Toy Soldier
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Posts
- 252
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 pay scales
- Thread starter Toy Soldier
- Start date
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
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
The entire pay scale would be rather lengthy to type in. Also, everything depends on growth. ASA is not currently growing, but there is much debate on this board on what the future holds.
First year is $19.02 plus $1.50 an hour per diem for every hour you are out of base. Figure on $19,000 to $25,000 (including your per diem) depending on how many trips you pick up and if you are able to get off reserve.
Second year jet FO is $33.65 an hour. My second year W2 (includes three months at first year rates) was $32,421.60 with another $3,700 in per diem.
From there on out figure on about 5% increases until you make Captain. The Captain upgrade will put you close to $50,000 and around $60,000 when you are senior enough to hold a line.
Right now it is taking around four to five years to hold a line as a Jet Captain. There are some junior Captains who upgraded back when we were growing, but many of those pilots have been displaced to Dallas and will probably eventually be displaced back to the right seat since we have less flying now (under the Delta Pilot's scope restrictions) than we did previously.
First year is $19.02 plus $1.50 an hour per diem for every hour you are out of base. Figure on $19,000 to $25,000 (including your per diem) depending on how many trips you pick up and if you are able to get off reserve.
Second year jet FO is $33.65 an hour. My second year W2 (includes three months at first year rates) was $32,421.60 with another $3,700 in per diem.
From there on out figure on about 5% increases until you make Captain. The Captain upgrade will put you close to $50,000 and around $60,000 when you are senior enough to hold a line.
Right now it is taking around four to five years to hold a line as a Jet Captain. There are some junior Captains who upgraded back when we were growing, but many of those pilots have been displaced to Dallas and will probably eventually be displaced back to the right seat since we have less flying now (under the Delta Pilot's scope restrictions) than we did previously.
Prof,
On which aircraft were captains displaced to Dallas? With the reference to a right-seat displacement, I'm assuming you're speaking of the E-120. There's no way that there will be such activity in the jet in the near, or even distant, future.
By the way, I'll bet that if someone posted a message asking for the recipe for grandma's buttered squash, you'd find a way to get a scope dig in there. It gets kind of old, like a broken record...even for those who are on your side.
FL000
On which aircraft were captains displaced to Dallas? With the reference to a right-seat displacement, I'm assuming you're speaking of the E-120. There's no way that there will be such activity in the jet in the near, or even distant, future.
By the way, I'll bet that if someone posted a message asking for the recipe for grandma's buttered squash, you'd find a way to get a scope dig in there. It gets kind of old, like a broken record...even for those who are on your side.
FL000
MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
Interesting you should mention hot, buttered squash. You know for years, all the hot, buttered squash in the country was made by a large company in Atlanta. Then, a few years back, a much smaller company, also in Atlanta, started making hot, buttered squash. They only sold their hot, buttered squash around the Atlanta at first. They were very profitable, and began to market their hot, buttered squash all around the Southeast. They continued to prosper and be profitable. Many people felt it was because the hot, buttered squash makers and the smaller company were paid significantly less than their hot, buttered squash making counterparts at the large company. Eventually the smaller company stumbled upon some new hot, buttered squash making technology that enabled them to expand even further. The technology was similar, and in some cases more sophisticated than the methods used to make hot, buttered squash at the large company.
After long last, the large company decided to purchase the small company and have them produce a good percentage of their hot, buttered squash and market it as their own. The smaller entity continued to prosper and grow at a staggering 20% per year.
Needless to say, the hot, buttered squash makers at the parent company didn't like this, and in a recent labor contract implemented a policy whereby the smaller company's growth was tied to larger company's growth.
According to some, this is terribly unfair. Now the small company is only growing at 5% per year. They lament that it is taking almost 2 whole years for the assistant hot, buttered squash makers to move up to head hot, buttered squash makers. Some of the hot, buttered squash makers at the small company can do nothing but complain they they are not head hot, buttered squash makers, or better yet, promoted directly to hot, buttered squash at the larger company. They argue that this is predetory "scope", and it is bad. "Inclusive scope" they argue, is more fair to the hot, buttered squash at the subsidiary , and it is good. The have even formed a "coalition" to sue the pants of the bargaining agent of the hot, buttered squash makers, insisting it is their fault for allowing these predetory practices. Much has been made of the issue. They believe everything the hot, buttered squash makers at the large company do is an effort to harm the career potential of the hot, buttered squash makers at the subsidiary, the most boisterous of whom claim they "never wanted to be hot, buttered squash makers at the big company anyway".
If you want the real truth, not one-sided propaganda with any bias or prejudice, you can read about the issues and see all the case studies at the website of the Regional Hot, Buttered Squash Makers Defense Coalition. They happily accept your donation of any extra money you may have.
Remember the mantra of the Regional Hot, Buttered Squash Makers Defense Coalition:
"Preditory scope is bad, but inclusive scope is good."
Bumper stickers are available to supporter pledging in excess of $100.00 per month. Contact the RHBSMDC for details at
www.RHBSMDC.com
Last edited:
MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
Toy Soldier,
To answer your question with out any editorializing, the below rates are currently in effect and will stay until our new contract is signed at some point down the road.
CRJ (50) & ATR Captain
Year
1 54.46
2 56.08
3 57.78
4 59.50
5 61.29
10 70.36
15 81.57
CRJ (50) & ATR F/O
1 19.02
2 33.65
3 34.67
4 35.70
5 36.77
6 37.78
7 38.63
EMB-120 Captain
Year
1 43.08
2 44.37
3 45.70
4 47.08
5 48.49
10 55.56
15 64.63
EMB-120 F/O
1 19.02
2 26.62
3 27.42
4 28.25
5 29.09
6 29.97
7 30.57
To answer your question with out any editorializing, the below rates are currently in effect and will stay until our new contract is signed at some point down the road.
CRJ (50) & ATR Captain
Year
1 54.46
2 56.08
3 57.78
4 59.50
5 61.29
10 70.36
15 81.57
CRJ (50) & ATR F/O
1 19.02
2 33.65
3 34.67
4 35.70
5 36.77
6 37.78
7 38.63
EMB-120 Captain
Year
1 43.08
2 44.37
3 45.70
4 47.08
5 48.49
10 55.56
15 64.63
EMB-120 F/O
1 19.02
2 26.62
3 27.42
4 28.25
5 29.09
6 29.97
7 30.57
FlyingSig
Double Breasted _ _ _
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 560
MetroSheriff,
Man, that was funny....thank you!
and...
That's pretty funny too....(just when I thought we were making progress
)
Mind pointing out in the Jan. 1 schedule where mainline flying replaced ASA flying? I'd love to see it.... I can point out where SkyWest is taking over DFW due to the lack of scope in the ASA contract....
Man, that was funny....thank you!
and...
That's pretty funny too....(just when I thought we were making progress
)Mind pointing out in the Jan. 1 schedule where mainline flying replaced ASA flying? I'd love to see it.... I can point out where SkyWest is taking over DFW due to the lack of scope in the ASA contract....
MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
FlyingSig,
Great point. I have yet to see where Delta is a threat to us. My feeling is that DALPA is potentially our greatest ally. What concerns me is ACA, SkyWest and Eagle (LAX). I have yet to see any RJDC propaganda that addresses the loss of block hours to Skywest, out of our DFW hub none the less. Regardless, I am not sure how suing ALPA is to our benefit. ALPA is in no position to force Delta to do anything, regardless of the outcome of any lawsuit.
From what I have seen the RJDC tactic is: READY, FIRE!, AIM.
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
Metro:
Have you privately e-mailed Flying Sig to see if he will write you a letter of recommendation?
And yes - the RJDC has tried to fix the problem of Skywest. That problem is part and parcel of the the fact that we have five separate labor groups competing for Delta's domestic narrow body flying.
It is a shame that you deride and ridicule the pilots that are trying to restore your career.
If you want to read a "real world" version of your squash story check out articles on CONNELL CO. v. PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS, 421 U.S. 616. In that case Jutice Powell found that "Labor policy clearly does not require, however, that a union have freedom to impose direct restraints on competition among those who employ its members." Further that, "Curtailment of competition based on efficiency is neither a goal of federal labor policy nor a necessary effect of the elimination of competition among workers. Moreover, competition based on efficiency is a positive value that the antitrust laws strive to protect."
