InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
[url]http://www.rjdefense.com[/url]
reply to: [email protected]
“BRAND SCOPE”: Truth and Consequences
Introduction
Imagine what life would be like at ASA and Comair if the Delta pilots were empowered to renegotiate your contract, cut your pay in order to subsidize their concessions, and displace you out of your aircraft in order to make room for a “preferred” class of pilots. Further, you would have little or no say in the negotiations. More importantly, your “vote” wouldn't matter because the new terms and restrictions are part of their contract—not yours. This is not fair. This is not new. This is ALPA's “Brand Scope.”
Now that ALPA has reportedly proposed “Brand Scope” at Delta, it's a good time to learn more about ALPA's latest bargaining ploy. For over two years ALPA has been arguing in court and in other forums that there is no such thing as “ASA” and “Comair” flying. As their argument goes, all “brand” flying “belongs” to the Delta pilots who may negotiate with it however they please.[1] So it shouldn't come as any surprise that the fuzzy concept of “brand scope” is little more than a desperate effort to disguise ALPA's dereliction of its duties to the ASA and Comair pilots.
“Brand Scope” Defined
ALPA has called for “brand scope,” as if it were a new union strategy intended to address changes in the industry. But examination reveals that “brand scope” is yet another ALPA euphemism for permitting Delta pilots to bargain whatever scope they desire with senior management, thus leaving the ASA and Comair pilots to vie for the leftovers. For example:
-- All flying ultimately belongs to the “mainline” pilots for scope purposes who may bargain any scope they please.
-- “Mainline” pilots allowed to unilaterally redefine “regional” or “feeder” flying.
-- Wholly-owned jobs and flying used by “mainline” pilots in their negotiations.
-- Wholly-owned bargaining subordinated to “mainline” bargaining.
-- “Mainline” pilots only required to “confer” with wholly-owned pilots.
-- ALPA national assumes no responsibility for actions of its “mainline” pilot groups.
-- Wholly-owned pilots have no standing to object.
It should be clear that ALPA's calls for “brand scope” amount to only a new marketing plan to sell an old product that doesn't work and only harms those so unfairly treated.
Actions Do Speak Louder Than Words
If you asked ALPA's leaders to define “Brand Scope,” they would probably tell you that it hasn't been defined in specific terms and that it's up to each “family” of affiliated pilot groups to work out the details. Don't be deceived. “Brand Scope” is defined, not by words, but by ALPA's actions—at the mainline bargaining table.
Delta Air Lines: Without first seeking the approval of the ASA and Comair pilots, ALPA has proposed to management that the Delta pilots be given “career” security within the Delta Brand (i.e. special employment rights as ASA and Comair.) “Brand Scope” is also reportedly part of DALPA's latest concessionary proposal.[2]
US Airways: Without first seeking the approval or input from the ALG, PDT, and PSA pilots, ALPA negotiated and implemented LOA 91 which greatly expanded the mainline pilot's control over the placement of small jets within the US Airways system. LOA 91 granted displaced mainline pilots super-seniority and special employment rights at all carriers within the US Airways “Brand” and its egregious terms were imposed upon ALPA's “regional” members on a “take it or leave it basis.”
United: Without first seeking the input or approval of its ALPA code-share affiliates, ALPA imposed Jets-for-Jobs on all 70-seat jets carrying the United code.
Northwest: Without first seeking the input or approval of the Pinnacle or Mesaba pilots, the Northwest MEC decided its negotiating committee will allocate flying within the NWA brand and has crafted bargaining proposals that would require that NWA pilots fly all 70-seat jets (i.e. new “preferred” alter-ego entity or Jets-for-Jobs.)[3]
Traps and Truths
Trap #1: “Brand Scope” takes many years to implement.
Truth: ALPA is obligated to protect the rights and interests of the ASA and Comair pilots. As such, ALPA cannot ignore duties owed today by promising to act properly tomorrow.
Trap #2: The mainline interests must negotiate on behalf of the “regional” carriers because they can't access the “real” management team.
Truth: This is a ploy to keep the “regional” pilots in the dark concerning ALPA's specific proposals and to hide the fact that ALPA's mainline interests use the small jet and its pilots as bargaining capital. Management must bargain with whomever ALPA sends to the table. ALPA, not management, determines “access” to the process and the relevant information.
Trap #3: The “Brand Scope” item listed in Delta-ALPA's recent proposal was just a “place-holder” on the agenda to be filled in later if the parties so choose.
Truth: ALPA's own definition of “Brand Scope” calls for the effected pilot groups to agree in advance before anything is negotiated with management. The fact that the ASA and Comair MEC’s did not authorize the Delta MEC to place anything on the agenda, much less agree to “Brand Scope,” suggests that “Brand Scope” is not what ALPA claims it to be. “Brand Scope” is off to a “Bad Start”.
Summary
Brand Scope is defined by ALPA's actions, not words. To-date, ALPA's actions at every other “mainline” carrier proves that Brand Scope is nothing more than a new label for old practices. In the year since “Brand Scope” was advanced by ALPA, two of the union’s largest carriers have unilaterally imposed their “brand” of Jets for Jobs and new small jet restrictions; while two more major carriers appear to be planning the same.
However, unlike less fortunate pilot groups, the ASA and Comair pilots have engaged in a vigorous defense of our rights. You can prevent the unilateral imposition of Brand Scope by supporting these efforts and staying informed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] ALPA to US District Court in Ford v. ALPA.
[2] December 2003 “Negotiator's Notepad” and published reports concerning ALPA's July 20, 2004 proposal to Delta Management.
