Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
ASA/CMR merger?
- Thread starter Palerider957
- Start date
- Watchers 12
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Palerider957
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2003
- Posts
- 975
N813CA
Your training department was told to expect to receive all 30 DO328's?? Wow, if that is true and you actually get them, them we are all fighting over the remaining 15 RJ's. We are due to get in one a month until the end of next year anway--the big question is how many 200's vs 700's. I know they want all 700's but DALPA would have a tantrum.
Your statement above really makes a solid argument for us NOT to extend our contract talk times--there is no possible gain for us.
Your training department was told to expect to receive all 30 DO328's?? Wow, if that is true and you actually get them, them we are all fighting over the remaining 15 RJ's. We are due to get in one a month until the end of next year anway--the big question is how many 200's vs 700's. I know they want all 700's but DALPA would have a tantrum.
Your statement above really makes a solid argument for us NOT to extend our contract talk times--there is no possible gain for us.
asarjfo
Scheduling Fodder
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 272
N813CA said:
Just because I don't agree with the RJDC maffia, does not mean I dont want a good contract. When did I ever say that I was for the contract extension? When did I ever mention that we were not going to get our 70 seaters next year, and for the record I believe the number is 15 not 8. How about reading my posts before misquoting me in the future!
P38JLightning
Well Endowed Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 223
64J, PID=RJDC
>The RJDC did not exist in July of 2000 when the PID was filed. The RJDC is not responsible for what every pilot at Comair says but I can tell you for sure that the RJDC didn't put anything like that in writing, ever. If you can produce it, feel free to set me straight.
Yes I know the RJDC didn't exist then, hence the word FUTURE, as in not yet but will be. Future RJDC officers. As in the SAME people behind the PID who are not behind the RJDC.
Need proof? Go ask DF. if he still has the PID literature on file. I'll bet he still does. Ask him the the "Questions and answers" about the PID. Its right there, in writing. DF believed then, as he believes now, that a staple is the floor and DOH the ceiling. This is why he won't "compromise his position" by first agreeing to a staple before the process is committed to. You know, he wants to keep his options open. Just in case.
As for your two questions, the RJDC wants:
1. A seniority windfall at the expense of others, while:
2. Not sacrificing anything to get it.
Or were you referring to these two desires:
1. All pilots at Comair and ASA get credit for their seniority at Delta, because they are part of the SAME company, but:
2. All Comair and ASA pilots who got hired straight to Delta should have their seniority start over, because they went to a DIFFERENT company.
Or do you mean these two:
1. The elimination of ALL scope and the following windfall that will result from being able to bid on all Delta equipment, or:
2. The threat of 1. causing ALPA/DALPA to beg us for seniority integration, thus giving you seniority credit at Delta ahead of TK because that's what you "deserve."
So go ask your leader about his feelings and statements on the opriginal point in question (saying its better to stay at Comair because typically during a merger you get something BETWEEN a staple and DOH) I'll be waiting, and I'll give you extra credit for being honest enough to admit you're wrong.
>The RJDC did not exist in July of 2000 when the PID was filed. The RJDC is not responsible for what every pilot at Comair says but I can tell you for sure that the RJDC didn't put anything like that in writing, ever. If you can produce it, feel free to set me straight.
Yes I know the RJDC didn't exist then, hence the word FUTURE, as in not yet but will be. Future RJDC officers. As in the SAME people behind the PID who are not behind the RJDC.
Need proof? Go ask DF. if he still has the PID literature on file. I'll bet he still does. Ask him the the "Questions and answers" about the PID. Its right there, in writing. DF believed then, as he believes now, that a staple is the floor and DOH the ceiling. This is why he won't "compromise his position" by first agreeing to a staple before the process is committed to. You know, he wants to keep his options open. Just in case.
As for your two questions, the RJDC wants:
1. A seniority windfall at the expense of others, while:
2. Not sacrificing anything to get it.
Or were you referring to these two desires:
1. All pilots at Comair and ASA get credit for their seniority at Delta, because they are part of the SAME company, but:
2. All Comair and ASA pilots who got hired straight to Delta should have their seniority start over, because they went to a DIFFERENT company.
Or do you mean these two:
1. The elimination of ALL scope and the following windfall that will result from being able to bid on all Delta equipment, or:
2. The threat of 1. causing ALPA/DALPA to beg us for seniority integration, thus giving you seniority credit at Delta ahead of TK because that's what you "deserve."
So go ask your leader about his feelings and statements on the opriginal point in question (saying its better to stay at Comair because typically during a merger you get something BETWEEN a staple and DOH) I'll be waiting, and I'll give you extra credit for being honest enough to admit you're wrong.
N2264J
Re: member
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,925
Re: 64J, PID=RJDC
I suspect Dan believes that a staple is the floor and DOH is the ceiling in a merger because it's self evident. I had to dig out the Questions and Answers portion of my PID handout and that tidbit you refer to is not there. Have you ever had the chance to read the petition? It poses the question of how the Delta MEC can scope Comair and ASA to protect "their" flying while, at the same time, assert that merger policy does not apply.
www.rjdefense.com/petition.pdf
www.rjdefense.com/ecpresin.pdf
www.rjdefense.com/dalmecmergsub.pdf
1) The Comair and ASA MECs went out of their way not to suggest any form of integration and allow the policy to work. They thought the debate should be focused on whether a merger was indeed justified instead of getting bogged down in the subterfuge of how the lists should be put together.
2) There are no preconditions with ALPA merger policy. If all ALPA members are equal then merger policy shouldn't be applied differently because of who is requesting it. The word "policy" after all, means it applies to everyone.
3) Finally, merger policy is the only mechanism in place within the union for addressing the alter ego problem.
Where in the wide, wide world of bile, do you come up with this stuff? Basing your perception of reality on hearsay and other people's opinions is not serving you well.
It is interesting to me, and quite telling that the most ardent critics of the RJDC don't even know what the objectives are. How did you form your opinion about their cause if you don't know or understand what they're after?
Let me help you out with that mission statement:
1. Prevent the ASA and Comair pilots from economic harm by ALPA's predatory bargaining.
2. Compel ALPA to treat all of its members at Delta Air Lines equally and without discrimination into the future.
www.rjdefense.com/pilotpak.doc
So, do you have a problem with equal representation as prescribed by the ALPA Constitution and By-laws and federal law? The denied PID and the economic harm imposed by the Delta scope clause are only symptoms of the problem. I'd say the RJDC has been true to their goals and is tracking right on centerline. I believe the fact that many First Officers at Comair and ASA still have a job and haven't been furloughed in a Jets for Jobs fiasco can be attributed to the deterrent effect of the lawsuit.
You're welcome.
P38JLightning said:
I suspect Dan believes that a staple is the floor and DOH is the ceiling in a merger because it's self evident. I had to dig out the Questions and Answers portion of my PID handout and that tidbit you refer to is not there. Have you ever had the chance to read the petition? It poses the question of how the Delta MEC can scope Comair and ASA to protect "their" flying while, at the same time, assert that merger policy does not apply.
www.rjdefense.com/petition.pdf
www.rjdefense.com/ecpresin.pdf
www.rjdefense.com/dalmecmergsub.pdf
1) The Comair and ASA MECs went out of their way not to suggest any form of integration and allow the policy to work. They thought the debate should be focused on whether a merger was indeed justified instead of getting bogged down in the subterfuge of how the lists should be put together.
2) There are no preconditions with ALPA merger policy. If all ALPA members are equal then merger policy shouldn't be applied differently because of who is requesting it. The word "policy" after all, means it applies to everyone.
3) Finally, merger policy is the only mechanism in place within the union for addressing the alter ego problem.
Where in the wide, wide world of bile, do you come up with this stuff? Basing your perception of reality on hearsay and other people's opinions is not serving you well.
It is interesting to me, and quite telling that the most ardent critics of the RJDC don't even know what the objectives are. How did you form your opinion about their cause if you don't know or understand what they're after?
Let me help you out with that mission statement:
1. Prevent the ASA and Comair pilots from economic harm by ALPA's predatory bargaining.
2. Compel ALPA to treat all of its members at Delta Air Lines equally and without discrimination into the future.
www.rjdefense.com/pilotpak.doc
So, do you have a problem with equal representation as prescribed by the ALPA Constitution and By-laws and federal law? The denied PID and the economic harm imposed by the Delta scope clause are only symptoms of the problem. I'd say the RJDC has been true to their goals and is tracking right on centerline. I believe the fact that many First Officers at Comair and ASA still have a job and haven't been furloughed in a Jets for Jobs fiasco can be attributed to the deterrent effect of the lawsuit.
You're welcome.
Last edited:
P38JLightning
Well Endowed Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 223
PID=RJDC?
64J>>I suspect Dan believes that a staple is the floor and DOH is the ceiling in a merger because it's self evident.
-----------------------------------------------------
Thank you for admitting that. This is the RJDC's (and its supporters') biggest problem. If you truly believe this, then why not "go for" something more. If you are truly confident that you will go down the binding path of a merger without first agreeing to the details, either by "process" or by lawsuit to force it, then why "compromise your position" or "tip your hand" by first agreeing to a staple.
Again, if this were high school debate class, you would be right. But this is the real world, and people on all sides of this discussion (including those outside of it) can see the temptation/anticipation of "greater than a staple" in your motivations.
Maybe (just maybe) in court your "objection, irrelevant" will be sustained, but in the real world it is painfuly obvious you will do anything, including threaten the entire profession with elimination of "all controling scope" to get your shot at "greater than a staple", all the while taking solice in the fact that at the end of the day you will at least have a staple.
Its not the idea of One List that I'm objected to. Its the extremely influential motivations, based on this "by any means necessary" greed of the RJDC and its plantiffs, which is threatening to drive the whole train off the cliff if they don't get their "traditional merger process" committed to before any of the vital details are worked out.
And simply saying "but this is how its traditionaly been done" carrys no water when the true motivations of those saying that are in serious question, which I believe is the case.
------------------------------------------------------
64J>>I had to dig out the Questions and Answers portion of my PID handout and that tidbit you refer to is not there. Have you ever had the chance to read it?
------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did read that, as well as many other "handouots" and "Q&A" sheets from that period of time. I stand by saying I saw it in writing, but this is a moot point since you admit both you as well as the RJDC (formerly PID) leadership and braintrusts all philosophicaly agree on the point in question, which is honestly (in their heart of hearts) believing that they would most likely get something "greater than a staple."
That's why saying now, just as saying then, "forget about our motivations, just first commit to 'the process'" has never and will never result in that binding process as a result. Unless of course the courts dictate it to be so, which I understand you are hoping for. And hoping now as you hoped then that "the process" gives you a really nice windfall.
And before you retort "but 'the process' insures there will be no windfalls" I challenge you to draft an acceptable merger that contains no windfalls. If you truly believe there won't be any, surely you wouldn't have any problem putting it in writing up front, would you? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, its not about the destination, its about the journey. Whatever you say, Zen master.
-------------------------------------------------------
64J>> 1) The Comair and ASA MECs went out of their way not to suggest any form of integration and allow the policy to work...
-------------------------------------------------------
As the people behind that big push for "the policy" believed, as you've admitted, a staple was the floor, and DOH the ceiling. So why would you ever agree to a staple up front when you can roll the dice and go for DOH? Your true motivations discredit your righteous plea for the journey of "the process."
-------------------------------------------------
64J>> 2) There are no preconditions with ALPA merger policy. If all ALPA members are equal then merger policy shouldn't be applied differently because of who is requesting it. The word "policy" after all, means it applies to everyone.
-------------------------------------------------
And when you are requesting merger policy between two airlines with nothing bigger than 66 seats, and one with nothing smaller than 107, going up to the 300+ range (assuming pay is correlated with size of AC, which it is in this case) and HUGE disparities between work rules, retirement programs and quality of life, ALL of which are based on seniority, you didn't think it reasonable to make basic assurances as to how the seniority issue would be adressed? Oh yeah, I forgot, its about the process...
-------------------------------------------------
64J>> 3) Finally, merger policy is the only mechanism in place within the union for addressing the alter ego problem.
-------------------------------------------------
No, actualy SCOPE is the only mechanism. We could all have one big happy list tomorrow, and just for grins you could get DOH or 1/2 DOH and get that 767 CA or FO award you have your eye on. But without "exclusive" scope don't you think Mesa and others would underbid you in a New York minute? So point number 3) is perhaps your biggest misunderstanding. Merge all you want, but without the protections of highly exclusive scope, it don't mean a thing.
------------------------------------------------------------
64J>> Let me help you with that mission statement:
1. Prevent the ASA and Comair pilots from economic harm by ALPA's predatory bargaining.
2. Compel ALPA to treat all of its members at Delta Air Lines equally and without discrimination into the future.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah sounds good, doesn't it. And the confederacy only wanted "state's rights" and the Nazi's only cared about the defense of their fatherland. The Sept 11th scum only cared about "God's will" right? The Doomsday Cult really thought that comet was coming to take them to the mothership, and the rest of us suckers still left on Earth after they left were the stupid ones. Everyone (except perhaps an odd portion of the criminaly insane) believes whatever it is they do is because of some legitimate, righteous belief. But that doesn't make it right.
------------------------------------------------------------
>>So, do you have a problem with equal representation as prescribed by the ALPA Constitution and By-laws?
Do you have a problem with admitting your motivations of a seniority grab windfall are, and have always been, the driving force in the debate of HOW we should merge? Until you put away your greed and state fair and realistic expectations we won't ever get to the WHEN.
>>The denied PID and the economic harm imposed by the Delta scope clause are only symtoms of the problem. I'd say the RJDC has been true to their goals and is tracking right on centerline.
I agree that they are tracking their centerline 100%. But sometimes there's more to one's center than one's stated goals. I believe the RJDC is tracking true to their deeply ingrained motivations, not their lofty rhetoric.
>>The fact that many First Officers at Comair and ASA still have a job and haven't been furloughed in a Jets for Jobs fiasco can be attributed to the deterrent effect of the lawsuit. You're welcome.
Oh okay. Well in that case I guess the fact that you haven't been abducted by aliens yet is because of Duane Woerth and his alien repelling lazer beam hidden deep below the earth in ALPA's aeromedical laboratories out in Colorado. You're very welcome too.
Can't prove I'm wrong, can you?
But that doesn't make it so, does it?
64J>>I suspect Dan believes that a staple is the floor and DOH is the ceiling in a merger because it's self evident.
-----------------------------------------------------
Thank you for admitting that. This is the RJDC's (and its supporters') biggest problem. If you truly believe this, then why not "go for" something more. If you are truly confident that you will go down the binding path of a merger without first agreeing to the details, either by "process" or by lawsuit to force it, then why "compromise your position" or "tip your hand" by first agreeing to a staple.
Again, if this were high school debate class, you would be right. But this is the real world, and people on all sides of this discussion (including those outside of it) can see the temptation/anticipation of "greater than a staple" in your motivations.
Maybe (just maybe) in court your "objection, irrelevant" will be sustained, but in the real world it is painfuly obvious you will do anything, including threaten the entire profession with elimination of "all controling scope" to get your shot at "greater than a staple", all the while taking solice in the fact that at the end of the day you will at least have a staple.
Its not the idea of One List that I'm objected to. Its the extremely influential motivations, based on this "by any means necessary" greed of the RJDC and its plantiffs, which is threatening to drive the whole train off the cliff if they don't get their "traditional merger process" committed to before any of the vital details are worked out.
And simply saying "but this is how its traditionaly been done" carrys no water when the true motivations of those saying that are in serious question, which I believe is the case.
------------------------------------------------------
64J>>I had to dig out the Questions and Answers portion of my PID handout and that tidbit you refer to is not there. Have you ever had the chance to read it?
------------------------------------------------------
Yes I did read that, as well as many other "handouots" and "Q&A" sheets from that period of time. I stand by saying I saw it in writing, but this is a moot point since you admit both you as well as the RJDC (formerly PID) leadership and braintrusts all philosophicaly agree on the point in question, which is honestly (in their heart of hearts) believing that they would most likely get something "greater than a staple."
That's why saying now, just as saying then, "forget about our motivations, just first commit to 'the process'" has never and will never result in that binding process as a result. Unless of course the courts dictate it to be so, which I understand you are hoping for. And hoping now as you hoped then that "the process" gives you a really nice windfall.
And before you retort "but 'the process' insures there will be no windfalls" I challenge you to draft an acceptable merger that contains no windfalls. If you truly believe there won't be any, surely you wouldn't have any problem putting it in writing up front, would you? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, its not about the destination, its about the journey. Whatever you say, Zen master.
-------------------------------------------------------
64J>> 1) The Comair and ASA MECs went out of their way not to suggest any form of integration and allow the policy to work...
-------------------------------------------------------
As the people behind that big push for "the policy" believed, as you've admitted, a staple was the floor, and DOH the ceiling. So why would you ever agree to a staple up front when you can roll the dice and go for DOH? Your true motivations discredit your righteous plea for the journey of "the process."
-------------------------------------------------
64J>> 2) There are no preconditions with ALPA merger policy. If all ALPA members are equal then merger policy shouldn't be applied differently because of who is requesting it. The word "policy" after all, means it applies to everyone.
-------------------------------------------------
And when you are requesting merger policy between two airlines with nothing bigger than 66 seats, and one with nothing smaller than 107, going up to the 300+ range (assuming pay is correlated with size of AC, which it is in this case) and HUGE disparities between work rules, retirement programs and quality of life, ALL of which are based on seniority, you didn't think it reasonable to make basic assurances as to how the seniority issue would be adressed? Oh yeah, I forgot, its about the process...
-------------------------------------------------
64J>> 3) Finally, merger policy is the only mechanism in place within the union for addressing the alter ego problem.
-------------------------------------------------
No, actualy SCOPE is the only mechanism. We could all have one big happy list tomorrow, and just for grins you could get DOH or 1/2 DOH and get that 767 CA or FO award you have your eye on. But without "exclusive" scope don't you think Mesa and others would underbid you in a New York minute? So point number 3) is perhaps your biggest misunderstanding. Merge all you want, but without the protections of highly exclusive scope, it don't mean a thing.
------------------------------------------------------------
64J>> Let me help you with that mission statement:
1. Prevent the ASA and Comair pilots from economic harm by ALPA's predatory bargaining.
2. Compel ALPA to treat all of its members at Delta Air Lines equally and without discrimination into the future.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah sounds good, doesn't it. And the confederacy only wanted "state's rights" and the Nazi's only cared about the defense of their fatherland. The Sept 11th scum only cared about "God's will" right? The Doomsday Cult really thought that comet was coming to take them to the mothership, and the rest of us suckers still left on Earth after they left were the stupid ones. Everyone (except perhaps an odd portion of the criminaly insane) believes whatever it is they do is because of some legitimate, righteous belief. But that doesn't make it right.
------------------------------------------------------------
>>So, do you have a problem with equal representation as prescribed by the ALPA Constitution and By-laws?
Do you have a problem with admitting your motivations of a seniority grab windfall are, and have always been, the driving force in the debate of HOW we should merge? Until you put away your greed and state fair and realistic expectations we won't ever get to the WHEN.
>>The denied PID and the economic harm imposed by the Delta scope clause are only symtoms of the problem. I'd say the RJDC has been true to their goals and is tracking right on centerline.
I agree that they are tracking their centerline 100%. But sometimes there's more to one's center than one's stated goals. I believe the RJDC is tracking true to their deeply ingrained motivations, not their lofty rhetoric.
>>The fact that many First Officers at Comair and ASA still have a job and haven't been furloughed in a Jets for Jobs fiasco can be attributed to the deterrent effect of the lawsuit. You're welcome.
Oh okay. Well in that case I guess the fact that you haven't been abducted by aliens yet is because of Duane Woerth and his alien repelling lazer beam hidden deep below the earth in ALPA's aeromedical laboratories out in Colorado. You're very welcome too.
Can't prove I'm wrong, can you?
But that doesn't make it so, does it?
N2264J
Re: member
- Joined
- May 25, 2003
- Posts
- 2,925
Re: PID=RJDC?
I don't pretend to speak for the plaintiffs but I can say with some assurance that they are confident compelling the union to apply fair and equal representation to all its members is not going to destroy the entire profession. Either you're not comprehending what I'm saying or it doesn't really matter what I say because you think I'm lying anyway. Your hysterical hyperbole only serves to exacerbate the subterfuge.
Have you read any publication the RJDC has put out? This dispute is not about a merger. The PID event is only a sympton of the problem. In December of 2001, the plaintiffs submitted a settlement offer to ALPA. Can you name even one thing they proposed to end the lawsuit? I'll give you a clue: merger wasn't mentioned.
www.rjdefense.com/settlementproposal.doc
Your view speaks for itself. The desire for fair and equal representation requires a little self esteem and there's really not much more I can say until you've done some homework.
And although your naivete may be part of it, I don't think you ended up so far off the mark simply because you're a new guy. I've met some new hires who were actually quite savvy about the issue. I think you're just intellectually lazy.
P38JLightning said:
I don't pretend to speak for the plaintiffs but I can say with some assurance that they are confident compelling the union to apply fair and equal representation to all its members is not going to destroy the entire profession. Either you're not comprehending what I'm saying or it doesn't really matter what I say because you think I'm lying anyway. Your hysterical hyperbole only serves to exacerbate the subterfuge.
Have you read any publication the RJDC has put out? This dispute is not about a merger. The PID event is only a sympton of the problem. In December of 2001, the plaintiffs submitted a settlement offer to ALPA. Can you name even one thing they proposed to end the lawsuit? I'll give you a clue: merger wasn't mentioned.
www.rjdefense.com/settlementproposal.doc
Your view speaks for itself. The desire for fair and equal representation requires a little self esteem and there's really not much more I can say until you've done some homework.
And although your naivete may be part of it, I don't think you ended up so far off the mark simply because you're a new guy. I've met some new hires who were actually quite savvy about the issue. I think you're just intellectually lazy.
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
