cancellation of its contract with Comair. Do you really believe Delta would have attempted that on your behalf? While Delta did have the contractual right to terminate the code-share agreement, as did Comair, the fact that Comair was operating 100 jets, carrying 8 million passengers, and earning profits in excess of 20% per annum, made such termination based on your scope clause totally and legally impractical. It wasn't going to happen.

Since Delta now owns Comair completely, Delta may do as it pleases with the flying that it purchased. You however, as in "the Delta pilots" did not "give" Comair anything ever. As a matter of fact, at the time ALPA negotiated your 1996 Scope Section, your MEC had never even seen a copy of the contract between Comair and Delta, Inc.

I'm sorry Puff but you simply do not know what you are talking about. You are uniformed and have apparently believed a myth for a very long time. If it's any consolation, you're not alone. You don't have to take my word for any of that. Talk to your attorney and ask him if any two entities may enter into a contract that is legally binding upon a third entity without that third parties consent.

Today as a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta, things are different. Delta has agreed to give you a portion of its flying. It has also retained a portion of its flying that you never controlled, never owned and still don't. Today, if you can get Delta to agree, you could scope us out of our flying. If WE could get Delta to agree, we could do the same to you. The flying isn't yours buddy and it never has been, it is Delta's. You get from Delta what they choose to let you have. We get from Delta what they choose to let us have.

When you signed your current contract, Delta agreed to give you roughly 66 to 63% of its block hours and retained the rest. The events occurring since you signed the contract, have rendered that provision moot. The percentage you will be allowed to control, if any, must now be renegotiated and reset. Your contract does not oblige Delta to agree to any specific percentage. It merely specifies a percentage "appropriate to the circumstances". What that might mean is anybody's guess. Until it has been renegotiated and a new agreement is reached, you don't control any of the flying. It is ALL Deltas and they can give you what they choose and not give you what they choose. That is exactly what they are doing.

DCI, which now manages CMR and the other "connection carriers", has just added a new carrier and is also adding new aircraft to the subsidiaries' fleets. By the time you complete negotiations to reset the ratios, we will have about 45% of the domestic block hours in actual operation, if not more. If you think Delta will scrap that and give it all back to you after the fact, you'd better think again. If you want it back, you'll have to buy it back. How much do you think your senior pilots will give up for that? That's not a pretty picture and I'm sure you don't like it, but that's what you agreed to and that's how it is.

For your sake, I hope the lawyers that are defending ALPA against the RJDC will do a better job than they did of writing your Scope clause because what they gave you is a sieve. Note also, that none of the scope clauses they have written elsewhere are doing much better. BTW, I hear the defense attorneys happen to be the same attorneys that wrote your Scope.

While it may be true that we can't scope you out of your aircraft, the truth is we haven't tried and we aren't trying now. You are the predators that have been trying to scope us out of our aircraft. The facts appear to indicate that you aren't doing a very good job of it. Perhaps you should rethink your strategy.

If you would step down from your pedestal for a moment and work with us constructively, maybe we could develop together a new strategy that has a chance of success. Try it, you might like it.

Continued in Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

Originally posted by Puff Driver
<<<Actually, the line is drawn by the only people who have the contractual right to do so, the Delta MEC. If we redraw it, you will just have to live with the new line, just as you benefitted when the line was moved the other way. I noticed you didn't complain when we were "controllong" your careers back then, were you Johnny?!?>>>>>

If you want to believe that, be my guest. We have to live with the line where Delta chooses to put it. You may think that the Delta MEC is Delta, but that thought is just another one of your many delusions. Every time your contract becomes amendable, Delta can put your scope on the table and they will. When all the BS is over, you will wind up with whatever Delta chooses to give you. We are in the same boat. When it comes to this aspect of the situation we are not nearly as different as you would like to believe.

If you don't happen to like what Delta chooses to give you, you can withdraw your services and strike. Since your contract is not amendable until 2005, plus 2 years of negotiations, means we're looking at 2007 (maybe). Much may be different by that time.

The day you decide to strike, you will have to deal first with the Government to see if the President appoints a PEB. If he does, you will then have the option of accepting the PEB recommendations or not. If you don't, the President may allow you to strike or may have the Congress tell you what you will accept. If you are allowed to strike, you will then be dealing with the Company and a fleet of several hundred RJs, operated by six different airlines, all of which will continue to carry Delta's domestic traffic, while you walk the line. Just as it was in the Comair strike. Granted you will have much more leverage than we did, but you will not have the ability to completely stop the company from operating. If they can keep 30% of the domestic passengers moving, it won't be too long before you settle on their terms. The sad story is that the upper 2/3 of your list aren't going to risk their jobs at Delta just to keep a few more RJs from flying to please the lower 1/3 of your list.

It seems to me there are far better ways to deal with the problems before it gets to that nasty scenario. Perhaps the junior 1/3 of your list should rethink its position.

<<<WAG is your typing. Do you even read what you type??? I was actually referring to companies such as MIDWAY who meet the size requirement, but really lack the mission that Delta accomplishes. IMO, this is where the C&BL fall short by definition of our scope. Clear enough, or do you want to twist that statement around as well.>>>>>

Thanks, but I'll pass on trying to twist that. Candidly, the lack of coherence prevents me from even understanding whatever you're trying to say. There's nothing there to rebut.