Based on this reasoning, I would argue that your hot buttered squash makers have a good case against their oppressors. The only way for the hot buttered squash makers to fix the problem is to combine lists, because the Courts will not allow the artificial restrainsts on trade otherwise.
A union has the power to represent employees for collective bargaining purposes, but trying to limit a new, more efficient, way of doing business is illegal.
Of course in your case, you left out any mention of the same union representing the different labor groups to the same employer. You also left out any violation of the union's own Constitution and Bylaws, as well as bad faith in carrying out the union's fiduciary duties to represent both groups equally, without discrimination and without arbitrary conduct.
The RJDC litigation is based on ALPA's failure to properly represent members at ASA. However, I believe that separate litigation will attack ALPA's whole methodology of scoping flying by aircraft types based on US anti trust laws.
Simply put, ALPA is in legal hot water from many angles on this issue. It would be best for ALPA and the Delta MEC to fix their mess now. If an anti trust suit were won it could destroy scope at every single airline under US jurisdiction and the political climate is not favorable to ALPA right now.
Besides, ALPA loses nothing and gains much by simply doing the right thing
Have you privately e-mailed Flying Sig to see if he will write you a letter of recommendation?
And yes - the RJDC has tried to fix the problem of Skywest. That problem is part and parcel of the the fact that we have five separate labor groups competing for Delta's domestic narrow body flying.
It is a shame that you deride and ridicule the pilots that are trying to restore your career.
If you want to read a "real world" version of your squash story check out articles on CONNELL CO. v. PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS, 421 U.S. 616. In that case Jutice Powell found that "Labor policy clearly does not require, however, that a union have freedom to impose direct restraints on competition among those who employ its members." Further that, "Curtailment of competition based on efficiency is neither a goal of federal labor policy nor a necessary effect of the elimination of competition among workers. Moreover, competition based on efficiency is a positive value that the antitrust laws strive to protect."
Based on this reasoning, I would argue that your hot buttered squash makers have a good case against their oppressors. The only way for the hot buttered squash makers to fix the problem is to combine lists, because the Courts will not allow the artificial restrainsts on trade otherwise.
A union has the power to represent employees for collective bargaining purposes, but trying to limit a new, more efficient, way of doing business is illegal.
Of course in your case, you left out any mention of the same union representing the different labor groups to the same employer. You also left out any violation of the union's own Constitution and Bylaws, as well as bad faith in carrying out the union's fiduciary duties to represent both groups equally, without discrimination and without arbitrary conduct.
The RJDC litigation is based on ALPA's failure to properly represent members at ASA. However, I believe that separate litigation will attack ALPA's whole methodology of scoping flying by aircraft types based on US anti trust laws.
Simply put, ALPA is in legal hot water from many angles on this issue. It would be best for ALPA and the Delta MEC to fix their mess now. If an anti trust suit were won it could destroy scope at every single airline under US jurisdiction and the political climate is not favorable to ALPA right now.
Besides, ALPA loses nothing and gains much by simply doing the right thing
Last edited:
MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
Fins,
No, I haven't. I knew that would be the response from someone. More than likely, you. It is your canned response to anyone at DCI who does not jump on your ALPA-bashing, self-pity, I-can't-upgrade-because-of-predatory-scope, RJDC bandwagon. If someone doesn't agree you accuse them of kissing a Delta pilot's a$$. Give it a rest.
If it will make you feel better, and give me some credibility in your eyes, I will start a whole thread dedicated to Delta pilot jokes. Something tells me that a guy like FlyingSig would laugh and not take it personally. Would that help???
It is a shame that you deride and ridicule pilots who respectfully disagree with you. My squash post was a light-hearted attempt at humor, and I imagine about 99% of the readers take it that way. Not everything is a personal vendetta against you or the DCI pilots (which I happen to be).
Strange. I am no expert on the RJDC, by any means. My understanding is that they (RJDC) are pissed at ALPA for not following the now infamous C&BLs, and seeking to nullify the "predatory scope" language in the most recent DALPA contract. Nowhere have I read about RJDC "fixing the Skywest problem". To the contrary, I know I have seen the RJDC propaganda advertised on the old Skywest web board. I find it hard to believe they would be looking for contributions from a pilot group that they consider a "problem" which needs to be "fixed".
As I have said before, I agree with you on many points. I think ALPA is weighted in favor of the big boys. No foolin', huh? they know where there bread is buttered. I think whipsaw sucks. I hate seeing Skywest airplanes on the ramp in DFW, when ours aren't on the ramp in SLC. I hate reading the Eagle is carrying our pax in LAX. I would like to end put to that &%#$ today. My belief is the answer is ONELIST. The ONLY way I see that EVER having a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding is with the ardant support of the Delta pilots. Suing ALPA won't accomplish squat, ALPA can't make Delta do anything. We need the Delta pilots on our side. Suing our own union, and hence the people whose help we need the most isn't the way, in my humble opinion.
No, I haven't. I knew that would be the response from someone. More than likely, you. It is your canned response to anyone at DCI who does not jump on your ALPA-bashing, self-pity, I-can't-upgrade-because-of-predatory-scope, RJDC bandwagon. If someone doesn't agree you accuse them of kissing a Delta pilot's a$$. Give it a rest.
If it will make you feel better, and give me some credibility in your eyes, I will start a whole thread dedicated to Delta pilot jokes. Something tells me that a guy like FlyingSig would laugh and not take it personally. Would that help???
It is a shame that you deride and ridicule pilots who respectfully disagree with you. My squash post was a light-hearted attempt at humor, and I imagine about 99% of the readers take it that way. Not everything is a personal vendetta against you or the DCI pilots (which I happen to be).
Strange. I am no expert on the RJDC, by any means. My understanding is that they (RJDC) are pissed at ALPA for not following the now infamous C&BLs, and seeking to nullify the "predatory scope" language in the most recent DALPA contract. Nowhere have I read about RJDC "fixing the Skywest problem". To the contrary, I know I have seen the RJDC propaganda advertised on the old Skywest web board. I find it hard to believe they would be looking for contributions from a pilot group that they consider a "problem" which needs to be "fixed".
As I have said before, I agree with you on many points. I think ALPA is weighted in favor of the big boys. No foolin', huh? they know where there bread is buttered. I think whipsaw sucks. I hate seeing Skywest airplanes on the ramp in DFW, when ours aren't on the ramp in SLC. I hate reading the Eagle is carrying our pax in LAX. I would like to end put to that &%#$ today. My belief is the answer is ONELIST. The ONLY way I see that EVER having a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding is with the ardant support of the Delta pilots. Suing ALPA won't accomplish squat, ALPA can't make Delta do anything. We need the Delta pilots on our side. Suing our own union, and hence the people whose help we need the most isn't the way, in my humble opinion.
Last edited:
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
Metro:
You just don't get it. If scope based on aircraft type is unenforceable, then DALPA will do anything to have us on one list & "all Delta flying performed by Delta pilots."
Now would that kind of inclusive scope also provide the perfect answer for your Skywest concerns?
You know ALPA proved that it could not be trusted when "representing" ASA and Comair pilots. We tried being "nice." They tried begging and following the same rules ALPA published, then refused to follow. The litigation was (and is) our last option to force ALPA to act in good faith. (In case you have not noticed, ALPA national has been on much better behavior since they now know that their actions are being reviewed by the Court.)
The pilots in the RJDC suit are very reluctant plaintiffs - there is just is not any other way. The Court is forcing ALPA and the Delta MEC to address this issue - the fact that these parties are compelled to engage in a dialouge and negotiations is REAL progress IMHO.
ALPA is slowly beginning to realize that this lawsuit is the dynomite that could blow apart their entire large jet / small jet apartied scope. Once they figure this out ALPA will rush to end the alter - ego connection carriers and the only way to do this is single carrier petitions for airlines performing (XXX) brand flying. (which is something ALPA should have done without being forced - it is just good common sense)
One union, one level of representation, one airline, one list.
You just don't get it. If scope based on aircraft type is unenforceable, then DALPA will do anything to have us on one list & "all Delta flying performed by Delta pilots."
