General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
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
Comair/ASA guys...check it out
- Thread starter Networ-King
- Start date
- Watchers 11
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
CF34-3B1
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2002
- Posts
- 831
It's my understanding (and I may have read it wrong) that until DCI hits 125 70 seaters, there's no requirement for increased block hours at mainline.General Lee said:
So the additional 70s over the current limit of 57 (but less than 125) will not result in any additional mainline flying. Just the opposite.
Let's say best case ASA's 25 CR2 orders are converted to CR7's. Now we're at 82 CR7's at DCI. That leaves 43 additional 70 seaters to go before the 10,000 block hour increase per airplane kicks in.
43 airframes is a lot of flying. Does anyone really think those airplanes will only be used as hub feed?
The original point of this thread was that the TA sought to keep the DCI bar from being lowered, so as to reduce the downward pressure on mainline.
The point I've been trying to make is that by removing the restriction on non permitted AC types it opens the door for Mesa, and creates a loophole big enough to drive an EMB170 through.
I know the TA screws the furloughed guys, and DALPA pretty much has a gun to its head in the form of CH11, but the feeling among some posters on this thread seems to be that the WO pilots will benifit from it, and should be grateful.
All I'm saying is I don't expect to see much growth at the WO's if the low bidder is going to get all the new 70's.
If a furloughed guy is going to fly a CR7, I just wish it could be done under the DAL contract and not the mesa one.
wil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 488
Why not just take those additional frames convert them to 90 seaters and put them on mainline and bring the furloughs back? Is this possible?
While I would love the additional flying it does not help us at DCI(those pilots that want to move on) if mainline does not grow. Cheers, Wil
While I would love the additional flying it does not help us at DCI(those pilots that want to move on) if mainline does not grow. Cheers, Wil
Last edited:
singlespeed
building turbine time
- Joined
- May 19, 2003
- Posts
- 186
Tim47SIP
Serving for the USofA
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,157
Question?
The 25% that DCI is to be afforded by this TA (which I am greatfull for!!) means what? Is it 25% of all Delta flying or 25% of total DCI flying? If it is 25% of DCI flying which is 49% of all Delta flying, then that 25% really is only 12-15% of all Delta flying. We are way over that now. If it is 25% of total flying, I am not sure of where the WO's are in relation to percentages of the total flying, but I would assume that we are close or over that percentage.
What I am getting at here is the reason behined the 25% number. What do you guys suppose the intent behind this scope provision was. I am hoping that it has something to do with getting the furloughs into the WO system, but I just don't know.
What do you mean it will be harder to get it back to mainline? After 125 total 70 seat RJs, the next 50 are based off of 10,000 extra block hours for each new 70 seater. That will result in mainline growth, and our furloughs will be back by then.
This is about the 20th or so interpritation of how these things are going to be allowed into the system. General, is this the real thing or are there some fine points burried in the TA. Just curious. Thanks.
The 25% that DCI is to be afforded by this TA (which I am greatfull for!!) means what? Is it 25% of all Delta flying or 25% of total DCI flying? If it is 25% of DCI flying which is 49% of all Delta flying, then that 25% really is only 12-15% of all Delta flying. We are way over that now. If it is 25% of total flying, I am not sure of where the WO's are in relation to percentages of the total flying, but I would assume that we are close or over that percentage.
What I am getting at here is the reason behined the 25% number. What do you guys suppose the intent behind this scope provision was. I am hoping that it has something to do with getting the furloughs into the WO system, but I just don't know.
What do you mean it will be harder to get it back to mainline? After 125 total 70 seat RJs, the next 50 are based off of 10,000 extra block hours for each new 70 seater. That will result in mainline growth, and our furloughs will be back by then.
This is about the 20th or so interpritation of how these things are going to be allowed into the system. General, is this the real thing or are there some fine points burried in the TA. Just curious. Thanks.
