Brand Scope

[InclusiveScope]

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

 

[~~~^~~~]

Thank you for posting. I hope the ASA pilots read this and understand what it means.

 

[Vortilon]

Actually the concession proposal says we'll start having "Scope Brand" mouthwash in the crew meals as opposed to "Listerine Brand". Man, I can't believe everyone is so upset over oral hygiene.

 

[AFELLOWAVIATOR]

There are some ASA pilots on the ALPA board who scare me. They seem to be clueless about what DALPA (Delta Airline Pilots Association) wants to do to CALPA (Comair Airline Pilots Association), and AALPA, (ASA Airline Pilots Association)

It seems that they are attempting to suck up to the Delta pilots so they might one day in the distant future have a leg up on others when Delta hires pilots again.

They constantly mock the RJDC along with the Delta pilots. I hope they are in the minority over there. All we need is for ASA to drop the ball on their contract. I am sure the UAIR WO's wish they had been better prepared to fend off ALPA Nat. and MGT.

That is what the RJDC stands for to me. It has given us a voice in these matters. ALPA Nat. must change and I am thankful that we have the RJDC to fight for us . Our MEC can only do so muck Our Chairman, JC, is a Nat. VP. I feel he has been brainwashed to a certain degree and is very weak.

The latest blunder was when he told all of us that GG had "left the door open" to further discussions about merging us and ASA. Any one who read the letter GG sent back to them could plainly see it was a kiss off and lsft no doors open. It really made them look foolish, again.

 

[CarjCapt]

As soon as the PID was turned down our respective MECs (ASA and CMR) were neutered. As a result they have absolutely no power to prevent J4J or any other ALPA National/DALPA scheme. We have to thank the RJDC for prevention of what is happening and has happened at USAirways and others.

 

[vc10]

The latest blunder was when he told all of us that GG had "left the door open" to further discussions about merging us and ASA. Any one who read the letter GG sent back to them could plainly see it was a kiss off and lsft no doors open. It really made them look foolish, again.

In the second quarter earnings call GG stated, in no uncertain terms, that ASA-Comair merger was not an option.

 

[Ted Striker]

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

You guys are having quite the little RJDC circle jerk on this thread, aren't you?

 

[surplus1]

You guys are having quite the little RJDC circle jerk on this thread, aren't you?

When YOU get the chance to give up your seniority to J4J and find youself branded by scope, I'll bet you'll be eager to join the circle.

 

[Vortilon]

Surplus,

Man, you must love spreading fear and loathing for no reason. There is no J4J on the table and if there ends up being one in some sort of double-super-secret negotiations I'll eat my hat.

Actually its pretty dusty from being laid off but you get my drift....maybe I can eat my "new widget" wings since we're going back to the old one.

FYI, we just had another huge bid close with hundreds of F/O positions remaining unfilled...when recalled, we'll actually be flying airplanes. I don't agree with some pilots' opinions that DALPA is trying to get some deal for the furloughees/bottom feeders...its doesn't make sense as we are a small part of the overall seniority list. Again, I think the J4J fears are not justified and the RJDC is just preying on people's fears and the uncertainties of this business.

What I want to know is how the RJDC is being blown into mythical proportions as some sort of organization that actually DOES anything. Its a handful of guys with some lawyers on retainer and a website distributing nastygrams. C'mon....if successful they will make some rich lawyers richer, and handful of pilots will get a few grand if they are lucky. God help us ALL if the concept of Scope clauses go away....it'll be nice being a 767 Captain at $50,000 per year. Wonder what the RJs will pay....$30k?

Have fun..

 

[Ted Striker]

When YOU get the chance to give up your seniority to J4J and find youself branded by scope, I'll bet you'll be eager to join the circle.

When YOU pull YOUR head out of your a$$, you won't see me in the circle.