Now would that kind of inclusive scope also provide the perfect answer for your Skywest concerns?
You know ALPA proved that it could not be trusted when "representing" ASA and Comair pilots. We tried being "nice." They tried begging and following the same rules ALPA published, then refused to follow. The litigation was (and is) our last option to force ALPA to act in good faith. (In case you have not noticed, ALPA national has been on much better behavior since they now know that their actions are being reviewed by the Court.)
The pilots in the RJDC suit are very reluctant plaintiffs - there is just is not any other way. The Court is forcing ALPA and the Delta MEC to address this issue - the fact that these parties are compelled to engage in a dialouge and negotiations is REAL progress IMHO.
ALPA is slowly beginning to realize that this lawsuit is the dynomite that could blow apart their entire large jet / small jet apartied scope. Once they figure this out ALPA will rush to end the alter - ego connection carriers and the only way to do this is single carrier petitions for airlines performing (XXX) brand flying. (which is something ALPA should have done without being forced - it is just good common sense)
One union, one level of representation, one airline, one list.
Last edited:
Toy Soldier
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Posts
- 252
~~~^~~~ said:
Prof,
It's a shame that the instigators of the organization and the lawsuit did not survey their own group before launching an attack on the union. I don't know anyone who would argue with the ends that you want to achieve, but many of us are uncomfortable with the means: a plaintiff's lawsuit against the people that we work with every day. Now we have turned into unwitting spokesmen every time we occupy a major jumpseat. Most of them don't understand that most of us don't agree with the methods of the RJDC.
Please don't tell me that you're not after DALPA or the people of ALPA, because that is where ALL of their defense money is coming from, and that includes me...MY paycheck. I take it personally.
So the next time you want to "restore" my career, how about asking me first. I don't like having things shoved down my throat without a courtesy call. So far, y'all haven't done me any favors.
In the past, you have graced this board and others with some good info and advice. These days, all I see from you is a bitter RJDC mantra. You go around to these sites and pound on the proverbial door like a jet-hova's witness. I see a lot of your target audience slamming said door on your toes. Do us a favor and just go back to being good 'ol Prof.
I'm not saying that there's no place for you to make your argument, but please don't make a place wherever you see fit. It really is fatiguing.
Sorry to have to say all this, but I've been pushed to the edge.
Respectfully,
FL000
MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
Fins,
Good post.
You are correct. I don't get it. I am not a Delta pilot. Neither are you. I am a Delta (subsidiary) employee, but I am an ASA pilot. Given the friction that exists between the groups, and the fact that many Delta pilots are on the street right now, what is to keep DALPA from pushing to fly the RJs at mainline, with THEIR pilots.
Would it? I don't see how. As I said, I am not a Delta pilot. Skywest certainly aren't Delta pilots. In fact they are not even ALPA pilots. Are you suggesting that ACA and Skywest would be included in a ONELIST proposal? That doesn't work for me. As I have said, I have many friends at Skywest. My issue with them rests in that we have different goals. ASA and Comair are bothpart of the Delta family and our goal is to see Delta (DCI)succeed and prosper. Skywest and ACA have no loyalty to Delta. The will fly for Delta, United, or anyone who agrees to pay their fee-per-departure.
I agree that scope based on a/c type is wrong. I believe that the market should determine a/c type and that Delta (any airline for that matter) should be free to deploy a/c in a manner which will allow them to be profitable. What I fail to see is how this addresses the issue of whipsaw. If scope is struck down, it would seem to me that it would allow mgt to exacerbate the problem by expanding, as the new head of DCI has said,"the portfolio of carriers that make up DCI" and giving the flying to the lowest bidder.
My belief is that scope is important. I would like to scope all DCI flying for ASA/Comair, thereby keeping all Delta flying in the "Delta family". Once that is accomplished, we could move forward on the ONELIST front, working with DALPA, which as I have said, I believe to be our potentially, most important, ally.
No argument from me. I have never said ALPA is treating us fairly. We don't fill their coffers the way the big boys do, so that is to be expected. I certainly don't agree with it, but I am not sure this lawsuit will fix it. I could be wrong.
Is that so? I don't know. I have yet to see anything substantive on the RJDC site. Just crew room banter. What dialouge and negotiations? How come all I ever hear is solicitation for donations?
They are??? Where can I read that for myself. How come my union reps don't tell me this.
Wouldn't that be great? But what happens to the codeshare fee for departure carriers? That would leave them out in the cold. Again I ask the question, why are they soliciting help from those they intend to carve out of the deal. That is what smells fishy to me, and no one will answer the question.
On this, we are in 100% agreement. I just think we need the help of the big boys to accomplish our goals, and my mother always said you catch more flys with honey than with, you know
Good conversation by the way. I would like to hear some input from some Delta guys though. FlyingSig, your thoughts on the matter???
Good post.
You are correct. I don't get it. I am not a Delta pilot. Neither are you. I am a Delta (subsidiary) employee, but I am an ASA pilot. Given the friction that exists between the groups, and the fact that many Delta pilots are on the street right now, what is to keep DALPA from pushing to fly the RJs at mainline, with THEIR pilots.
Would it? I don't see how. As I said, I am not a Delta pilot. Skywest certainly aren't Delta pilots. In fact they are not even ALPA pilots. Are you suggesting that ACA and Skywest would be included in a ONELIST proposal? That doesn't work for me. As I have said, I have many friends at Skywest. My issue with them rests in that we have different goals. ASA and Comair are bothpart of the Delta family and our goal is to see Delta (DCI)succeed and prosper. Skywest and ACA have no loyalty to Delta. The will fly for Delta, United, or anyone who agrees to pay their fee-per-departure.
I agree that scope based on a/c type is wrong. I believe that the market should determine a/c type and that Delta (any airline for that matter) should be free to deploy a/c in a manner which will allow them to be profitable. What I fail to see is how this addresses the issue of whipsaw. If scope is struck down, it would seem to me that it would allow mgt to exacerbate the problem by expanding, as the new head of DCI has said,"the portfolio of carriers that make up DCI" and giving the flying to the lowest bidder.
My belief is that scope is important. I would like to scope all DCI flying for ASA/Comair, thereby keeping all Delta flying in the "Delta family". Once that is accomplished, we could move forward on the ONELIST front, working with DALPA, which as I have said, I believe to be our potentially, most important, ally.
No argument from me. I have never said ALPA is treating us fairly. We don't fill their coffers the way the big boys do, so that is to be expected. I certainly don't agree with it, but I am not sure this lawsuit will fix it. I could be wrong.
Is that so? I don't know. I have yet to see anything substantive on the RJDC site. Just crew room banter. What dialouge and negotiations? How come all I ever hear is solicitation for donations?
They are??? Where can I read that for myself. How come my union reps don't tell me this.
Wouldn't that be great? But what happens to the codeshare fee for departure carriers? That would leave them out in the cold. Again I ask the question, why are they soliciting help from those they intend to carve out of the deal. That is what smells fishy to me, and no one will answer the question.
On this, we are in 100% agreement. I just think we need the help of the big boys to accomplish our goals, and my mother always said you catch more flys with honey than with, you know
Good conversation by the way. I would like to hear some input from some Delta guys though. FlyingSig, your thoughts on the matter???
Last edited:
MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
OK Metro and FL000:
Ok, both of you are against litigation to force ALPA to uphold their obligations to the dues paying members at ASA. What alternative do you propose that has not already been tried?
The reason why I keep harping on this topic is because it is an important issue and many pilots have not figured out how all the parts fit together. Further, pilots like Toy Soldier should have a way of learning what is going on before committing to a job. (when I hired in I had no idea of the differences in upgrade potential at Eagle, for example)
It is likely that I have failed to properly communicate what is going on, or that you do not care to learn the facts. Either way it is a loss for us collectively when our pilot group does not understand the issues well enough to use the opportunities provided on the Delta jumpseat to explain the issues that divide our union and provide positive solutions that enhance the careers of all pilots by working together.
Understand that if the RJDC fails, there will still be litigation over ALPA's scope. (Refer to the previous post on why scope based on aircraft type is an illegal horizontal restraint on trade) This is an opportunity for us pilots to have input on the outcome.
