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."