<<<Your whole argument is based on the fact that our relationship has changed based on the fact that Delta has purchased you. It hasn't>>>

Not really. The relationship has definitely changed, however my argument is based on the realities I explained above at length. We obviously have a very different concept of reality.

<<<So? Do you think I care. This is just more of your martyr rhetoric and it falls on deaf ears. FACT: Your job exists because Delta pilots allowed it to. I noticed an abscence of crying back then. The Delta pilots giveth and the Delta pilots taketh away. EGO? NO. Just plain facts. The truth hurts sometimes, John, but it is nonetheless the truth.>>>>

I pretty much have the picture that you don't care. It's too bad (for you) that you fail to realize that your attitudes are actually hurting your own more than your intended victims. I also have come to realize that many of you don't know enough to care. Happily there are many more pilots at Delta who are much smarter than that and I think those do care. There are also nearly a thousand very junior Delta pilots on the streets and I'm sure they care too. I'm naïve enough to believe that many more care than don't. You just go ahead and believe what you want to believe. I'm far from being a martyr Puff, but you actually evoke pity.

As for the crying I don't think we're doing much of that. We would like to see a solution to the problems because it is in everyone's best interest, including yours, even though you seem unable to realize that.

Personally, I hope the solution does not include seeking one list for I do not see that as being in the best interest of my group. I know that our junior pilots won't agree with me on that part and I will support what they want because they represent the future. However, I think the time for one list has now passed and we should pursue different methods of resolution. My reason for that is because there is not enough creative thinking in ALPA today to develop a plan that the Company might accept at this stage of the game. They (the Company) are winning big time thanks to the stupidity of the union's decision and the intransigence of your group. Very few teams will forfeit a game that they are winning by a wide margin. Altruism is not one of management's virtues nor is it part of their job description.

I think there are other ways that we might use to restore the balance of power between management and the union, but that presupposes that we can first give the term "union" some significant meaning. If your rhetoric is representative of the Delta pilot group, there is no hope of that. Things will just have to run their course and we'll see how the chips fall.

I'll leave the rest of what you wrote without comment. Not enough substance to warrant the effort.

You take care buddy and fly safe. I wish you well, notwithstanding that I think you are so far out in left field that you're not even in the game.

 

[macdaddy]

Da mn straight management is winning!!! There is NO creative thinking at ALPA HQ.

The only thing Woerth seems concerned about right now is getting guns in the cockpit.

Another 9-11 type of attack seems remote to me. But,

The loss of good paying jobs is a reality - (I'm talking about the total amount of good paying jobs), thanks to the shift to regionals.

When is ALPA going to do something constructive?

 

[NYRANGERS]

Da mn straight management is winning!!! There is NO creative thinking at ALPA HQ.

The only thing Woerth seems concerned about right now is getting guns in the cockpit.

Another 9-11 type of attack seems remote to me. But,

The loss of good paying jobs is a reality - (I'm talking about the total amount of good paying jobs), thanks to the shift to regionals.

When is ALPA going to do something constructive?

Well said, I couldn't agree with you more!!!

 

[FL000]

Does that by any chance mean that you see the union/mainline point of view as the "true religion and mission from God" and the supporters of RJDC as the infidels?

no and yes, respectively

Nothing personal, I'm just trying to get a handle on your view of the "politically correct".

I don't take anything personally.

 

[Freight Dog]

Re: Part 1 of 2

The flying isn't yours buddy and it never has been, it is Delta's. You get from Delta what they choose to let you have. We get from Delta what they choose to let us have.

Surplus, I think you just proved my point that your lawsuit against ALPA is frivolous. You should be suing Delta management if anybody, and I think your $25,000 lawyer screwed you out of money.


Aloha!

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: Part 1 of 2

Surplus, I think you just proved my point that your lawsuit against ALPA is frivolous. You should be suing Delta management if anybody, and I think your $25,000 lawyer screwed you out of money.


Aloha!

I've read your remarks in other posts and chose not to reply previously. What you said above is the reason. I'm answering now because you spoke to me directly.

While I'm sure you are well intended, I candidly believe (based on your posts) that you are insufficiently familiar with the core issues, the litigation itself or the ALPA to offer a valid opinion as to whom the defendant should be or that I need to rebut.

When the court makes it's ruling, we will know more about the appropriatness of the defendant. Until then, you and I will have to differ.

Please continue to participate in the discussion and present your opinions. I'm sure there are others who will both chose to agree or debate with you.

Fly safe and thanks for your message.

 

[Freight Dog]

Surplus,

As a member, I'm pretty familiar with ALPA. What I am not familiar with, or what I do not understand is your lawsuit. I've read it, so yeah, I guess I'm familiar with your allegations and maybe something is wrong with me because I still don't get it.. the ratio between Delta and Comair pilot groups is like 9-1. Even if your MEC was present at Delta's negotiations, what function would he serve?! What COULD he do?!

$100,000,000 in exemplary and punitive damages??!?

You still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you just decertify ALPA on your property? Or is this RJDC thing nothing but a few old loudmouth zealots trying to stir up trouble, bankrupt ALPA and then bail out? What's the story here?

Also, when is the hearing/trial/ruling on this?


Thanks, fly safe and ALOHA!