Now let me address some of your questions:
The friction between the pilot groups has nothing to do with it. DALPA is pushing to obtain RJ's at mainline - after all that is the way the current DALPA contract is written. ALPA has shown their support at US Air for just this type of solution. The US Air Express pilots have already formed their own group using Mike Haber to sue ALPA. (Now keep in mind the US Air Express pilots have done everything possible to obtain the favor of ALPA in the past and what has it got them - nothing)
A good idea - but there are problems. First, ALPA does not want ASA and Comair performing 40% or more of Delta system flying. Potentially we would have enough votes to be a threat at the Board of Directors. Further, without DALPA's support there is no way we could negotiate this.
We share common interests with Skywest and ACA pilots who are under threat from scope on the United front. Recently the United MEC threatened to enforce contract provisions that would end their code share entirely. (pure speculation on my part is that if Delta scoped all Delta brand flying Skywest would organize with ALPA very quickly)
Bottom line is that each pilot group negotiates what it can without respect for the harm that it may cause other pilot groups. We can not depend on DALPA's good will to watch out for our careers and our own MEC has been unable to represent us to Delta as a result of ALPA's interference and lack of support.
People like Bill Burgey and Woerth did not get to their positions by being idiots. They, and their attorneys, see this professionally, not emotionally. However, the pilots hold the votes and this is an emotional issue for many. Again, that is the reason I spend the time trying to get the facts out. As you pointed out, everyone seems to agree on one list once they understand that it will not cost them seniority, rank, or privledge. It really is the best solution for everyone, including the Delta pilots.
The RJDC, and the lawsuit, provide the excuse and motivation for ALPA and DALPA to compromise in ways that they could not if there were not reason to negotiate with the Connection pilots. Some radical Delta pilots simply believe that Connection guys are inferior and will resist any type of onelist for that reason alone. The law suit provides a good reason for doing what is best for everyone.
As for the negotiations that the RJDC has with ALPA you and I will both have to wait and see what, if anything, happens. We both know that our MEC has not ever been given the opportunity to represent us on this issue. However, the Court has reccommended to ALPA that they engage in settlement discussions with the RJDC plaintiffs - that is not much, but it is more progress than we have made within our own union.
Regards,
~~~^~~~ Fins to the left!
Ok, both of you are against litigation to force ALPA to uphold their obligations to the dues paying members at ASA. What alternative do you propose that has not already been tried?
The reason why I keep harping on this topic is because it is an important issue and many pilots have not figured out how all the parts fit together. Further, pilots like Toy Soldier should have a way of learning what is going on before committing to a job. (when I hired in I had no idea of the differences in upgrade potential at Eagle, for example)
It is likely that I have failed to properly communicate what is going on, or that you do not care to learn the facts. Either way it is a loss for us collectively when our pilot group does not understand the issues well enough to use the opportunities provided on the Delta jumpseat to explain the issues that divide our union and provide positive solutions that enhance the careers of all pilots by working together.
Understand that if the RJDC fails, there will still be litigation over ALPA's scope. (Refer to the previous post on why scope based on aircraft type is an illegal horizontal restraint on trade) This is an opportunity for us pilots to have input on the outcome.
Now let me address some of your questions:
The friction between the pilot groups has nothing to do with it. DALPA is pushing to obtain RJ's at mainline - after all that is the way the current DALPA contract is written. ALPA has shown their support at US Air for just this type of solution. The US Air Express pilots have already formed their own group using Mike Haber to sue ALPA. (Now keep in mind the US Air Express pilots have done everything possible to obtain the favor of ALPA in the past and what has it got them - nothing)
A good idea - but there are problems. First, ALPA does not want ASA and Comair performing 40% or more of Delta system flying. Potentially we would have enough votes to be a threat at the Board of Directors. Further, without DALPA's support there is no way we could negotiate this.
We share common interests with Skywest and ACA pilots who are under threat from scope on the United front. Recently the United MEC threatened to enforce contract provisions that would end their code share entirely. (pure speculation on my part is that if Delta scoped all Delta brand flying Skywest would organize with ALPA very quickly)
Bottom line is that each pilot group negotiates what it can without respect for the harm that it may cause other pilot groups. We can not depend on DALPA's good will to watch out for our careers and our own MEC has been unable to represent us to Delta as a result of ALPA's interference and lack of support.
People like Bill Burgey and Woerth did not get to their positions by being idiots. They, and their attorneys, see this professionally, not emotionally. However, the pilots hold the votes and this is an emotional issue for many. Again, that is the reason I spend the time trying to get the facts out. As you pointed out, everyone seems to agree on one list once they understand that it will not cost them seniority, rank, or privledge. It really is the best solution for everyone, including the Delta pilots.
The RJDC, and the lawsuit, provide the excuse and motivation for ALPA and DALPA to compromise in ways that they could not if there were not reason to negotiate with the Connection pilots. Some radical Delta pilots simply believe that Connection guys are inferior and will resist any type of onelist for that reason alone. The law suit provides a good reason for doing what is best for everyone.
As for the negotiations that the RJDC has with ALPA you and I will both have to wait and see what, if anything, happens. We both know that our MEC has not ever been given the opportunity to represent us on this issue. However, the Court has reccommended to ALPA that they engage in settlement discussions with the RJDC plaintiffs - that is not much, but it is more progress than we have made within our own union.
Regards,
~~~^~~~ Fins to the left!
Prof,
I have to agree with Metro, FL000, and even Fliin' Sig. At yours and SDD's urging, I looked at the RJDC site. As stated it's mostly courtroom banter and propaganda. The base goal is still the same. I don't want to be part of such an effort and 90% of us at ASA feel this way. You know this to be true.
I'm tired of having to explain my way into the jumpseat, I'm tired of geting dirty looks from Delta pilots in the halls. I'm tired of reading these broken record manifestos online. You guys need to drop this. While I agree with your ultimate goals, a lawsuit isn't the answer. We need to scope non wholly owned airlines out and then work with DALPA for one list with a staple. Without DALPA's help we're dead in the water.
As you can see, RJDC has only served to divide is. It's time to get together. Stop this madness.
I have to agree with Metro, FL000, and even Fliin' Sig. At yours and SDD's urging, I looked at the RJDC site. As stated it's mostly courtroom banter and propaganda. The base goal is still the same. I don't want to be part of such an effort and 90% of us at ASA feel this way. You know this to be true.
I'm tired of having to explain my way into the jumpseat, I'm tired of geting dirty looks from Delta pilots in the halls. I'm tired of reading these broken record manifestos online. You guys need to drop this. While I agree with your ultimate goals, a lawsuit isn't the answer. We need to scope non wholly owned airlines out and then work with DALPA for one list with a staple. Without DALPA's help we're dead in the water.
As you can see, RJDC has only served to divide is. It's time to get together. Stop this madness.
Caveman
Grandpa
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,580
I'm with Fins. Representatives of ALPA, namely D. Woerth, signed a contract that limits my opportunities. Not only does that directly harm me it also was done to me by the president of the group that is supposed to protect my interests.
When we asked, via existing bylaws, for redress we were ignored.
I don't like suing my own either, but until someone can suggest a viable alternative that will get some kind of result it's our only option.
We are doing flying that mainline wanted no part of until two things happened. First, we got good at it. Second, they outpriced themselves and are now feeling the consequences of their actions.
One list protects us, restores their job security, and keeps management in check against whipsaw.
Unfortunately, despite overwhelming evidence to support the rationality of one list, a few mainline idiots are fighting it tooth and nail for what I can only surmise to be emotional and irrational reasons, namely ego. That's why RJDC exists and why it's a necessary, albeit unpleasant, reality.
When we asked, via existing bylaws, for redress we were ignored.
I don't like suing my own either, but until someone can suggest a viable alternative that will get some kind of result it's our only option.
We are doing flying that mainline wanted no part of until two things happened. First, we got good at it. Second, they outpriced themselves and are now feeling the consequences of their actions.
One list protects us, restores their job security, and keeps management in check against whipsaw.
Unfortunately, despite overwhelming evidence to support the rationality of one list, a few mainline idiots are fighting it tooth and nail for what I can only surmise to be emotional and irrational reasons, namely ego. That's why RJDC exists and why it's a necessary, albeit unpleasant, reality.
