ALPA's Scope Defense - Incompetence?

[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!

 

[skydiverdriver]

Freight Dog,
Your question about desertifying ALPA has been answered repeatedly, and apparently you choose not to read it, or cannot understand it. Just look back at Surplus's previous posts, and you will find the answers to all of your questions. Some people keep accusing us of saying the same things, but that is because people like you keep asking the same questions.

If you think our goal is to bankrupt the union, then Surplus is correct that you have no idea what the lawsuit is about. Of course, you said this yourself, and that is the first thing you have said that wasn't a rant. Perhaps if you spoke like a person who really wanted answers, instead of an arguement, you would get more answers to your questions. Good luck to you.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Flight hour renegotiations

Reading Surplus's previous post with Puf, he stated something that made me wonder.

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.

My question to all is why did Delta management and DALPA have this agreement in the first place. What does negotiating a reset of block hours have to do with the 3 consecutive negative quarters. Did Delta realize that the RJ's were the only way to make money and did DALPA know that too when they signed the contract?
What I am getting at is did Delta try to get unlimited RJ's because they knew what the economy was about to do (not FM), DALPA of course said know way, that is our flying, an thus the agreement for renegotiations? What was told to DALPA? I am having a hard time trying to figure out how this part was negotiated and why as it should have been an eye opener for DALPA. Any one care to comment?

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

The nature and subject matter of this post requires a disclaimer, so here it is:

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this post are my own opinions and mine alone. I am not a spokesperson for Comair pilots or Comair management. I am not a member of the Comair MEC and I am not a spokesperson for the Comair MEC. I am not a spokesperson for the RJDC or for any other organization. My posts are not directed, approved or controlled by the RDJC, any of its principals or any other organization. I have no knowledge as to whether the RJDC agrees or disagrees with any opinions expressed by me in this or any other post and no such agreement/disagreement is implied or inferred. Surplus1

Freight Dog,

Your comments/questions cannot be answered with a "sound bite" so this will be long and difficult reading. Sorry, I don't know how to reduce it more.

Originally posted by Freight Dog
Surplus,
As a member, I'm pretty familiar with ALPA.

Perhaps I am wrong and you are familiar, but I seriously doubt it. Don't take it personally for I do not mean it that way. Of the 60,000+ members in the ALPA, the truth is only a handful are actually "familiar" with how ALPA really operates any more than the average American is familiar with how the US Congress operates. Unless you happen to be a member of the governing bodies of the ALPA, and by that I mean one with regular access to what happens in the Executive Council, the Executive Board and your MEC, your "familiarity" with the ALPA is dependent on what you are told and what you can read in the public venue. Other than that, you are simply a number and so am I.

Even the elected representatives who are "members of the BOD" are, in the majority, uniformed despite the Association's best effort. They only meet for a week once every two years. Between BOD meetings they do not, in the majority, see or communicate with other members of the BOD outside of their own airline. Over 75% are attending their very first BOD meeting and are generally unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedures. With rare exception, they are generally unfamiliar with the material under debate (although they get volumes of paper pre-meeting, which most never read). They respond to a "pre-prepared agenda", etc.

A BOD meeting is much like a shareholder meeting in a large corporation. A few (important) people sit up front, make nice speeches to the group, break in to delegate committees all chaired by "people on the inside", return to the plenary chamber and when the Chairman says it's time, they all raise their right hand and vote for things they seldom understand. If one or two get too feisty and stray from the planned courses of action, they are dealt with much like the irate small shareholder in a GM shareholder's meeting. The real players listen for awhile to maintain the facade, and then the dissidents get voted down.

Unlike the US Government, ALPA's legislature is a unicameral system. There are no checks and balances. The minority has no viable means of challenging the majority, the President has no power of veto, there is no judicial branch that can act independent of political pressure and redress, and there is no internal system to address grievance or hear complaints legitimate or otherwise. As a consequence, reality is that 3 men (if aligned with each other) have the power to overrule the decisions or opinions of ALL other member airlines and thus dictate the course of the Association as a whole.

Envision if you will the Congress of the United States as a single chamber. No Senate, just the House of Representatives. No separate Executive branch of government (thus no Presidential veto) and no Judiciary to review the legality of proceedings. All votes in the House are by simple majority therefore, the States of California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Florida, have sufficient votes to override the other 44 States combined. How long do you think the "democratic" government of the US would endure in that circumstance? Well, that's pretty much the equivalent of the ALPA. Of all the airlines in the ALPA, three (3) of them voting together on any issue have the power to overrule the remaining 44 +. Tell me how, in such a system, can a small airline like yours or mine achieve anything. How can the small airline get a fair hearing of its issues?

