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
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
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.....
FL990
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Posts
- 240
These numbers are refering to the number of flights operated and not block hours. Because the average delta flight is much greater than the average ASA/Comair flight, the two are not equal...while ASA/Comair combine for 37% of the flights (in number) the percentage in block hours is much much less. When i asked, I too was given a number that was very low..(about 6% was the # I got for ASA)InclusiveScope said:
Also, here is a quote from the TA....: 25% of flying of all of Delta Air Lines Inc. flying must be accomplished by ASA and Comair as long as both are wholly owned affiliates...so that should help clear up the original question...in short, if the TA passes, it will help protect growth at ASA/Comair as well as stimulate growth. That is not to say that Chakaka and SKW wont get some of the pie too, but they aren't protected...in other words, if Delta goes above the 50%, ASA/Comair cannot be reduced below 25%, CHQ and Skywest would have to be reduced.
Last edited:
michael707767
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,640
InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
My understanding is that Comair and ASA stock was fully owned by Delta. They used these assets to secure financing with GE Capital and other creditors. Since we are collateral for a loan, I do not know that selling ASA and Comair would net that much money for Delta.michael707767 said:
Of course it could be done and perhaps by setting a 25% floor Delta could convince buyers that ASA and Comair have value in the market. However, with 82% of ASA's passengers feeding Delta flights and with all the shared infrastructure most investors would surely see, as we all do, that Delta's fate and ASA's fate is linked.
Indy air does not look like a business model that anyone will want to follow in the near term. In fact, I'm beginning to have my doubts about Branson jumping into the US market. There just is not any money to be made until at least two majors fail and fuel prices come down.
FL990
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Posts
- 240
Michael,michael707767 said:
I highly doubt that they will sell ASA or Comair. Companies tend to sell NON-profitable assets to generate cash when in financial troubles. It would be counter productive to sell either of these companies when they have yet to produce a loss since being owned by delta. I never say never, of course, but I would be very surprised if they did that.
michael707767
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,640
FL990 said:
I would agree with you except for two things. First, debt is what's killing Delta. Last I heard, of the 21 bil in debt Delta has, about 7 bil of it belongs to ASA and CMR. They could lower their debt right away by selling you guys. Second, from what I heard, CALX is profitable too, yet CAL sold them off (via an IPO). I think Delta will do the same thing.
michael,
Who's going to buy ASA or Comair? I highly doubt any airline or private investor would be willing to buy a company with very little growth potential that's tied to a struggling mainline. The only other option would be an IPO. Why would anyone invest in us? Express Jet was a whole different ball game. They went public with a bunch of RJ's on order and were the exclusive RJ provider until 2007 for CAL. I don't disagree that it would be in Delta's best interests to sell ASA and/or CMR, but I just don't think they're going to find anyone interested right now. That's probably why they're hanging on to us.
Who's going to buy ASA or Comair? I highly doubt any airline or private investor would be willing to buy a company with very little growth potential that's tied to a struggling mainline. The only other option would be an IPO. Why would anyone invest in us? Express Jet was a whole different ball game. They went public with a bunch of RJ's on order and were the exclusive RJ provider until 2007 for CAL. I don't disagree that it would be in Delta's best interests to sell ASA and/or CMR, but I just don't think they're going to find anyone interested right now. That's probably why they're hanging on to us.
michael707767
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2002
- Posts
- 1,640
Oakum_Boy
supercalifragilistic
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Posts
- 2,405
It wouldn't be a bad thing. Then maybe someone will be accountable for our lousy performance numbers. Absolute LAST in baggage handling errors, and when they get a wake-up call when the new ACARS start reporting OOOI times, boy are they in for a dissapointment. That'll last about a day, and they'll say "why do we have a 40% on-time all of a sudden? Must be the pilots fault. No contract for them!"
FL990
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Posts
- 240
So you are saying that only 40% of our flights arive within 15 minutes of scheduled arrival times...because anything inside that 15 minute window is considered ontime. If that is true for you, then maybe YOU need to speed things up, because my flights vary rarely get in outside that 15 minute window and I don't have to fudge the times to make them do so...of course i do most of my flying in Dallas and I am aware that Atlanta has problems...but when the schedule out there is de-peaked, it should help out tremendously.Oakum_Boy said:
Oakum_Boy
supercalifragilistic
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Posts
- 2,405
Yeah, well. That 15 minutes isn't meant for gate miscounts, late boarding, no fuel, no rampers, no release, no catering, no lav service, no cleaning. But you'll firgure out what all that means when you arrive in Atlanta. What I'm saying is that hopefully ACARS will give the crews ability to input delay codes, and the true reason that our flights don't leave the gate when they're scheduled to. Have you ever flown with a real airline, and watched them make haste to close the door by departure time? I'm not saying they don't have delays, but it seems our flight crews are the only ones making a real effort here. We can sit around for 15 minutes figuring out our problems, but that's not what customers want.
