Comair President "Moves On"

[General Lee]

N2246J,



Have you brought anything useful to this forum? Doubt it. This forum is for anyone with info or opinions, and I have both. I have also contributed $$$ to this board, so I CAN STAY. You have a great day.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[N2264J]

This forum is for anyone with info or opinions, and I have both. I have also contributed $$$ to this board, so I CAN STAY.

I rest my case.

 

[General Lee]

N2246J,


Yes, you do----and I win, AGAIN. (great come back)


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[doh]

Really you guys, "I know you are but what am I" is no way to go through life! This is a celebration of Randy's demise. Here's hoping Kermit, Oz, and Piper soon follow!

 

[surplus1]

This is a celebration of Randy's demise. Here's hoping Kermit, Oz, and Piper soon follow!

You're "celebrating" the replacement of RR with FB? Either you're a Delta pilot or you fell off a turnip truck.

 

[FDJ2]

Do you really think this is the intent of the RJDC? To eliminate scope?

It's not what I think, Oakum, the elimination of scope is in their lawsuit.

 

[FDJ2]

The CMR MEC months ago came out with a proclamation that supported the hiring of furloughed ALPA pilots new hire jobs regardless whether they resign their seniority number and that's a fact.

The RJDC's lawsuit claim for relief as written in the lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent ALPA from negotiating scope clauses when all the affected parties are not allowed to participate in the bargaining process.

Reread your quote, the answer is right there, ""(e) to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated."

Thanks for proving my point. What was the CMR MEC's position in Decmber 2003. Thank you very little.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction against scope clauses. All scope clauses limit other pilots. For example your CMR scope clause places limits on MESA pilots, CHQ pilots etc. No other pilot but a CMR pilot can fly CMR code or CMR aircraft. If the RJDC had its way those limits would have to go away. Luckily for all of us the RJDC is doing poorly because they have such a weak case.

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ2:

What you are overlooking is that ALPA is negotiating with Delta to control Delta subsidiary flying. The RJDC lawsuit sounds a lot like ALPA's own "Brand Scope." The RJDC lawsuit would actually promote "all Delta flying done by Delta pilots" which is a whole lot better than what you have now.

It appears Comair's new President is contemplating exit strategies after Delta and your scope does not seem to be restricting his range of possibilities.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050119/BIZ01/501190320/1076/BIZ

If it happens, it will probably look a little like Republic and labor costs can be driven down using the same J4J program with the accompanying loss of longevity, pay and benefits. Of course I expect the Delta MEC would support such a plan in order to preserve ALPA Apartied until the very end.

 

[N2264J]

You're "celebrating" the replacement of RR with FB? Either you're a Delta pilot or you fell off a turnip truck.

Must be a new guy.

The ironey of the situation as paraprashed in the Cincinnati Enquirer is that Buttrell as DCI chief allowed the growth to be farmed out this year because Comair's labor costs were too high.

Now, the pressure is on him to get whatever growth he can to build his new empire and mitigate his demotion in the eyes of the Borg.

But you know what? Comair pilots don't believe in the hokey "fee for departure" hooey levied on the wholly owns. It's fake, Monopoly money, snake oil and we're not buying. When Portfolio Phred comes calling for concessions, we must demand to see the books, the books for the whole company and the 5 to 10 year plans so we can bargain accordingly. We need to start thinking in terms of extending the contract, holding on to what we have now, and in effect, making a loan to the company with interest. Profit sharing, stock options and snap back provisions should be part of the deal - all verifiable with financial data provided by Delta Air Lines.

ALPA will be no help. In fact, we can count on them to be misleading and diversionary to protect the interests of the mainline pilots so we're on our own. As long as we understand that going in, we'll be OK.

And if they don't want to confide in us about Delta Air Line's financial position, where Comair and ASA are in that, what their plans are for the wholly owns, why Delta is currently ceded profits to other share holder groups (the contractors), and how they justify three redundant sets of management when the company is bleeding cash, then it's "full pay to the last day."

