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 President "Moves On"
- Thread starter JetPilot_Mike
- Start date
- Watchers 8
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
doh said:
Regardless of how long you've been around your "celebrating" Randy's demise and his replacement with the likes of Fred does not say much to me about your grasp of things. It's not a question of "worrying" about Butrell, I just think you should be able to recognize that he has never been on our side. Leopards don't change their spots. Sorry, but I don't see it as a "good thing" to have a president whose loyalties are to some other company. Time will tell how much your 7 years will be worth when FB is finished "helping us to get back" to the place that HE already helped to take us out of.
While I won't argue with two of your "wishes", I also won't hestitate to tell you that we can do a LOT worse than OZ.
skydiverdriver
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 869
I don't understand why some of you guys keep arguing with the Delta pilots about what the RJDC is all about, and about hiring their pilots. They obviously don't get it, and will keep saying the same things no matter how many times you tell them.
Even Surplus is tired of telling them, so he just ignores them. I do too. The RJDC is not trying to eliminate scope, and the Delta pilots drew first blood with the PID. Those are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed.
It's like arguing with a liberal, just a waste of time.
Even Surplus is tired of telling them, so he just ignores them. I do too. The RJDC is not trying to eliminate scope, and the Delta pilots drew first blood with the PID. Those are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed.
It's like arguing with a liberal, just a waste of time.
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.
And then Surplus contradicts himself.
There are some temporary (90 days) exemptions for dry leasing but that presumes no qualified Comair pilots and can't cause a furlough.
Once again you prove my point, the CMR PWA places arbitrary limits on other pilots and it goes beyond just dry leases.
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.
You appear confused. Elimination of scope would allow MESA pilots to fly CMR aircraft. Currently that is not the case due to your predatory scope clause. Additionally, Chq bumped you out of MCO, but they didn't bump you out of your CMR CRJ. With an RJDC victory, they could do both, since the RJDC lawsuit would prevent the CMR pilots from negotiating scope language that limits CHQ pilots from operating CMR aircraft.
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.
IOW, I was correct that the CMR PWA places arbitrary limits based on aircraft size. Naturally, the RJDC would eliminate those predatory size restrictions aswell as all other scope restrictions. Great.
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.
Somehow when a mainline pilot group encounters a "limit to what our negotiators could achieve", so many state that the mainline pilots don't want it.
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?
Perhaps our MEC recognized the obvious, that had Delta wanted a single seniority list flying RJs they never would have scouted out less costly labor from CMR/ASA and poured billions into acquiring ASA/CMR. There was no requirement for DAL to merge lists, your PWA certainly didn't require it and neither did ours, perhaps that is the limit to what our negotiators could achieve.
And then Surplus contradicts himself.
There are some temporary (90 days) exemptions for dry leasing but that presumes no qualified Comair pilots and can't cause a furlough.
Once again you prove my point, the CMR PWA places arbitrary limits on other pilots and it goes beyond just dry leases.
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.
You appear confused. Elimination of scope would allow MESA pilots to fly CMR aircraft. Currently that is not the case due to your predatory scope clause. Additionally, Chq bumped you out of MCO, but they didn't bump you out of your CMR CRJ. With an RJDC victory, they could do both, since the RJDC lawsuit would prevent the CMR pilots from negotiating scope language that limits CHQ pilots from operating CMR aircraft.
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.
IOW, I was correct that the CMR PWA places arbitrary limits based on aircraft size. Naturally, the RJDC would eliminate those predatory size restrictions aswell as all other scope restrictions. Great.
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.
Somehow when a mainline pilot group encounters a "limit to what our negotiators could achieve", so many state that the mainline pilots don't want it.
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?
Perhaps our MEC recognized the obvious, that had Delta wanted a single seniority list flying RJs they never would have scouted out less costly labor from CMR/ASA and poured billions into acquiring ASA/CMR. There was no requirement for DAL to merge lists, your PWA certainly didn't require it and neither did ours, perhaps that is the limit to what our negotiators could achieve.
Last edited:
FlyComAirJets
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2002
- Posts
- 323
The next time you are in SLC, look for a SkyWest CRJ with a Winter Olympics paint scheme, it has a SkyWest registration number but is a former Comair aircraft that along with some others were sold during our strike. I suppose they could have sold some aircraft to Mesa so, sure, they could be fllying Comair aircraft.