FL990
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Posts
- 240
OK, i understand what you mean about the ACARS...i do agree that it would be nice to be able to place blame when its not our fault that the flight is delayed...and my minimal experience in ATL has afforded me the opportunity to taste what you mean when you talk about the rampers, fuelers, catering...etc. I aggree 100%, we need to be able to specify...Oakum_Boy said:
NOW, as for the REAL airline thing....what exactly do you call a real airline, and what real airline, if not ASA, have you worked for? Because I have a feeling that you have never worked for one of these so-called real airlines and furthermore, that the definition you use would exclude about 95% of the airlines in the world.
Last edited:
Oakum_Boy
supercalifragilistic
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2003
- Posts
- 2,405
What I meant was, have you ever been a passenger on a real airline. When you're flying on a mainline flight next time, watch how the door is closed on time. Not always, but I've been commuting a looooonnng time, and I can say that they have their act together. Why? Accountablility. Or take CVG for instance. Have you operated out of the C terminal before? I can remember one time we were like 2 minutes behind schedule, we hadn't closed the door and the gate agent came running out, "why haven't you left yet!?" "Well, we're still waiting on our release from Atlanta."FL990 said:
Don't be too quick defending your employer, they are making a huge effort to stall these contract negotiaions. Check out the MEC website to keep track of how our "gifts" are coming along...
FL990
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Posts
- 240
Yes, I have read the postings on the MEC website and it is very apparent what management is doing. They want to basically give us the same contract we have now...that is what they are doing....The MEC comes up with a progessive proposal, then the company comes back with a regressive proposal...they meet in the middle and vwala, you get what we currently have.
And just so you will know, I am not defending them...if i was talking to them, i would have plenty to say just like i have been ranting on this message board. Its just that I have heard so much whining as of recently...some of it very warranted when you think about guys being forced out of there base and being basically told to move or quit. It sucks and everyone has a right to be upset about it, but we are all adults, so lets not whine like children.
As for what you are saying about the operation in Atlanta, you are right, the people on the ramp don't frikin care. You can show up and you may have 10 guys standing around at the gate next to you and half the time, they just keep standin there. It is a mentality that exists in Atlanta, but not really system wide...I have my theories on that too but i'll just keep those to myself...but anyway, you are correct on this, but i don't believe that this is ASA's fault.
And just so you will know, I am not defending them...if i was talking to them, i would have plenty to say just like i have been ranting on this message board. Its just that I have heard so much whining as of recently...some of it very warranted when you think about guys being forced out of there base and being basically told to move or quit. It sucks and everyone has a right to be upset about it, but we are all adults, so lets not whine like children.
As for what you are saying about the operation in Atlanta, you are right, the people on the ramp don't frikin care. You can show up and you may have 10 guys standing around at the gate next to you and half the time, they just keep standin there. It is a mentality that exists in Atlanta, but not really system wide...I have my theories on that too but i'll just keep those to myself...but anyway, you are correct on this, but i don't believe that this is ASA's fault.
sweptback
Guess that wasn't solid
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Posts
- 1,876
Why does a Delta flight never stop short of the gate to wait for rampers to walk over to the gate? I'm guessing cause ops actually notices when the airplane lands and sends rampers out there to wait for the airplane. That doesn't happen at ASA, I really wonder why I bother to make the call to ops on the ground half the time when we pull up to the gate and see nobody there.FL990 said:
Tomct
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2004
- Posts
- 2,062
Unfortunately for those of us from big "D", it is going to be a painful ride in ATL. You guys are totally right about the mentality thing. I know that the flight crews are busting a$$ to perform better, but the real problem is that there is no accountability in this company. I don't think until Mr. Grinstein gets a closer look, that anything will change at ASA in ATL. All I can say is that I will give it my best to go smoothly!! Hopefully I can get to SLC before to long!!
So I said Yo Lamma....how bout a little sumthin....you know....for the effort...you know...
So I said Yo Lamma....how bout a little sumthin....you know....for the effort...you know...
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:
