ASA ALPA Proposes Hiring DAL Pilots

[N2264J]

Re: ASA ALPA Porposes Hiring DAL Pilots

What I am saying, is that it is not illegal and it is not sufficient grounds for a DFR lawsuit. Problems within ALPA need to be addressed, but lawsuits are not the answer.

No one is saying that a deliberate lack of due dilligence is sufficient grounds for a DFR lawsuit. That is only a symptom of the disease not the disease itself. ALPA's conflict of interest is the problem and the lawsuit isn't going away until ALPA fixes it.

This lawsuit, if won, would have so many negative consequences for everyone involved that I dare not think what the industry would look like afterwards.

You're hysterical. This lawsuit will put a stop the ALPA's conflict of interest in the lopsided way it dishes out representation to its "preferred" members and all the rest of us. This isn't a club, it's a union and I can't think of one negative consequence for any union member when the courts direct ALPA to execute its fiduciary responsibility.

 

[PCL_128]

ALPA's conflict of interest is the problem and the lawsuit isn't going away until ALPA fixes it.

The lawsuit will go away as soon as the judge throws it out just like he did the othe 9 sections of the suit.

You're hysterical. This lawsuit will put a stop the ALPA's conflict of interest in the lopsided way it dishes out representation to its "preferred" members and the rest of us. This isn't a club, it's a union and I can't think of one negative consequence for any union member when the courts direct ALPA to execute its fiduciary responsibility.

Well, like I said, the lawsuit will be lost so this is all academic anyway. However, if you were by some fluke to win, the end result would be a court ordered injunction against any scope language in mainline contracts. The suit claims that all scope that limits the growth of regionals is unlawful and a conflict of interest. Well, that is basically all mainline scope. Scope by definition is designed to limit your growth, so a win for you would mean the subsequent destruction of scope. DAL would have the ability to give you 737s or anything else it wants. Like I said, big negative consequences for everyone unless you're a regional lifer.

 

[FDJ2]

No one is saying that a deliberate lack of due dilligence is sufficient grounds for a DFR lawsuit. That is only a symptom of the disease not the disease itself. ALPA's conflict of interest is the problem and the lawsuit isn't going away until ALPA fixes it.

Certainly you must know that a conflict of interest is no grounds for a DFR lawsuit. The courts recognize that unions often have a conflict of interest, likewise as Judge Glasser has pointed out, it is acceptable for one bargaining unit to negotiate a contract which may be detrimental to another bargaining unit without failing in its duty of fair representation.

If the RJDC case is about a conflict of interest then it most certainly is a lost cause. A union fails in it's duty of fair representation only if its action are arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith, not if it has a conflict of interest.

 

[FDJ2]

DAL would have the ability to give you 737s or anything else it wants. Like I said, big negative consequences for everyone unless you're a regional lifer.

Correct, but DAL could also give 737 flying to Mesa and CMR could give CRJ7 flying to MESA aswell, since CMR's scope language would also be defeated by the RJDC lawsuit. Luckily for the profession the RJDC lawsuit is failing miserably.

 

[PCL_128]

Correct, but DAL could also give 737 flying to Mesa and CMR could give CRJ7 flying to MESA aswell, since CMR's scope language would also be defeated by the RJDC lawsuit. Luckily for the profession the RJDC lawsuit is failing miserably.

Hey, I didn't even think of that! It would almost be worth it for them to win the lawsuit just to see surplus1's reaction when CMR trasfers all their 70 seaters to Chit-taco.

 

[~~~^~~~]

PCL128 and FDJ2 :

You guys should be the biggest supporters of the RJDC. What has your MEC done to protect Delta flying and prevent it from being sent to the lowest bidder? You guys need some inclusive scope. Scope that protects your flying instead of restricts other pilots. IE, fleet guarantees, real no furlough language, or pay rates on airplanes which you feel are beneath you.

Correct me if my dates are off, but all flying used to be performed by Delta pilots. Then in 88 you guys allowed ASA to perform flying you felt was beneath you. Scope was revised again allowing more flying to slip away until in 1996 ASA operated 105 seat jets and international routes. After buying ASA and Comair those pilots wanted to be merged on the list, like the Northeast, Pan Am and other turboprop drivers before them (F27 and ATR guys are on your list, or are retired). Rather than bring the flying together your MEC made more divisions and more scope language that the Company flew nearly 400 RJ's through. The scope was relaxed again after 2001 and again in 2005. Today non-ALPA pilots are being trained on 737 replacing E170's.