Networ-King
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2003
- Posts
- 625
AAAHHHH the almight toolboy speaketh again...... let me tell you what a sniviling (sp?) prick you sound like in your above statement....CF34-3B1 said:
All Im saying is the 25% of the growth that this TA gives MY company is not enough and should be 100%, because I want the furloughed guys, that are going to be at the rock bottom of the seniority list, to get the flying!!!!! Like someone already said.... most furloughed guys have put in their time and move on and are qualified enough to find jobs, whether flying or not, that pays a lot more then your 1st year guys get. Been there done that, burned the t-shirt already...... The fact that mainline is getting 0% growth and Comair/ASA are getting 25% is a bunch of sh!t that we as the furloughed have no control over. Im sorry if you think that DALPA should negotiate for you instead of the furloughed guys and secure your fuking MEMEME flying.....because you understand absolutely nothing about business...... Management will wipsaw all pilot groups against each other....its just the fact of who ends up selling out so go bash mesa, chq or whoever you think is to blame for you not getting ALL of
Delta's growth...its business....I don't like to see any DCI carrier getting mainline growth, but guess what, its business. Thats what you have no understanding of to this day. All I meant by my original post was to let you guys know that DALPA and the majority of Delta pilots want Comair/ASA payscale to get better and not worse.... ie no freaking paycuts like some have been saying here......
Now I did post that there were some militant pricks out there (insert your name here CF34) that will spin this into a ....thats not enough growth for me and then make is sound like....its for YOUR fuloughed guys..... Do you get it now?
And feel free to correct my grammer and spelling all you want and then start bashing DALPA again for not taking care your company in this TA.
mommy mommy these big bad mainline guys only gave us 25% of the flying
Cry me a fuking river...... you idiot...................
Last edited:
InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
ALPA’s Silence Raises Serious Questions Concerning New Delta Agreement
More than a week after ALPA reached a tentative agreement at Delta, the union continues to withhold details of the new small jet restrictions, thus raising serious questions about ALPA’s ultimate intentions. Even as of November 3rd, the Comair pilot leadership said it was still awaiting details from “reliable sources.”
Of special concern is the new requirement that ASA and Comair must hire Delta pilots before they can operate additional 70-seat aircraft. In so doing, ALPA has again violated its duty to the ASA and Comair pilots by permitting the Delta pilot leadership to unilaterally impose special conditions on the growth of ASA and Comair. More ominously, ALPA has used similar contractual mechanisms at other carriers to unilaterally grant “mainline” pilots special pay, employment, and seniority rights at the expense of “regional” union members.
That ASA and Comair leaders are forced to rely on “sources” exposes ALPA’s secretive conduct. The absence of details confirms that ALPA’s officials and staff are withholding pertinent information and that ASA and Comair pilots have (again) been excluded from a process that directly affects their interests. In doing so, ALPA has shown that the “improved” working relationship between the ASA, Comair, and Delta pilot leaders is, at best, superficial.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/negotiators_notepad.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/J4J_FactSheet.pdf
ALPA Prohibits Mesaba and Pinnacle from Obtaining New Small Jets
On October 16th, ALPA’s leadership at Northwest Airlines announced that the union reached a “Bridge/Investment” agreement intended to help the company avert financial problems similar to those encountered by USAirways, United, and Delta. However, the new agreement also contained provisions effectively prohibiting Mesaba and Pinnacle from operating any of the additional 40 small-jets “permitted under the new agreement. The union hypocritically required that new small jet flying be outsourced.
The RJDC has long warned that ALPA was engaged in economic warfare against an aircraft that mainline members erroneously deem a “threat.” Here, despite ALPA acknowledging the importance of the small-jet to Northwest’s success, it nonetheless is actively denying growth opportunities to Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots so that corporate funds cannot be used to acquire the “wrong” aircraft. Furthermore, since small jet restrictions also define ALPA’s demographics, the forced distribution of small jet flying among numerous “affiliate” carriers also protects the political power of the union’s “mainline” interests.
ALPA’s actions at Northwest again illustrate the union’s inherent and irreconcilable conflict of interest. As the exclusive bargaining agent of Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots, ALPA has a duty to work for, not against, their interests. ALPA’s demands that future small jets be outsourced are not only hypocritical, but a powerful example of how ALPA works against those it has a duty to represent. The union’s actions also prove that ALPA’s “brand” or “family” scope initiatives are merely political camouflage for the union’s business-as-usual approach to mainline bargaining and the unilateral imposition of small-jet restrictions.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/ziplines_101804.pdf
ALPA Boasts that it was “Paid” $15-Million Dollars for NWA Small Jet Agreement
In an effort to convince the Northwest pilots to accept the new “Bridge/Investment” agreement, ALPA boasted that it received a $15-million dollar bargaining credit in exchange for “permitting” the company to increase its 50-seat RJ flying. Likewise, ALPA went to great lengths to claim that the increase in small-jet flying would pose no threat to mainline job security.
