Combining the seniority lists

[surplus1]

Part II of II to FlyDeltaJets

(Continued)


Speculation as to specifics doesn't accomplish much. Suffice to say there is more than one way to deal with the problem and there is more than one viable solution. A single seniority list is NOT the only solution. As far away as 1995, formalized proposals on how to avoid the current conflict and what we might do to resolve the issues were in fact made to your leaders (of the day). All proposals were rejected without even a modicum of serious consideration. One of your former MEC Chairmen was even arrogant enough to demand an apology from my MEC Chairman because we asked for a meeting and pressured him when we were ignored. Needless to say he didn't get it.

Your leaders have maintained consistently the standard ALPA flow-through rhetoric at every opportunity. No matter how hard we tried to explain that we had no interest in that, they simply refused to acknowledge that we were NOT interested in ALPA's repeatedly failed flow through models. Instead, they consistently pretended that we were "rejecting out of hand" a flow through "offer" from them. The truth is the never made a flow-through offer and, THEY WERE NEVER IN A POSITION TO MAKE A FLOW THROUGH OFFER. That whole thing was nothing but a charade and they resented the fact that we could see through it with clarity. They still resent (at ALPA National) the fact that Comair wouldn't buy into that plan.

The rank and file line pilot at Delta doesn't really know anything about the details of the innumerable conversations, meetings, joint sessions, etc. There isn't enough space to list it all here and even if there were, this is NOT the proper venue.

The bottom line is, there have been proposals, and there have been ideas. There are still more ideas but nobody wants to talk about them. As long as it is not some stupid flow-through, we're willing to hold substantive talks anytime. I am not an official spokesperson. I hold no official position of any kind and I am not an official participant or member in the RJDC. What I write are my own opinions, but I do know that my MEC and the separate RJDC people, have always been open to constructive dialogue. None has ever been offered by the other side.

As long ago as during the EAL strike, I personally told the now famous Rick Dubinsky of UAL, that ALPA's continued pursuit of a flawed policy with respect to regional airlines would ultimately place the entire Association in jeopardy. I'm sure he would not remember because I was an insignificant regional pilot and he was Chairman of the United MEC. Nevertheless, I told him then and, I've told a lot of other important ALPA leaders since then. None of them listened. Well, here we are. I wonder what's next.

Of you FDJ, I make one personal request. Stop focusing on One List. It is only one of the possible solutions. Stop believing that one list is the only reason for the litigation. It is NOT. There is even more than one way to create a single list. There are ways to reach a solution without a single list. This is an unconventional problem and it will require a very different and NEW solution, not a rehash of the past.

ALPA has been a wonderful organization and has done more than anyone else to enhance and further the profession of Airline Pilot. We have weathered many a crisis and we can solve this problem too. However, we need to understand that his is a labor union now, not a private club for the privileged. We need leadership! A statesman to replace the politician. It will take more than a highly paid bureaucracy and a few highly paid politicians, to fix this problem. The real problem is not just between Delta, Comair and ASA. It is industry wide and growing. We need to get off our butts, roll up our sleeves and put our heads together for however long it takes to come up with the answers. Regrettably, we haven't even begun. At this rate, the malignancy will overcome us.

I don't think that we can achieve it. I would like for you to change my mind.

I think "the difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer." Unfortunately, I can't change your mind. Only you can do that.

PS. Please read my post to Ifly4food. (Why can't we all get along thread)

 

[publisher]

Delta/Comair

The point made about a total separation would be valid. That is not what I am talking about.

The symbiotic relationship would still exist and Delta shareholders would still be a beneficiary of the spin off and on going profits.

What is going on with Freedom and Mesa is a good example regardless of the personalities or companies and what you think.

Here is a regional that flies for two separate majors, USAir and Am West. You have both of them giving him rules to follow that conflict with each other and the regionals financial future.

You have to remember that XX regional not only serves as a market penetrator but also market maintainer, frequency provider, and point ot point competitor.

Comair, on its own, would be considered a major carrier if separated tomorrow. It needs to maintain its cost advantage for those situations where it competes on point to point business and also to reduce the cost to mainline to enter a market segment. You could merge ACA and ASA and Comair and have a tremendous airline that may well be more profitable than the mainline carrier. Their power could wipe out all the other regionals.

My point here is that be wrapping yourself up in one issue, you are not looking at the big picture. Flow through and back has not worked worth a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, one list is not going to work, both because they put artificial contraints to good business practice.

Delta mainline pilots are never going to hang their deal on this type of thing and why should they. The companies are not going to even discuss it. APA is trying to do it another way and found it was not a topic to even discuss. American would not sacrifice the long term implications for the short term benefits. By the time USAir gets an agreement on small jets, they will have lost a significant market share.

Bottom line, the fat lady is not singing on this subject, she has dressed and left the building.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Surplus,

This has been purely an academic excercise. All of your points are accurate, but I think you missed the point of my post. I understand your assertion that you only want ALPA to follow its integration policy. I also understand that onelist is not the only answer. My post was just idle curiousity about what steps ALPA would have to take if the PID was granted. It seems a reasonable question. Would anything really change if the PID was granted? How?

