PuffDriver said:
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