Alright Prof, I'll give this a shot. This is the most I've said on this matter in 2 years, so it's not rehearsed and not eloquent.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know. But that is the first time anyone has asked me. Personally, I don't think lawsuits are ever the answer. It's just not my style. I think its tacky, especially when it's against your brothers. I do allow for exceptions. For instance, Goldman vs. Simpson a few years ago in California was a real peach.
Also, I have some perspective. Let me explain. I left the miserable world of cubicles a few years ago. I now do what I love. I fly a great airplane. I work for a great company with great people. I have wonderful benefits. I already make more money than I would have had I stayed in the other career. I don't sit around and feel sorry for myself, thinking about how miserable my life and my job are.
Can it be better? Sure. But let's take it step by step, contract by contract. Not just our contract, but every other carrier's as well. Nature will take its course. As management pushes and pushes, further screwing every faction of DAL and DCI pilots (except the non-union ones) I think DALPA will see the benefit of one list. It might take a while, but I think we'll get there.
You know pilot mentality as well as I do. If you try to corner someone and force something on them, their going to come out furious and fighting. I'm talking about DALPA. If the RJDC is successful, you'd better like your job now because you won't have a friend anywhere else in the industry. We will become the red-headed, bastard brats. Hell, if the RJDC had been successful, every single ASA pilot would now be looking at hitting the street. EVERY SINGLE ONE. No wonder the senior guys don't like the idea.
I think you're scaring the crap out of pilots like Toy Soldier. If I were a pilot wanting to go to a major, especially Delta, I'd stay the hell away from DCI based on RJDC threats. I wouldn't want to sit in front of a panel at a Delta interview and try to explain my position on RJDC and how it's helping pilots in ALPA and DALPA. What's that you say? Support is anonymous? Sorry, I don't lie.
Neither, Prof. You've done a great job explaining your side, and I have spent 2 years mulling the facts. It is funny that you think I'm ill-informed because I don't agree with you. It sounds like the rantings of the religious zealot you might find preaching on a street corner. It's much simpler than that: we have different opinions, period.
If I go of on an RJDC rant in the Delta jumpseat, I'm going to end up tugging my Samsonite up I-95. Quite frankly, I wouldn't blame the captain. I'm shocked to find that most of the Delta captains that I do jumpseat with (or they with me) are IN FAVOR of one list. This is a little known fact because they aren't going to give us any help when we are threatening to sue them. It's the ol' vinegar and honey thing, Prof. It's true in every aspect of life. It's an adage born in fundamental human behavior.
If RJ's went to mainline (I assume you mean the 900s), this would complete the bridge that we need to cross the fuzzy border between our fleets. From those at DAL who are against one list, this is the primary argument that I hear: that we don't fly the same equipment. If we are flying 40, 50 and 70-seaters, and they are flying a 90-seat version of the same aircraft, then there's nothing in between; no division. In the long run, I think that would be a plus.
Regarding our own scope clause:
So to get DALPA's support you:
a) negotiate, explaining the merits of your case
b) sue 'em
Again, the ends are not the point of contention. It's the means. I think even a lot of new Delta pilots would agree with your statement.
Man, I'm worn out. This is much more time than I ever wanted to spend on this topic. Please don't expect this kind of volley for each post. I just felt it was time that the silent majority got some air time.
Respectfully,
FL000
To be perfectly honest, I don't know. But that is the first time anyone has asked me. Personally, I don't think lawsuits are ever the answer. It's just not my style. I think its tacky, especially when it's against your brothers. I do allow for exceptions. For instance, Goldman vs. Simpson a few years ago in California was a real peach.
Also, I have some perspective. Let me explain. I left the miserable world of cubicles a few years ago. I now do what I love. I fly a great airplane. I work for a great company with great people. I have wonderful benefits. I already make more money than I would have had I stayed in the other career. I don't sit around and feel sorry for myself, thinking about how miserable my life and my job are.
Can it be better? Sure. But let's take it step by step, contract by contract. Not just our contract, but every other carrier's as well. Nature will take its course. As management pushes and pushes, further screwing every faction of DAL and DCI pilots (except the non-union ones) I think DALPA will see the benefit of one list. It might take a while, but I think we'll get there.
You know pilot mentality as well as I do. If you try to corner someone and force something on them, their going to come out furious and fighting. I'm talking about DALPA. If the RJDC is successful, you'd better like your job now because you won't have a friend anywhere else in the industry. We will become the red-headed, bastard brats. Hell, if the RJDC had been successful, every single ASA pilot would now be looking at hitting the street. EVERY SINGLE ONE. No wonder the senior guys don't like the idea.
I think you're scaring the crap out of pilots like Toy Soldier. If I were a pilot wanting to go to a major, especially Delta, I'd stay the hell away from DCI based on RJDC threats. I wouldn't want to sit in front of a panel at a Delta interview and try to explain my position on RJDC and how it's helping pilots in ALPA and DALPA. What's that you say? Support is anonymous? Sorry, I don't lie.
Neither, Prof. You've done a great job explaining your side, and I have spent 2 years mulling the facts. It is funny that you think I'm ill-informed because I don't agree with you. It sounds like the rantings of the religious zealot you might find preaching on a street corner. It's much simpler than that: we have different opinions, period.
If I go of on an RJDC rant in the Delta jumpseat, I'm going to end up tugging my Samsonite up I-95. Quite frankly, I wouldn't blame the captain. I'm shocked to find that most of the Delta captains that I do jumpseat with (or they with me) are IN FAVOR of one list. This is a little known fact because they aren't going to give us any help when we are threatening to sue them. It's the ol' vinegar and honey thing, Prof. It's true in every aspect of life. It's an adage born in fundamental human behavior.
If RJ's went to mainline (I assume you mean the 900s), this would complete the bridge that we need to cross the fuzzy border between our fleets. From those at DAL who are against one list, this is the primary argument that I hear: that we don't fly the same equipment. If we are flying 40, 50 and 70-seaters, and they are flying a 90-seat version of the same aircraft, then there's nothing in between; no division. In the long run, I think that would be a plus.
Regarding our own scope clause:
So to get DALPA's support you:
a) negotiate, explaining the merits of your case
b) sue 'em
Again, the ends are not the point of contention. It's the means. I think even a lot of new Delta pilots would agree with your statement.
Man, I'm worn out. This is much more time than I ever wanted to spend on this topic. Please don't expect this kind of volley for each post. I just felt it was time that the silent majority got some air time.
Respectfully,
FL000
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
Caveman: Thanks - you write better than I do and are more succinct - help out any time you like!
IFF: I'm confused - you write:
Have you ever asked a member of your LEC, or MEC, to engage in negotiations with Delta's MEC? What was the response they gave you?
Several of us did prepare and propose three resolutions at the last LEC meeting asking our representatives to engage in communications with DALPA if they were negotiating revised scope, or furlough protection using our jets - where you there? If you were there, you heard Bob Arnold say that they would not hold a vote on these resolutions and that approaching Delta, or the Delta MEC, over scope relief would "pi$$ off ALPA national" which is something we did not want to do just before asking for money to negotiate our next contract.
We have asked for DALPA's help. Their MEC Chairman, Will Burguey told Bob Arnold that "if (Delta) were to staple the ASA pilots, where would the military pilots go? You could not expect them to fly a Brazillia." Long story short is that DALPA does not care about ASA pilots and it is not their job to care about us. They are only interested in ASA when it threatens their narrow body domestic flying.
Litigation is my last choice - I do not like it either. However, there is just no other way to force both sides to the negotiation table.
If you know a better way, tell your MEC representatives to do it! Then kindly post your activities on the board and we will have something to talk about.
However, if you are doing nothing to protect your job except hoping for the generosity of ALPA and DALPA to help you, oh nevermind, it is redundant.
Who created scope? Who allowed domestic codeshare to begin in the first place? DALPA did - and you are waiting for them to fix this mess... come on IFF - get real.
IFF: I'm confused - you write:
You also write:
Don't you understand that ALPA will not allow the ASA MEC to negotiate with Delta? The ASA MEC has already been told that ASA management can not control Delta's allocation of Connection flying.
Have you ever asked a member of your LEC, or MEC, to engage in negotiations with Delta's MEC? What was the response they gave you?