Also, you asked what we were scared of regarding a seniority integration. I believe that the only appropriate integration is a staple. I know that you disagree. I am simply giving you the mindset of the Delta pilots. Right or wrong, they will not support any idea that puts their seniority in the hands of an arbitrator. I am not defending this postition, I am merely reporting the reality.

Again, many people have posted over and over again the need for the PID and a seniority integration. It sounds like a good idea to me, I just want to see if it is a practical one. So far I am not convinced.

 

[rjcap]

FDJ,

Also, you asked what we were scared of regarding a seniority integration. I believe that the only appropriate integration is a staple. I know that you disagree. I am simply giving you the mindset of the Delta pilots. Right or wrong, they will not support any idea that puts their seniority in the hands of an arbitrator.

Is it really that important that the Delta pilots either endorse or support the bylaws of ALPA ? Do they have that choice ?

Do you and I have the authority to pick and choose the rules and regulations we fly under ?

This problem will most likely be resolved by a judge throught his interpretation of the ALPA bylaws.

As far as the RJ's go, the marketplace has wholeheartedly embraced the regional jet. I might add, without the support or endorsement of the Delta pilots !

 

[Draginass]

That is also an assumption. If the solution were properly structured, in a way that management could accept, there would be no real need for concessions at all. Difficult to do; you bet. Impossible; not at all. No one has tried so we don't know. You're just guessing.

Surplus -
Are you really serious that there would be no need for concessions by mainline???

No more glittering generalities . . . put up or shut up . . . .

1. EXACTLY, how could it be "properly" structured (and acceptable to management) so no concessions were necessary by anybody??

And as I've said several times, the APA offered combining AA and AE. AMR won't even discuss it. I doubt Delta will either. If it could be done with no cost, it would have been done ALREADY.

You have definate opinions on what needs to be done without a clue on how to do them.

Quit whining about ALPA, and do something useful like stop perpetuating sub par compensation and insist your MEC and membership (who decides the contract you ultimately sign, NOT ALPA NATIONAL) gets a contract that makes operating separate companies irrrelevant. As long as YOU are willing to work for a for sub par compensation and conditions, that's what YOU will get.

This is the real world, not Fantasy Island.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

FDJ,



Is it really that important that the Delta pilots either endorse or support the bylaws of ALPA ? Do they have that choice ?

Do you and I have the authority to pick and choose the rules and regulations we fly under ?

This problem will most likely be resolved by a judge throught his interpretation of the ALPA bylaws.

As far as the RJ's go, the marketplace has wholeheartedly embraced the regional jet. I might add, without the support or endorsement of the Delta pilots !

RJ,

A few points:

1. You are correct. The support of the DAL pilots should not matter for the PID being granted. The support of the DAL pilots is absolutely essential (my opinion) if the purpose of the PID (seniority integration) is to be successful.

2. Not sure what your second question means.

3. I agree that a judge MIGHT decide the the bylaws were not followed. HOWEVER, he does not have the power to force DAL to merge us. The point of my question was how we could do that. There still has not been an answer.

4. The rj has been very successful. It is not up to the Delta pilots to support or endorse them. Management can operate as many as they want. We don't have a say. All we can do is specify who flies them once DCI hits the contractually negotiated block hour limits. But that is a topic for a different thread.

I will ask again...Let's assume the PID was granted. Now what do we do? If people think that we have the power to merge the lists, than please demonstate that. If we don't have the power to merge the lists, than the fact that the PID was denied is not really relevant. The fact is, I kind of think that we would still be in the same position even it the PID was granted.

 

[Timebuilder]

>3. I agree that a judge MIGHT decide the the bylaws were not followed. HOWEVER, he does not have the power to force DAL to merge us. The point of my question was how we could do that. There still has not been an answer.

Can I raise my hand here? Suppose a judge DID find that the bylaws were not followed? How would he find a legal remedy for that? Remember, a finding is usually followed by a ruling which dictates a remedy. Could he find precedent (or case law) that would force Delta and the union to re-open negotiations based on his finding of fact, or woould it simply mean 'oops, somebody messed up here, try to do better next time..'?

 

[skydiverdriver]

FDJ,
I think I have the essense of your question understood, and it's the same question I've been asking. I think the easy answer is, why not let it happen? I'm not a lawyer, or an expert on ALPA's bylaws, but I think they have not been followed in this case. If ALPA agreed to follow their own rules, and work on the PID, I'm sure they would come up with some way to try to implement it. Even if they couldn't, just the fact that they tried would make a lot of us feel better. You see, we don't want ALPA to do anything illegal, or impossible, we just want them to do what they promised us when we joined them. Just as they have for you.

So, again I ask, if you don't think it will ever happen without Delta or even you guys wanting it, why are you so afraid to talk about it (in an official capacity, not referring to us talking like this)?