While highly touted as a democracy, the government of the ALPA is in fact an active oligarchy.

That system may have been viable in the early stages of the organization. IMO, in today's world it is unworkable, unreasonable and the source of internal political conflict. That is why litigation, though undesirable, becomes the only option for a minority that feels aggrieved and wants impartial justice. There is no other means of redress save political patronage or outright begging.

Unless you happen to be a member of the inner circle of ALPA governance, I repeat my original allegation. You don't know how ALPA really works; you are unfamiliar with the ALPA. We don't need a new union but we most assuredly need significant reform of the one that we have.

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?!

First we must make clear that the lawsuit does not contain "my allegations". I support the RJDC in principle but I am not a plaintiff. There's nothing "wrong" with you FD, in fact you are quite typical.

The litigation is based on the concept that within the ALPA structure, each group is vested with the right to bargain with the employer in its own interest. However, that right does not extend beyond the affairs of the particular airline to encompass the affairs of another airline. When that power is usurped and an external group is afforded the privilege of bargaining for and determining the future of another group, without its consent, the excluded group has been deprived of representation. That's complex I know, but it lies at the crux of the dispute.

The Delta pilots have the unquestioned right to bargain for themselves. However, the ASA and Comair pilots have the very same right. The lawsuit alleges that the CMR and ASA group were denied that right by the ALPA and as a consequence, their careers and their future were bargained away, with the consent and support of the ALPA by the Delta pilots, against the wishes of the Comair and ASA groups.

The Comair and ASA pilots formally requested that they be included in deliberations that directly affected and controlled their future. The Company (Delta) raised no objection. The union (ALPA) excluded them in writing. As a result the ALPA, acting on behalf of the Delta pilots, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Delta that aggrieves and potentially damages every ASA and Comair pilot. In that Comair and ASA pilots are equal members of the ALPA, the ALPA has wronged them. The litigation seeks to reverse that wrong. If the ALPA refuses to correct the wrong, then the litigants are entitled to compensation for the damages they will suffer if the Agreement is enforced.

You ask what would have happened if representatives of the ASA and CMR pilots were included. Then you answer the question yourself by pointing out that the Delta pilots outnumber us 9-1. Your understanding of the scenario and therefore your premise, are both flawed.

An agreement of the type under discussion would require a consensus and could not be decided by a simple majority vote cast by the Delta pilots. Remember that the ALPA has maintained that we are separate entities. If separate, we have equal rights and are not subject to being unilaterally overruled by the Delta pilots, regardless of their number. All three airlines would have to agree on a mutually satisfactory solution or there would be an impasse. If an impasse did occur, each of the three (3) separate airlines would be estopped from making any agreement that could remove the others rights.

Thus, Delta pilots would not be able to write Scope clauses in their Agreement with Delta that defined or limited the flying of Comair or ASA. Comair and ASA would not be able to limit or define the flying of Delta pilots. All other provisions of the Delta pilots Scope, would remain unchanged. Keep in mind that under applicable law, the Delta, Comair and ASA pilots have a common employer notwithstanding the corporate structure of convenience.

We also have a common labor union. Therefore that labor union is required by law to afford equal representation to each of its members, bar none. In so doing, it may not bargain in bad faith; it may not make arbitrary decisions and it may not discriminate. If the labor union does any or all of those things, it may be held in violation of its Duty of Fair Representation. The litigation alleges that the union has violated its DFR.

If we accept the ALPA's thinking, then we are chattels of the Delta pilots who may determine without limitation, if we fly, what we fly, where we fly, etc. At the same time however, the ALPA declares officially that we are not operationally integrated with Delta Air Lines and we are not entitled to become a single unit with the Delta pilots. It would appear that ALPA's policy in this case is the classic oxymoron.

Continue to Part 2

 

[surplus1]

TO: Freight Dog - Part 2 of 2

With respect to the issue of the union's decision re the Comair pilots' request for activation of the ALPA merger policy, the litigation dose NOT seek to require the union to force Delta, Inc., to merge the corporations of DAL, CMR and ASA. It merely seeks to require the union to comply with it's own merger policy, and to preclude the union from making arbitrary and discriminatory decisions re the applicability of the merger policy. While the Executive Council is granted very broad discretionary powers by the merger policy, they appear to be so broad and vague as to violate the institutions Constitution and ByLaws. Whether the policy's implementation would or would not result in an actual merger of the seniority lists is irrelevant. If you read the policy itself you will find that it does NOT include any such requirement.

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

Intended to preclude the ALPA from repeating the alleged offenses in the future. In other words a fine. It would not benefit the litigants personally.

The amounts sought as damages reflect the calculated loss of pay and benefits over the career of a Comair pilot if the Delta scope provisions are enforced. Don't forget that a career covers a time span in excess of 30 years if nothing goes wrong.

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?

Well, that's more like severally questions, but I'll try. 1) Decertifying ALPA would accomplish nothing other than to make right what ALPA is accused of doing wrong. Besides, we don't want to be members of a different union. We want our union to honor its Constitution and represent its members fairly. If we leave the union, then it has no obligation to represent our interests. Example: AA/AE. The AA pilots are doing to the AE pilots the same thing that the DL pilots are trying to do to us. However, the APA represents only the AA pilots and not the AE pilots. Therefore, the APA has no obligation to protect the interests of the AE pilots and there is no basis for litigation.

2) I really can't answer that without writing more than you or anyone else would want to read. So I will just say, the answer is NO. If you knew the plaintiffs you would understand the answer and would not even ask the question. I do know them.

3) There's really no "story" that's any different from what you've been reading. The plaintiffs believe that a wrong has been done and that it injures Comair pilots severely over the long term. They have sought every possible avenue to resolve the conflicts internally within the ALPA. These efforts at resolution were met with a granite wall of indignation and resistance. Therefore, the only possible venue of resolution is litigation and a decision by the courts. That is exactly why we have courts. To resolve disputes that cannot otherwise be resolved.

The RJDC has offered to settle the dispute, and to waive all monetary damages if a settlement is reached. The ALPA has declined to seriously discuss settlement.

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

The ALPA has finally filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgement. The discovery phase related to these preliminary motions is in progress. I do not know when exactly they will be heard but it's getting close. If ALPA's motions are denied, then we will proceed to complete discovery and trial. If ALPA's motions are upheld, there will probably be an appeal. I might add, you could expect the parties to appeal any initial decisions of the courts. This one, if it is not settled out of court, is likely to go all the way. It will take a long time. This type of litigation is extremely complex and difficult to try. Don't expect any instant solutions. This has the potential of going all the way to the Supreme Court. If ALPA does not settle or win a very clear victory early on, you can expect them to take it all the way and hope they can outspend the RJDC in the judicial system. If they go that route, you can count on us being there on the day of final judgement.

Try to understand that I am not asking or expecting you to agree with me. You asked questions and I'm simply stating my answers. While I hope you will see through the complexity and agree, that's completely up to you. I won't hold any grudges if you disagree. The right to disagree and to have a just decision on the merits made by an impartial party, is what we are fighting to achieve so I could hardly deny you that same right.

However, I do want you to know what you are disagreeing with and not base your decision on assumptions, preconceived concepts, prejudices or rhetoric from the uninformed. Established facts cannot be disputed. Once it has been decided what the facts of the case are, only then can we argue the merits. In the court system, we will first argue the facts (if disputed), establish them and then argue the merits. That's how the legal system works.

As a side note, right now ALPA is arguing the jurisdiction of the court so we're a long way from the facts and the merits. So far ALPA's legal maneuvering does not appear to support its publicly espoused rhetoric as to the lack of merit of the case. BTW and for the record, I am not an attorney and make no claim to be.

Finally, I would like to leave you and other readers with this thought. I am not anti-ALPA. I don't believe the plaintiffs or their supporters are anti-ALPA either. As a matter of fact much of my professional life has been dedicated to the union representation of airline pilots. I am against some of the things that ALPA has done and is doing and want to see them corrected. ALPA has been a wonderful organization for the benefit of airline pilots but it is not infallible. There is no reason at all why it can't continue to be "the union" of all airline pilots in the United States. I do not want my union to become the political social club and football of the rich at the expense of the have-nots. That is what I believe has happened and I will fight to restore the union that I have known and loved to its intended purpose. I guess I'm somewhat of an idealist.

These policies that relate to the regional jets, injure the pilots that fly them and divide the membership into parochial competing units. They are, in my view, not in the best interests of the members or the Association. In fact, I believe many of them to be in violation not only of the union's constitution but also of the law. I would like to see the required changes occur voluntarily and wish that others would join the cause of making that happen, but if they don't (and I see no sign that they will after years of effort) then I will use the courts as necessary to force a return to fair and equal representation of all members, without regard to the type of aircraft they happen to fly or the airline that employs their services. The task is challenging and far from easy but the very survival of the union is at stake. "THE" pilots union must do and be nothing less.

That's my soapbox. Remember, you asked for it.

Fly safe and ALOHA to you too.

 

[PuffDriver]

Re: Part 1 of 2

First, I did not write those words about Delta flying. You are quoting some other person.

<<<Sure, maybe not on this board. I guess you are opposed to this part of the settlement then. I'm sure I can find something alluding to one list rhetoric on your behalf on these boards somewhere, but I have not the time or inclination>>>>


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.



<<Civility is for the cockpit. All is fair in love and war here. I don't need credibility here. My credibility is in the contracts. Maybe I should just boldface some of my words or throw in little, irrelevant jabs to establish credibility. I think not. I prefer being direct as opposed to a kindler gentler way of being correct.>>



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.


<<How nice to be coy. Are you trying to say you don't know what I am talking about?? If so, it might just be time to turn in that medical. Actually this subject encompasses both the C&BL as well as the administrative manual. My bad for leaving the administrative manual out of my previous post.>>>



The English language is troublesome at times isn't it?

<<No.>>



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.

<<<While I appreciated the history recap, I deleted most of it as it was irrelevant to what is happening today. I kept this juicy little tidbit as it pretty much gets to the heart of the matter. I reference 1c1 of the agreement between Delta airlines and ALPA representing the Delta pilots. All company or affiliate flying shall be done by pilots on the Delta seniority list. The contract goes on to further provide exceptions to this general rule. It does not relieve the company from this all encompassing rule--as is noted by the lack of similar language in your 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.

<<<Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. While the contract was not binding on your company, it certainly prevented Delta from engaging in business (codesharing) with you if your company had elected to try and place a code on such an aircraft (>70 seats). It is this very language which allowed Delta to outsource flying which was unprofitable with mainline aircraft, and subsequently be awarded to Comair via a codeshare contract. With the contract in hand, Comair's very lucrative and explosive growth started. Hence, your career progression. While you may attempt a feeble attack on my contractual law knowledge, your convenient lack of thinking outside the box uddoubtedly fails you in this regard. You simply won't see the fact that without the Delta code, Comair would have been a mediocre airline at best. >>>


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?

<<Yes, speaking of lawsuits>>>


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.

<<Sure it was. This is the very reason why Comair management sold out. They were about to lose their lucrative deal. Same old song and dance, same failed logic.>>>


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.

<<<Delta cannot do anything it pleases. It has a legally binding contract which it must adhere to, and yes, the Delta pilots gave you the career you see today. Without the exception to the scope, you would not be sitting in the position you are. Deny it all you want, but it is true. A lot of things happened in '96. However, the contract between Delta and Comair had nothing to do with the negotiations of '96. I get my information from our CEO, where do you get yours?>>



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.


<<<Maybe you ought to explain it to Mr. Mullin as well then, because apparently he doesn't understand it either. BUSTED!!!!>>>


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.


<<Ok, BUDDY, let's examine that. Our contract says that all the flying belongs to us (1C1). However, if you can convince Delta to break the law--go back on their contract--YOU could own all of the Delta flying?? Let me correct you: If WE could convince Delta to give us back the exception we allowed, WE could actually PERFORM all of the flying. If WE gave up something we already own, and offered to fly for more money than you, and they hadn't learned their lesson from your strike, AND the entire Delta negotiating team had a blood clot in the brain simultaneously, you might just have a chance at the entire cadre of delta flying. It's harder than it sounds TIC>>>

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.

<<Actually, it is somewhere in the 37th percentile as of this moment. Yes, the limits have to be reset. There was never any doubt in my mind that this is where we were headed from the start--and one of the reasons I voted no on this contract.>>

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.

<<<If they did such a piss poor job, then why do you have to sue for misrepresentation?!?>>>


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.

<<<Perhaps you should go and read your paragraph just above this one. Did we do a good job or didn't we???>>>

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.

<<<I am not on a pedestal. Quite to the contrary, many of your comments are just as demeaning, if not more so, than mine. My mission is to state the facts and raise the BS flag. If "working constructively" means you get what you want at my expense, F.O. While you may be able to convince people with your smoke and mirriors, deep down we both know what this is really about, and it stinks--BIG TIME>>