Several of us did prepare and propose three resolutions at the last LEC meeting asking our representatives to engage in communications with DALPA if they were negotiating revised scope, or furlough protection using our jets - where you there? If you were there, you heard Bob Arnold say that they would not hold a vote on these resolutions and that approaching Delta, or the Delta MEC, over scope relief would "pi$$ off ALPA national" which is something we did not want to do just before asking for money to negotiate our next contract.
We have asked for DALPA's help. Their MEC Chairman, Will Burguey told Bob Arnold that "if (Delta) were to staple the ASA pilots, where would the military pilots go? You could not expect them to fly a Brazillia." Long story short is that DALPA does not care about ASA pilots and it is not their job to care about us. They are only interested in ASA when it threatens their narrow body domestic flying.
Litigation is my last choice - I do not like it either. However, there is just no other way to force both sides to the negotiation table.
If you know a better way, tell your MEC representatives to do it! Then kindly post your activities on the board and we will have something to talk about.
However, if you are doing nothing to protect your job except hoping for the generosity of ALPA and DALPA to help you, oh nevermind, it is redundant.
Who created scope? Who allowed domestic codeshare to begin in the first place? DALPA did - and you are waiting for them to fix this mess... come on IFF - get real.
Last edited:
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
FL000:
Thanks for your reasoned reply. Like you, I lived in a cubie, then lived in an office - 12 to 16 hours a day. Like you, this gave me a real appreciation for the job we do now, flying Delta's passengers on CRJ's. It is a great life.
That is the reason why I am so determined to protect my job and career expectations.
You write:
That is exactly what we did. The PID presentation explained the merits of onelist to the ALPA Board of Directors. At this meeting the Chairman of the Delta MEC argued against onelist.
The RJDC again tried negotiating - to no avail.
Plan (b) is in progress and all of a sudden ALPA is in a mood to negotiate. They have explained that coordination with the Delta MEC will be required.
I hope for the best for all pilots in the employ of Delta Airlines, at least we are talking.
Thanks for your reasoned reply. Like you, I lived in a cubie, then lived in an office - 12 to 16 hours a day. Like you, this gave me a real appreciation for the job we do now, flying Delta's passengers on CRJ's. It is a great life.
That is the reason why I am so determined to protect my job and career expectations.
You write:
That is exactly what we did. The PID presentation explained the merits of onelist to the ALPA Board of Directors. At this meeting the Chairman of the Delta MEC argued against onelist.
The RJDC again tried negotiating - to no avail.
Plan (b) is in progress and all of a sudden ALPA is in a mood to negotiate. They have explained that coordination with the Delta MEC will be required.
I hope for the best for all pilots in the employ of Delta Airlines, at least we are talking.
Prof,
I am being very real. And I'm sorry if you're confused because I won't agree with you.
What confuses me is that you keep saying "ALPA won't allow us to negotiate with Delta". Um, isn't that exactly what we're doing starting in September? Yes, technically we negotiate with ASA, but ASA is Delta is ASA. Skip gets his orders from the top. There is no reason whatsoever we can't get our own scope clause (similiar to the one DALPA got) limiting connection flying to wholly owned carriers.
I'm not waiting for DALPA to fix anything. I'm not waiting for a lawsuit to work itself through either. I'm saying we should fix our own mess and then once our ducks are in a row, ask DALPA for a staple. Even Flying Sig could agree with that.
As FL000 says, if the RJDC wins, we WILL be the black sheep of the industry. We will be right down there with scabs. It isn't the way to go.
I will support RJDC when they drop the lawsuit and pursue the goale we have discussed in a diplomatic manner.
In closing, we really have bigger fish to fry than to argue about the merits of the RJDC. We need to be focusing on our upcoming negotiations and pulling together- not drawing apart as the RJDC is clearly causing us to do. We are already going into negotiations in a extremely weak position. Unity is all we have. We need to focus and speak with one voice when it's time to play hardball.
Prof, I ask you this... whose team are you gonna be on?
I am being very real. And I'm sorry if you're confused because I won't agree with you.
What confuses me is that you keep saying "ALPA won't allow us to negotiate with Delta". Um, isn't that exactly what we're doing starting in September? Yes, technically we negotiate with ASA, but ASA is Delta is ASA. Skip gets his orders from the top. There is no reason whatsoever we can't get our own scope clause (similiar to the one DALPA got) limiting connection flying to wholly owned carriers.
I'm not waiting for DALPA to fix anything. I'm not waiting for a lawsuit to work itself through either. I'm saying we should fix our own mess and then once our ducks are in a row, ask DALPA for a staple. Even Flying Sig could agree with that.
As FL000 says, if the RJDC wins, we WILL be the black sheep of the industry. We will be right down there with scabs. It isn't the way to go.
I will support RJDC when they drop the lawsuit and pursue the goale we have discussed in a diplomatic manner.
In closing, we really have bigger fish to fry than to argue about the merits of the RJDC. We need to be focusing on our upcoming negotiations and pulling together- not drawing apart as the RJDC is clearly causing us to do. We are already going into negotiations in a extremely weak position. Unity is all we have. We need to focus and speak with one voice when it's time to play hardball.
Prof, I ask you this... whose team are you gonna be on?
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
IFF, I love debating you. Ok here we go:
You write:
Since ALPA is the sole bargaining agent, we can not go outside ALPA national's directives and negotiate with Delta. Our MEC does not have that authority.
Since Delta does not want ASA pilots to interfere with their domestic flying, they gladly point to ALPA's letter and tell us "we can not talk to you."
Simply - it is impossible for the ASA MEC to scope anything done by the parent company because we can only negotiate with the subsidiary.
You write:
You write:
I am going to be on the side who has the ball and which is moving it down the field. Justice has never been won by the timid.
ALPA is treating the ASA MEC with more respect that they ever have because they know there may be legal ramifications if they fail to represent us.
When you read Flying the Line I and II, you realize that ALPA has always been in a weak position when it allowed alter ego airlines to compete for the same flying. E.L. Cord did this at American, Lorenzo at Continental and now you and I are feeling the effects going into this contract.
ALPA may need a "bad guy" to force them into doing the right thing. At the time, Martin Luther King was thought to be a troublemaker - just like anyone else that rocks the boat in the pursuit of what is right.
I'm no Martin Luther King, but I am willing to fight for what I believe in. So what have you done? I'd like to know if you have talked to any of your representatives, and what reply you got.
You write:
There was a letter on the ALPA board from Cohen, Weiss and Simon to Bob Arnold. This letter explained that the ASA MEC could only negotiate with ASA management. It further explained that in the union's view ASA was not Delta. Bob Arnold took the letter down, but you can probably still get a copy from our MEC's offices 404-763-4935.
Since ALPA is the sole bargaining agent, we can not go outside ALPA national's directives and negotiate with Delta. Our MEC does not have that authority.
Since Delta does not want ASA pilots to interfere with their domestic flying, they gladly point to ALPA's letter and tell us "we can not talk to you."
Simply - it is impossible for the ASA MEC to scope anything done by the parent company because we can only negotiate with the subsidiary.
You write:
And why is that? Because we have five groups of pilots performing Delta domestic flying.
You write:
I am going to be on the side who has the ball and which is moving it down the field. Justice has never been won by the timid.
ALPA is treating the ASA MEC with more respect that they ever have because they know there may be legal ramifications if they fail to represent us.
When you read Flying the Line I and II, you realize that ALPA has always been in a weak position when it allowed alter ego airlines to compete for the same flying. E.L. Cord did this at American, Lorenzo at Continental and now you and I are feeling the effects going into this contract.
ALPA may need a "bad guy" to force them into doing the right thing. At the time, Martin Luther King was thought to be a troublemaker - just like anyone else that rocks the boat in the pursuit of what is right.
I'm no Martin Luther King, but I am willing to fight for what I believe in. So what have you done? I'd like to know if you have talked to any of your representatives, and what reply you got.
You keep baiting me by inviting me to discuss this with our MEC reps. I have to be honest... I haven't. Between flying naps, commuting from waaay up north and spending time with my family, I just haven't gotten there yet.