Why not tell ALPA that you want them to follow their own rules, and let us have our PID. If nothing will come of it, why is it so scary? As far as actually how do we TRY to get the company to merge, I think that should be left up to the lawyers and politicians at ALPA. It's not my field, but they should be doing it, because it's the right and legal thing to do.

 

[rjcap]

FDJ,

2. Not sure what your second question means.

The comment was in reference to point #1. With laws and rules in place we do not have the choice of those that we are going to abide by and those we choose to ignore.

I will ask again...Let's assume the PID was granted. Now what do we do? If people think that we have the power to merge the lists, than please demonstate that. If we don't have the power to merge the lists, than the fact that the PID was denied is not really relevant. The fact is, I kind of think that we would still be in the same position even it the PID was granted.

I have absolutely zero idea. That will be up to the judge and the attorneys.

I would like to stress one point. I am not that interested in the one list issue as I am in the scope issue. I can fully understand the resisitence to merging or stapling lists. I will not tolerate ALPA violating its fiduciary duty to DCI by negotiating artificial restrictions that benefit mainline only. This is my personal opinion only.

as usual

good luck

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

This has been purely an academic excercise. All of your points are accurate, but I think you missed the point of my post. I understand your assertion that you only want ALPA to follow its integration policy. I also understand that onelist is not the only answer. My post was just idle curiousity about what steps ALPA would have to take if the PID was granted. It seems a reasonable question. Would anything really change if the PID was granted? How?

I guess I'll have to accept that your post was "purely academic" and your questions just "idle curiousity but knowing how you write and the research that you do, it is hard to believe that.

Yes, a great many things would have changed if the PID had been granted, particularly if it had been granted with the support of the DMEC. What steps would the ALPA have had to take? No more than those outlined in the merger policy. Check it out. Read the merger policy and see for yourself what it says the Association is required to do when it believes a merger should take place but the Company does not. Pretty benign.

Our merger committees would have met; we would have had some debate; we (CMR) would have made our intentions clear; we would have reached a fair agreement on what and integrated list should look like, what fences might be required, other protocols and how we would proceed, etc..

I firmly believe an agreement acceptable to Delta pilots could and would have been achieved outside of the arbitration process. I cannot tell you exactly how I know this or why I am so confident in saying it, but I assure you I am not pulling your chain, I mean it. Neither the Comair leadership or the Comair pilot group is nearly as naïve or greedy as many seem to think. We have a pretty good handle on what is doable and what is not. We also have a philosophy that is somewhat unique in ALPA. We are unwilling to benefit ourselves at the expense of others. I know that's incredible, but only because it is so foreign to our history. Sadly, we have been shouting brotherhood while exploiting each other for much of our existence.

After our DAL/CMR agreement (which from the Comair perspective would have included ASA from day one), ALPA would have proceeded to try to convince the Company. The strategy of how to do that would not have come about in a vacuum I assure you. It would have been determined jointly in advance. That means it would have been a real effort, not tokenism. However, it would NOT have been a suicidal effort for anyone.

Even if the effort ultimately failed, there would today be no resentment on our part of the National hierarchy; no disunity between our pilot groups; we would have been able to achieve a joint agreement on the Scope issues; both could have achieved more in collective bargaining; we probably would not have had to strike; their would never have been and RJDC and there would have been no lawsuit and finally, ASA might have been able to avoid a bargaining cycle while losing nothing. IMO, that's a real good score card.

Call it my dream world if you wish. I know what our positions would have been. The only obstacle(s) to a truly successful outcome of the process (excluding the Company's acceptance) was the agenda of ALPA and the intransigence of the Delta MEC. Sadly, it is my personal opinion that those two obstacles are alive and well today. Unfortunately for all of us, the realities of ALPA politics today do not justify the nobility of the ALPA Mission Statement.

Also, you asked what we were scared of regarding a seniority integration. I believe that the only appropriate integration is a staple. I know that you disagree. I am simply giving you the mindset of the Delta pilots. Right or wrong, they will not support any idea that puts their seniority in the hands of an arbitrator. I am not defending this postition, I am merely reporting the reality.

I understand and I believe you. Unfortunately things are so far apart that we can't even agree (as a group) on the meaning of the term "integration". By Delta pilots it has been mentally defined as Date of Hire and no amount of discussion seems able to alter that mental myopia.

The Delta pilots' fear of arbitration appears to be harbored in a general unawareness of whom and what "regional pilots" really are and is not applied equally across the board. The idea of arbitration with the likes of a regional pilot group seems to be a major underlying factor that generates and is expressed as this inordinate fear (I base that on their writings). There is further evidence as well. Delta has merged lists before and more than once as you well know. To this day demeaning undertones and whispers regarding the NorthEast pilots can be heard from "RDs". To a lesser extent the same applies to Western people. The RD culture may be unknown to the novice but it is no secret to those that have been around. I maintain there is no logic associated with the fear of arbitration in our case. It stems from what I see as furtive prejudice and the fact that you did not have a leader (at the time) with the statesmanship or the political clout (internal to Delta) necessary to allay the unwarranted fear. Instead, your leader chose to fan the flames of this fear for political expediency.

Unfortunately, I must also tell you that from my perspective at least, the Delta pilots do not have a history of fair dealings in merger situations. What happened to the PAA pilots at the bottom of your list is not unknown to everyone. I will grant you that you have no monopoly on this. Most pilot groups have taken advantage of the underdog whenever they could in almost every merger on record. Little wonder that you fear arbitration. It could eliminate at least partially the tendency and willingness to repeat such practices. In this particular scenario however, if anyone had legitimate reason to fear anything it was we, not you.

Again, many people have posted over and over again the need for the PID and seniority integration. It sounds like a good idea to me, I just want to see if it is a practical one. So far I am not convinced.

You may have noted from other posts of mine that I do not personally favor the idea of one list. I do support the RJDC but I also know that is not their prime objective so there is no conflict. I support them because I believe that if the ALPA is to survive as we know it, it must make significant changes in its practices with respect to regional pilots. And, I oppose the type of Scope that is being used against wholly owned subsidiaries and regional jets. Nevertheless, I do not believe that a staple to the Delta list is in the best interest of Comair pilots as a whole.

An example of why is manifest in the current state of the industry. A furlough of 1700 Delta pilots would result in every single Comair pilot being unemployed if we were tacked to your list. The great difference in the numbers on our lists, the relative size of the carriers, makes it far to risky in my opinion. Just my personal opinion.

Is it practical? Yes, I think it is. Is it achievable? Between the pilot groups = yes. With the Company, probably not. Nevertheless, "it is better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all."

 

[surplus1]

Surplus -
Are you really serious that there would be no need for concessions by mainline???

Being no more than a naïve and inexperienced regional pilot, the answer is YES. Perhaps some small concessions but nothing earth shaking.

No more glittering generalities . . . put up or shut up . . . .

1. EXACTLY, how could it be "properly" structured (and acceptable to management) so no concessions were necessary by anybody??

Don't you work for American? That means you're the competition. Why would I want to reveal to you the details of a plan that might solve the problems for us? My brand name is Delta. One of the objectives of Delta is to beat the competition from AMR so I'd just as soon let you stew in your own problems while we get a head start.

Additionally you're not in ALPA and I'm not among those who think recruiting you is such a good idea. All the more reason to let you stew. In addition, we still represent (though poorly) Eagle. We need to take care of our own family first. After we've solved the problem, you all will follow on the ALPA coat tails the way you usually do.

OK, that wasn't nice so I take it all back. Sorry.

And as I've said several times, the APA offered combining AA and AE. AMR won't even discuss it. I doubt Delta will either. If it could be done with no cost, it would have been done ALREADY.

Is that what you really think the APA offered? Wow, I'm more naïve than I thought I was. I hope it doesn't alarm you, but I happen to think that AMR was very justified in rejecting your proposal. Since I know one of the fellas that sits across from your folks at the bargaining table, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that he laughed out loud when he read that idea. Do you think that if ALPA made a similar proposal vis-à-vis Delta/Comair that my pilot group would rush to drink that poison pill the way some Eagle pilots did? I'll tell you my friend, you'd get awful blue in the face holding your breath and waiting for that to happen.

What the APA offered was nothing more than a scam that would allow you to transfer all the Eagle jets to yourselves to be flown by AA pilots at the expense of the Eagle pilots and your company. Did you really expect AMR to see this as a breakthrough solution for a problem that they don't have? The cost/benefit of that proposal in the eyes of management had to be HIGH and ZERO respectively.

If the AE pilots saw that as a one-list proposal then ALPA isn't doing a good job of representing them and, you've been feeding them more Kool-Aid than exists in all of ALPA combined (and it's no secret I'm real unhappy with ALPA). That deal is worse than the recent USAir J4J protocol by a long shot. "Combining AA and AE"? You gotta be kidding. When were you going to do the combining? Oh yeah, I get it. After nearly all of the Eagle pilots had been demoted with the rest on the streets, and you and the TWA guys were flying their jets, you would give the residue a position on the bottom of your list. How wonderful, considerate and kind of the APA. It's no wonder you have the nickname that you do. I'm all in favor of you getting your furloughed pilots recalled, but when the method is equivalent to stealing from another pilot group you can count on my opposition.

I'm sorry to be so blunt but when the privileged attempt to browbeat the already downtrodden it just grates my gall.
We may have our problems with Delta but they have never proposed or attempted anything nearly as profane and predatory as that.

You have definate opinions on what needs to be done without a clue on how to do them.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion as well as the right to express it.

Quit whining about ALPA, and do something useful like stop perpetuating sub par compensation and insist your MEC and membership (who decides the contract you ultimately sign, NOT ALPA NATIONAL) gets a contract that makes operating separate companies irrrelevant. As long as YOU are willing to work for a for sub par compensation and conditions, that's what YOU will get.

I have and investment in ALPA and I pay for its services. That entitles me to whine about it all I want. In contrast you are not in ALPA so it should not be of any concern to you what I do in my own house. Don't think that a family squabble allows you to invade my house with impunity.

As for doing something about sub par compensation, I think I'm on pretty firm ground when I say that my pilot group, Comair, has invested more than any other regional airline in the country in that effort. We have done far more to raise the bar by our own bootstraps than you have. While we were not completely successful, I'm not at all ashamed of how we handled ourselves. I haven't forgotten that from your group the industry and the profession inherited the cancer of the B-Scale that still survives in some places. We defended our turf with sweat, blood and honor. While we did not win a complete victory, we did not turn tail and run under fire. Outnumbered by overwhelming odds and fighting on 3 fronts, we held the line, maintained our integrity and inflicted huge damage on the enemy and fought them all to a standstill. Our honor remains intact and the equal of any other. We may be small and less important in your eyes than you are to yourselves. You may outnumber us 10 to 1, and if you take us on you may well prevail but, I guarantee you'll know you've been in one h**l of a scrap before its over and you'll think twice about trying it again. You and your union sir, are hardly in a position to throw stones at my pilot group.

This is the real world, not Fantasy Island.

I agree completely with that. I've been playing in the real world of airline piloting a great deal longer than my erstwhile critic. I did like that TV program though. I hope my small dose of the real world in return for yours hasn't burst your bubble.

By the way, I would like to thank the American Pilots for their very generous contributions to our Family Fund during the Comair strike. From what I've been told it was far more than we received from any single ALPA carrier and nearly as much as all ALPA carriers combined. For that I am most grateful and appreciative.

Now that we're done throwing rocks at each other, I propose a truce and a return to the debate at hand.

Bottom line: There are several options and concepts available that I believe might satisfy the needs of management as well as the pilot groups on both sides of the line. They do not require the merger of the corporate entities and the cost of implementation is quite low. If adopted, they would allow management to operate an unlimited number of small jets without significant penalty to the mainline pilots or the regional pilots. They would resolve the disputes between the diverse pilot groups as well.

I honestly believe that posting any developed and real plan on this or any other board, would not be beneficial and might torpedo any chance, however remote, of its being accepted. Such things must unfortunately be discussed in private between the parties before they hit the front page. It's the same reason you don't publish publicly the details of your serious contract proposals in advance or while negotiators are at the table. I hope you understand that. I really can't say much more than that.

I hope you also understand there is nothing personal about what I say when I respond heatedly. I'm not attacking your person, just your ideas. I assume you are doing the same. This is business and it's tough. I'm no less "armed and ready to launch" than you seem to be. This situation is a mess and sometimes very trying.

Best regards

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Surplus,

Actually, my question was intended as an academic excercise. I am genuinely interested in whether or not the thing for which most people on this forum argue could ever be achieved. I found it interesting how many people think we should merge the lists, yet how few responded to my question of whether we could merge them. I don't think that we could. I would like to hear from those who differ.

A few other points before I turn in, in no particular order.

I think that you overempasize the sentiment that we (DALPA) think the you guys are after DOH. I don't think that the "mental myopia" is as severe as you think. I believe that most of the people with whom I spoke realize that DOH for DCI is impossible. We do not fear you getting DOH, despite what you believe. We do, however, fear you getting anything but a staple. Fair or not, the overwhelming majority of our pilots feel very stongly that no DCI pilot should be put above even a single Delta pilot. I know that you don't think that this is fair, and I don't expect to change your mind. Your seniority is just as important to you as mine is to me, so it is not worth debating. We won't ever agree. I just wanted to give you a more accurate picture of the mood and concerns of my pilot group.

Also, I fail to see how the PID would have prevented your strike, negated the rjdc, hastened a better scope clause, etc, if we were unable to convince management to merge the lists. You say the rjdc is not about the PID, than opine that if the PID had been granted, the rjdc would never have sued. Furthermore, I find it ironic that you do not support onelist, but believe so strongly in the benefits of the PID. I am not accusing you of inconsistancy, as your ideas are rarely so. I am simply trying to understand your perspective.

You mention that your pilot group has more to fear than we regarding the integration of the lists. You even mention that you don't think that it is worth the risk. Then why are you so upset that the PID wasn't granted? Even if the process was unfair, I would think that you would be relieved at the outcome.

Here is my point (again). I don't believe that it will ever be possible to merge the lists if Delta doesn't want to. I also believe that the Delta pilots will never lend their support without a guarantee of a staple. You are all free to disagree.

I am simply (and innocently, Surplus!) curious how people who want onelist propose that we get it. Nothing any of us say here means a hill of beans, and normally pilots are pretty verbose when asked for ideas and opinions, yet no one seems to have a practical strategy.

SDD,

If you read this, congrats. I imagine most people have stopped reading by now!

You ask about the bylaws and the denial of the PID. I must admit that I don't really have an opinion on whether or not ALPA was justified in denying the PID. You will not be able to find a post from me ever arguing that the PID should have been denied. As a matter of fact, I have publically supported your right to sue to have a judge review the bylaws and ensure that they have been followed. I even offered to contribute to the rjdc if they dropped the monetary damages and attack on our scope.

In short, I have no objection to a PID. However, I do think that it is pointless. I think those who are up in arms over the PID are getting high blood pressure for nothing. I firmly believe that even if it had been granted, we still would be in the same boat, because I don't think we could ever convince management to merge the lists.

I am, however, willing to listen if you have any ideas to prove me wrong.

 

[surplus1]

Part I of II

TO: FlyDeltaJets,

OK, I accept the academic interest. You can learn a lot with that approach while avoiding some of the controversy.

With respect to contractual issues and labor union politics, when you're dealing with line pilots it is not really unusual for them to know what they want or would like. At the same time, it is quite normal for pilots to have no idea about what is entailed in fulfilling their wants and likes or how to achieve those things. That is why most pilots make lousy negotiators and poor representatives.

The planning, the doing, the details and the achieving are all left to "the union" and few ever realize independently, without a lot of spoon feeding, just who "the union" really is. Pilots want answers and are not in the business of providing solution. That is why so few participate actively in union affairs or run for union office. It is only when anticipating a higher pay rate in the new contract or when ready to complain intensely about something "the union" (meaning their elected reps) didn't do, that they come forth.

If you talk too much or too long about anything except airplanes, a pilot's span of attention wanes. Write more than 3 sentences in the same paragraph and they stop reading. That's the norm. So, when a pilot tells me that he has an academic interest in a political issue, my first reaction is: Oh really, whatever you say, but what do you really want? Sorry I didn't recognize you were a kindred spirit with a genuine academic interest. You should become a representative (if you aren't already).

Right now the Scope issue is hot. Still, I wonder how many Delta line pilots you actually believe have read every word and all 16 pages of the Scope Section in your contract. If they have, how many do you think really understand what it means in detail? In other words FDJ, you should not be too surprised that you are not getting detailed how to(s) in reply to your queries.

Since you are a Delta pilot you should have a better handle on what the line pilot thinks at Delta than I do. Maybe I am overemphasizing the "mental myopia". I admit that most of my contact with Delta pilots has been with those that are active in the union in one way or another. When it comes to those folks, I'll stand by my assessment.

I understand what you say about the fear of even one DCI pilot being put above a single Delta pilot. I'm not really worried about what is "fair". Fair, has never been a factor in mergers or seniority integration and everything is "fair" in love and war. My interest in this particular issue is somewhat academic itself.

I do not understand why your group resents the idea of "one DCI pilot being put above a single Delta pilot". However, I have very strong opinions about how I think most Delta pilots feel and what they think, that are based on exposure to a wide variety of your leaders and what they have said and done over an extended period. (I'll be boring you with a series of references and allegations, so hang on to your hat.) I have also read a lot of what Delta pilots have written on the ALPA forum, the AOL boards and others. There is a vast difference between, how, what and why. Frankly and in general, I find your groups attitude toward my group unwarranted and offensive. In spite of my best efforts to ignore it, the truth is I resent it. As you read on you'll notice. I don't think my feelings are misplaced and I know that many regional pilots share them, not just in my particular group. Personally, I didn't know what prejudice and bigotry felt like until I became a "regional" airline pilot in ALPA. Now I understand fully why other victims fight it so hard. But that's another subject. I won't deny that it influences my opinions on matters like these.

If my airline had been operating lets say 10 old DC9-10s prior to its being purchased by Delta, Inc., your own contract would have mandated a merger. The seniority integration would have been determined by ALPA merger policy. It would have been subject to arbitration if you could not agree. It could have resulted in many Comair pilots being put above many Delta pilots. My question is this: why would that be acceptable to Delta pilots, yet it is unacceptable for any DCI pilot to be put above a single Delta pilot? In my mind, the only reason I can think of is that you folks are bigoted and prejudiced against DCI pilots or all regional pilots. I don't understand what you think is so patently inferior about our people when compared to your people. To me, your whole attitude is absurd in the extreme.

I am not saying that I think DCI pilots (any of them) should be put above Delta pilots in a merger. We did not ask for that in the PID or elsewhere. I just don't understand your thinking. As Mr. Spock would say, "it is not logical". I once asked one of your MEC leaders what he would have done re the PID if Delta had purchased Midway instead of Comair. You know what his answer was? "We would merge with the 737 pilots, but not one dam* RJ pilot." (I think Midway had about 3 or 4 73's at the time and maybe 20 RJs. A nothing airline compared to Comair.) Remember that this is not from some new hire Delta pilot. It was from one of your elected leaders. Now if that doesn't demonstrate bigotry and the mental myopia of which I spoke, then you tell me what it means. Maybe I'm just too sensitive?

It is not your desire to protect your seniority that upsets most Comair pilots. That is normal. It's the negative and bigoted attitudes that you seem to continuously manifest towards us. You act as though you think we are your children who should speak when spoken to and do as we're told. This type of treatment is not limited to Delta pilots; it is a way of life in ALPA political circles as well. That's plain old B*** S***. A great many of the "mainline pilots" seem to think we should ride in the back of the bus, get up when you want to sit down, eat at separate counters and p in different bathrooms. Does it really surprise you that we don't share that view? The saddest part of all that is that similar attitudes towards regional pilots prevail in most major airline leadership groups and permeate the hallowed halls of ALPA. If the rank and file reflects some of that, I'm hardly surprised.

For the record, I want to make it clear that none of this bigotry makes me feel inferior in any way, but it does make me angry.

I know a lot of you appear to think that we owe our existence to your largess (God knows you've said it enough). It may be true in some regional airlines but, when it comes to Comair, that is just one more figment of your rather vivid imaginations. My company may be a subsidiary of your company on paper, but the fact is that right now your paycheck is being subsidized in part by the profits that my company generates consistently while your company is losing money. Before you bought us we paid you for every single service that Delta provided to us and you paid for the services that we provided to you. Your company "gave" us nothing. Since you bought us, our profits are buried in your accounting system and partially subsidize your unprofitable operations.

We understand that you don't want us on your list and that's ok. You should understand that we don't want to subsidize your "A-fund" with our profits either. Maybe we can't keep the company from doing away with our airplanes (just like you can't keep them from doing away with yours) but we will dam** sure fight to keep you from taking them or reducing their number to satisfy your own greed. You see FDJ, there are many of us who see you in the same light and with the same lenses that you see us.

The mess we're in as pilot groups has been created by Delta's decision to force the sale of our airline to you, plus ALPA's and your decision to treat us like dirt. Most of us did not want your company to acquire our company at all and consider it to be far less than a blessing. We were not all thirsting to be on your seniority list pre acquisition and we really aren't now; we wanted to be left alone. Perhaps we could not have made it without our Company-to-Company contractual relationship, but most of us wanted to try. Those of us that chose to leave were always free to do so. As far as whether you like us or not, many of us think you can stuff those attitudes where the sun doesn't shine. As far as ALPA National is concerned, we pay them to represent our interests and to secure and defend our assets from attack by you or anyone else. They haven't done it and that's why they're being sued.

Since neither your pilots nor our pilots had anything to do with the shotgun marriage and can't reverse it, the best thing to do now is work together as a single pilot group. In other words we both became unwilling parties to a mixed marriage. Arguing about the mix is no longer practical or beneficial to either of us. On the contrary it will hurt us both. Therefore, although reluctant, we need to set the animosity aside, make peace with each other and learn how to live together. So far we've done a lousy job of it. That is why I favored the PID. It was an opportunity to break the ice and make things better for everyone.

Please continue to Part II

 

[surplus1]

Part II of II

TO: FlyDeltaJets (Continued)

Also, I fail to see how the PID would have prevented your strike, negated the rjdc, hastened a better scope clause, etc, if we were unable to convince management to merge the lists. You say the rjdc is not about the PID, than opine that if the PID had been granted, the rjdc would never have sued. Furthermore, I find it ironic that you do not support onelist, but believe so strongly in the benefits of the PID. I am not accusing you of inconsistancy, as your ideas are rarely so. I am simply trying to understand your perspective.

I honestly appreciate your effort to understand my perspective. I'm trying hard to communicate it, but I'm obviously not doing a good job. Let me try again. I'll take it from the top of the paragraph, point by point.

A) It may have prevented the need for a strike due to the vastly increased leverage we would have had if we were on the same side. The company was fully aware of the divisions between the pilot groups and our differences with ALPA. That gave the company reason to believe that it could easily win a strike so, instead of cutting a deal, they decided to force a strike. They got the analysis of our union relationships and Delta pilot to Comair pilot relations very accurately. They grossly underestimated the Comair pilot's resolve. They thought it would end in a week with our heads between our tails. Instead, it cost them 500 million dollars and it nearly cost us our airline. I believe it is unlikely that would have happened had the Delta pilots, the Comair pilots and ALPA, all been on the same side.

B) Had the PID been granted, the RJDC would not have the evidence necessary to support a major component of its DFR allegations. The suit would never have been filed.

C) If the PID had been granted without opposition from the DMEC, both MEC's would have been on the same frequency and communicating with each other openly. Ideas about the type of scope required would have been jointly agreed and allocation of work issues settled. Predatory scope would not exist. (RJDC would have lost that evidence. No suit would have been filed.)

D) If the PID had been granted and merger policy followed by ALPA, the inability of the union or the pilot groups, severally and collectively, to convince management to accept integrated seniority would be seen in the same light as the inability to achieve a contractual goal during negotiations. End of problem. No RJDC, no lawsuit.

Instead, we have a labor union refusing to represent a group of its members. A labor union supporting one group of members at the expense of another. A labor union sanctioning the effort of some of its members to take from another group of its members and, thereby, acting in a discriminatory manner. Actively helping one group at the expense of the other. The PID is an internal ALPA political process that represents the implementation of merger policy. In this case, activation of the policy and all the unity and other good things that would have followed that, are far more important than the Company's acceptance of a single seniority list or its merger of the corporations. The Company's failure to approve the merger would have given us all, ALPA/DAL pilots/CMR pilots/ASA pilots, a solid and unified force with which to fight management and prevail. In my opinion, the actual integration of the lists is of far less value. We might have lost the battle of forcing the Company to accept, but we would have won the war in the process of trying.

Put another way, why do you think we want one list? Is it because we want to "grab your seniority"? H*** no! What we want is a single group of pilots unified and working together as one against a powerful and determined management that would do us all in if it could. The other benefits are peripheral; the least important of which is a number on your physical list. Try to think out of the box. This has become a disaster because you people are thinking as individuals. Self- interest and ME seem to be the key components of your thought processes. Put another way, there are 50 states in the Union, but there is only ONE USA. What we wanted was 2 states in the same union. ASA/CMR physically merged, but working in complete harmony with DAL. The Delta System! Instead we have all 3 of us fighting among ourselves, while management takes us to the cleaners. No less than a masterpiece of incompetence. I'm sure the Executive Council thinks its decision was a stroke of political power and genius. I think it was a shortsighted and monumental political blunder. A great opportunity that very well may have been lost forever.

You mention that your pilot group has more to fear than we regarding the integration of the lists. You even mention that you don't think that it is worth the risk. Then why are you so upset that the PID wasn't granted? Even if the process was unfair, I would think that you would be relieved at the outcome.

Please read the above again. If you understand what I said there your questions have been answered.

Let me try to explain what you see as somewhat of an inconsistency is saying I don't support one list, yet I favor the PID. I think the problem comes from this. What I do not support is the conventional idea of what "one list" means. I believe there are different and better ways to achieve the equivalent benefits of a conventional single seniority list, without out the down sides for any of the parties. My idea of what one list means is not the same as your idea of what one list means. Your idea is the prevalent one in the industry so I have to say I oppose it. I gave my reasons in the previous posts. Hope that helps.

I am simply (and innocently, Surplus!) curious how people who want onelist propose that we get it. Nothing any of us say here means a hill of beans, and normally pilots are pretty verbose when asked for ideas and opinions, yet no one seems to have a practical strategy.

First of all my arguments apply to the Delta System. Others systems are different and other pilot groups may have different ideas. So I'm not necessarily talking about them although they could emulate if they see fit. That being said, FDJ don't you recognize that when you take the position that the Company will never agree to what you want you have authored your own defeat? Does the company own the seniority list? I don't think they do, but you seem quite willing to give it to them lock, stock and barrel without so much as protest. That's a very risky position whether we get together or not.

There IS a practical strategy of how to accomplish the objective. There is more than one way. I think I know at least 3 different possible ways to make it happen. It does not have to cost the company or you or me any great sum of money or any major concession. I simply can't outline those concepts on a public bulletin board. It would give the enemies all the plans and that is not bright. One of the big problems seems to be that when anyone hears the phrase "one list" they instantly revert to a conventional corporate merger. This is a very unconventional situation and it will require innovative and unconventional solutions. That's as much as I can say.

That does not mean it's a cake walk for it isn't, but right now considering the level of misunderstanding and the lack of trust between the pilot groups, what the Company thinks at this point is truly irrelevant. We need to get our own house in order. When that's done, we can worry about what the Company thinks. Meanwhile, don't give the Company ownership of the seniority list so readily, easily and willingly. Does that help any or is it all still mud?

PS. As long as this is, I'm quite sure we've lost 80% of the gallery. That's what happens when two weird pilots with academic interests get to talking in public.

 

[Draginass]

Surplus - Don't want to reveal your secret weapon? Maybe it's a scheme whereby there are two classes of compensation and work rules with a guaranteed flow-up from regional to mainline and entry only from the bottom at starvation compensation, even for highly experienced new hire pilots. B-scale was a huge mistake. No need to repeat it with a D-scale. Maybe you'd throw in a no-strike provision as a management inticement? Yea, I sure everyone would vote for that . . . not.

BTW, ALPA spent quite a bit of money courting APA membership and was rejected. Although I am an inactive member of ALPA, I don't favor reaffliating with them.

Even as an opener, AMR didn't even acknowledge the APA's proposal for combined companies. They're obviously not interested in even discussing it in any form.

I'm not throwing rocks, just calling your bluff. You still haven't given me any reason to believe you have any realistic plan whatsoever.

Enough. It's been an interesting discussion, but not enlightening.