You guys blame the Connection guys, but it isn't our MEC Chairman's name at the bottom of your contract and we never got to vote on anything.

~~~^~~~

 

[~~~^~~~]

Hey, I didn't even think of that! It would almost be worth it for them to win the lawsuit just to see surplus1's reaction when CMR trasfers all their 70 seaters to Chit-taco.

Comair has inclusive scope - they have a fleet guarantee - you don't.

 

[Freebrd]

>>>ASA operated 105 seat jets<<<

A little misleading there. We had 4 or 5 88 seat BAE146s, and one that had 100 seats. We were authorized to eventually obtain up to 20 BAE146s. Sorry, never knew of a 105 seater here at ASA.

 

[PCL_128]

"Inclusive Scope" is just a buzzword that Dan Ford and that moron Lawson came up with to sell their crazy lawsuit to the rank and file. The whole purpose of scope is to exclude. It excludes you at ASA from flying big airplanes that belong at Delta with mainline wages. It excludes me at Pinnacle from flying the 70 seaters that NWA so desperately wants. If NWA wants to fly 70 seaters, they're going to have to pay mainline NW pilots decent wages to do them. See how that works Fins? It preserves the profession and stops all the good paying jobs from being transferred to the regionals where pay and QOL sucks.

 

[Ted Striker]

See how that works Fins? It preserves the profession and stops all the good paying jobs from being transferred to the regionals where pay and QOL sucks.

I couldn't agree more. It is just beyond me that some people can't see how basic that is.

 

[acarpe3448]

PCL 128

You are wise beyond your years. I only wish that more of the RJDC crowd could realize what exactly will happen if this lawsuit wins. It is no surprise that the suit was started by very senior guys who have no interest in leaving their current airline. Just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with wanting a career at a regional, I have respect for each and every one of these pilots.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I only wish that more of the RJDC crowd could realize what exactly will happen if this lawsuit wins.

If this lawsuit wins, as it should, then pilots will be closer to achieving equal representation throughout our industry. What the pilots do with their representation is up to them.

You guys are like the British who believed the Colonies were incapable of self rule. Somehow the United States got by with representative governance and I for one believe ALPA will be much stronger when it is no longer controled by a group of mainline pilots who have hijacked the union to serve their narrow self interest.

If you had something good to show for your years in power, it might mollify the masses - but - as you admit - ALPA has made a royal mess of scope.

Your current path is not working. ( unless transferring jobs to non-ALPA carriers is your goal ) Time to try something else.

You can help, or you can stand by and watch, but either way the tea is going into Boston Harbor.

We respect our mainline brothers too - but you might as well move over - we are coming to dinner in the big house and we will be sitting at the table.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Great News FDJ2!!!

Luckily for the profession the RJDC lawsuit is failing miserably.

So just what is your source on this. I havent heard a thing. Do the RJDC guys know? I'll be glad when this is over.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Luckily for the profession the RJDC lawsuit is failing miserably.

So just what is your source on this. I havent heard a thing.

Things are actually going quite well for the RJDC. They are getting depositions from the defendants.

Much of what has been revealed during discovery is very positive as it illustrates that the RJDC's allegations were accurate. These documents are covered by a confidentiality agreement and the RJDC has honored their side of the agreement.

From here my guess is that ALPA will fight the admission of these documents. When that battle is finished they will become public if ALPA does not settle before trial.

 

[michael707767]

Delta would be a more efficient Company without the triple redundant management needed to run the "portfolio of carriers." Sounds like there is plenty of room for a win win, but we can't get there if one third of the pilots in Delta's service are locked out of the room.

~~~^~~~

If Delta would be more efficient without the triple redundant management, don't you think they would have merged the companies long ago? Give them a little credit. Bottom line is it's cheaper to play one labor group off another than it is to merge the companies. Not saying I like it, but thats the way it is.

 

[Sinca3]

If Delta would be more efficient without the triple redundant management, don't you think they would have merged the companies long ago? Give them a little credit. Bottom line is it's cheaper to play one labor group off another than it is to merge the companies. Not saying I like it, but thats the way it is.

Absolutely Not!! That's everyones complaint. Management would rather waste money on redundant levels of management than have a larger union with only ONE voice. Pure genius wouldn't you say?!?!?!

