Am. Airlines Scope forces Eagle Furlough

[Tim47SIP]

WO = Wholey Owned, just like on all of the other threads. You know, the regionals that the mainlines own that they dont recognize. Hope that helps.

 

[bigD]

Aha! Thank you Tim. I see it used all the time, and through context kind of figured it was a term applied to the regionals, but now I know for sure! Sigh...slowly but surely...I'm getting there.

 

[publisher]

typically

In a growing market and economy, these are things that are not really big problems..... They become such in shrinking companies or economies and everyone tends to feed on their young.

In the case of United Airlines, they signed a contract that most business people, most airline people, and even some of the pilots who would benefit thought was cost prohibitive. To say that management agreed to it would be amisnomer. It was simply better than watching their business travelers totally abandon them doing irrepairable damage.

As I have said on these boards in the areas that have dealt with scope, I think that recent history will make it less likely not more likely that mainline pilots will fly the RJ's or that the regionals will remain wholly owned or maybe even partially owned.

I think that there will be significant changes in the way majors do business or even exist as a result of 2001.

 

[Draginass]

The circumstances around United's contract were really pretty simple. The year before the summer of discontent, the pilot's union TOLD United management that they couldn't fly the schedule without mandatory overtime. SO, when it comes to the summer in question, what does Goodwin do??? He stonewalls the contract negotiations. Brilliant. What did he THINK was going to happen??? At the end of the summer GOODWIN had managed to piss off his customers and pilots, make everybody in Denver mad, and THEN settled for a more expensive contract than he could have had at the beginning of the summer. Buffonery, plain and simple.

The economy is going to pick up. The future is not SWA and Jet Blue, nor the skys darkened with RJs flown by $50 an hour captains. The SWAs and Jet Blues have their nitch, but they don't have a worldwide network or a rational and flexible fleet variety. Also, how long do you think SWA pilots and Jet Blue pilots are going to settle for sub-par compensation and narrow retirement schemes. The industry is in a natural change process. For those regional guys who think that the future is an RJ flown by a at-will contract company, please stay there when American, Delta, Continental, and United start hiring again. After all, there's no future in major airlines, right?

 

[Tim47SIP]

Draginbutt, just keep saying that over and over again. And while you are on the yellowbrick road, in your own mind it may come true some day! Only time will tell. P.S. not to be an insult at all, just a difference of oppinion on the future concerning SW, JB, ATA, Etc.

 

[airjackson]

amen

Thanks for pointing out the same old, same old from the previous post

 

[~~~^~~~]

The SWAs and Jet Blues have their nitch, but they don't have a worldwide network or a rational and flexible fleet variety.

Actually one type has worked rather well for both airlines and your airline is trying to reduce the number of types on the property.

Also, how long do you think SWA pilots are going to settle for sub-par compensation and narrow retirement schemes.

Lets see, Southwest pilots have been at it for 29 years now.

The industry is in a natural change process. For those regional guys who think that the future is an RJ flown by a at-will contract company, please stay there when American, Delta, Continental, and United start hiring again. After all, there's no future in major airlines, right?

Which is it, Sagginbutt? Is the industry changing, or must we all fly at majors? How do you know Southwest, Airtran and Jet Blue are not the future majors?

Back in 1970 who would have taken a job at that little southern cropdusting outfit Delta when a job could be had at Braniff, Continental, Eastern, or the best job ever, Pan Am?

Most of us will be in this business another 25 years, or more. Don't insult those who have hitched their wagons to other airlines - after all each of the airlines you insulted is making a profit, YOUR'S isn't.

 

[ifly4food]

Re: typically

In the case of United Airlines, they signed a contract that most business people, most airline people, and even some of the pilots who would benefit thought was cost prohibitive. To say that management agreed to it would be amisnomer. It was simply better than watching their business travelers totally abandon them doing irrepairable damage.

While your management-centric viewpoint is sometimes enlightening, I think you're falling into the usual management funk here.

It doesn't matter one bit if UAL management had a gun to their heads when they signed. They signed. They could have said no, and opened up other avenues. They signed.
Once you sign, a contract is a contract. Tough luck. You either mutually agree to ammend the contract of you live with it. You don't cry sour grapes after you sign and something unexpected happens. No one could have predicted 9/11, but let's be honest here... the economy was going down the toilet long before that. The signs were there when UAL signed.
A contract is a contract.