 

[FarginDooshbahg]

When YOU pull YOUR head out of your a$$

surplus1 with his head out of his a$$?? Buy me a ticket. This I have to see.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

Man, you must love spreading fear and loathing for no reason. There is no J4J on the table and if there ends up being one in some sort of double-super-secret negotiations I'll eat my hat. Actually its pretty dusty from being laid off but you get my drift....maybe I can eat my "new widget" wings since we're going back to the old one

Guess I'm making progress then. If I'm spreading fear and loathing for no reason that means I've learned to emulate my mainline friends. If there's no J4J on the table or under the table, I promise you I won't complain. Please don't eat your hat, those things are expensive. Don't eat the wings either, particularly if they're going back to the old ones, that's nice. I wish we could do that and get rid of the WalMart costume jewelry we're wearing now. Expecially that ugly widget in the wrong place.

.

FYI, we just had another huge bid close with hundreds of F/O positions remaining unfilled...when recalled, we'll actually be flying airplanes. I don't agree with some pilots' opinions that DALPA is trying to get some deal for the furloughees/bottom feeders...its doesn't make sense as we are a small part of the overall seniority list. Again, I think the J4J fears are not justified and the RJDC is just preying on people's fears and the uncertainties of this business.

Well I'm sure happy to hear that the slots are opening and there are vacancies for you to fill. That's great news and I hope it continues. I hope too that the J4J fears re Delta are unwarranted. However, there's a whole lot of history out there which is very real. We haven't become the victims as yet, but the crime is being commited all around us. That's cause enough to lock the doors and start a neighborhood watch.

What I want to know is how the RJDC is being blown into mythical proportions as some sort of organization that actually DOES anything. Its a handful of guys with some lawyers on retainer and a website distributing nastygrams. C'mon....if successful they will make some rich lawyers richer, and handful of pilots will get a few grand if they are lucky. God help us ALL if the concept of Scope clauses go away....it'll be nice being a 767 Captain at $50,000 per year. Wonder what the RJs will pay....$30k?

Maybe the RJDC doesn't do much from your perspective. From my perspective it has kept the ALPA wolf from our door. Considering that our union has a dozen of its best legal minds trying to figure out how to stop the handful of guys and their lone lawyer, it seems the powerful don't share your views. If successful there won't be any money to speak of so we won't even recover the costs and the lawyer won't be getting rich any time soon. Now, if we can make the rottoen parts of the predatory scope go away, your 767 Captain's pay will be determined by the insolvency you have helped to create just as it is today. We will continue to fare about the same, unless you manage to bankrupt the airline. Maybe the RJs won't pay much seeing as how the mainline fellas are rushing to fly them for less, but at least we will keep the ones we have and maybe add some more if the market permits.

I confess it will be nice to be freed from indentured service, even if we have to fly for less. We can always raise our pay by flying something bigger maybe. What you think, nice? YES!

You know I was wondering ... If everytime some mainline group underbids what we fly by $30 bucks an hour we were to underbid what you fly by $50 bucks an hour, where do you think it would wind up?

Take care.

 

[surplus1]

When YOU pull YOUR head out of your a$$, you won't see me in the circle.

Is that the product of your age, your IQ, your education or all three?

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,


Come on man, you think that it is "our fault" that the company is in the shape it is in? We are a fixed cost----and we have offered pay cuts (14%) over a year ago which would have helped. Had we given the whole lion's share ($1 billion or $800 million....) a year ago, then the current creditors would not have even thought about joining in---and that would have cost us even more down the road---with a certain Chap 11 filing. Our delay (in my opinion) was a calculated move, and in the end we will still give the same amount anyways---with an extra $300-400 million a year break from the creditors, vendors, etc..... If you think we should have given sooner due to the higher fuel costs etc....then you guys should have done it too. We all fly planes that burn gas. But really, try to get off the "it's all the mainline pilots' fault" kick---you are starting to sound like our stews---who all drink the management koolaid..... Oh yeah, I remember now----I was the one who sold the fuel hedges when we really didn't have to.....my fault.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

Surplus1,


Come on man, you think that it is "our fault" that the company is in the shape it is in?