 

[N2264J]

Re: ASA ALPA Porposes Hiring DAL Pilots

Certainly you must know that a conflict of interest is no grounds for a DFR lawsuit. The courts recognize that unions often have a conflict of interest, likewise as Judge Glasser has pointed out, it is acceptable for one bargaining unit to negotiate a contract which may be detrimental to another bargaining unit without failing in its duty of fair representation.

You almost got something right.

Actually, the Judge recommended that the DFR suit go forward on the grounds of the union's conflict of interest as a fiduciary. You conveniently leave out the caveat where Judge Glasser's ruling draws a distinction if the pilots who are being harmed were not in ALPA. (See footnote 7)

Here's a few other things Judge Glasser pointed out:

"Plaintiffs [RJDC] argue that the issue is thus not who should represent the pilots, but rather whether a certified representative may negotiate agreements on behalf of one bargaining unit that directly and negatively impact another bargaining unit. Put differently, if it is correct that a union's relationship to its members is that of a fiduciary, then it would follow that it runs afoul of its fiduciary obligation to one master by favoring another to the detriment of the first. See Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, ('The bargaining representative . . . is responsible to, and owes complete loyalty, to the interest of all whom it represents.'); Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. O'Neill, ('The duty of fair representation is . . . akin to the duty owed by other fiduciaries to their beneficiaries.').

Plaintiffs are correct. This case differs from the merger cases and the principles upon which defendants [ALPA] rely in two significant ways. First, plaintiffs do not want to oust the Delta MEC from representing Delta pilots, nor do they seek to have Delta and Comair CBAs jointly negotiated. Rather, plaintiffs seek to enjoin ALPA (their certified representative) from taking certain actions that allegedly violate the duties owed to plaintiffs and other Comair pilots. The very basis of plaintiffs’ claims is that because ALPA represents both Delta pilots and Comair pilots, it stands in a fiduciary relationship to both groups."

III. The Duty of Fair Representation Claim

"Broadly stated, a union has a duty to represent fairly all its members. 'The exercise of a granted power to act in behalf of others involves the assumption toward them of a duty to exercise the power to act in their interest and behalf.' O'Neill, (quoting Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., (1944)). The duty of fair representation 'applies to all union activity, including contract negotiation.' "

"The bargaining representative . . . 'is responsible to, and owes complete loyalty, to the interests of all whom it represents.' "

(Footnote 7) "...However, plaintiffs' [RJDC] claims are not so broad as to demand 'joint negotiations,' nor would a ruling for plaintiffs require changing the negotiations for other Delta Connection carriers unless ALPA sought to negotiate CBAs that harmed the employees at Delta Connection carriers also represented by ALPA. Where the pilots at Delta Connection carriers are represented by other unions or by no union at all, then by definition ALPA cannot breach any duty of fair representation."

"As Defendants [ALPA] note, the adoption of work preservation clauses can be a legitimate goal for a union to seek...However, the notion that a union can impose rules that affect subsidiaries and affiliates has its limits. See Berman Enters., Inc. v. Local 333, Int'l Longshoreman's Ass'n,...These cases, however, did not resolve the issue presented here: whether a union can seek work preservation clauses that achieve their desired effect by restricting work opportunities for other members of the same union?"
[emphasis added]



Despite what the detractors say, the objective of the lawsuit in not to destroy all scope. As we've said many times in writing, scope is the glue that binds managment to the contract. Our beef is ALPA allowing the Delta MEC to unilaterally impose provisions in their scope clause that restrict our growth and use our seats as bargaining capital for their own contractual gain without our knowledge or consent. The fact that this corruption also has the effect of hobbling our company's competitiveness in these dire economic times is an added bonus enjoyed by all of us but especially the furloughees.

Delta pilots didn't want to merge with us because we are different. Fine, you're as wrong as any bigot but we accept that - now just leave us alone.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/062303ruling.pdf

 

[FDJ2]

Things are actually going quite well for the RJDC. They are getting depositions from the defendants.

Much of what has been revealed during discovery is very positive as it illustrates that the RJDC's allegations were accurate. These documents are covered by a confidentiality agreement and the RJDC has honored their side of the agreement.

If what you say is true, that these documents are covered by a confidentiality agreement that the RJDC has honored, then how is it that you know that the information in these id favorable to the RJDC lawsuit? Hmmm, is someone at the RJDC not honoring that confidentiality agreement?

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

If what you say is true, that these documents are covered by a confidentiality agreement that the RJDC has honored, then how is it that you know that the information in these id favorable to the RJDC lawsuit? Hmmm, is someone at the RJDC not honoring that confidentiality agreement?

Maybe he is a plantiff?

 

[FDJ2]

You almost got something right.

Actually, the Judge recommended that the DFR suit go forward on the grounds of the union's conflict of interest as a fiduciary. No, he let claim 1 proceed only because the RJDC stated a claim for which he has subject matter jurisdiction. "As a matter of law such allegations are sufficient at least to state a claim." The claim is that ALPA failed in its Duty of Fair Representaion. Now let's proceed with your next meaningless comment.

You conveniently leave out the caveat where Judge Glasser's ruling draws a distinction if the pilots who are being harmed were not in ALPA. (See footnote 7)

So what, just because the judge draws a distinction between ALPA v. Non ALPA pilots on a footnote in a long decision, in which he summarliy dismissed 90% of the RJDC claims before discovery, doesn't make this a conflict of interest case, nor does it in any way give more credibility to the DFR claim.

Here's a few other things Judge Glasser pointed out.

Blah, blah blah.

III. The Duty of Fair Representation Claim

Ah, now we are getting somewhere, what this case boils down to.

"Broadly stated, a union has a duty to represent fairly all its members. 'The exercise of a granted power to act in behalf of others involves the assumption toward them of a duty to exercise the power to act in their interest and behalf.' O'Neill, (quoting Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., (1944)). The duty of fair representation 'applies to all union activity, including contract negotiation.' "

"The bargaining representative . . . 'is responsible to, and owes complete loyalty, to the interests of all whom it represents.' "

But wait, you conveniently left out the next sentence:
A union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions are either “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Id.: see Vaca




Then you quote a couple more excerpts from the 38 page decision which finish with this,...These cases, however, did not resolve the issue presented here: whether a union can seek work preservation clauses that achieve their desired effect by restricting work opportunities for other members of the same union?"
[emphasis added] IOW, none of this is pertinent to this case.


now just leave us alone. Gladly, if you'd do the same. We'll honor your contract, you honor ours, see how easy that is.

That was an interesting spin "N", but you are incorrect is so much of what you state. You can not get away from the fact that Judge Glasser only found that he had Subject matter jurisdiction over the only surviving claim of the original ten. He made no judgement on the merits, or lack there of. This is a DFR case and for your education, because I'm I nice guy, I'll summarize what a DFR case is:

A union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions "can fairly be characterized as so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness' . . . that [they are] wholly 'arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.'" O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (quotation omitted). Judicial review of union action, however, "'must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that [unions] need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.'" Gvozdenovic v. United Air Lines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100, 1106 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67).

"[A] union's actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness,' . . . as to be irrational." O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (quoting Ford Motor Co., 345 U.S. at 338). A union's reasoned decision to support the interests of one group of employees over the competing interests of another group does not constitute arbitrary conduct. See, e.g., Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 892 F.2d 216, 221 (2d Cir. 1989); Jones v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 495 F.2d 790, 798 (2d Cir. 1974).

 

[PCL_128]

Excellent post. That's exactly why this case doesn't hold any water. The burden of proof on the part of the RJDC is pretty high.

can fairly be characterized as so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness' . . . that [they are] wholly 'arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.'"

No judge in his right mind is going to think the above statement comes anywhere close to pertaining to ALPA.

 

[FDJ2]

Maybe he is a plantiff?

In which case he shouldn't be discussing it, or characterizing it either.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Fdj2

If what you say is true, that these documents are covered by a confidentiality agreement that the RJDC has honored, then how is it that you know that the information in these id favorable to the RJDC lawsuit? Hmmm, is someone at the RJDC not honoring that confidentiality agreement?


If what you say is also true, then how is it that you know that the information is not favorable? Let us know what the source is so individuals like myself can keep up with this stuff. Thanks for your help on this one.

 

[FDJ2]

If what you say is true, that these documents are covered by a confidentiality agreement that the RJDC has honored, then how is it that you know that the information in these id favorable to the RJDC lawsuit? Hmmm, is someone at the RJDC not honoring that confidentiality agreement?


If what you say is also true, then how is it that you know that the information is not favorable?

I made no comment on the favorability of depositions or documents. You'll have to take that up with Fins.

 

[ifly4food]

You guys sitting here arguing about the RJDC ad nauseum need to find a hobby.

I'm here to tell you that you sound like some world class geeks.

 

[~~~^~~~]

IFLY4FOOD - I'm guilty as charged. Dan Ford certainly wore that title with pride when fighting for One Level of Safety and does so again in his fight for One Level of Representation.