 

[~~~^~~~]

It doesn't matter one bit if UAL management had a gun to their heads when they signed. They signed. They could have said no, and opened up other avenues.

What other avenues? Would that be Bankruptcy Avenue, or Insolvency Street?

Some pilots seem to think that no matter what they negotiate - it is up to management to somehow make it profitable.

United was bleeding due to the "summer of discontent." United management banked on increased costs in the rest of the industry as each pilot group matched the United contract - which did not happen. Delta increased costs, but American probably will not. Continental will not, and US Air is no longer relevant.

Of course the management of the company I fly for signed an even dumber deal with only a cork gun to their head. At least they had the good sense to leave provisions that would allow the company to survive if the economy tanked, which it has.

IFF - have you run the numbers to see if ALPA's grievance will result in your furlough?

 

[ifly4food]

~^~,
They didn't havbe to sign. They could have let it go to arbitration, rolled the dice with a strike vote, whatever. They chose to sign. Now a contract is a contract.

IFF - have you run the numbers to see if ALPA's grievance will result in your furlough?

Do you know something we don't? Care to enlighten us?
Last I checked, DALPA hadn't won anything and didn't have a shot in He!l of forcing a flow down to DCI. That is a pie in the sky RJDC propaganda slogan you bring up. They can't force a flow down. They might be able to get an Eagle style furlough IF the caps are indeed hit, which would only result in quicker E120 retirement.
You are always screaming that the sky is falling. We're still waiting.

 

[FlyinBrian]

a contract is a contract...

IFF, I'm not sure I can go along with that. I think almost any reasonable person understands that sometimes extraordinary, unforseeable events occur that require some relief and accomodation. Suppose you were supposed to show up for a trip tomorrow, but you lost your legs in a car accident, and you were out of sick and vacation time. The crew scheduler would not tell you "that's some tough tough luck bud, but you still have to fly the trip tomorrow" (I know everyone is thinking "at my airline... I wouldn't put it past 'em")

I think If I applied your logic to my own life, I would never commit to anything. I'm not saying that your Union should just cave... but I can't accept that a contract is a contract, they signed it, and no matter what happens, they have to honor it. There are circumstances in which extraordinary circumstances dictate that some relief is in order.

 

[~~~^~~~]

IFF:

ALPA has filed a grievance, the effect of this will be to park Delta Connection airplanes. The fact that they probably will not win has nothing to do with the fact that ALPA has taken legal action to cause ASA and Comair pilots immediate harm.

This is becoming more serious. No longer are the scope ratios numbers off in the future - we are 2% over the limit as of January according to Delta. By the end of the year we will be 60 airplanes over the limit. At 5.5 crews per airplane, that is 660 pilots. Now where Delta chooses to furlough is up to them, but furloughing a large number of ASA pilots sure takes away our threat of a strike during contract talks doesn't it?

Now you know why Delta would have folded Comair. It is just like I've been telling you, under the scope ratios Comair could have disappeared without any significant change to Delta's ability to "grow" Connection due to the restrictive limit.

Here is a copy of the initial grievance:

January 31, 2002

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECIEPT REQUESTED

Captain Joseph Kolshak
Vice President-Flight Operations
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Hartsfield International Airport
Atlanta, Georgia 30320

Re: ALPA and Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Grievance of Captain William C. Buergey, ATL 02-11

Dear Captain Kolshak:

On behalf of the pilots in the service of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”), as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”), the undersigned submits this grievance in accordance with Section 1 N. and Section 18 B. of the Delta Pilot Working Agreement (“PWA”).

On January 29, 2002, Delta Air Lines, Inc. notified ALPA that (a) Delta plans to schedule fewer block hors in 2002 than the number of block hours provided in PWA Section 1 E. and (b) that Delta plans to schedule Delta Connection block hours in 2002 as a higher percentage of the sum of the scheduled block hours of Company flying and Delta Connection flying than the percentage provided by PWA Section 1 E. Delta’s 2002 block hour plan and 2002 planned percentage of Delta Connection Flying constitute violations of PWA Section 1 E.

The Association demands that Delta cease and desist the aforementioned contractual violations, and make all pilots whole for losses incurred due to its violations of the PWA as described above.

In accordance with the PWA Section 1 N., the Association requests that this grievance be processed on an expedited basis, directly before the Five Member System Board of Adjustment. It is further requested that the Company send a copy of all hearing notices and decisions rendered in this case to the undersigned and the Air Line Pilots Association, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30354, Attention: Contract Administrator.

The Association maintains that a meeting with the System Manger of Contract Administration under PWA Section 18 B. 2. Is futile and unnecessary because the decisions that are the subject of this grievance were made at the highest levels of the corporation and because the requirement for such a meeting is inconsistent with the expedited arbitration procedure set for the in PWA Section 1 N. If, however, the Company believes that such a meeting is necessary, please advise me immediately.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/

Captain William C. Buergey
Chairman, Delta MEC

cc: Delta MEC
Senior Contract Administrator
MEC Contract Administration Chairman
DAL General Manager-Labor Relations

Now, part two. I had advised FL000 and you that I was optimistic that talks between our three MECs might result in a mutually beneficial resolution of the problem. Unfortunately ALPA again refused to allow either Connection MEC to participate in negotiations with Delta. Further the Delta MEC advised that they would engage in negotiations w/ Delta before the participation of Connection MECs.

In summation, our MECs would have only been invited to participate to the extent of having a pre-arranged deal stuffed down their throat.

ALPA has again refused all of the offers to resolve this problem. There is nothing the ASA pilots can do to protect themselves from this immediate threat to our employment than to file our own litigation against ALPA.

P.S. Before you reply that this is just the Delta pilots trying to enforce their contract, consider that scope that affected our pay and working conditions without our representation was illegal to begin with. Denying us the ability to negotiate with Delta, is illegal. (According to the IRS we are the same employer) No, I do not support ALPA's effort to enforce a contract that I never ratified, that was negotiated with my employer without my consent.

 

[TWA Dude]

~~~^~~~:

I know how you feel. Right now we have a situation whereby the APA wants the National Mediation Board to quickly declare that TWA and AA are indeed a "Single Carrier" for union representation purposes. When they do so (it's a matter of when, not if) immediately the AA/APA integration list is imposed and 209 furloughed AA pilots become senior to the majority of TWA pilots. Those 209 must be recalled within 60 days thereof. Since the bottom 1200 or so TWA guys are stapled any additional furloughs come exclusively come from us. I currently sit about 96 from the bottom.

So, one could say the APA is trying to "swap" their furloughees for ours. But they're not. They're trying to get theirs recalled. Their action might result in me being furloughed, and I am not pleased. Yet I understand what they're doing and from an unemotional point of view I agree with it.

DALPA is trying to protect their jobs by keeping management in line with the contract. Call it unfortunate, infuriating, depressing, saddening, or whatever emotion you choose to apply, but they are not out to screw Connection pilots! It's an unintended consequence, though I realize this comes as no comfort. DALPA isn't tasked with protecting ASA/Comair jobs no matter who owns who. National ALPA is another story. We know who they favor.

Good luck

ps. You were editing while I was typing.
I'm afraid I don't agree with your assertion that scope is illegal due to a common employer. AMR owns two major airlines: AA, and Eagle. AA owns another airline, TWA LLC. Each have separate contracts, scope, and of course there are two unions. The IRS might or might not say otherwise, but I don't work for the same company as Eagle pilots. My employer is owned by the same corporation as theirs.

 

[~~~^~~~]

TWA:

ALPA just got the single carrier petition filed by the AFA at the US Air wholly owneds killed. The NMB's Chief-of-Staff Stephen Crable recently accepted a job at ALPA.

Why don't you expect ALPA to represent you. If it worth killing a single carrier petition at US Air's WO units so that they can negotiate the employment rights of US Air pilots on top of pilots flying at the WO's, why would ALPA not help you? Why will you not demand the union that you pay money to uphold their legal obligation to you?

I know, you have been there two years and just feel fortunate to have a job. That is all fine and dandy, but other people are out fighting for fifteen year careers at the US Air WO's and you can not expect them to be dispassionate about being thrown out in the street at 55 years old in this job market.

 

[TWA Dude]

~~~^~~~ :

You misunderstand me. I am being dispassionate here because if I don't an AA guy who feels differently about the integration will jump down my throat. There is no doubt that National ALPA has quit representing our interests and an independant organization of TWA pilots called thw Aviation Workers Rights Foundation (www.myawrf.org) has petitioned the NMB and has retained the law firm of David Boies (remember the Gore campaign?). We are fighting ALPA, but since ALPA still represents us it remains a purely internal fight. After Single-Carrier we can go public against ALPA. It's really ironic how ALPA woos the APA but in the process creates 2300 ALPA haters.