In its summary of the Northwest agreement, ALPA stated the following about small-jets and scope:
Ø The Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar bargaining credit.
Ø Increased small-jet flying posed no threat to mainline job security.
Ø Northwest needed to deploy additional small jets in order to remain competitive.
Ø Increased small-jet flying would produce badly needed revenues for the company.
In its efforts to promote the new Northwest agreement, ALPA has affirmed the RJDC’s contention that small-jet restrictions do not enhance mainline “job security” but are instead used by ALPA’s mainline interests as bargaining capital. More importantly, ALPA has confirmed that its arguments defending the need for small jet restrictions are patently false. Small jets of all sizes continue to play a growing and vital role in the recovery of network carriers and restricting their use is not only bad business, but an egregious violation of ALPA’s duties to the thousands of ALPA members who depended directly and indirectly upon the small jet for their livelihoods.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/NWAtasummary.pdf
ALPA’s Letter to Mesaba Pilots Illustrates Why Legal Action is Necessary
In the aftermath of ALPA’s Northwest agreement, the chairman of Mesaba’s MEC sent to all Mesaba pilots a letter that conceded ALPA’s new mainline agreement was inconsistent with ALPA’s “family” or “brand scope” promises. The letter also confirmed that ALPA’s new agreement specifically prohibited Mesaba from operating any of the additional “permitted” small jets. However, instead of defending the interests of the Mesaba pilots, the letter defended the union’s bad faith conduct, including how ALPA “does not wish to allow NWA to finance aircraft not flown by mainline pilots.”
In characteristic fashion, ALPA’s letter glossed over the union’s glaring conflict of interest and the fact that ALPA violated yet again its duties to the Mesaba pilots. The letter also attempted to mislead the Mesaba pilots by portraying the new agreement as a “sacrifice” by the mainline interests, while ignoring the fact that the Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar “bargaining credit” in exchange for the new small-jet restrictions.
Significantly, the letter’s author is also an ALPA Executive Vice-President and the co-chair of ALPA’s Bilateral Scope Impact Committee (BSIC.) ALPA’s officers, including all if its Vice-Presidents, have refused repeated written requests to investigate the legitimacy and fairness of the union’s mainline bargaining practices. Likewise, ALPA’s BSIC Committee has ignored the real issues at the heart of the union’s “scope” problems and, not surprisingly, has elected to characterize quantifiable objections concerning ALPA’s mainline scope practices as mere “perceptions” and “feelings.”
While ALPA says the ongoing litigation is meritless, its own actions affirm that the union will ignore its duties to its “regional” members whenever it is politically expedient. As the Courts have ruled, the intent of having judicial oversight over a union is to ensure that union members are never left without recourse or remedy. When ALPA’s officials defend the union’s conduct while conveniently refusing to investigate its legitimacy, the need for legal intervention becomes even more apparent.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/msa_hotline_102704.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/woerth041803.pdf
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
Industry Update
November 8, 2004
ALPA’s Silence Raises Serious Questions Concerning New Delta Agreement
More than a week after ALPA reached a tentative agreement at Delta, the union continues to withhold details of the new small jet restrictions, thus raising serious questions about ALPA’s ultimate intentions. Even as of November 3rd, the Comair pilot leadership said it was still awaiting details from “reliable sources.”
Of special concern is the new requirement that ASA and Comair must hire Delta pilots before they can operate additional 70-seat aircraft. In so doing, ALPA has again violated its duty to the ASA and Comair pilots by permitting the Delta pilot leadership to unilaterally impose special conditions on the growth of ASA and Comair. More ominously, ALPA has used similar contractual mechanisms at other carriers to unilaterally grant “mainline” pilots special pay, employment, and seniority rights at the expense of “regional” union members.
That ASA and Comair leaders are forced to rely on “sources” exposes ALPA’s secretive conduct. The absence of details confirms that ALPA’s officials and staff are withholding pertinent information and that ASA and Comair pilots have (again) been excluded from a process that directly affects their interests. In doing so, ALPA has shown that the “improved” working relationship between the ASA, Comair, and Delta pilot leaders is, at best, superficial.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/negotiators_notepad.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/J4J_FactSheet.pdf
ALPA Prohibits Mesaba and Pinnacle from Obtaining New Small Jets
On October 16th, ALPA’s leadership at Northwest Airlines announced that the union reached a “Bridge/Investment” agreement intended to help the company avert financial problems similar to those encountered by USAirways, United, and Delta. However, the new agreement also contained provisions effectively prohibiting Mesaba and Pinnacle from operating any of the additional 40 small-jets “permitted under the new agreement. The union hypocritically required that new small jet flying be outsourced.