Jet Pilot, FDJ2 et al., the Plaintiffs to the lawsuit are a matter of public record. It is not a breach of confidentiality to advise things are going as expected and that the facts as alleged by the RJDC are being documented. This lawsuit would have never been brought if the facts were not clear and if the facts did not support the desired outcome. Dan Ford has enough ALPA experience to know that ALPA does bluff in litigation. There is no point starting unless you are prepared to finish. The leadership went into this with a very long time horizon and the fact that things are on goal is not a surprise.

If this takes another 20 years ( and ALPA does not act to correct their problem in the interim ) I will still support the fight to restore our union. If you are a true believer in unionism you don't have a choice....

 

[~~~^~~~]

the RJDC lawsuit is failing miserably.

You made the allegation - YOU defend it

 

[michael707767]

IFLY4FOOD - I'm guilty as charged. Dan Ford certainly wore that title with pride when fighting for One Level of Safety and does so again in his fight for One Level of Representation.

If this takes another 20 years ( and ALPA does not act to correct their problem in the interim ) I will still support the fight to restore our union. If you are a true believer in unionism you don't have a choice....

You know Fins, the bottom line is this.....If the RJDC wins, ALPA is done as a union. What possible benefit would there be in belonging to ALPA if its going to limit what a mainline MEC can bargain for, how they bargain, what kind of scope they can have, etc, etc. If the RJDC wins, you will see every mainline pilot group leave and form their own union.

 

[~~~^~~~]

You know Fins, the bottom line is this.....If the RJDC wins, ALPA is done as a union. What possible benefit would there be in belonging to ALPA if its going to limit what a mainline MEC can bargain for, how they bargain, what kind of scope they can have, etc, etc. If the RJDC wins, you will see every mainline pilot group leave and form their own union.

You first make the assumption that mainline pilots would not have scope. You are wrong.

In effect, a RJDC win would turn back the clock to the days when ALPA fought alter ego outsourcing of jobs ( even the undesireable ones ). A return to the days when Delta flying was performed by Delta pilots.

Remember that ALPA started as a safety campaign. Our union's motto "Schedule with Safety" came from the days when American Airlines and others would threaten crews with replacement if they did not operate unsafe flights. Back then it was about pilots ( and passengers ) trying to stay alive and no one got left out.

A win by the RJDC would mean that regional pilots finally get proper representation from ALPA. Other pilots would not have "remote control" on Regional pilots' wages and working conditions. If other pilots wanted to control those pilots they could use ALPA's merger and fragmentation policy to gain all the control, all the votes, all the seniority - one list.

Lets just say that in 2000 the folks that started the RJDC had "won" at the Board of Director's meeting. All of the Delta pilots would be about 4,000 numbers more senior. No Delta pilots and darn few Connection pilots ( if any ) would have been furloughed. There would have been no Comair strike and that Billion would still be in the bank. All pilots in Delta service would be full partners in the direction Delta is taking and all would be unified in the survival of the Company ( Comair strike round II is spinning up at ASA ) and the E170 ( 737 replacement ) would not be going to CHQ, a non - ALPA carrier.

Is this the tragedy that you envision by an RJDC win?

Do you think current scope is working?

In our view inclusive scope makes your scope stronger and easier to enforce. If you want perfect scope, use ALPA's merger and fragmentation policies to end alter ego flying by other airlines regardless of the size of their airplanes.

~~~^~~~

 

[michael707767]

>>You first make the assumption that mainline pilots would not have scope. You are wrong.<<


First of all, I did not say we would not have scope. I don't think an RJDC victory would wipe out scope as others seem to think. But, I do think our ability to negotiate the scope we want will be impacted.


>>In effect, a RJDC win would turn back the clock to the days when ALPA fought alter ego outsourcing of jobs ( even the undesireable ones ). A return to the days when Delta flying was performed by Delta pilots.<<


Maybe, maybe not. Allowing some outsourcing may be a good thing from time to time. But again, is that not a decision for each MEC to make for themselves?



>>Do you think current scope is working<<



Depends on what you mean. It's doing exactly what its supposed to do. Only parts of our flying are allowed to be done by others. Now, does it protect jobs like we hoped it would? No. But I don't think thats a fault of the poor scope, rather the poor scope is a result of our lack of leverage to negotiate better scope. What about that would change if we had one list at Delta? Do you think we would be able to negotiate your so called inclusive scope? What would you be willing to give up to get it?