General :

Yes actually. Certainly there have been plenty other contributing factors, but you may remember my ranting on this board four years ago that Contract 2000 was simply unsustainable and that Delta pilots would never see the compensation schedules for the later years of the deal. There simply was not enough money ( even in Delta's boom years ) to pay that much.

Management is equally to blame. First, they should have never agreed to the deal. Mullins had a 5 year time horizon. He felt that Delta's pay would be matched by American, then Northwest & Continental - which would level the playing field. We know that never happened.

Also, Mullin decided the best way to survive 9/11 was to leverage the company with all the available cash to out live United, US Air and American. He figured one or more of the competitors would be gone by now. We know this is not happening on schedule either.

But placing the blame does little to fix the current situation. You and your MEC do realize that a significant restructuring is required.

~~~^~~~

 

[Ted Striker]

Is that the product of your age, your IQ, your education or all three?

You're so smart and clever, I hope when I grow up I can be just like you. (In case you didn't catch the sarcasm, I was laying it on pretty thick.)

Actually, it is a product of my IQ and education. I am sharp enough to realize that you have your head in your a$$. You guys have fun in your self serving circle jerk.

 

[Vortilon]

Fins,

It's Leo Mullin, not Mullins. At least that's what it says on his golden parachute.

 

[FDJ2]

Fins,

It's Leo Mullin, not Mullins. At least that's what it says on his golden parachute.

Don't confuse Fins, he and his RJDC buddies are having a hard enough time inventing their altered reality then to be bothered with hypertechnicalities like truthfulness and accuracy.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Patience is a virtue...

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,


Come on man, you think that it is "our fault" that the company is in the shape it is in?

General, this thread is about brand scope and its impact on us, not your money concessions.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Inclusive,

Just curious what kind of scope clauses Comair and ASA have in their contract. After all, if you guys are successful in getting DAL to give up all their scope clauses, what kind of protections do you guys have in place to keep DAL management from farming your flying out to the lowest bidder? I'm sure Mesa or a similar outfit would jump in tooth and nail to pick up all those juicy contracts.

 

[wms]

If brand scope is only defined by action, then the RJDC's view of ALPA's definition of brand scope is subjective. This letter is just another group's perspective of what ALPA's view of brand scope is, based on the actions of individual carriers and MECs. Brand scope means something different at each airline, and the ASA/CA MECs should ask Malone exactly what DALPAs intentions are. And the RJDC should stop jumping to conclusions and getting everyone worked up without having the details. If there are the good relations between the MECs that everyone is talking about, then these questions may have been already asked.

Unless I'm mistaken, brand scope primarily limits the out sourcing of flying. For us it means contract carriers, and for ML it limits DCI flying. It's natural for each group to want to protect their interests and we should find a way to do it that benefits us all. Without the "portfolio" it would be easier for ML to grow with out impacting the WOs, and the WOs could grow without encroaching on ML.

But the fact remains that DAL owns the flying, and everyone is jockeying for a piece of the pie. The fact is the group most likely to get it is the one that can have the most impact on the company. That is the DAL pilots. The WOs are powerless, and the best way to get a share of the pot is to solict the help of the one's with influence. That's just plain ole diplomacy. The RJDC and others don't want to admit we need help, but would rather try to force things at the risk of poor relations than be diplomatic and work together.

Most DCI pilots don't want a career with a commuter, but we would like to have it good while we're here. Good relations with the parent company and with the other employee groups will help.

I, along with most pilots here, don't pay dues to the RJDC and am not a member. I am fed up that they have given the impression to the industry and others that they are our representatives, without my consent. Kind of like...

 

[wms]

Inclusive,

Just curious what kind of scope clauses Comair and ASA have in their contract. After all, if you guys are successful in getting DAL to give up all their scope clauses, what kind of protections do you guys have in place to keep DAL management from farming your flying out to the lowest bidder? I'm sure Mesa or a similar outfit would jump in tooth and nail to pick up all those juicy contracts.

We have no scope clause, and we don't have the power to negotiate for it. That's why it needs to be included in the negotiations between DAL and DALPA.

The first mention I heard of brand scope here was when our negotiations began and our MEC wanted it in the contract to limit out-sourcing of flying. But they cannot bring it to the table because DAL owns the flying and the individual WO DCI carriers have no authority to negotiate it.

Out-sourcing, just like a DCI merger, has to be negotiated at the parent company, and there is only one employee group with the ability to do it.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Unless I'm mistaken, brand scope primarily limits the out sourcing of flying. For us it means contract carriers, and for ML it limits DCI flying.

So since a judge would never strip DAL pilots of their brand scope unless they stripped DCI pilots of theirs. (Judges always try to not set a double standard) What does the RJDC hope to gain by the lawsuit and forced removal of their scope protections?

No wonder DAL management is siding with the RJDC, If the RJDC is successful in nullifying DALPAS scope they have also given DAL management free reign to contract out massive amounts of DCI flying also. It is a win win situation for DAL management and the only losers are DAL and DCI pilots.

Seems silly to me. Right now all DAL flying is in house so to speak. If the RJDC is successful it will be a bigger mess than USAir has going on over there.

 

[surplus1]

Inclusive,

Just curious what kind of scope clauses Comair and ASA have in their contract. After all, if you guys are successful in getting DAL to give up all their scope clauses, what kind of protections do you guys have in place to keep DAL management from farming your flying out to the lowest bidder? I'm sure Mesa or a similar outfit would jump in tooth and nail to pick up all those juicy contracts.

You make an excellent observation. Comair has no scope that protects its flying. Why that is so is a long story, but the bottom line is it does not exist.

 

[surplus1]

If brand scope is only defined by action, then the RJDC's view of ALPA's definition of brand scope is subjective. This letter is just another group's perspective of what ALPA's view of brand scope is, based on the actions of individual carriers and MECs. Brand scope means something different at each airline, and the ASA/CA MECs should ask Malone exactly what DALPAs intentions are. And the RJDC should stop jumping to conclusions and getting everyone worked up without having the details. If there are the good relations between the MECs that everyone is talking about, then these questions may have been already asked.

The RJDC's view of "brand scope" may indeed be subjective. If ALPA would like the view to be more objective, then why hasn't ALPA defined what it means by "brand scope"? Instead what ALPA has done is banter around a new buzz phrase, with no definition, which it toutes as the answer to who knows what. If brand scope means something different at each airline, as you say, why should we be rushing to embrace it at Comair when we have no idea what it means?

You suggest that we ask Malone exactly what DALPA's intentions are? Are you truly naieve enough to believe that he would tell us that? Haven't you figured out that part of the problem is exactly that, i.e., we have no idea what the Delta pilots may be negotiating with respect to our jobs. The RJDC Is "worked up" precisely because we don't have the details and another pilot group is using our future as a bargaining chip in their negotiations. Where have you been?

Good relations between MEC's? What good relations? If these good relations exist and the MEC's have told each other what they are doing, then why hasn't your MEC told you? If Malone has told them what his intentions are, with respect to Comair pilots, why don't you know; why is the MEC keeping it a secret from us? Well, I'll tell you... they are not keeping it a secret, the fact is they have no idea what DALPA intends to do; not a clue. While they are busy telling you about the "good relations", the other group, DALPA, could be busily bargaining away what little we have now. Don't be so gullible, please. They have a history and it has never been favorable to us.

Unless I'm mistaken, brand scope primarily limits the out sourcing of flying.

Are you sure that's what it means? You aren't are you? If you really knew what it means you wouldn't be saying "unless I'm mistaken". That's the whole point of the debate, i.e., nobody really knows exactly what brand scope means.
You may not like the RJDC, but given the examples of what ALPA has already done, it's not too hard to guess what "brand scope" means to them. It means what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine and it's all about protecting one group (the mainline) by giving them even more control over another group (the regionals). You can believe as you choose, but I sure don't want Malone or any other Delta pilot deciding my future. I don't want Woerth doing it either. And, I also don't want my fellow pilots telling me that I should want those things. Myabe you don't have much of an investment in this airline, but I have a BIG investment that I intend to protect. I'm not willing to give it up because you have little interest and little stake.

I agree that "we should find a way" to protect our interests together. We of Comair have been offering to sit down and do just that for many years. Probably long before you got here. The other side, DALPA, has never had any interest in that. There is no longer any need to pretend that they will suddenly change their ways. They have no stake in anything other than their own interests and those include getting rid of us if they can. We need to worry more about taking care of ourselves and less about what they think.

But the fact remains that DAL owns the flying, and everyone is jockeying for a piece of the pie. The fact is the group most likely to get it is the one that can have the most impact on the company. That is the DAL pilots. The WOs are powerless, and the best way to get a share of the pot is to solict the help of the one's with influence.

Yes, Delta does own the flying. Let's be sure you understand that means Delta Air Lines, not the Delta pilots. You know why the regionals are powerless, as you put it? It is because there are too many folks like you that are brainwashed into believing that. Yes, we're jockeying for a piece of the pie. The truth is we had a peice and they had a peice and nobody was complaining. They are the ones that got greedy and decided to take a bigger peice, from us. That's what started the dispute. If we allow them to take whatever they want whenever they want it, in short order there will be nothing left, they will have it all. That is what they want and that is what ALPA's "brand scope" is designed to give them.

It's a Trojan Horse in the middle of your camp. Please wake up and smell the coffee.

The RJDC and others don't want to admit we need help, but would rather try to force things at the risk of poor relations than be diplomatic and work together.

Nothing but "poor relations" has existed for more than ten years. Where were you? The RJDC and others, like me, know very well that we need all the help we can get. The problem is being able to identify where that help should come from. It comes from within. The help we need is our own unity, not some kind of handout from the very people that make the need for help necessary.

What you say makes it clear that your abitions to one day go to the mainline because you don't want a "career with a commuter" is exactly why you are willing to bend over and grab your ankles. I have no problem with you prefering to fly for Delta than Comair. Get out your resume package and apply and I wish you good luck. While you're still here don't mess it up for the rest of us by giving away what we have because you think it will help to get you there. It will not help at all.

I, along with most pilots here, don't pay dues to the RJDC and am not a member. I am fed up that they have given the impression to the industry and others that they are our representatives, without my consent. Kind of like...

You are fed up because you say the RJDC is giving the impression that they are our representatives. Is that right? Well, I haven't heard the RJDC say that at all. I give to the RJDC because I want to and it is voluntary. The RJDC does not collect "dues" from anyone and it does not claim to represent anyone that hasn't volunteered to be represented.

What you don't seem to grasp is that every individual member of the union has a right to have his/her interests fairly represented by the union. In our opinion, the union has not done that, is not doing that, and has no plans to do that. We pay for that and we are suing to get what we pay for; fair representation.

Every month both you and I are required to pay 1.95% of our gross income to a labor union that does not represent our interests, and that assists another pilot group to assault our job security and take from our future. It is not optional, it is mandatory. If you don't pay it they can get you fired. How come you're not fed up with that? Is it because you think they are going to help you to leave your commuter airline and become a real pilot at Delta?

You can call it "diplomacy" if you want to but there comes a time when diplomacy fails and action is required. Action presents two options; surrender or fight for your rights. Your choice appears to be surrender; my choice is to fight for what is mine.

 

[General Lee]

Surplus1,


Did ALPA help you at all during your strike? You claim they did nothing--yet Leo Mullin is the one who outlasted you. We could not do anything else at Mainline but watch (since Pres Bush and his team were watching us)--and we hoped for the best and gave you cash to help you try to outlast them. You really like to forget that part.....

Also, which subsidiary of our company--Delta mainline or DCI--has expanded the most in the last three years? Hmmmmm. You will say it is because we were too expensive----which really isn't the case over the past two and a half years. The reason we parked so many aircraft is because the passenger base got smaller after 9-11, and now they are back! Guess what that means? It means it is time for us to reclaim the flying that was handed to you when we lacked passengers. But, you and your RJDC friends (thugs) don't like that. Why don't you guys focus on something else that really does affect your future income and earning potential---like the new Jetblue rates. Call your RJDC buddies and see if they can shoot over a "mean" letter to David Neeleman--I am sure he will just laugh it off too.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

The reason we parked so many aircraft is because the passenger base got smaller after 9-11, and now they are back! Guess what that means? It means it is time for us to reclaim the flying that was handed to you when we lacked passengers.

General :

Great, we agree! Lets roll back scope to where it was before Contract 96! Or, how about the contract 96 version.

What you don't seem to realize is that ALPA has been lowering scope bar. The trend is already from 105 seats to 50 seats going from 96 to 2000, plus a host of other limitations.

Is your intent to scope us all the way back to the Twin Otter? If so, we are going to have to install a crew rest station to fly some of our routes.

 

[General Lee]

Fins,


A twinotter flight from ATL to ICT would be great. The room in the back for passengers is about the same as in an RJ---but you might be able to put one bag in the overhead. Remember, you are paid by the hour....

I know you had 146's back in the '96 contract---and since then you have increased your flying at Delta to what percent? 47%? Sounds like a bunch of new upgrades for a lot of people. Now the passengers are back (for 1/2 the fare), and we need larger aircraft on some routes to compete against the ever expanding LCCs---and we lack the larger aircraft. It just makes sense that you cannot expand forever--and your days of unlimited expansion have slowed for now. Don't worry Fins---we will eventually hire again (after huge pay cuts)---and you will have a possible chance (my lawyer speak) of getting on with "Delta Ulimited Mainline Bus Associated Sanctioned Serivce" or "Dumba$$" for short--which will be our new A318 service. Pay rates will be LESS THAN Jetblue's, but you will be able to "fly a stick" and look like one too! I will give you your IOE---it will be fun! (bring extra money--you are buying dinner!)

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[wms]

What I should say is that my belief of what brand scope should be is the elimination of out-sourcing. If it means something to someone else, then I would have to hear it before I passed judgement. Not from a third party's perception, but from the horses mouth. And like you, I want our reps to find out what DALPAs intentions are, and to pass it along.

I don't agree with what ALPA has done at other airlines and I'm guarded about what may happen here as a result. It's unnerving to know that there may be negotiations going on that could affect us. But it's presumptuous to assume the actual provisions of any agreement until there is a TA. The only J4J or flow-through banter has been here from people who are spreading rumors, and from no credible source.

A better way to ensure our protections is with open communications, not creating barriers of animosity. We're not going to find out what's happening behind closed doors if we enrage the one's with the keys. And law suits don't lead to dialogue. The RJDCs conception that they can affect change in or out of court is wrong, and though there may be a victory or two, litigation will do more damage in the long run. Whether we want to admit it or not, we have no bargaining power, and are forced to humbly approach those who do.

RJDC doesn't offically represent all regional pilots, but ask other employee groups what the percentage of contributing RJDC supporters are and I bet they'll say it's more than what it actually is. The impression is that the RJDC has a greater following than it does because it throws itself around as though it does.

If the RJDC really represented the majority they would be seeking a concensus of all commuter pilots, not just a few. No one I know has been asked by the RJDC how we feel about their views or actions.They have been acting unilaterally doing things the majority of us don't want them to do, under the guise of our reprentatives.