The RJDC has long warned that ALPA was engaged in economic warfare against an aircraft that mainline members erroneously deem a “threat.” Here, despite ALPA acknowledging the importance of the small-jet to Northwest’s success, it nonetheless is actively denying growth opportunities to Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots so that corporate funds cannot be used to acquire the “wrong” aircraft. Furthermore, since small jet restrictions also define ALPA’s demographics, the forced distribution of small jet flying among numerous “affiliate” carriers also protects the political power of the union’s “mainline” interests.
ALPA’s actions at Northwest again illustrate the union’s inherent and irreconcilable conflict of interest. As the exclusive bargaining agent of Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots, ALPA has a duty to work for, not against, their interests. ALPA’s demands that future small jets be outsourced are not only hypocritical, but a powerful example of how ALPA works against those it has a duty to represent. The union’s actions also prove that ALPA’s “brand” or “family” scope initiatives are merely political camouflage for the union’s business-as-usual approach to mainline bargaining and the unilateral imposition of small-jet restrictions.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/ziplines_101804.pdf
ALPA Boasts that it was “Paid” $15-Million Dollars for NWA Small Jet Agreement
In an effort to convince the Northwest pilots to accept the new “Bridge/Investment” agreement, ALPA boasted that it received a $15-million dollar bargaining credit in exchange for “permitting” the company to increase its 50-seat RJ flying. Likewise, ALPA went to great lengths to claim that the increase in small-jet flying would pose no threat to mainline job security.
In its summary of the Northwest agreement, ALPA stated the following about small-jets and scope:
Ø The Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar bargaining credit.
Ø Increased small-jet flying posed no threat to mainline job security.
Ø Northwest needed to deploy additional small jets in order to remain competitive.
Ø Increased small-jet flying would produce badly needed revenues for the company.
In its efforts to promote the new Northwest agreement, ALPA has affirmed the RJDC’s contention that small-jet restrictions do not enhance mainline “job security” but are instead used by ALPA’s mainline interests as bargaining capital. More importantly, ALPA has confirmed that its arguments defending the need for small jet restrictions are patently false. Small jets of all sizes continue to play a growing and vital role in the recovery of network carriers and restricting their use is not only bad business, but an egregious violation of ALPA’s duties to the thousands of ALPA members who depended directly and indirectly upon the small jet for their livelihoods.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/NWAtasummary.pdf
ALPA’s Letter to Mesaba Pilots Illustrates Why Legal Action is Necessary
In the aftermath of ALPA’s Northwest agreement, the chairman of Mesaba’s MEC sent to all Mesaba pilots a letter that conceded ALPA’s new mainline agreement was inconsistent with ALPA’s “family” or “brand scope” promises. The letter also confirmed that ALPA’s new agreement specifically prohibited Mesaba from operating any of the additional “permitted” small jets. However, instead of defending the interests of the Mesaba pilots, the letter defended the union’s bad faith conduct, including how ALPA “does not wish to allow NWA to finance aircraft not flown by mainline pilots.”
In characteristic fashion, ALPA’s letter glossed over the union’s glaring conflict of interest and the fact that ALPA violated yet again its duties to the Mesaba pilots. The letter also attempted to mislead the Mesaba pilots by portraying the new agreement as a “sacrifice” by the mainline interests, while ignoring the fact that the Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar “bargaining credit” in exchange for the new small-jet restrictions.
Significantly, the letter’s author is also an ALPA Executive Vice-President and the co-chair of ALPA’s Bilateral Scope Impact Committee (BSIC.) ALPA’s officers, including all if its Vice-Presidents, have refused repeated written requests to investigate the legitimacy and fairness of the union’s mainline bargaining practices. Likewise, ALPA’s BSIC Committee has ignored the real issues at the heart of the union’s “scope” problems and, not surprisingly, has elected to characterize quantifiable objections concerning ALPA’s mainline scope practices as mere “perceptions” and “feelings.”
While ALPA says the ongoing litigation is meritless, its own actions affirm that the union will ignore its duties to its “regional” members whenever it is politically expedient. As the Courts have ruled, the intent of having judicial oversight over a union is to ensure that union members are never left without recourse or remedy. When ALPA’s officials defend the union’s conduct while conveniently refusing to investigate its legitimacy, the need for legal intervention becomes even more apparent.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/msa_hotline_102704.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/woerth041803.pdf
InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
Part II
TWA Pilots’ Lawsuit Reinstated by Appeals Court
On October 26, 2004, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a TWA pilot lawsuit against ALPA which claimed the union breached its duty of fair representation to the TWA pilots during the airline’s merger with American. The TWA pilots alleged that ALPA’s simultaneous campaign to woo the American pilots back into ALPA tainted the union’s objectivity and caused the union to prematurely waive the merger protections in the TWA pilots’ contract and to otherwise fail to aggressively defend the interests of its TWA members.
Last year, a lower court dismissed all claims against ALPA, the Allied Pilots Association, AMR Corp., and TWA LLC., in part, because the TWA pilots were more than a year late in filing their lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeals reinstated the claims against ALPA citing the “ray of hope” doctrine. In its ruling, the Appeals Court noted that ALPA told the TWA pilots that their concerns would be addressed through alternative means and therefore the time limits to initiate litigation should not be applied until after all reasonable hope of redress was extinguished.
Of added interest is the role played by Michael Haber, Esq., the same attorney representing ASA, Comair, Piedmont, and Allegheny pilots in their respective lawsuits against ALPA. Prior to oral arguments before the Court, Michael Haber assisted plaintiffs in research and the formulation of crucial arguments. As the TWA pilots noted, they sought out Mr. Haber’s services because of his track record in litigation against ALPA.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/twa_appellant_ruling_2004.pdf
http://www.twapaf.com/
Predatory Mainline Scope Clauses Continue to Create Alter Egos
On October 26th, Trans States management informed its employees that restrictions in the American scope clause, which impose limits on the size of aircraft Trans States can operate under its own code, or that of another carrier, have forced the company to form another airline so that it may pursue additional business opportunities. The announcement means that no fewer than five alter egos have been, or will be, created as result of ill-conceived and misguided small-jet restrictions:
An analysis of the mainline bargaining shows that the creation or growth of “regional” alter-egos is not the result of unintended consequences. By dispersing small-jet flying as widely as possible, “mainline” interests can protect their political power by preventing formation of other large pilot groups and by pitting small-jet pilot groups against each other (i.e. whip-saw.)
The root problem is not the small-jet or managements who wish to cash-in on the union’s hypocrisy. Most, if not all, small jet restrictions are rooted in politics and cannot be validated by objective analysis. Consequently, not only do such restrictions fail to protect “mainline” jobs, the short-sighted motivations behind their creation undermines the collective power of all airline pilots.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/corp_air_announcement.pdf
Commentary: Appeasers Get Eaten
Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last.” History’s lesson is that appeasement typically fails and that failing to resist encourages more aggression. Today, the issue is predatory mainline bargaining and ALPA’s “war” against the small-jet.
Unfortunately, when faced with an aggressor, the lesser side of human nature also leads, predictably, to calls for appeasement. Some calls come from naive individuals who fear the aggressor more than the harm they inflict (upon others). Other calls for appeasement can be more self-serving and are advanced by those who expect personal benefit at the expense of other’s sacrifice.
But the worst form of appeasement originates from those who are in positions of responsibility and who should know better, but who nonetheless are influenced by the allure of political gain or the fear of political retribution. While this week witnessed the Mesaba pilot leadership’s attempt to serve as ALPA’s willing apologist, the ugly truth is that every ALPA injustice is accompanied by official calls for appeasement—both before and after the fact. Here’s a short list of some of the excuses and their inevitable consequences:
PDT, ALG
“Don’t rock the boat.”
Unilateral imposition of no fewer than three different Jets-for-Jobs agreements on a “take it or leave it basis” and the diversion of “promised” small-jets to other new and existing alter-ego carriers.
PSA
“Accept ALPA’s mainline demands in exchange for ‘growth.”
Benefits of promised “growth” lost or greatly reduced when ALPA demanded that 50% of PSA’s pilot schedules be awarded out-of-seniority to mainline pilots.
AMR Eagle
“Wait and see.”
The APA’s “unity” contract proposals turned out to be little more than a hijacking of Eagle’s contract as the APA’s President stated, “we had no choice but to take back our flying.”
MSA, PCL
“Brand Scope will fix the union’s problems.”
ALPA’s NWA pilots unilaterally decide that they will fly all future 70-seat aircraft. NWA pilots call for creation of another “regional” alter-ego carrier and prohibit PCL and MSA from operating additional 50-seat aircraft.
Heretofore, the only difference between ASA/Comair and the other less fortunate “regional” pilot groups is that four years ago the ASA and Comair pilots mounted an aggressive legal defense of their rights. Perhaps the best testament to the effectiveness of our efforts comes from the Delta MEC, which, according to reports, is now telling its own pilots that “legal concerns” had a lot to do with recent changes to the Delta pilots’ scope clause.
That’s not to say we’re out of the woods and that we have nothing more to fear; in fact, the opposite is true. ALPA has thus far withheld pertinent details from the ASA and Comair pilots and, ominously, some reports indicate that a second round of negotiations concerning “preferential hiring” rights still awaits. Furthermore, as we’ve witnessed at USAirways, Delta’s dire financial situation may prompt multiple rounds of concessionary bargaining—including scope negotiations. More importantly, the very same contractual mechanisms that have been repeatedly abused at other ALPA carriers remain intact at Delta, despite claims of numerical “relief.”
In conclusion, it’s very important that ALPA’s members recognize the difference between constructive dialogue and appeasement. If proponents for dialogue ignore ALPA’s bad-faith conduct or promise a benefit in exchange for a continued injustice, then it’s not a solution but rather another call for appeasement. As we have repeatedly and recently witnessed, appeasement proponents and their naive supporters invariably get eaten.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/cooksey_ford_to_Woerth_02-26-04.pdf
___________________________________
Click this link to add or update your e-mail address
To Remove your e-mail from our list, please click here.
TWA Pilots’ Lawsuit Reinstated by Appeals Court
On October 26, 2004, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a TWA pilot lawsuit against ALPA which claimed the union breached its duty of fair representation to the TWA pilots during the airline’s merger with American. The TWA pilots alleged that ALPA’s simultaneous campaign to woo the American pilots back into ALPA tainted the union’s objectivity and caused the union to prematurely waive the merger protections in the TWA pilots’ contract and to otherwise fail to aggressively defend the interests of its TWA members.
Last year, a lower court dismissed all claims against ALPA, the Allied Pilots Association, AMR Corp., and TWA LLC., in part, because the TWA pilots were more than a year late in filing their lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeals reinstated the claims against ALPA citing the “ray of hope” doctrine. In its ruling, the Appeals Court noted that ALPA told the TWA pilots that their concerns would be addressed through alternative means and therefore the time limits to initiate litigation should not be applied until after all reasonable hope of redress was extinguished.
Of added interest is the role played by Michael Haber, Esq., the same attorney representing ASA, Comair, Piedmont, and Allegheny pilots in their respective lawsuits against ALPA. Prior to oral arguments before the Court, Michael Haber assisted plaintiffs in research and the formulation of crucial arguments. As the TWA pilots noted, they sought out Mr. Haber’s services because of his track record in litigation against ALPA.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/twa_appellant_ruling_2004.pdf
http://www.twapaf.com/
Predatory Mainline Scope Clauses Continue to Create Alter Egos
On October 26th, Trans States management informed its employees that restrictions in the American scope clause, which impose limits on the size of aircraft Trans States can operate under its own code, or that of another carrier, have forced the company to form another airline so that it may pursue additional business opportunities. The announcement means that no fewer than five alter egos have been, or will be, created as result of ill-conceived and misguided small-jet restrictions:
- <LI class=MsoNormal>Mid-Atlantic Airways (USAirways) <LI class=MsoNormal>Freedom Airlines (Mesa) <LI class=MsoNormal>Republic Airlines (Republic Holdings, d.b.a. as Chautauqua) <LI class=MsoNormal>NWA-70 (proposed at Northwest)
- New Corp Air (Trans States)
An analysis of the mainline bargaining shows that the creation or growth of “regional” alter-egos is not the result of unintended consequences. By dispersing small-jet flying as widely as possible, “mainline” interests can protect their political power by preventing formation of other large pilot groups and by pitting small-jet pilot groups against each other (i.e. whip-saw.)
The root problem is not the small-jet or managements who wish to cash-in on the union’s hypocrisy. Most, if not all, small jet restrictions are rooted in politics and cannot be validated by objective analysis. Consequently, not only do such restrictions fail to protect “mainline” jobs, the short-sighted motivations behind their creation undermines the collective power of all airline pilots.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/corp_air_announcement.pdf
Commentary: Appeasers Get Eaten
Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping that it will eat him last.” History’s lesson is that appeasement typically fails and that failing to resist encourages more aggression. Today, the issue is predatory mainline bargaining and ALPA’s “war” against the small-jet.
Unfortunately, when faced with an aggressor, the lesser side of human nature also leads, predictably, to calls for appeasement. Some calls come from naive individuals who fear the aggressor more than the harm they inflict (upon others). Other calls for appeasement can be more self-serving and are advanced by those who expect personal benefit at the expense of other’s sacrifice.
But the worst form of appeasement originates from those who are in positions of responsibility and who should know better, but who nonetheless are influenced by the allure of political gain or the fear of political retribution. While this week witnessed the Mesaba pilot leadership’s attempt to serve as ALPA’s willing apologist, the ugly truth is that every ALPA injustice is accompanied by official calls for appeasement—both before and after the fact. Here’s a short list of some of the excuses and their inevitable consequences:
Airline
Excuse
Result
“Don’t rock the boat.”
Unilateral imposition of no fewer than three different Jets-for-Jobs agreements on a “take it or leave it basis” and the diversion of “promised” small-jets to other new and existing alter-ego carriers.
PSA
“Accept ALPA’s mainline demands in exchange for ‘growth.”
Benefits of promised “growth” lost or greatly reduced when ALPA demanded that 50% of PSA’s pilot schedules be awarded out-of-seniority to mainline pilots.
AMR Eagle
“Wait and see.”
The APA’s “unity” contract proposals turned out to be little more than a hijacking of Eagle’s contract as the APA’s President stated, “we had no choice but to take back our flying.”
MSA, PCL
“Brand Scope will fix the union’s problems.”
ALPA’s NWA pilots unilaterally decide that they will fly all future 70-seat aircraft. NWA pilots call for creation of another “regional” alter-ego carrier and prohibit PCL and MSA from operating additional 50-seat aircraft.
Heretofore, the only difference between ASA/Comair and the other less fortunate “regional” pilot groups is that four years ago the ASA and Comair pilots mounted an aggressive legal defense of their rights. Perhaps the best testament to the effectiveness of our efforts comes from the Delta MEC, which, according to reports, is now telling its own pilots that “legal concerns” had a lot to do with recent changes to the Delta pilots’ scope clause.
That’s not to say we’re out of the woods and that we have nothing more to fear; in fact, the opposite is true. ALPA has thus far withheld pertinent details from the ASA and Comair pilots and, ominously, some reports indicate that a second round of negotiations concerning “preferential hiring” rights still awaits. Furthermore, as we’ve witnessed at USAirways, Delta’s dire financial situation may prompt multiple rounds of concessionary bargaining—including scope negotiations. More importantly, the very same contractual mechanisms that have been repeatedly abused at other ALPA carriers remain intact at Delta, despite claims of numerical “relief.”
In conclusion, it’s very important that ALPA’s members recognize the difference between constructive dialogue and appeasement. If proponents for dialogue ignore ALPA’s bad-faith conduct or promise a benefit in exchange for a continued injustice, then it’s not a solution but rather another call for appeasement. As we have repeatedly and recently witnessed, appeasement proponents and their naive supporters invariably get eaten.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/cooksey_ford_to_Woerth_02-26-04.pdf
___________________________________
Click this link to add or update your e-mail address
To Remove your e-mail from our list, please click here.
Tim47SIP
Serving for the USofA
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,157
Could be bad!
Our resident jack-a$$ at ASA, D. Bedson, said that ASA was currently flying 4% of DAL block hours. I don't know if this is even remotely true, but that's what he said.
Well, if this is true, with us at 4% and Comair around 6%, that puts us near 10% which is just under the 12.5% of total Delta flight hours or 25% of total DCI flying. We are just about there now. If this is the case, Schitaco, Skypest and ??? (Republic) will get most of the aircraft. I am hoping this is incorrect and that the 25% is total Delta flying. But even so, it allows all other contract carriers the other 24% to expand. But the 25% in itself is a welcome offer from DALPA if it works out that way. I hope they (DALPA) get back on their feet ASAP and Delta comes out a better airline. We will see.
Our resident jack-a$$ at ASA, D. Bedson, said that ASA was currently flying 4% of DAL block hours. I don't know if this is even remotely true, but that's what he said.
Well, if this is true, with us at 4% and Comair around 6%, that puts us near 10% which is just under the 12.5% of total Delta flight hours or 25% of total DCI flying. We are just about there now. If this is the case, Schitaco, Skypest and ??? (Republic) will get most of the aircraft. I am hoping this is incorrect and that the 25% is total Delta flying. But even so, it allows all other contract carriers the other 24% to expand. But the 25% in itself is a welcome offer from DALPA if it works out that way. I hope they (DALPA) get back on their feet ASAP and Delta comes out a better airline. We will see.
InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
Tim47SIP said:Our resident jack-a$$ at ASA, D. Bedson, said that ASA was currently flying 4% of DAL block hours. I don't know if this is even remotely true, but that's what he said.
Well, if this is true, with us at 4% and Comair around 6%, that puts us near 10% which is just under the 12.5% of total Delta flight hours or 25% of total DCI flying. We are just about there now. If this is the case, Schitaco, Skypest and ??? (Republic) will get most of the aircraft. I am hoping this is incorrect and that the 25% is total Delta flying. But even so, it allows all other contract carriers the other 24% to expand. But the 25% in itself is a welcome offer from DALPA if it works out that way. I hope they (DALPA) get back on their feet ASAP and Delta comes out a better airline. We will see.
I don't know what DB said, but I do still have my notes from Skip's last state of the company meeting. As of Sept. '03 here is the breakdown on Delta flying:
45% DAL
20% CMR
17% ASA
10% SKYW
4% ACA
4% CHQ
ASA and CMR were already at 37% of Delta flying over a year ago. So as you can see, 25% of Delta flying is not a gain for us as we already do considerably more than that.
michael707767
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,640
michael707767
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,640
InclusiveScope said:
Give me a break. Prior to our TA you were whining about jets for jobs. It didn't happen. Now, your company has to do nothing more than offer preferential hiring to get more 70 seaters. Not jets for jobs, no displacement of pilots. The guys hired go to the bottom. How can you possibly have a problem with that, especially since your own union leader has recently said he has no problem hiring furloughed Delta pilots.
Tomct
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2004
- Posts
- 2,062
Networ-king: Dude, you need to chill out before you blow a gasket!! I mean...you would not want to die before you get your job back...Which I hope you do soon...But I think you better ask some of the Senior DALPA members who has been paying the Freakin bills around here for the last 2-3 years. I don't want anyone on the street, but it is life here in the industry(unfortunately) right now. If you don't like it then move on!! The real funny part of all this is while I ride to and from work all I hear is the mainline guys "complaining" that they are at work. Sometimes I don't think any of you "mainline" know what you want. You have forgotten that this is such a great job with the best office view! Even when you were online, I bet you complained while you were at work! Cut the Sh!t because I am getting tired of reading it! ONE LIST would solve all of our problems! I'm sorry you are on the street, but if you don't get a better attitude, you will be dead before you know it with a heart attck!!
Let the flames rise.......
Attitude determines your altitude!
Let the flames rise.......
Attitude determines your altitude!
Networ-King
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2003
- Posts
- 625
tomct,Tomct said:
I don't know what part of my post you're talking about? I was trying to post some positive news about DALPA and these guys come out of the woodworks expecting DALPA to negotiate for them instead of their own. Now thats stupid...... B!tching is a pilots number one job..... flying is second...... Have'nt you ever heard the story of a union getting the best contract in the world, which makes pilots fly once a week, but is EVERY WEDNESDAY of the month? There will alwasy be guys coming back with EVERY WEDNESDAY?
Its not only mainline guys that B!tch either.... my buddies and COEX, AWAC, Comair/ASA and ALG all B!tch up a storm even though they've been employed this whole time..... nature of the beast I guess....
And believe me... Im not delusional (sp?)... I don't think Im ever returning to Delta...thats why Im looking for the "last flying job I'll ever have"
Tomorrow is the day that all the furloughees get sold down the river once again.... JMHO. your mileage may differ.....
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:
