Comair's got a T.A.

[Occam's Razor]

I like mittens!

 

[N2264J]

That's why I didn't...he did.

I think we all recognize the context in which he used the word "we" as in "we ALPA." The Delta pilots had more to do with that wimpy definition of struck work than you probably know. Pushed on the Comair MEC via the "experts," ALPA attorneys.

Think there might have been some differing opinions on the topic within ALPA?

Obviously, and ALPA's course of action is working out so well now, isn't it? Our solution was unity but we were rebuffed by ALPA and given the Bi Lateral Scope Impact Committee. By the way, how's that Brand Scope workin' out for ya?

This your first day at Capitalism School? First, the Comair strike was in 2001, and followed successful contract negotiations at mainline carriers...

Don't get wrapped around the axle on the timeline. ALPA has been waging a covert war the the "Regional Jet" and, by proxie, the members who fly them, since they were introduced in the early 90s. And before you respond all huffy, think of how you would describe it if your union (a different MEC than yours) was successful in restricting the number of Airbuses or 757s your company could operate.

You'll need to go back to the first jet contracts at the traditional feeder airlines to get a clear picture of what one group will do at the expense of others. That was not a "mainline" issue. That took place in your living room.

You lost me. But I am aware of Randy Babbitt's regret and remorse for the Eastern guys selling the small airplane flying to contractors in return for bargaining credits with the first code share aggreement in the 80s. That was a mainline issue and it panned out to be devisive beyond measure.

And please feel free to blame "mainliners" for all your problems. It makes it easier to avoid taking any accountability for your own actions and attitude.

I don't blame mainliners for all my problems - just the dismal and dysfunctional joke of a union they've made. Behncke would be ashamed and horrified to discover that his baby ended up in the stewardship of self serving economic bigots.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Good edit.

Your original was lame and unfocused.

The edit was not unfocused...

The irony of you railing against ALPA because it isn't acting the way you want it to, on the issues you want it to...collectively...is amusing.

RE: "And before you respond all huffy, think of how you would describe it if your union (a different MEC than yours) was successful in restricting the number of Airbuses or 757s your company could operate."

If I hired-on to an airline that was already operating them? I'd be pretty "huffy". If I hired-on to an airline that didn't operate them because my timing was poor or my logbook was thin, I don't think I'd assume I was getting screwed. But then, I don't think or act like a victim.

 

[N2264J]

The irony of you railing against ALPA because it isn't acting the way you want it to, on the issues you want it to...collectively...is amusing.

Don't give me that condescending tone. ALPA blew off its own merger and alter ego policy.

If I hired-on to an airline that was already operating them? I'd be pretty "huffy". If I hired-on to an airline that didn't operate them because my timing was poor or my logbook was thin, I don't think I'd assume I was getting screwed. But then, I don't think or act like a victim.

OK. Before the purchase, Comair, all by itself, had orders and options for 90 CL-700s, the flagship of our fleet and the highest paying equipment. At the time, the Delta scope clause allowed unlimited 70 seat flying. When Delta bought ASA and Comair that went to 165 orders and options - on profile with the original order. When the ASA and Comair MECs inquired before the TA was reached, they were told that they would be informed of the mainline pilot's scope agenda "in time to do damage control." After the dust settled on contract CY2K, Comair was allowed to operate only 27 and ASA 30.

I've often wondered why an employee group would want to hobble a profitable division of their company, especially if they had union brothers there.

As someone who professes to be pro union, I know you're not too dense to see a representational problem here.

 

[FDJ2]

OK. Before the purchase, Comair, all by itself, had orders and options for 90 CL-700s, the flagship of our fleet and the highest paying equipment.

You can get every single one of those and still not come close to the limit of 200 CL-700s. Even the CMR MEC Chairman, who is actiually elected by the CMR pilots elected representatives, admitted in a sworn statement that the DAL PWA has not harmed the CMR pilots.

 

[N2264J]

You can get every single one of those and still not come close to the limit of 200 CL-700s.

Spread out over all DCI and/or anyone else Delta wants to award an RFP to.
Have you heard? We had to bid on our own flying.

Ask me how that Brand Scope is workin' out.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Don't give me that condescending tone.

Which of my condescending tones would you prefer? My "Not all the little turtles make it to the sea" tone? Or my "When you get older you'll understand how the world works, son." tone? How about my, "I'll type slower so you can understand the words." tone?

Lemme know. I'm flexible.

ALPA blew off its own merger and alter ego policy.

Nice try! ALPA interpreted Merger Policy. There have been 6 such interpretations and modifications to the Policy since 1985. You are sore about one of them.

If the members were or are upset at the Policy, all that has to be done is a resolution before the BOD...the highest governing body in ALPA. If a majority of the votes changes the Policies, the changes you want are done.

OK. Before the purchase, Comair, all by itself, had orders and options for 90 CL-700s, the flagship of our fleet and the highest paying equipment. At the time, the Delta scope clause allowed unlimited 70 seat flying. When Delta bought ASA and Comair that went to 165 orders and options - on profile with the original order. When the ASA and Comair MECs inquired before the TA was reached, they were told that they would be informed of the mainline pilot's scope agenda "in time to do damage control." When the dust settled on contract CY2K, Comair was allowed to operate only 27 and ASA 30.