[3] Northwest MEC Code-a-phone message dated July 16, 2004
Ensuring One Level of Representation
[url]http://www.rjdefense.com[/url]
reply to: [email protected]
“BRAND SCOPE”: Truth and Consequences
Introduction
Imagine what life would be like at ASA and Comair if the Delta pilots were empowered to renegotiate your contract, cut your pay in order to subsidize their concessions, and displace you out of your aircraft in order to make room for a “preferred” class of pilots. Further, you would have little or no say in the negotiations. More importantly, your “vote” wouldn't matter because the new terms and restrictions are part of their contract—not yours. This is not fair. This is not new. This is ALPA's “Brand Scope.”
Now that ALPA has reportedly proposed “Brand Scope” at Delta, it's a good time to learn more about ALPA's latest bargaining ploy. For over two years ALPA has been arguing in court and in other forums that there is no such thing as “ASA” and “Comair” flying. As their argument goes, all “brand” flying “belongs” to the Delta pilots who may negotiate with it however they please.[1] So it shouldn't come as any surprise that the fuzzy concept of “brand scope” is little more than a desperate effort to disguise ALPA's dereliction of its duties to the ASA and Comair pilots.
“Brand Scope” Defined
ALPA has called for “brand scope,” as if it were a new union strategy intended to address changes in the industry. But examination reveals that “brand scope” is yet another ALPA euphemism for permitting Delta pilots to bargain whatever scope they desire with senior management, thus leaving the ASA and Comair pilots to vie for the leftovers. For example:
-- All flying ultimately belongs to the “mainline” pilots for scope purposes who may bargain any scope they please.
-- “Mainline” pilots allowed to unilaterally redefine “regional” or “feeder” flying.
-- Wholly-owned jobs and flying used by “mainline” pilots in their negotiations.
-- Wholly-owned bargaining subordinated to “mainline” bargaining.
-- “Mainline” pilots only required to “confer” with wholly-owned pilots.
-- ALPA national assumes no responsibility for actions of its “mainline” pilot groups.
-- Wholly-owned pilots have no standing to object.
It should be clear that ALPA's calls for “brand scope” amount to only a new marketing plan to sell an old product that doesn't work and only harms those so unfairly treated.
Actions Do Speak Louder Than Words
If you asked ALPA's leaders to define “Brand Scope,” they would probably tell you that it hasn't been defined in specific terms and that it's up to each “family” of affiliated pilot groups to work out the details. Don't be deceived. “Brand Scope” is defined, not by words, but by ALPA's actions—at the mainline bargaining table.
Delta Air Lines: Without first seeking the approval of the ASA and Comair pilots, ALPA has proposed to management that the Delta pilots be given “career” security within the Delta Brand (i.e. special employment rights as ASA and Comair.) “Brand Scope” is also reportedly part of DALPA's latest concessionary proposal.[2]
US Airways: Without first seeking the approval or input from the ALG, PDT, and PSA pilots, ALPA negotiated and implemented LOA 91 which greatly expanded the mainline pilot's control over the placement of small jets within the US Airways system. LOA 91 granted displaced mainline pilots super-seniority and special employment rights at all carriers within the US Airways “Brand” and its egregious terms were imposed upon ALPA's “regional” members on a “take it or leave it basis.”
United: Without first seeking the input or approval of its ALPA code-share affiliates, ALPA imposed Jets-for-Jobs on all 70-seat jets carrying the United code.
Northwest: Without first seeking the input or approval of the Pinnacle or Mesaba pilots, the Northwest MEC decided its negotiating committee will allocate flying within the NWA brand and has crafted bargaining proposals that would require that NWA pilots fly all 70-seat jets (i.e. new “preferred” alter-ego entity or Jets-for-Jobs.)[3]
Traps and Truths
Trap #1: “Brand Scope” takes many years to implement.
Truth: ALPA is obligated to protect the rights and interests of the ASA and Comair pilots. As such, ALPA cannot ignore duties owed today by promising to act properly tomorrow.
Trap #2: The mainline interests must negotiate on behalf of the “regional” carriers because they can't access the “real” management team.
Truth: This is a ploy to keep the “regional” pilots in the dark concerning ALPA's specific proposals and to hide the fact that ALPA's mainline interests use the small jet and its pilots as bargaining capital. Management must bargain with whomever ALPA sends to the table. ALPA, not management, determines “access” to the process and the relevant information.
Trap #3: The “Brand Scope” item listed in Delta-ALPA's recent proposal was just a “place-holder” on the agenda to be filled in later if the parties so choose.
Truth: ALPA's own definition of “Brand Scope” calls for the effected pilot groups to agree in advance before anything is negotiated with management. The fact that the ASA and Comair MEC’s did not authorize the Delta MEC to place anything on the agenda, much less agree to “Brand Scope,” suggests that “Brand Scope” is not what ALPA claims it to be. “Brand Scope” is off to a “Bad Start”.
Summary
Brand Scope is defined by ALPA's actions, not words. To-date, ALPA's actions at every other “mainline” carrier proves that Brand Scope is nothing more than a new label for old practices. In the year since “Brand Scope” was advanced by ALPA, two of the union’s largest carriers have unilaterally imposed their “brand” of Jets for Jobs and new small jet restrictions; while two more major carriers appear to be planning the same.
However, unlike less fortunate pilot groups, the ASA and Comair pilots have engaged in a vigorous defense of our rights. You can prevent the unilateral imposition of Brand Scope by supporting these efforts and staying informed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] ALPA to US District Court in Ford v. ALPA.
[2] December 2003 “Negotiator's Notepad” and published reports concerning ALPA's July 20, 2004 proposal to Delta Management.
[3] Northwest MEC Code-a-phone message dated July 16, 2004