Your explanation of why we can't negotiate our own version of scope seems plausible. I guess I'll just have to go ask Mike or someone else if it really works out that way. For now I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
It's clear that we agree that we are very weak because of the alter ego threat. The new CEO of DCI has now openly stated that he would like to see DCI flying go to the "lowest cost provider" and that he isn't opposed to bringing in new companies to fly Delta passengers.
I would like to know what your solution to this problem is if we can't simply scope them out. Are you really saying that our only hope of settling our contract and protecting our flying is to sue ALPA?
You mention Bob Arnold a lot. I get the impression that you think we would could use different leadership. You have to understand that he's walking a thin line. Just like the Comair MEC, they have to play nice with the RJDC thing. They do, after all, work for ALPA. I'm not sure what you expect from him. However, if the MEC got a unified response from us, the pilots of ASA, they would have no choice but to take on national and get permission to negotiate scope with ASA and Delta. As it is, why stick your neck out if it isn't necessary.
While we divide ourselves into factions, the MEC will go without guidance, and thus take the easy road... to not fight ALPA national. With unity, we can force them to do what's right even if it's not easy. The RJDC isn't the answer to this. Whether it's agenda has changed or not, the stigma is still there. It will never garner the support needed at ASA to carry our intentions to those who can do something about it.
You say you will be on the side that has the ball, and I agree that justice is never won by the timid. However, moving the ball never lasts without a solid game strategy and a strong team to support the front line. Even Martin Luther King knew that he would go nowhere if he didn't have support. He knew how to fight when necessary, but apease when required.
Does the RJDC?
Your explanation of why we can't negotiate our own version of scope seems plausible. I guess I'll just have to go ask Mike or someone else if it really works out that way. For now I guess I'll have to take your word for it.
It's clear that we agree that we are very weak because of the alter ego threat. The new CEO of DCI has now openly stated that he would like to see DCI flying go to the "lowest cost provider" and that he isn't opposed to bringing in new companies to fly Delta passengers.
I would like to know what your solution to this problem is if we can't simply scope them out. Are you really saying that our only hope of settling our contract and protecting our flying is to sue ALPA?
You mention Bob Arnold a lot. I get the impression that you think we would could use different leadership. You have to understand that he's walking a thin line. Just like the Comair MEC, they have to play nice with the RJDC thing. They do, after all, work for ALPA. I'm not sure what you expect from him. However, if the MEC got a unified response from us, the pilots of ASA, they would have no choice but to take on national and get permission to negotiate scope with ASA and Delta. As it is, why stick your neck out if it isn't necessary.
While we divide ourselves into factions, the MEC will go without guidance, and thus take the easy road... to not fight ALPA national. With unity, we can force them to do what's right even if it's not easy. The RJDC isn't the answer to this. Whether it's agenda has changed or not, the stigma is still there. It will never garner the support needed at ASA to carry our intentions to those who can do something about it.
You say you will be on the side that has the ball, and I agree that justice is never won by the timid. However, moving the ball never lasts without a solid game strategy and a strong team to support the front line. Even Martin Luther King knew that he would go nowhere if he didn't have support. He knew how to fight when necessary, but apease when required.
Does the RJDC?
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
IFF: Thanks for your reply.
Either Bob Arnold, or Mike White is a good source on the scope issue. Again, reading the letter for yourself is the best information. (I wish it was still on the MEC site)
Candidly I like Bob Arnold a lot. He is a smart politician and does a good job of advocating pilot issues to ASA management.
However, we provided written guidance to our LEC in the form of resolutions proposed at the last LEC meeting. These resolutions were supported by a majority of pilots present, plus many pilots had provided proxies so their vote could be counted in absentia.
Bob Arnold blocked the vote from taking place. Now when our representative refuses to represent the pilots, I believe it is serious. Like you said, Bob is trying to place nice with ALPA national right now.
You write:
The best solution is onelist - all Delta flying by Delta pilots. Here is how we get there:
(1) We have to negotiate with ALPA & DALPA.
(2) ALPA and DALPA have refused to even let us participate in the process - so we have to bring them to the table by whatever means necessary - that unfortunately means - sue them.
(3) ALPA and DALPA have to abandon scope that separates the pilot groups.
(4) Once scope is gone ALPA & DALPA will want "all pilots performing Delta flying" on one list so that they can control "Delta flying."
Of course there are also other ways to get there. Since ALPA refused onelist, the RJDC asked for revisions in the Constitution and Bylaws which would provide for a system of checks and balances - like the Senate balances the power of Congress and the Supreme Court balances the President's power. The intent of these revisions to the CB&L would be to give "small jet" pilots a voice in the contracts that control our wages and working conditions. (ALPA said they could not do that - but that is another story)
ALPA is run by pure majority rule. Repeatedly the union has got into trouble when they took unfair advantage of minority member groups. ALPA has been to the Courthouse and lost many times. Since there are no checks and balances the majority within ALPA these sorts of problems are not that unusual.
ALPA does not want to give the power of representation to minority pilot groups. They would rather onelist so they can control us under a single MEC, which is fine with me.
What we have to watch out for when we seek alternatives to onelist is the kind of problems the Continental Express pilots have. ALPA gave them one MEC under two lists. As you can imagine the Express pilots get no representation at all. They are now wishing that they had a separate MEC.
So onelist is the best answer to fix whipsaw while protecting the Delta pilots as well as those pilots at Connection.
The Delta pilots could control all Delta flying by controlling the pilots who fly Delta's aircraft. The smart move is to bring these pilots together - like the founding fathers of our nation brought together the 13 colonies to form the United States.
If the RJDC makes ALPA's stupid move of predatory scope more painful than the good move of unity within our union, then the RJDC has served a useful purpose.
Either Bob Arnold, or Mike White is a good source on the scope issue. Again, reading the letter for yourself is the best information. (I wish it was still on the MEC site)
Candidly I like Bob Arnold a lot. He is a smart politician and does a good job of advocating pilot issues to ASA management.
However, we provided written guidance to our LEC in the form of resolutions proposed at the last LEC meeting. These resolutions were supported by a majority of pilots present, plus many pilots had provided proxies so their vote could be counted in absentia.
Bob Arnold blocked the vote from taking place. Now when our representative refuses to represent the pilots, I believe it is serious. Like you said, Bob is trying to place nice with ALPA national right now.
You write:
The best solution is onelist - all Delta flying by Delta pilots. Here is how we get there:
(1) We have to negotiate with ALPA & DALPA.
(2) ALPA and DALPA have refused to even let us participate in the process - so we have to bring them to the table by whatever means necessary - that unfortunately means - sue them.
(3) ALPA and DALPA have to abandon scope that separates the pilot groups.
(4) Once scope is gone ALPA & DALPA will want "all pilots performing Delta flying" on one list so that they can control "Delta flying."
Of course there are also other ways to get there. Since ALPA refused onelist, the RJDC asked for revisions in the Constitution and Bylaws which would provide for a system of checks and balances - like the Senate balances the power of Congress and the Supreme Court balances the President's power. The intent of these revisions to the CB&L would be to give "small jet" pilots a voice in the contracts that control our wages and working conditions. (ALPA said they could not do that - but that is another story)
ALPA is run by pure majority rule. Repeatedly the union has got into trouble when they took unfair advantage of minority member groups. ALPA has been to the Courthouse and lost many times. Since there are no checks and balances the majority within ALPA these sorts of problems are not that unusual.
ALPA does not want to give the power of representation to minority pilot groups. They would rather onelist so they can control us under a single MEC, which is fine with me.
What we have to watch out for when we seek alternatives to onelist is the kind of problems the Continental Express pilots have. ALPA gave them one MEC under two lists. As you can imagine the Express pilots get no representation at all. They are now wishing that they had a separate MEC.
So onelist is the best answer to fix whipsaw while protecting the Delta pilots as well as those pilots at Connection.
The Delta pilots could control all Delta flying by controlling the pilots who fly Delta's aircraft. The smart move is to bring these pilots together - like the founding fathers of our nation brought together the 13 colonies to form the United States.
If the RJDC makes ALPA's stupid move of predatory scope more painful than the good move of unity within our union, then the RJDC has served a useful purpose.
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
IFF: Thanks for your reply.
Either Bob Arnold, or Mike White is a good source on the scope issue. Again, reading the letter for yourself is the best information. (I wish it was still on the MEC site)
Candidly I like Bob Arnold a lot. He is a smart politician and does a good job of advocating pilot issues to ASA management.
However, we provided written guidance to our LEC in the form of resolutions proposed at the last LEC meeting. These resolutions were supported by a majority of pilots present, plus many pilots had provided proxies so their vote could be counted in absentia.
Bob Arnold blocked the vote from taking place. Now when our representative refuses to represent the pilots, I believe it is serious. Like you said, Bob is trying to place nice with ALPA national right now.
You write:
The best solution is onelist - all Delta flying by Delta pilots. Here is how we get there:
(1) We have to negotiate with ALPA & DALPA.
(2) ALPA and DALPA have refused to even let us participate in the process - so we have to bring them to the table by whatever means necessary - that unfortunately means - sue them.
(3) ALPA and DALPA have to abandon scope that separates the pilot groups.
(4) Once scope is gone ALPA & DALPA will want "all pilots performing Delta flying" on one list so that they can control "Delta flying."
Of course there are also other ways to get there. Since ALPA refused onelist, the RJDC asked for revisions in the Constitution and Bylaws which would provide for a system of checks and balances - like the Senate balances the power of Congress and the Supreme Court balances the President's power. The intent of these revisions to the CB&L would be to give "small jet" pilots a voice in the contracts that control our wages and working conditions. (ALPA said they could not do that - but that is another story)
ALPA is run by pure majority rule. Repeatedly the union has got into trouble when they took unfair advantage of minority member groups. ALPA has been to the Courthouse and lost many times. Since there are no checks and balances the majority within ALPA these sorts of problems are not that unusual.
ALPA does not want to give the power of representation to minority pilot groups. They would rather onelist so they can control us under a single MEC, which is fine with me.
What we have to watch out for when we seek alternatives to onelist is the kind of problems the Continental Express pilots have. ALPA gave them one MEC under two lists. As you can imagine the Express pilots get no representation at all. They are now wishing that they had a separate MEC.
So onelist is the best answer to fix whipsaw while protecting the Delta pilots as well as those pilots at Connection.
The Delta pilots could control all Delta flying by controlling the pilots who fly Delta's aircraft. The smart move is to bring these pilots together - like the founding fathers of our nation brought together the 13 colonies to form the United States.
If the RJDC makes ALPA's stupid move of predatory scope more painful than the good move of unity within our union, then the RJDC has served a useful purpose.
P.S. I tried to send you a message on your flica question - but your mailbox is full. Regards!
Either Bob Arnold, or Mike White is a good source on the scope issue. Again, reading the letter for yourself is the best information. (I wish it was still on the MEC site)
Candidly I like Bob Arnold a lot. He is a smart politician and does a good job of advocating pilot issues to ASA management.
However, we provided written guidance to our LEC in the form of resolutions proposed at the last LEC meeting. These resolutions were supported by a majority of pilots present, plus many pilots had provided proxies so their vote could be counted in absentia.
Bob Arnold blocked the vote from taking place. Now when our representative refuses to represent the pilots, I believe it is serious. Like you said, Bob is trying to place nice with ALPA national right now.
You write:
The best solution is onelist - all Delta flying by Delta pilots. Here is how we get there:
(1) We have to negotiate with ALPA & DALPA.
(2) ALPA and DALPA have refused to even let us participate in the process - so we have to bring them to the table by whatever means necessary - that unfortunately means - sue them.
(3) ALPA and DALPA have to abandon scope that separates the pilot groups.
(4) Once scope is gone ALPA & DALPA will want "all pilots performing Delta flying" on one list so that they can control "Delta flying."
Of course there are also other ways to get there. Since ALPA refused onelist, the RJDC asked for revisions in the Constitution and Bylaws which would provide for a system of checks and balances - like the Senate balances the power of Congress and the Supreme Court balances the President's power. The intent of these revisions to the CB&L would be to give "small jet" pilots a voice in the contracts that control our wages and working conditions. (ALPA said they could not do that - but that is another story)
ALPA is run by pure majority rule. Repeatedly the union has got into trouble when they took unfair advantage of minority member groups. ALPA has been to the Courthouse and lost many times. Since there are no checks and balances the majority within ALPA these sorts of problems are not that unusual.
ALPA does not want to give the power of representation to minority pilot groups. They would rather onelist so they can control us under a single MEC, which is fine with me.
What we have to watch out for when we seek alternatives to onelist is the kind of problems the Continental Express pilots have. ALPA gave them one MEC under two lists. As you can imagine the Express pilots get no representation at all. They are now wishing that they had a separate MEC.
So onelist is the best answer to fix whipsaw while protecting the Delta pilots as well as those pilots at Connection.
The Delta pilots could control all Delta flying by controlling the pilots who fly Delta's aircraft. The smart move is to bring these pilots together - like the founding fathers of our nation brought together the 13 colonies to form the United States.
If the RJDC makes ALPA's stupid move of predatory scope more painful than the good move of unity within our union, then the RJDC has served a useful purpose.
P.S. I tried to send you a message on your flica question - but your mailbox is full. Regards!
~~~^~~~ said:
But how? Can you blame them for not wanting to negotiate while we're suing them?
Maybe they would be more willing now that things have changed in the industry... if we weren't suing them.
Or they have to let us form our own version of predatory scope to protect our flying. Instead of forcing them, let's give them an offer they can't refuse. End alter ego, and keep non-union Skywest out.
You don't think Delta mgt. will seize that opportunity once scope is gone to further hose the Delta pilots? Agreed that onelist is the solution, but we need to do it in a way that makes DALPA want it. And I'm assuming once the above happens, ASA and Comair will no longer exist so that we can negotiate directly with Delta, i.e. we will be Delta pilots?
They have no motive to bring us together right now. We need to give them a reason to do so. As far as controlling us, I think they've succeeded there, don't you?
But it's only further divided the union. And I don't think it's caused nearly as much pain as some think it has. I would rate is like a bee sting to ALPA... annoying, slightly painful, but hardly life threatening.
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
DALPA did not love us before we sued, they will not love us if we dismiss the lawsuit.
The harm ALPA caused by not representing the ASA pilots was a choice they made. There is no reason why they would choose differently now that there is even more pressure on the union to protect the highly paid pilot's jobs first.
I thank God that the Comair plaintiffs got that suit in before September 11th.
Again, any time ALPA wants the lawsuit to go away they can pick up the phone, invite our representatives to participate in the re-negotiations that are going on at Delta right now and allow us the opportunity to vote on the contract which affects our career and job opportunities.
ALPA has not been put in a box. Quite to the contrary - they could file a single carrier petitiion, a policy implementation date for a merger, or revise scope.
And yes, a 100 million demand with 600 million in actual damages is serious to a union with about 70 million in assetts.
The harm ALPA caused by not representing the ASA pilots was a choice they made. There is no reason why they would choose differently now that there is even more pressure on the union to protect the highly paid pilot's jobs first.
I thank God that the Comair plaintiffs got that suit in before September 11th.
Again, any time ALPA wants the lawsuit to go away they can pick up the phone, invite our representatives to participate in the re-negotiations that are going on at Delta right now and allow us the opportunity to vote on the contract which affects our career and job opportunities.
ALPA has not been put in a box. Quite to the contrary - they could file a single carrier petitiion, a policy implementation date for a merger, or revise scope.
And yes, a 100 million demand with 600 million in actual damages is serious to a union with about 70 million in assetts.
FlyingSig
Double Breasted _ _ _
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Posts
- 560
I was re-reading some posts and this statement kinda jumped out at me....
The fact that you are basing your budget on something that has not materialized seems to me more like poor financial planning instead of an actual "pay scale". Delta management tried that arguement during the last set of negotiations. They said that we should accept their pay scales because they are going to order a whole bunch of airplanes and we'd all be MD88 Captains in 4 years..... seems like you're buying off pretty good on a management trick.
When you are hired by an airline you know what the published first officer rates are. Once you make captain or transition to larger equipment they too have a published pay scale and when you're actually in the seat you can adjust your personal budget accordingly.
If the yes/no decision to go work for a company is based on making Captain in xx amount of time you picked the wrong industry.
Ok...back to reading now....
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:
