APA/AMR Set A Dangerous Precedent

[General Lee]

Rideand drive,

Express your views to your MEC chair. He is currently deciding your future with Delta. Do you think he would ever want to be an FO on an MD88? Heck no. And that isn't good news for you.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[JumpJetter]

I didn't see anything about the 3000 hour requirement for Eagle Captains specified in the AE Part I. That kept quite a few guys from flowing back in the first wave after 9/11. Anybody know it it's still a requirement for the agreement?

JumpJetter

 

[surplus1]

Good Post (Yours) - Part 1 of 2

Sarcasm is difficult to convey on an internet message board and my post was, indeed, laced with sarcasm but also with the understanding that the APA/AMR/ALPA tinderbox has the potential to set some very powerful precedent.

So it is (sarcasm) and so it does (precedent). Unfortunately the only precedent likely to be set in this case is that it is perfectly acceptable for a mainline carrier's pilot group to do unto a regional carriers pilot group that which it deems appropriate at any given point in time. If Eagle loses this battle, that's the precedent we'll be left with. Not a pleasant prospect if you are not a mainline pilot.

You see, in the AMR/Eagle "battle", ALPA will be fighting against APA. They have a duty of fair representation to the Eagle pilots -- no small group. While arguably the Eagle pilots are not the financial windfall to the association that converting APA would be, I believe that Duane Woerth and the Board of Directors are quite aware that every so-called "regional" airline in the western hemisphere is carefully watching what happens.

Yes, if the ALPA "defends" the Eagle pilots it will be fighting against the APA and AMR (neither could do anything without the consent of the other). Should that "fight" take place in a court of law, ALPA lawyers will find themselves presenting opposing legal arguments in two separate Federal courts. That should thrill judges, and risks destroying ALPA's legal credibility completely. ALPA may have nefarious intent, but they are not stupid. They'll think twice before they rush to Eagle's defense.

It may surprise you but the fact is a huge percentage of ALPA's "Board of Directors" knows very little about what really goes on in the inner circles of the ALPA regime. They do not even have to be informed of what is going on unless it involves an amendment to the C&BL. They get lots of paper work, which most never read, and that seldom includes truly sensitive issues. Duane Woerth is of course "aware" and so are the MEC Chairmen of the "big five". They will no doubt be torn by these gut wrenching issues. [That's my attempt at sarcasm.] More likely than not they have already enjoyed several glasses of vintage wine and fine whiskeys in private celebration of the APA's victory over the peasants. Plausible deniability is of course well secured.

ALPA has been less than concerned about its DFR to CMR and ASA members, (some of whom are not happy about it and sued). ALPA has been less that concerned about it's DFR to members at ALG, PDT, PSA, MDW, MES, TSA, (none of whom seem to care)and less than concerned about its DFR to members at MSA and PCL (who appear to like it). Why then should ALPA suddenly become especially concerned about its DFR towards the members at Eagle? After all they've already won one lawsuit eminating from the Eagle group after a previous derilection of duty.

DFR litigation against a labor union is very difficult to win, cannot be brought by the Eagle MEC, but must be brought by individual or groupings of Eagle members, is extremely expensive and time consuming. Since ALPA itself did not do this to its own members at Eagle (the APA did), ALPA can shuffle a lot of papers, claim that "we can do nothing until you have actually been directly harmed", provide some lip service and a few feigned supportive press releases (carefully crafted to say nothing meaningful but sound terrific by its expert PR department) and drag it out as long as possible, meanwhile quietly working behind the scenes to "convince" the Eagle pilots that it is, after all, in their best interests to bite the bullet and accept the shafting. Should they succeed in convincing (or coercing as they did on the U property) the Eagle pilots into "agreeing" to this, they're home free.

If they ever get around to actually taking APA and AMR to court, the latter has a plausible out, by that time the Eagle pilots won't have much to fight over. Even if they should "win", reversing what happens after it has happened, is not what a court is likely to do (you can bet that ALPA will tell the Eagle MEC, very convincingly, all of those things. After all deterrence has merit, especially when its reward may well be the implementation of a procedure/policy/precedent that ALPA is known to favor and has itself supported and implemented, in very similar fashion, against its own membership.

Given the history of ALPA's assorted schemes that have been very unfavorable to many regional pilot groups in the past, and the total failure of all but one of those groups to take any serious action in its own defense or even protest audibly, I doubt Woerth is very worried about what regional pilots think about this or for that matter, anything else. Woerth is a politician and given the lack of political clout that regional pilots have within ALPA, he needn't worry much about what they might do, let alone what they may think. If he in fact does, it would amount to a 180* change of direction.

If he and the association elect to sacrifice their duty to represent the Eagle pilots instead attempting to bring APA back into the fold, he will face a much larger lawsuit than that being brought by RJDC.

Should the Eagle pilots sue ALPA, ALPA will argue in court, that it had every intention of defending Eagle to the best of its ability and the suit is "premature". Should that fail, ALPA will argue that the suit has no merit and move for dismissal and summary judgement. It will take a year before that motion even gets a full hearing. If the suit is allowed by the court to proceed, months will be absorbed in discovery before the trial begins. When a verdict is eventually entered, if it should be unfavorable to ALPA, there will be an appeal, more delays and higher costs. If ALPA can simply delay long enough and outspend the litigants, they may well lose interest and fade into the sunset. Should ALPA lose the appeal, depending on the penalty assessed, it may appeal yet again to a higher court. This process is like a popular soap opera, it almost never ends.

It takes a whole lot of fortitude, dedication, patience and money to win a DFR lawsuit. Do the Eagle pilots have that? I hope so, but I obviously don't know. There are about 2600 of them, at the moment, so if they all got on the bandwagon and stayed for the duration, at $10 bucks per capita per month, they could raise about $300K a year. That's enough to go forward with some good legal counsel. I certainly think they should try if they do not get a vigorous defense of their rights from ALPA.

If he chooses to put the legal power of the association fully behind the Eagle pilots (as would be required to prevent the landgrab being attempted by APA) then he will set precedent which will dramatically change the landscape of the RJDC lawsuit.

Such a "precedent" might well cause ALPA to lose the RJDC lawsuit. Do you really believe the DMEC will allow ALPA to do anything that might cause that to happen? I wouldn't bet much on that probability. Keep in mind that Delta has threatened to leave the ALPA if the union loses this case. If Delta leaves, so will the other big wigs. They can't maintain their lifestyle without Delta dues money. I hate being the proverbial pessimist but I don't see ALPA doing anything that might cause that to happen. They will risk 10 Eagle lawsuits before they risk that. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." ALPA is in a classic Catch 22. Dame*ed if it does (what it should for Eagle), dam*ed if it doesn't (offends mighty Delta). One thing I advise you never to do is underestimate the power of Delta within the Association.

Finally the conflict of interest that IS ALPA today will be forced to resolve itself. It may very well do so in civil war, but there are questions that have to be answered regardless of the consequences.

I doubt that the conflict will be resolved short of an edict from a Federal court. As for the Civil War, it is already in progress and will get bigger before it ends. Just my opinion.

Is the association fairly representing the Eagle pilots? (or any "regional" pilot for that matter: PSA, Piedmont, Mesaba, Comair, ASA)

In my opinion, the answer to all the above is one word, NO.

Is the association taking action to ensure that the careers of so-called "regional" pilots are not being negatively affected by the bargaining tactics of management, other pilot groups, or governmental interference?

Again, NO. The association fosters, supports, and overtly participates not only in the concept, but it the process of mainline MEC's using the livelihoods of regional pilot groups as bargaining chips, and openly consents and supports the idea that a mainline MEC may bargain for or away, the assets of a regional pilot group. The evidence of that is overwhelming. In so doing it also endorses by default the same action on the part of management. There is not much governmental interference, but ALPA does resist that.

Continued in Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

Is the stability of the regional airline pilot's career being negatively impacted by the association due to bargaining tactics on other ALPA properties? If so, how is the association acting to mitigate these effects?

Absolutely, and it is not by accident. The ALPA fully embraces the concept that a mainline bargaining strategy that results in defacto negotiations by the mainline group, for a regionl group, is not only permitted but advisable, regradless of how the result may impact the regional group. The Association is NOT acting to mitigate those effects, on the contrary it is the Association's policy that those effects are desirable. That is why I am so concerned about the Eagle pilots in this case. ALPA can hardly "preach" defending them, when it practices the very same thing that the APA has done, i.e., bargain on behalf of Eagle, without the consent or participation of the Eagle pilots. Wittness the rape of the U subsidiaries and subcontractors. Who is the rapist? ALPA. Will ALPA ever be "convicted" of those crimes? Of course not, they have succeeded in coercing the raped into agreeing that the sordid mess was consensual.

The ALG pilots picketed 1625 Massachusetts Avenue. I could alsmost see the smirks and here the derisive laughter from the penhouse as the watched from on high. That type of protest has no impact whatever on the minions of the ALPA and I sincerely hope that the Eagle pilots will elect a more effective response should it prove necessary to do so.

You see, ALPA has no choice but to fight on behalf of the Eagle pilots. That fight will change the association forever. The reason that we cant get along lies in the common truth that we are all very greedy regarding our jobs. I've sat on both sides of the fence and I assure you that the goal is the same -- keep the flying on the property. I would be deeply dissapointed if that goal were dismissed. I contend that ALPA is simply unable to negotiate for both "feeder" and "mainline". The conflict of interests lies in their own bylaws -- how can they protect the flying of both groups when the flying can no longer be defined? The only solution is for there to be only one group. ALPA, in their profound arrogance, dismissed that goal long ago.

I too have sat on both sides of the "fence". I think that the goal of "keeping the flying on the property" is not greedy but appropriate. The problem stems from ALPA's and the mainline groups joint but unwritten policy, which pretends that there is no flying on the regional side of the fence and there never was. It is difficult to envision a more biased and self-serving concept.

The apparent goal of the Association is to transfer the flying from one group to the other or if unable to do so, eliminate it or severely restrict it. Additionally, the Association acts directly to prevent the obviously natural intergration of multiple pilot groups on the same property (which would solve the problem by providing equal access to all of the flying by both parties), creates separate "classes" within the membership and then descriminates against the class it considers to be "lower". These actions are not subtle. They are open and overt. I would argue further that the flying can be defined. It has not been defined, only because ALPA supports the concept that one group is exclusively vested with the right to unilaterally and arbitrarily write the definition and draw the line, without the consent of the other. It even goes beyond that. ALPA also confers upon the most favored son (the mainline group) the unilateral "right", to redefine the flying and redraw the line at will, even if that results in the loss of flying previously "defined" as belonging to the less favored bastard step sons (regional group).

Amazingly, ALPA's legal team argues in one Federal court that the MEC's are autonomous and it lacks the power to control them. Simultaneously, ALPA argues in another Federal court that it alone is the bargaining power and posesses the legal right to reject the product of any bargaing when the results do not meet its approval. The courts held that the ALPA does have that power and authority.The dublicity of these legal arguments clearly demonstrate the ALPA's true intent as well as its allegiance. Having won one case, as it should have, I can only imagine how it expects that it will not ultimately lose the other.

For those among the chosen few, ALPA's policy is the equivalent of "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine." The scraps, if any, may be picked up by the servants or fed to the hogs. Therein lies the conflict of interest, the bargaining in bad faith, the descrimination and the blatant failure to represent. There is little doubt in my mind that the ALPA has not only met but exceeded the legal standards of proof that establish its breach of the Duty of Fair Representation. It is left to be seen what the courts will say.

In my opinon, the Eagle pilots must not wait to see if ALPA will rise to their defense. They should employ independent legal counsel, not paid for by the ALPA, and demand that the Association actively and vigorously defend them by all available means, in a timely manner. I sincerely hope that the will, the knowledge and the experience required to deal with this crisis is available within their group and that they will not fail to defend themselves. It will require exceptional unity, perserverance and skill, as well as competent legal counsel. This is not a simple case by any means. What we can see on the surface is obviously flagrant abuse, but what is there legally is extremely complex. If they do not meet the challenge, it is not only they that will suffer, but all regional pilots. I pray for their ultimate success.

Just one man's opinion of course.

Likewise, to be sure.

 

[Palerider957]

Wow....Surplus for President!

A very eloquent post that helps to define the issues. Well said.

 

[eaglefly]

It is my understanding that the 3000 hour requirement for flowback captains at Eagle is still in place. It was required by the FAA man who oversees Eagle.