Illuminating...but not germane. Did you come to CMR only because you thought you would CL-700's? B757's? B777's? Were you aware of the market niche served by CMR when you put on your interview suit? Did you tell youir interviewer that you'd only take the job if your equipment and earnings expectations were met? If you had those grander expectations why didn't you go to UAL, NWA, or DAL directly?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but my sense is that much of the objection to the concept of Brand Scope is the perception of an "entitlement attitude" by those pushing the agenda. What's your sense?

I've often wondered why an employee group would want to hobble a profitable division of their company, especially if they had union brothers there.

Because they're human? Because all of us evaluate "What's in it for me?" when we analyze significant career-impact decisions? If you prefer to think it's because everybody hates you, then Thar She Blows!, Captain Ahab. You've discovered an itch that will never be scratched by ALPA.

My personal position on the issue of Brand Scope is simple, but not easy. We should all be on the same list under our respective brands. I think MSA and PCL pilots ought to be on our list. But I think the onus is on the DCI and Airlink pilots to recognize that the "What's in it for me?" nut is gonna have to get cracked before spontaneous group hugs break out all over the system.

Right now, mainline pilots are feeling acute pressure from the smaller equiment segment of their flying. The size of the traditional feeder aircraft is growing, and mainline pilots would be well-advised to measure the value of their concerns (and their concerns are significant and reasonable!) against reducing pressure in that segment.

For me...the math works out. But that's just me...Mr. Vegas!

As someone who professes to be pro union, I know you're not too dense to see a representational problem here.

Hey! I'm the condescending tone guy here! You stick to whining and screwing up the timeline in your effort to make your argument. Don't make me Scope your butt here too!

(I was gonna say, "So sue me!" but that lame effort is already underway by other "victims")

 

[N2264J]

Nice try! ALPA interpreted Merger Policy. There have been 6 such interpretations and modifications to the Policy since 1985. You are sore about one of them.

It's called "policy" for a reason. That is, it applies equally to everybody across the board. If ALPA has to interpret merger policy every time the issue comes up, then you're saying that merger "policy" isn't always applied the same way. Isn't that counter intuitive behavior for a union where all members are represented equally?

If the members were or are upset at the Policy, all that has to be done is a resolution before the BOD...the highest governing body in ALPA. If a majority of the votes changes the Policies, the changes you want are done.

You make it sound so easy. "...all that has to be done..." But the mainline guys have all the votes. The BOD, Executive Board and Executive Council are all weighted heavily to "the powers that be." You and I know a resolution like that would go nowhere. On the other hand - here's what ALPA's Alter Ego policy said in September of 1998:

B. ALTER EGO POLICY
SOURCE ‑ Board 1980

1. When the management or stockholders of one airline company form
another company for the purpose of creating a separate airline entity, it
shall be called an Alter Ego company for the purposes of this section.

2. ALPA will oppose the formation of Alter Ego airline companies and
will initiate litigation at every appropriate level to either block their formation
or, in the alternative, establish for collective bargaining purposes that the
Alter Ego company and the original company are one and the same.


The "powers that be" changed this policy making it toothless at the BOD in
October of 1998, just four short months before it was announced that Delta
was buying ASA. What timing. Did the fact that the Delta MEC had a non
voting member on Delta Inc's board of directors, who would have had prior
knowledge about the planned Delta acquisitions, play a role in ALPA's sudden change of heart about Alter Ego "policy"?

Did today's alter ego disaster come from the ALPA BOD in October 1998?

 

[JoeMerchant]

It's called "policy" for a reason. That is, it applies equally to everybody across the board. If ALPA has to interpret merger policy every time the issue comes up, then you're saying that merger "policy" isn't always applied the same way. Isn't that counter intuitive behavior for a union where all members are represented equally?



You make it sound so easy. "...all that has to be done..." But the mainline guys have all the votes. The BOD, Executive Board and Executive Council are all weighted heavily to "the powers that be." You and I know a resolution like that would go nowhere. On the other hand - here's what ALPA's Alter Ego policy said in September of 1998:

B. ALTER EGO POLICY
SOURCE ‑ Board 1980

1. When the management or stockholders of one airline company form
another company for the purpose of creating a separate airline entity, it
shall be called an Alter Ego company for the purposes of this section.

2. ALPA will oppose the formation of Alter Ego airline companies and
will initiate litigation at every appropriate level to either block their formation
or, in the alternative, establish for collective bargaining purposes that the
Alter Ego company and the original company are one and the same.


The "powers that be" changed this policy making it toothless at the BOD in
October of 1998, just four short months before it was announced that Delta
was buying ASA. What timing. Did the fact that the Delta MEC had a non
voting member on Delta Inc's board of directors, who would have had prior
knowledge about the planned Delta acquisitions, play a role in ALPA's sudden change of heart about Alter Ego "policy"?

Did today's alter ego disaster come from the ALPA BOD in October 1998?

Well said N2264J! ALPA's arrogance will be it's downfall, much like most entities. The only "alter-ego" carriers ALPA is worried about are the ones who don't pay ALPA dues, ie. Skywest and GoJets. Never mind that ALPA carriers are alter-ego carriers of fellow ALPA carriers.... but that is OK because those alter-ego carriers help pay the bills. It's OK to be an alter-ego carrier as long as you pay your way.........