I do not know if I can make this any simpler for you to understand but I will try one last time: Our scope does not limit the flying of other pilots, it only says when pilots fly similar aircraft they will be on our list and at the same payrate. What few temporary exemptions exists still specify that they would receive identical rates of pay and work rules so there is no economic incentive for the company to do so. Our scope is not similar to the predatory nature of your scope.
What you fail repeatedly to grasp is that our scope seeks to be "inclusive," that is, to define what our flying is (the original meaning of scope) rather than mainline scope which has evolved into something that is "exclusive," which seeks to limit the numbers and missions of aircraft that they chose not to fly. It's as if the DAL MEC position is that 'we don't want to fly these aircraft, but we don't want the DCI carriers to fly them either.' And when your MEC figuratively hoisted his middle finger at the ASA/CMR pilots at the PID, he did just that.
As for Chautauqua/Republic, since they are not ALPA-represented but rather Teamsters, there should be no reason for a conflict of interests here, right? I expect my union to conduct themselves in our best interest and hold them accountable for such. The courts understand the union's fudiciary (that means they take my money, I have a twenty year ALPA pin to prove it) responsibility is to us, not to them.
We are on our fourth contract, the ASA pilots are currently negotiating their third. How many contracts over the years has the DAL MEC negotiated, a couple dozen perhaps? I don't see the ASA/CMR pilot contracts headed in the same wrong direction as yours. Every move overtly and behind the scenes indicate that the DAL MEC has aligned itself with management and sought to keep the companies separate. And with ALPA's blessing, it probably will remain so.
Illegal, perhaps not, but short-sghted, most certainly.
I do not know if I can make this any simpler for you to understand but I will try one last time: Our scope does not limit the flying of other pilots, it only says when pilots fly similar aircraft they will be on our list and at the same payrate. What few temporary exemptions exists still specify that they would receive identical rates of pay and work rules so there is no economic incentive for the company to do so. Our scope is not similar to the predatory nature of your scope.
What you fail repeatedly to grasp is that our scope seeks to be "inclusive," that is, to define what our flying is (the original meaning of scope) rather than mainline scope which has evolved into something that is "exclusive," which seeks to limit the numbers and missions of aircraft that they chose not to fly. It's as if the DAL MEC position is that 'we don't want to fly these aircraft, but we don't want the DCI carriers to fly them either.' And when your MEC figuratively hoisted his middle finger at the ASA/CMR pilots at the PID, he did just that.
As for Chautauqua/Republic, since they are not ALPA-represented but rather Teamsters, there should be no reason for a conflict of interests here, right? I expect my union to conduct themselves in our best interest and hold them accountable for such. The courts understand the union's fudiciary (that means they take my money, I have a twenty year ALPA pin to prove it) responsibility is to us, not to them.
We are on our fourth contract, the ASA pilots are currently negotiating their third. How many contracts over the years has the DAL MEC negotiated, a couple dozen perhaps? I don't see the ASA/CMR pilot contracts headed in the same wrong direction as yours. Every move overtly and behind the scenes indicate that the DAL MEC has aligned itself with management and sought to keep the companies separate. And with ALPA's blessing, it probably will remain so.
Illegal, perhaps not, but short-sghted, most certainly.
FlyComAirJets-The next time you are in SLC, look for a SkyWest CRJ with a Winter Olympics paint scheme, it has a SkyWest registration number but is a former Comair aircraft that along with some others were sold during our strike. I suppose they could have sold some aircraft to Mesa so, sure, they could be fllying Comair aircraft.
You don't see your own contradictions? If it is a Skywest registered aircraft, how is it that you can then state that it is a CMR aircraft?
I do not know if I can make this any simpler for you to understand but I will try one last time: Our scope does not limit the flying of other pilots, it only says when pilots fly similar aircraft they will be on our list and at the same payrate.
Unless they fly aircraft smaller than 20 seats (an arbitrary number). Also, you prevent pilots from other seniority lists from flying your aircraft, as does the DAL PWA, with certain size exemptions just like you.
What few temporary exemptions exists still specify that they would receive identical rates of pay and work rules so there is no economic incentive for the company to do so. Our scope is not similar to the predatory nature of your scope.
Yes it it is, it places limits on other pilots not covered by your PWA. It's just that simple. Nothing you have written contradicts that one undeniable fact.
What you fail repeatedly to grasp is that our scope seeks to be "inclusive," that is, to define what our flying is (the original meaning of scope) rather than mainline scope which has evolved into something that is "exclusive," which seeks to limit the numbers and missions of aircraft that they chose not to fly.
We chose not to fly? Nothing in our PWA states that DAL pilots chose not to fly RJs. Produce one centilla of a document that states that the DAL pilots chose not to fly RJs. I would state that we reached the limit of what we could negotiate. I guess I could state that you chose not to fly any DL code since you chose not to negotiate for any DL scope at DCI. What you repeatedly fail to grasp is that all scope is exclusive, it all excludes the opportunity for management to use pilots other than those for which the PWA is negotiated.
It's as if the DAL MEC position is that 'we don't want to fly these aircraft, but we don't want the DCI carriers to fly them either.' And when your MEC figuratively hoisted his middle finger at the ASA/CMR pilots at the PID, he did just that.
Was that during the same time period that the CMR MEC refused to sign a mutual support document and thrust a PID up the chain to ALPA national involving the Delta pilots without first consulting with the Delta MEC, let alone your own membership. You again overstate. Show me a single document that states that the DAL pilots don't want to fly these aircaft. Just more urban myth.
As for Chautauqua/Republic, since they are not ALPA-represented but rather Teamsters, there should be no reason for a conflict of interests here, right? I expect my union to conduct themselves in our best interest and hold them accountable for such. The courts understand the union's fudiciary (that means they take my money, I have a twenty year ALPA pin to prove it) responsibility is to us, not to them.
Indeed they do, and they also understand that the fiduciary duty does not alway cross bargaining unit lines, that is probably why judge Glasser quoted the following:
"Defendants (ALPA) are correct that the LMRDA does not requires a union to extend to members of one bargaining unit the right to participate in the deliberations and vote on the matters before another bargaining unit, even when the second unit’s actions might affect the rights of members in the first unit. See Marshall v. Local Union"
You don't see your own contradictions? If it is a Skywest registered aircraft, how is it that you can then state that it is a CMR aircraft?
I do not know if I can make this any simpler for you to understand but I will try one last time: Our scope does not limit the flying of other pilots, it only says when pilots fly similar aircraft they will be on our list and at the same payrate.
Unless they fly aircraft smaller than 20 seats (an arbitrary number). Also, you prevent pilots from other seniority lists from flying your aircraft, as does the DAL PWA, with certain size exemptions just like you.
What few temporary exemptions exists still specify that they would receive identical rates of pay and work rules so there is no economic incentive for the company to do so. Our scope is not similar to the predatory nature of your scope.
Yes it it is, it places limits on other pilots not covered by your PWA. It's just that simple. Nothing you have written contradicts that one undeniable fact.
What you fail repeatedly to grasp is that our scope seeks to be "inclusive," that is, to define what our flying is (the original meaning of scope) rather than mainline scope which has evolved into something that is "exclusive," which seeks to limit the numbers and missions of aircraft that they chose not to fly.
We chose not to fly? Nothing in our PWA states that DAL pilots chose not to fly RJs. Produce one centilla of a document that states that the DAL pilots chose not to fly RJs. I would state that we reached the limit of what we could negotiate. I guess I could state that you chose not to fly any DL code since you chose not to negotiate for any DL scope at DCI. What you repeatedly fail to grasp is that all scope is exclusive, it all excludes the opportunity for management to use pilots other than those for which the PWA is negotiated.
It's as if the DAL MEC position is that 'we don't want to fly these aircraft, but we don't want the DCI carriers to fly them either.' And when your MEC figuratively hoisted his middle finger at the ASA/CMR pilots at the PID, he did just that.
Was that during the same time period that the CMR MEC refused to sign a mutual support document and thrust a PID up the chain to ALPA national involving the Delta pilots without first consulting with the Delta MEC, let alone your own membership. You again overstate. Show me a single document that states that the DAL pilots don't want to fly these aircaft. Just more urban myth.
As for Chautauqua/Republic, since they are not ALPA-represented but rather Teamsters, there should be no reason for a conflict of interests here, right? I expect my union to conduct themselves in our best interest and hold them accountable for such. The courts understand the union's fudiciary (that means they take my money, I have a twenty year ALPA pin to prove it) responsibility is to us, not to them.
Indeed they do, and they also understand that the fiduciary duty does not alway cross bargaining unit lines, that is probably why judge Glasser quoted the following:
"Defendants (ALPA) are correct that the LMRDA does not requires a union to extend to members of one bargaining unit the right to participate in the deliberations and vote on the matters before another bargaining unit, even when the second unit’s actions might affect the rights of members in the first unit. See Marshall v. Local Union"
doh said:
I hope you're not being facetious or sarcastic. I don't think I'd go as far as to call him despicable. However, his first move does not engender trust; he is untested and therefore very dangerous.
And I still think you are making a mistake. Don't take my word for it, check the record. He did not work for EAL. Yes, he did work for CAL; in a management position. He's an old Frontier pilot and former Vice Chairman of the Frontier MEC. As you may know, Frontier was in trouble (financially). They were virtually put out of business by a flawed ALPA policy that tried to force them to put a third man in the cockpits of the 737. ALPA's reaction to the Frontier pilots' objections is a matter of record that you may research for yourself. Parts of Frontier were "acquired" and Oz was hired into a management job at CAL. My information says he did not cross a picket line. He came to CMR after CAL (with a break inbetween).
I'm not running a "be kind to Oz" society but calling someone a scab is an accusation that should not be made unless you can substantiate it. Additionally, whether you like him or not, the job that he has done and is doing at CMR is literally leagues ahead of anyone that ever attempted it before. With respect to the other two you mentioned, one of whom crossed our picket line, I would not argue with your wishes.
FlyComAirJets
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2002
- Posts
- 323
FDJ2, you said that Mesa pilots are prevented from flying Comair aircraft by our present scope. I gave you an example of another pilot group (SkyWest) that did and are just doing that. Our scope clause does not prevent that nor does it restrict in any way Chautauqua from operating 50 seat jets or ASA to operate Bomardier jets for that matter, the DAL PWA, in marked contrast, does. Some of those aircraft have returned to the company but I fail to see what changing the registration number has, they were originally leased by Comair. I would think the average Mesa pilot would love to fly under our contract since it would be a marked raise from their current rates. How are they limited?
You seem unable to distinguish that the scope clauses of our respective companies have drastically different intents, since our scope only covers flying within a similar range of flying that we do (sorry, no choppers) versus yours which covers flying outside of your range which you so fervently seek to restrict. Please read Chairman Giambusso's response to the PID for an exacting account of his opinions of the differences between mainline and ASA/CMR flying.
Interesting quote that might be at the heart of our argument but I think you are misinterpreting it. The court certainly recognizes that a national union is sometimes faced with the conflicting interests of its various local units but to say he meant that a national union can favor a non member unit over its own member group is the very definition of one's duty of fair representation.
The DAL mainline contract draws the line of distinction at a certain seat range and places further restrictions on the mission and numbers of "permitted" types. They know that if they were to operate identical aircraft it would, within ALPA at least, trigger an attempt to merge the respective seniority lists. They do not want that which is one reason why they don't want to fly RJs.
And that is their choice.
You seem unable to distinguish that the scope clauses of our respective companies have drastically different intents, since our scope only covers flying within a similar range of flying that we do (sorry, no choppers) versus yours which covers flying outside of your range which you so fervently seek to restrict. Please read Chairman Giambusso's response to the PID for an exacting account of his opinions of the differences between mainline and ASA/CMR flying.
Interesting quote that might be at the heart of our argument but I think you are misinterpreting it. The court certainly recognizes that a national union is sometimes faced with the conflicting interests of its various local units but to say he meant that a national union can favor a non member unit over its own member group is the very definition of one's duty of fair representation.
The DAL mainline contract draws the line of distinction at a certain seat range and places further restrictions on the mission and numbers of "permitted" types. They know that if they were to operate identical aircraft it would, within ALPA at least, trigger an attempt to merge the respective seniority lists. They do not want that which is one reason why they don't want to fly RJs.
And that is their choice.
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
Question Any Other NXCub Drivers Out There?- Latest: lrobichaux
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