Captain Paul Lackie is an international business major and I get the impression that he paid attention in class. He has a strategy in mind and, in my view, it's sound. Since ALPA can't be trusted to provide us comprehensive finanicial and economic analysis on the company, it is important we have Captain Lackie in the MEC Chairman position for the next term and we'll get through this alright.

Call all your status reps.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

More important than the Comair MEC's position 13 months ago is their postion in January 2005. Do they support the hiring of Delta furloughees without resigning their seniority number? Yes, they do. Your post implies otherwise. If you want to get your panties all wadded up about what is past then so be it but it is flat out wrong to say it is current policy.

Your perverted sense of scope shows how much we differ on the view of scope clauses. Nice try saying that all scope clauses implicitly limit other pilots because how could anyone be against that? But my scope clause does not limit Mesa pilots as you state in your example. it only says that if a pilot flies a Comair aircraft, then they have to be on our list. My scope clause does not specify the size of the aircraft some other pilot group operates, the number of block hours they fly, the average stage length, or a hub concentration percentage -- but your's does.

Guess the courts are going to have to settle this after all in the absence of a settlement process. Have a nice one.

 

[SkylerS]

Hey General and FDJ2,

I'm still waiting for an answer.

Would you rather have the good pilots of Comair as your allies, or the others (Skywest, Mesa, and such)?

--Sky

SkylerS,


Hey, it's too bad few pilots chose to show their disagreement with management or Comair's MEC during all of this. I guess it just was the "heard mentality." Some pilot groups chose to stand up for what was right, and they will be rewarded. I am sure there will be eventual interviews for anyone, though.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

SkylerS,


What happened to being our ally when we had 1310 furloughs? Is it only "convienent" to be our ally when you need us? We were your ally when you struck. We were. We did whatever we could do that was legal at the time. A lot of us paid extra alpa dues (along with everyone else at ALPA) and hoped you would win. You seem to overlook that, but a lot of the guys who were furloughed will never forget that. I wasn't furloughed, but many of my friends were, and it would have been nice to have had an offer of some sort of emplyment, like ASA offered, at the time for them.

There just wasn't a lot of vocal oppostion to your company policy---and that is what most people here will remember I think.

But, I am sure you guys will be offered some sort of interviews when the time comes eventually.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2:

What you are overlooking is that ALPA is negotiating with Delta to control Delta subsidiary flying.

There is no Delta subsidiary flying, just DL code flying, which is and was subject to the conditions set forth in the DAL PWA.

 

[FDJ2]

More important than the Comair MEC's position 13 months ago is their postion in January 2005. Do they support the hiring of Delta furloughees without resigning their seniority number? Yes, they do.

What was the position of the CMR MEC up until 3 months ago? To support a policy that would deny furloughed ALPA pilots jobs at CMR unless they resigned there recall rights. Very nice.

As for your comments regarding scope, well, once again you prove my point. The CMR scope clause places limits on other pilots flying CMR routes, code, aircraft, etc. Just like DAL scope. You even have language in your PWA that allows CMR to own and operate a separate subsidiary, not on the CMR seniority list, so long as they fly smaller aircraft. Just like DAL does. You see, an RJDC victory eliminating scope would allow MESA pilots to fly CMR jets on DL code flights, since it would eliminate your predatory scope language.

Regardless, the RJDC sees the weakness in there own case. What's it been a year and a half since judge Glassers' decision that he has subject matter jurisdiction and the RJDC still hasn't been able to move the case forward. What are they waiting for? The language in the DAL PWA has been available to them since day one, even before discovery. If the RJDC truly thought the language in the DAL PWA violated the DFR, then what's the hang up?

 

[doh]

Surplus1,

I have been around 7 years at CMR. Butt rell doesn't really worry me too much.

 

[SkylerS]

General, you still haven't answered the question.

This is the here and now. Who do you consider your best ally? It's a very simple question.

--Sky

SkylerS,


What happened to being our ally when we had 1310 furloughs? Is it only "convienent" to be our ally when you need us? We were your ally when you struck. We were. We did whatever we could do that was legal at the time. A lot of us paid extra alpa dues (along with everyone else at ALPA) and hoped you would win. You seem to overlook that, but a lot of the guys who were furloughed will never forget that. I wasn't furloughed, but many of my friends were, and it would have been nice to have had an offer of some sort of emplyment, like ASA offered, at the time for them.

There just wasn't a lot of vocal oppostion to your company policy---and that is what most people here will remember I think.

But, I am sure you guys will be offered some sort of interviews when the time comes eventually.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[spinproof]

Actually a more important question is whether he knows the difference between "Heard" and "Herd".

 

[spinproof]

What was the position of the CMR MEC up until 3 months ago? To support a policy that would deny furloughed ALPA pilots jobs at CMR unless they resigned there recall rights. Very nice.

What may we ask was your policy on "one list"?

 

[FlyComAirJets]

What was the position of the CMR MEC up until 3 months ago? To support a policy that would deny furloughed ALPA pilots jobs at CMR unless they resigned there recall rights. Very nice.

I guess this is once again the classic, 'glass is half empty, no it's half full' argument that characterizes so many of these discussions. It seems to me what current MEC policy is more relevent but if you want to look at past practices, bring it on. I have asked this before, but why did it take a year for the DAL MEC to even approach the Comair MEC on this matter and only at the behest of local member resolution? Accounts of the DAL MEC's demanding demeanor at the meeting did not flatter them. They never returned for further discussion either.

As for your comments regarding scope, well, once again you prove my point. The CMR scope clause places limits on other pilots flying CMR routes, code, aircraft, etc. Just like DAL scope. You even have language in your PWA that allows CMR to own and operate a separate subsidiary, not on the CMR seniority list, so long as they fly smaller aircraft. Just like DAL does. You see, an RJDC victory eliminating scope would allow MESA pilots to fly CMR jets on DL code flights, since it would eliminate your predatory scope language.


How do I "prove" your point? There is no language in our Pilot Agreement that limits other pilots flying CMR routes (just what is a CMR route anyway? it is not in the Definitions section), or code, or whatever you are babbling about. None. So no, it is not "just like the DAL scope," not even close. There are some temporary (90 days) exemptions for dry leasing but that presumes no qualified Comair pilots and can't cause a furlough. Elimination of scope would have no effect on "allow[ing] MESA pilots to fly CMR jets on DL code flight." After all, our scope clause didn't stop Chautauqua from displacing us in Orlando or ACA from doing a substantial amount of local CVG flying for several years.

There is language in the contract that if Comair were to purchase another similiar company (with what, jelly beans?) then they would have to merge them "in a fair and equitable manner" via the Allegheny-Mohwawk provisions. It does not cover dissimiliar airlines such as helicopter operations (although we have more great chopper pilots than just about anyone) or small aircraft operations, <20 seats, for example. Again, we have the half-empty, half-full argument, it's not that we wouldn't want to merge with those companies, rather, that is the limit to what our negotiators could achieve. And indeed, we still are trying to achieve a merge with ASA. You are confusing us with the DAL MEC, we want to merge. Your MEC's actions at the PID demonstrate clearly how you feel about that, they haven't come out with a new policy, have they?


Regardless, the RJDC sees the weakness in there own case. What's it been a year and a half since judge Glassers' decision that he has subject matter jurisdiction and the RJDC still hasn't been able to move the case forward. What are they waiting for? The language in the DAL PWA has been available to them since day one, even before discovery. If the RJDC truly thought the language in the DAL PWA violated the DFR, then what's the hang up?

You are confusing ALPA's foot dragging with alleged lack of merit of the case. Too bad for you, the process is resolutely moving forward. Discovery is just around the corner. See ya in court!

......

 

[General Lee]

Sky,


The ASA pilots.



Spinproof,

Thank gawd you are here to "proof" read me. Yeah, I can't spell sometimes.



Bye Bye--General Lee