Combining the seniority lists

[surplus1]

Don't know there Surplus. I think all us majors have a special section in the unions called "Committee for the Screwing of Regional Airline Pilots" whose job it is to think up new and devious ways of making life miserable for you guys. I think it's made up primarily of ex-regional pilots. Ex-mils don't have the depth of knowledge necessary to do a really "major" job of it. True intent? Ah, you've got to read the really tiny little letters printed in invisible ink in the letter delivered by black helicopters.

Dragin,

Back long ago, before your MTV generation, when I was on the high-school debate team, I learned two things.

1) When you run out of something logical to say in defense of your position, attempt to antagonize your opponent. If successful, you win.

2) Never allow your adversary to "get your goat". Just keep hitting him with logic and he'll do one of two things a) get frustrated and attack you personally; b) run out of ideas with which to defend his position. Either way, you win again.

You've tried No 1; it hasn't worked, though I like the humor (I'll use it later in the post). You appear to be succumbing to part "b" of No. 2. There is hope for me after all.

It will please you to know that ALPA has already created two different committees to solve the problem. One back in '1996 which came to no meaningful conclusion and did nothing. Another last year called the JSC, which has yet to offer any substantive ideas other than of course, more meetings.

Most folks know that when you don't know what to do and folks think you should, you surround yourself with a new Committee and gather several more people who also don't know what to do who then help you to do nothing. I think the initials of the current chairman of your "Committee for the Screwing of Regional Airline Pilots" are DW. Voting members are UAL, NWA, AAA, DAL and CAL. The guest speaker at the last meeting was APA.

Over time, the Committee has developed a brilliant master plan establishing a new secrect subsidiary called S.C.O.P.E. (Society for Confused, Opulent, Piloting Enthusiasts). It has invested millions in developing, acquiring and attempting to implement numerous "Clauses" (ineffectual gadjets for the preservation of greed - not related to the famous North Pole resident) which it scatters at ramdom in an aimless effort to patch the holes in the dam that the C(S)RAP constructed, to stem the tide of small airline growth and restrain the waters of technological progress.

Meanwhile back in Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis, and to a lesser extent Chicago, the MGPRJ (Management Group for the Proliferation of Regional Jets) a secret organization that colludes (behind the scenes) with the infamous enemy of the profession known as the RJDC, have together brilliantly countered all efforts to spread C(S)RAP and SCOPE. Informed sources report anonymously that both C(S)RAP and SCOPE have failed to do their job. As Regional Airlines and their childlike pilots are observed, in ever increasing numbers, lunching and dining in the formerly exclusive Hub Clubs operated by C(S)RAP members, the MGPRJ and the RJDC forecast that there will be "a regional jet in YOUR future"

Right now, I think APA membership views any proposal concerning Eagle with a shrug.

There is something to be said for consistency no matter how near sighted. At the very least you can enjoy the thought that you are joined in the shrugging ritual by other members of the elite. I hope sincerely that by the time you all discover the consequences of benign neglect, it won't be to late for everyone.

As far as declassifying you plan/opening proposal, when can we expect to see it in writing from your MEC to DAL ALPA and management?

To the best of my knowledge my MEC doesn't joust with the politically incorrect and remains overtly disengaged. They have their hands full with the difficulties of taxation without representation.

Errr, . . . . I mean, what's COMAIR's proposal that Delta will ignore?

So far, Delta. Inc. seems to have grasped Comair's quiet proposal rather well and continues to outpace the competition where it matters.

Who knows what will eventually emerge? If I did, I wouldn't tell but alas, you already know that don't you. Your grasp of the complexities continues to amaze me. I do hope your collective shrugs will not ultimately be your undoing.

The ascension from the beer crowd to the champagne groupies is glamorous and exciting. When the bewitching hour forces a return to beer, there will be weeping and nashing of teeth as the walls of Castle Aloofness begin to crumble about you. It is extremely difficult to enjoy pigs feet and corn bread when you've been weened on caviar. I'll promise not to say I told you so.

Perhaps the erstwhile leaders of C(S)RAP will recall the predictions of the Good Book while there is still time. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I wish you the very best.

 

[Clownpilot]

Chicken and the Egg

This whole discussion ignores one simple fact.

That fact is the reason and I mean the entire reason why regional carriers exist.

In the beginning, there were no regional carriers. There was Eastern, TWA, Pan Am, etc.

That was it. You drove to a major city then got on a large airplane and flew to another major city. Well along the way the airlines realized there was a huge market for people that don't live near enough to a major city to drive there and get on a plane. They also realized that these feeds were going to be small planes that they could fill in a smaller market, but relatively expensive to operate. As a result they realized they needed a low cost way to get people from remote markets to the major airports to put them on their jets. Voila, regional service was born. At AA it was done in the form of American Eagle. They asked APA for an exception to the contract to allow them to accomplish this goal. Similar things happened elsewhere. It was widely accepted that costs would have to be kept down to allow this to be a profitable venture.

Fast forward to today. You regional people want to merge with the major carrier. In essence this eliminates the entire reason you exist. If major carriers wanted this merge to happen they wouldn't have created a separate entity to begin with. They simply would have bought regional aircraft for the mainline operation in the first place. The major airlines can buy whatever airplanes they want, the mainline pilots just have to fly it.

Get a grip. I laugh every time I see a regional pilot spew off about one list. Regionals exist because the airline didn't want the mainline combined with the feed. The regionals are there to provide a low cost feed to the mainline. The airlines are never going to combine the operations. Never.

Never.

Stop talking about this.

It's ridiculous.

 

[9rj9]

The monster has been created

exactly, now the airlines have created the regional monster, they have to control it or kill it. The Regional monster takes mainline flights and continues to grow despite scope and 9/11.
Most regional pilots do not want to merge, take the Western merger for example, the Delta guys treated those guys like **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** their entire career. The more senior pilots would never get what they think is fair and the junior guys don't want an X on their forehead.
The problem is merging may be the only way to save mainline growth. The question is how will mainline pilots control the monster.?

 

[Draginass]

Barbs and kidding aside, Surplus, I think we agree in principal with the idea of regionals being combined with their mainlines, one seniority list, and one contract, and one standard of compensation. Where we differ is in the outlook for practicality making that happen, and maybe in the methodology in combining lists.

1. I think the idea of suing ALPA is unproductive and a waste of time. I see it as born out of frustration with the companies and COMAIR's apparent defeat by Delta management during the strike (i.e. settle or we'll shutdown the company).

2. The evolution of regionals in the last 15 years, fueled somewhat by technology, but mostly by the expanding economy, is way beyond where anyone would have predicted.

3. Mainline unions are unable (as a matter of practicality) to compel the companies to absorb the regionals. Therefor the only practical step (of which some $$$ concessions were made at the bargaining table) was to legally restrict the companies from expanding regionals beyond a certain level. The companies agreed to these limits. I think the companies also underestimated the growth potential somewhat, AND see a window of opportunity to shift mainline flying to more cheaply compensated regional workers. But, now they are caught by their own agreed upon restrictions, and seek contractual relief. While you disagree, I and virtually all mainline pilots think it's just protecting our jobs (just like we scope out outsourcing), and think the courts will agree.

4. The RJDC people see the companies as too hard a target to compel integration, so instead go after what they see as a softer one, ALPA, hoping to compel them to make integration more inticing to the companies. While you say that can be done without economic incentives from mainline unions, I just can't see it, and you've been coy about presenting any practical plan.

5. We also disagree with the future potential of the RJs. While the RJDC people present them as the wave of the future, I think that's an gross overstatement to give them the appearance of inevitability, while I think their future practicality is limited. The companies don't look at airplanes, they look at costs, and would like nothing better than to expand the "regional" flying to national flying and gradually shrink the mainline. The companies can fly all the 44 seat RJs they want, at least at AMR. They just can't expand beyond AE's purpose of mainline feed (more or less). The current economic and political crisis gives them the figleaf of believability PR wise to expand regionals at the cost of mainline jobs.

We shall see how this plays out in the next couple of years. I think APA and AE ALPA is the best hope (and not much of that) for this happening anytime in the foreseeable future, since APA's contract is being negotiated right now.

One thing that I'm confused on is if the companies are serious about selling off their regional carriers, or if that is just a ploy. Logic would dictate that if they're making good money off regionals, even with scope restrictions, why sell them. I understand the profit potential of a sale, but long term, why not keep them? There is more than meets the eye with this, but I don't see what it is. With APA owning the rights to AA code flying, outsourcing feed doesn't seem practical unless AMR can defeat scope in the courts.

The apocalypse you predict with mainline compensation being gutted to "beer" (I assume you mean regional) levels if mainlines don't acquiese is farsical. Not buying that.

Change will occur, no doubt, but it will be incremental, not revolutionary. Still be interested in your detailed "plan" should you release it. I can be convinced, but you've got to show me the money, not just talk about it.

Time to quit for a while. My posts are getting as long as yours!

 

[publisher]

sale

Let's just deal with the issue of selling off the regionals as is happening before your eyes. Why

First, the opportunity to raise a substantial amount of cash, more or less free money. These companies can sell for a multiple of earnings,,,, and, still retain a measure of control.

Sounds good after you have just lost a bunch of cash.

Flexibility, we can sell and still benefit. I have an asset easily sellable in the open market. I have relative control with as little as 25% or less of outstanding stock.

These are separate entities and if they get out of line, we can eliminate our relationship. Still have the up front gain.

No carry through of labor agreements.

Aircraft and other assets off my balance sheet.

Different funding opportunities.

Additional debt but not on my sheet.

On and On

 

[Draginass]

Most labor contracts have successorship clauses. I don't think a sale of a company necessarily abrogates them.

 

[surplus1]

TO: Clownpilot

This whole discussion ignores one simple fact. That fact is the reason and I mean the entire reason why regional carriers exist. In the beginning, there were no regional carriers. There was Eastern, TWA, Pan Am, etc. That was it.

That's an interesting perspective, but it is far from being historically accurate. Regional carriers are not at all "new". That is why we invented the term "commuter airline".

We had the "flag carriers", PAA, TWA, NW Orient. The "trunk carriers" UAL, EAL, DAL, Braniff, Western, Continental, National (and others), but we also had a veritable host of "regional carriers", e.g., Allegheny, Mohawk, Lake Central, North Central, Ozark, North East, PSA, Alaska, Bonanza, Hughes Air West, Piedmont, Aloha, Hawaiian, Caribair, Trans Texas, (Even Delta before the C&S and NE mergers), etc., etc., (to many to remember all). It's just a matter of the time frame that you can remember or that you choose to cover.

I'm sure you notice I didn't mention USAir, which didn't even exist. Deregulation is the animal that changed most of that. Although there were many mergers before deregulation, there were many more after deregulation. Maybe the 60's, 70's and early 80's seems like ancient history to you, but to others that time frame is the Genesis of today's problems. If we elect to ignore history, we cannot learn from its mistakes.

The regional airlines of yesterday have all disappeared. What is important to note is they all disappeared because they were merged into the trunks or together to create new trunks or majors. While those mergers all generated the typical squabbles over seniority, there was one essential difference from today's world. Back then, ALPA didn't treat the regional pilot groups like red headed stepchildren and the pilots of the flag carriers, trunk carriers and regional carriers all knew that they were airline pilots. There was no line in the sand (real or imagined) to differentiate the "real pilots" from the inferior pilots, like there is today.

The commuter airline appeared on the scene to fill the gaps vacated by yesterday's regional carriers and a few start ups (notably Midway and Air Florida) emerged. Initially those make-believe airlines (in the eyes of ALPA pilots) were not even admitted to the union. At one point, ALPA went so far as to create a subsidiary union (UPA) in an illogical effort to keep the unwashed out of the club. They would not even admit Air Florida and Midway until after AF failed and Midway picked up the pieces.

When UPA fell on its face, the decision was made to organize the commuters and bring them into ALPA. This was a protectionist mechanism designed to control them but not to truly assimilate them. That concept of tokenism prevails in the minds of the ALPA hierarchy to this very day. I believe, it is one of the root causes of our current problem, i.e., the inability to represent regional carriers fairly while maintaining a philosophy of bigotry and discrimination against their pilot groups.

When a trunk carrier's management eventually came up with the idea of creating a code-share feeder operation (I think it was EAL/PBA originally), ALPA made an even bigger mistake. It allowed management to do this by creating an exemption to Scope. That mistake has come back to haunt us and now threatens to divide the union.

In 1993 when Comair introduced the regional jets, ALPA had a second chance to cure the mistake. It could have taken the position that "all jets will be operated by mainline", but it didn't even try. Instead, the powers that be chose to plug the gaping hole by inventing restrictions to Scope in an effort to limit the proliferation of these new small jets. I think the leaders saw the problem that was coming or at least the potential, but none of the major pilots groups was willing to pay the price of putting these jets back under the Scope clause. They took the money and continued to pursue the idea of adding more lines to the Scope clause.

ALPA had one separate alternative with which to "fix the problem". It could have set a course to restore the contracts of all the regional carriers flying jets to parity on scale with the mainline. That is what we had when the "old regionals" were around. The regional pilot groups didn't have the clout or leverage to do that on their own. They needed the full support of the union and the major airline pilot group to which their carrier was related. The mainline pilots took the money again and refused to sacrifice anything to help raise the bar at the small carriers. It wasn't their problem.

Unfortunately for the mainline pilot groups, the Scope strategy proved ineffective as management found ever-increasing ways to circumvent it. Management has been winning that battle and every one of us should understand that the enemy doesn't surrender when he's winning the war.

The price of fixing the problem that we ourselves helped to create and fostered with benign neglect, grows higher with each passing day as the regional carriers convert to all-jet fleets and continue to grow.

Now the mainline pilots have recognized, finally, that this could be bigger that both of us. Nevertheless, they continue to steer the ship of ALPA on a collision course with the reef all the while shouting "I'm the Captain". The mainline pilots refuse to recognize the regional pilots as professional equals; they refuse to support and join directly in the effort to raise the bar to parity; they continue to write more useless Scope clauses that they cannot enforce and, they are now attempting to take equipment from the big regionals without taking the pilots that fly them.

This policy of the ALPA (and the APA) is a recipe for disaster. It is not working and it is not going to work. Sensible regional pilots (and there are many) are simply not going to give up their equipment to the mainline without a guarantee of job security. They are not going to allow the jets-4-jobs nonsense that abrogates their seniority. They are fighting for their rights and will continue to do so in ever increasing numbers.

If the mega carriers decide to spin off their wholly owned subsidiaries completely, you will begin to see mergers between the large regionals, which will become small majors in their own right. They will compete, not against the mainline carriers, but pilot group againsr pilot group for the flying. I assure management will not object to that. Management will be able to make "deals" with these new carriers that keep the money flowing where they want it. They will actually work together in a series of alliances that benefit both (coincidentally at the expense of labor).

The bad part is the impact that this will have on the piloting profession. The mega carriers of today will exit the narrow body flying little by little and gravitate towards the lower cost structure of the new "mini-major" carriers, which will be regional in name only. The pilot groups at the new carriers, having been shunned by the big boys of today, will form their own labor union and bid for the narrow body flying. They will win the bidding wars or the mainline pilots will have to lower their cost structure to match them in an effort to keep the flying. The outcome will be devastating financially to pilots of both groups.

Personally, I see this scenario as a nightmare and I do hope that I'm very wrong. Just the same, I don't believe that I am. If ALPA and the mainline pilot groups continue to pursue a policy of rejecting regional pilots and taking from them whenever they can, it is only a matter of time before we are at war with each other. I don't see any winners that are pilots in such a war. I think we should do whatever we need to do to avoid it.

If we are unable to resolve the issues that divide us on a fair and equitable basis within the next five years, the struggle will become inevitable. I don't ask you to agree with me, but I do ask you to think about it seriously. Not in my interest, but in your own.

Get a grip. I laugh every time I see a regional pilot spew off about one list. Regionals exist because the airline didn't want the mainline combined with the feed. The airlines are never going to combine the operations. Never.

If I were in management I would not want to combine the carriers either. I would want to do what I outline above. Perhaps not exactly but something along those lines. Personally, I am not in favor of "one list" and you would know that if you've been following these conversations, so I'm not spewing off. I believe the answer is somewhere between one list and the present status quo. Separate, but equal. An alliance between us if you will, yet each with his own sovereignty. Complicated, but no more than today's mess. Privately, I think you should have to pay the price of your arrogance and stupidity. I don't want that to happen because I think it is not good for the profession as a whole. Yet I acknowledge that the more I listen to most of you, the less I care about what happens to you. You will lose your power to dictate what we do or don't do. In the final analysis YOU are the one's that will lose your $150/hr copilot pay rates. People like me will gain a huge pay raise even though you view it as slave labor. Laugh now if you please, but remember that "he who laughs last, laughs best".

If you continue to refuse to change, it's not my throat that I envision being cut, it is yours. You can feel free to stop talking about this whenever you choose. You may call it ridiculous as often as you please. YOU, will ultimately pay the price of your actions or inaction. You've been warned repeatedly that there are rocks in the shallows, yet you steam full speed ahead, blindly. "I'm a lighthouse. It's your call."

 

[surplus1]

To: Draginass

Barbs and kidding aside, Surplus, I think we agree in principal with the idea of regionals being combined with their mainlines, one seniority list, and one contract, and one standard of compensation. Where we differ is in the outlook for practicality making that happen, and maybe in the methodology in combining lists.

Dragin, you're not too far off. In reality I agree with you that management is just not going to buy the idea unless the economics can be resolved. While I think I might know how that could be done, I don't think management will give up the bargaining leverage they have gained by being able to play us against one another. My ideas on how to do it don't account for that part of the problem.

1. I think the idea of suing ALPA is unproductive and a waste of time. I see it as born out of frustration with the companies and COMAIR's apparent defeat by Delta management during the strike (i.e. settle or we'll shutdown the company).

I'm not so sure if it's unproductive or a waste of time. Hopefully not either but only time will answer that question. I can tell you that it was unrelated to the strike. The suit was filed before the strike. The issues are the union's failure to represent and the Scope clause at DAL. The latter is the prime mover. If we can stop that type of scope clause most of us will be happy to go our separate ways. We can always solve the representational issues by decertifying the present union.

2. The evolution of regionals in the last 15 years, fueled somewhat by technology, but mostly by the expanding economy, is way beyond where anyone would have predicted.

Well, not anyone. The senior management of my particular company created the evolution and there is little doubt they both predicted and believed in it. Those of us that have been here awhile shared that belief. We were also doing quite well with it until the big shark came along and swallowed our tadpole. They've had indigestion every since. We can't be blamed or included in the lack of visions group that leads our national union.

3. Mainline unions are unable (as a matter of practicality) to compel the companies to absorb the regionals.

With that I agree. The price is now too high. It is the restrictions you mention that I see as the union's major failure. When they had the chance they refused to act and mainline pilots took the money instead. Now you want, after the fact, to plug the holes in the dam by demanding ever-increasing restrictions that operate to remove our livelihood. That we will continue to resist.

Result, you are now fighting both management and your fellow pilots at the regionals. The evidence appears to support the idea that the steps you thought you were taking, were not in fact practical or prudent. They have failed. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak and you can't put it back in. Ultimately we will separate completely and become truly independent corporate entities. We will form new alliances with the big carriers that render your restrictions moot. Your inability or unwillingness (it really doesn't matter which) to find ways to join with regional pilots and get us on your side, will ultimately result in a cadre of capable competitors. Not against your Company, but against you.

The very thing you are trying to prevent by attacking us instead of attacking management with us, will result in the loss of the very jobs that you are trying to prevent. "But for the want of a horse, the war was lost."

If the lawsuit is unsuccessful it will only mean that the union gets off. The tide is coming in anyway and that won't stop it. Your opportunities to stem it are being discarded, by you. For this you will ultimately pay a price far higher than you imagine. We tried to help you stop it and you said NO. While I regret it, you will have to live with the consequences. We will do just fine. Though it may have been inadvertent, you have actually put management on our side. I predict you will come to regret the day.

4. The RJDC people see the companies as too hard a target to compel integration, so instead go after what they see as a softer one, ALPA, hoping to compel them to make integration more inticeing to the companies. While you say that can be done without economic incentives from mainline unions, I just can't see it, and you've been coy about presenting any practical plan.

I know that you and most mainline pilots see the RJDC as an effort to compel integration. I've been trying to tell you that you're mistaken, but apparently there is no way. You have missed the forest while focusing on the trees. It is not to compel integration, it is to establish independence, via the elimination of the restrictive Scope. We are not against ALL scope, just the particular scope. We want emancipation, not integration with you. Our territory was invaded by a foreign entity that wants to dictate every aspect of our lives without our consent or participation. That is what we are trying to get rid of. Some folks accept occupation and dictatorship, others fight against it. You have misinterpreted our motives and although I have tried to make you understand, I try in vain. That is because you believe so strongly that you are the most desirable thing on earth that you cannot even conceive that anyone might want to be severed from you. I guess you'll have to continue in that belief. Unfortunately, management understands it very well.

5. We also disagree with the future potential of the RJs. While the RJDC people present them as the wave of the future, I think that's an gross overstatement to give them the appearance of inevitability, while I think their future practicality is limited.

Yet another example of misunderstanding. The RJDC does not care about the future potential of whatever you define as a RJ. It cares about removing the artificial restrictions assumed (by your group) to be inclusive in the term RJ. We want the market to dictate our future, not the Delta MEC or the ALPA. The term has no specific definition. The "wave of the future" isn't what you or the analysts call and RJ, it's the evolution of a new segment of the industry that operates with a much lower cost structure.

We are trying to stop the artificial restrictions that you want to place on us and we are also trying to prevent you from transferring our equipment to yourselves. If you continue on your present course, someone will replace you sooner or later.

You are absolutely right when you say the companies look at costs, not airplanes. You have given them the impetus to replace your narrow body flying. They are seizing the opportunity. You will wind up with the wide body and transcontinental flying. We will get the rest. That is what you fail to see or refuse to acknowledge, I'm not sure which.

Perhaps you still have some time in the window to change your strategy. You don't want to, so you will have it your way. The window will close and you will be left outside. You still have control of the rudder to the ship, but your helmsman is on the wrong course. If he doesn't turn soon, you'll be on the rocks. Ultimately, we wont be the losers, you will and you still don't get it.

The regionals will continue to expand and far beyond what they are today. They will ultimately be separated from their "parent" companies of today. Next they will join hands and span the country from sea-to-sea. Their equipment will grow in size to meet market demand. They will get the business that you have priced out of existence in your own company and discarded as not being good enough for you. It will take a while, but watch. Sooner or later it will happen. That is the future of the so-called RJ.

I understand you think this is farcical, you've said so. That's OK by me. Yes, that's what I mean about mainline compensation being gutted. The logic of selling off the regional carriers makes total sense so long as the revenue stream is not interrupted by the sale. I believe there are ways to prevent the revenue loss and management will find them. You don't have to own the airplanes or the airline to make money from the seats that are being sold. Why do you think all the big carriers have formed so many international "alliances"? They get more revenue from the exchange (with little cost) than they would get from operating those flights themselves. They will do the same thing in the domestic markets, just as soon as they can.

Low cost and high revenue with minimal capital expenditure and little risk. The perfect world of corporate America. You can call it outsourcing or anything else you choose. If they can find a way to do it outside your 100 pages of Scope, they will. They're looking for that way as we write, and I think you all and the unions are giving it to them. That logic is why the IPO's make more and more sense, i.e., they have grown tired of hassling with what they see (and I agree) as your unreasonable Scope. It is not just the revenue from the sale that's important, it's the revenue after the sale.

If they can defeat Scope in the courts (I think there's a good chance for the carriers with subsidiaries) they may prefer that and a full Republican government (both houses & the White House) may provide that opportunity. If they can't they'll just go around it, one way or the other.

This isn't going to happen over night by any means. It will take time and it will be incremental as you say. You and I agree on that. But, if we sit still believing that it can never happen (the current mentality) that almost makes it inevitable.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Surplus,

I agree that your doomsday scenario is entirely plausible. As a matter of fact, it is not such a stretch to come to the conclusion that it is happening right now, although on a smaller scale than you predict. Due to management's willful disregard of the very contract that they signed, we are being played off against each other right now. However, I have a bit more optimism than you. You called mainline scope "unenforceable". I would not go quite so far...yet. As you know, we have grieved the violation of our scope clause, and i expect victory. Even if we lose, it only means we will have to meet to set more "appropriate" limits. Your assertion that scope is unenforceable is only accurate in light of a catastrophic and unforseen event like 9/11. The fact is, the vast majority of scope clauses were complied with before 9/11, and I expect that we will again force compliance. Now if you want to argue that the trend is for weaker scope every contract, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. The only difference between us now is that you want that trend to continue, and I want it to reverse.

You paint a picture of pilot groups competing for flying based on salary, then you sue us because we are attempting to prevent just that. The fact is, your lawsuit seek virtually unfettered growth at Comair. I am sure that you will agree that much of that growth, if allowed, will come at the expense of Delta pilots, in the form of a flying shift from a highly paid group to yours. We are attempting to prevent this, and I firmly believe that we should continue to do so. I find it interesting that you and I both agree that ALPA made a mistake when they allowed any mainline flying to be done by a "commuter". However, when we fight for something that will at least limit the amount of such whipsawing, you claim unfair representation.

Onelist is a noble solution, that would solve many of our problems (with a staple). However, I don't think it is realistic right now. Perhaps I am wrong. That is why I started this thread in the first place. Absent onelist, I believe that scope is the only effective tool we have to prevent the scenario you predicted. Cryptic hints of a better solution are not enough to make me abandon my belief in a strong scope clause. Scope is admittedly flawed, but until I hear a better (realistic and achievable) solution, I will continue to support scope.

Our flying is being farmed out to our DCI partners and our Skyteam partners. We have allowed this due to greed and short-sightedness. I believe that the Delta pilots have seen the error of their ways, and I predict that scope will be the number one priority in our next contract. I hope that we have finally awakened. I think that we have. The idea that we might relax our scope for Comair and ASA just because they are owned is not realistic. The fact is, we view comasa as the first step in your prediction. Your lawsuit asks the courts to force us to allow you unfettered growth. You may think that would benefit the profession as a whole, I remain unconvinced. In fact, I view the very scope you are attacking as my only available weapon to prevent the erosion of narrowbody flying, and the elimination of the $150/hour f/o that you mentioned.

We will fight to protect our scope clause. Yes, even that which restricts the growth of the wholly-owneds. If the rjdc is successful, I believe (and hope) that we will leave ALPA, and negotiate a contract that will continue to have strong scope (the APA did it, and in an entirely noble concept, AMR is complying with it!).


Let's face it. You and I agree that the system is broken. ALPA screwed up. The barn door is open. However, we differ on what our next step should be. There are still some animals who have not yet left the barn. I want to close the door before any more get out. It seems that your argument is, "we shouldn't have opened the door, but now that we did, we should open it wider." That doesn't really make sense to me. I know that you have ideas, and I am probably simplifying them, but until I hear a workable plan, I have to support a strong scope. Your implication that we should allow certain kinds of scope, while allowing unfettered growth at comasa, is unsupportable as far as I am concerned. Perhaps you could let me in on more of your plan, because I cannot lend my allegience to a movement until I know what it is for which we are fighting. What the rjdc is asking for in the lawsuit is unacceptable. I hope that your plan includes more than simply allowing comasa to fly an unlimited amout of our seat-miles. I think that it probably does. I would like to hear it. Until I do, I have to argue only the facts, and one of the facts is that you support a lawsuit which, if successful, would enable management to take vast amounts of our flying and give it to you to do for less money. Rather similar to your predicted scenario, isn't it?

 

[skydiverdriver]

Thank you both, Surplus and FDJ's for the reasonable and gentlemanly discussion. One thing of note, I noticed that the chairman of ALPA called the man who started Mesa's new Freedom Airlines a Frank Lorenzo clone. I think that Freedom was the result of restrictive scope. If you give a businessman a problem, he will find a way to solve it. I think you should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. The only way to stop something like Freedom is to treat all pilots the same. Good luck to you guys.

 

[Draginass]

I don't think management will give up the bargaining leverage they have gained by being able to play us against one another. My ideas on how to do it don't account for that part of the problem.

Well, Surplus, thank you, . . . . . . at last. A small problem, though, huh.

Result, you are now fighting both management and your fellow pilots at the regionals.

Funny, I'm not fighting anyone, and certainly not AE ALPA. In point of fact, our two unions have a pretty good relationship. I think the vast majority of AE pilots recognize the importance of scope, as witnessed by the outsourcing grievance they are currently in.

You will wind up with the wide body and transcontinental flying. We will get the rest.

Why limit yourself to domestic flying? Why not take it all? If compensation at mailine is too high and scope is "illegal" (haven't seen anybody arrested for it yet), then why would international and wide-body flying be immune from transfer? If scope is struck down, then why not all code-share including domestic code share? That would give management the necessary flexibility to shift resources around to better meet customer demand. Why should AMR not have the flexibility to contract out to UAL or AWA, or even allow cabotage with off-shore carriers like Ryanair, for that matter?

Let's take a poll. How many of you F/Os at the regionals would be willing to give up your Saab and fly a wide-body internationally out of New York for $60 an hour and a 401k? Of course, you'll have to do it for that for the rest of your career, or until someone else is willing to do it for less.


As is usual in today's America, what happens in the future depends upon the unpredictability of a caprious court system. If the courts delcare that scope provisions, rightfully negotiated in good faith between a labor group and management, are invalid, then the unions will be emasculated into pointlessness. If that happens it won't matter if you're mainline, COMAIR, or any other carrier. If the companies can outsource your jobs at will, there are always pilots that would be glad to work for less and the profession will adjust to a compensation rate based upon the lowest common demoninator. The damage to the prestigue and lucrativeness of the profession would be substancial.

I have more faith in the system than to anticipate the above scenario, however. Fortunately, those in the profession who would relish in bringing down the bar, are few. They, however, have strong allies in the ATA and airline managements, who see a chink in the armour of unionism and surely will pursue it with enthusiam.

We shall see. For those in the early and mid points in their careers, the stakes are very high indeed.

 

[Clownpilot]

Re: TO: Clownpilot

>>That's an interesting perspective, but it is far from being historically accurate. Regional carriers are not at all "new". That is why we invented the term "commuter airline".>>

When did I ever say regional carriers were new????

>>If the mega carriers decide to spin off their wholly owned subsidiaries completely, you will begin to see mergers between the large regionals, which will become small majors in their own right. They will compete, not against the mainline carriers, but pilot group againsr pilot group for the flying. I assure management will not object to that. Management will be able to make "deals" with these new carriers that keep the money flowing where they want it. They will actually work together in a series of alliances that benefit both (coincidentally at the expense of labor).>>

LOL. Majors own their feeds so they can control the schedules and feed their mainline. Selling them wold eliminate that control. It's a hollow threat. Also, it removes their control of route planning, makes them susceptible to broken code shares, and gives the feed carrier an incredible amount of leverage by putting them in a position to start a bidding war for their services. Analysts who think the majors will sell their wholly owned subsidiary feeds are idiots. They'd be cutting their own throats.


>>The bad part is the impact that this will have on the piloting profession. The mega carriers of today will exit the narrow body flying little by little and gravitate towards the lower cost structure of the new "mini-major" carriers, which will be regional in name only. The pilot groups at the new carriers, having been shunned by the big boys of today, will form their own labor union and bid for the narrow body flying. They will win the bidding wars or the mainline pilots will have to lower their cost structure to match them in an effort to keep the flying. The outcome will be devastating financially to pilots of both groups.>>

Stop doing drugs. The FAA is allowed to test for that. Did you come up with this on an acid trip?



>>Privately, I think you should have to pay the price of your arrogance and stupidity. I don't want that to happen because I think it is not good for the profession as a whole. Yet I acknowledge that the more I listen to most of you, the less I care about what happens to you. You will lose your power to dictate what we do or don't do. In the final analysis YOU are the one's that will lose your $150/hr copilot pay rates. People like me will gain a huge pay raise even though you view it as slave labor. Laugh now if you please, but remember that "he who laughs last, laughs best".

If you continue to refuse to change, it's not my throat that I envision being cut, it is yours. You can feel free to stop talking about this whenever you choose. You may call it ridiculous as often as you please. YOU, will ultimately pay the price of your actions or inaction. You've been warned repeatedly that there are rocks in the shallows, yet you steam full speed ahead, blindly. "I'm a lighthouse. It's your call.">>

A regional pilots wet dream; "mainline must merge with us to protect themselves from management." What a joke. This is the last desperate grasp at straws of the pathetic regional pilot who can never climb out of the regional cellar. They wish doom and gloom on the Major pilots threatening disaster if we don't merge lists and align with their cause. The hysterical part is how transparent it all is. No mainline pilot believes your doomsday scenario and this pathetic attempt to get a job you couldn't get on your own by trying to scare the mainline pilots into giving into your fantasies is just plain pathetic. If you really believe your own drivel you're in bigger trouble than I thought you were. Go ahead, call me arrogant and tell me my arrogance will come back to haunt me. The fact is that I've studied this and your assertions are just plane unrealistic. If you want a real job apply for it. We're not gonna just hand it to you.

 

[E120ASA]

Great topic, but sorry, it will never happend. Out goes the lights.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Draginass,
I think you know that you make no sense, but someone may need to tell you anyway. Take all of mainline flying away, that's a good one. Were you laughing when you said that? I'm sure the rjdc is working for just that, so that Comair can take over all of Delta's flying and make it all ours. What is your point? Are you trying to make us look stupid by being stupid yourself? If you could explain to me why you are speaking this way, perhaps I could understand you and the rest of the sky-nazis. No, on second thought, don't bother. I think I know enough allready.

 

[surplus1]

Well, Surplus, thank you, . . . . . . at last. A small problem, though, huh.

You're most welcome. No, not a small problem. A big problem that we created and they are taking advantage of. We let it happen, we must fix it.

Funny, I'm not fighting anyone, and certainly not AE ALPA. In point of fact, our two unions have a pretty good relationship. I think the vast majority of AE pilots recognize the importance of scope, as witnessed by the outsourcing grievance they are currently in.

Well, that's very good news. A welcome change from your past practices. Pray tell me, what motivated your newely found recognition of the existence of AE? Any chance it's related to the fact you have folks on furlough? Probably not, my bad. Guess it's because you want to convince them how much you really care. Now I understand why you offer to take all their jets, of course without them. Sorry, I blew that again, you did promise to take what was "remaining" wasn't it? If you ever got to Phase III.

Tish tish, don't get upset now you're forgetting what I said. I'm not opposed to scope. It's Section 1 isn't it? And that's because it's the most important part of any contract. But, there is Scope and then there is the other kind of scope.

The AE pilots have a right to be concerned. The companies that they are worried about operate the same equipment and they are not a part of AMR. They are subcontractors.

Eagle is not a subcontractor. It is a component of AMR (just like you are). When you write scope to keep the flying of AMR for AMR pilots, you get 5 stars *****. When you write scope against your own company and fellow pilots you are misapplying the purpose and the intent of Scope.

I thought you had figured that out and that was why you made your 3-phase proposal, but I guess I was wrong. Oh well, that's the story of my life. The day my ship came in where was I? At the airport. Missed it.

Why limit yourself to domestic flying? Why not take it all? If compensation at mailine is too high and scope is "illegal" (haven't seen anybody arrested for it yet), then why would international and wide-body flying be immune from transfer?

Sorry, I was just trying to emulate your lead. It's really a 3-phase program for your benefit. I just told you about Phase I due to space limitations. I didn't have room to put the details in the summary. Don't worry, if there are any of you left when we get to Phase III, you'll be able to come over too.

Dragin, I can play your game, but it's pointless. Why don't we try to discuss the real issues and spare ourselves the barbs. Like I told you before, I've been around the pattern more than once. This can be a debate or we can make it a p*****g contest. Either way I can handle the flak. I'm not asking you to agree with me and I'm reading everything you write carefully without any preconceptions. Do the same and we can learn something from each other. There is really no need to be supercilious.

As is usual in today's America, what happens in the future depends upon the unpredictability of a caprious court system.

You're very right about that. One of the best examples I can think of is the rantings of the so-called judge that ruled against your union originally. When I read the full opinion, I couldn't believe my eyes. That is why the phrase justice system is such a misnomer.

If the courts delcare that scope provisions, rightfully negotiated in good faith between a labor group and management, are invalid, then the unions will be emasculated into pointlessness.

Your statement is accurate. However, that is NOT what our litigation is asking the courts to do. We are asking the court to vacte a particular scope provision precisely because it was negotiated in bad faith by a labor union that would not allow the affected party to participate in the process contrary to its own Constitution and ByLaws. That is substantially different from what you perceive.

While I cannot account for the capricious nature of the court system, we do not expect nor do we want the court to declare all Scope invalid. You may not like or agree with what we are doing, but we are not frivilous or stupid.

If you wish to debate the merits of the case you are welcome to do so. Before you begin the very least you should do is familiarize yourself with the complaint. Jumping to erroneous suppositions that have no basis in fact makes you appear as capricious as you accuse the courts of being.

If that happens it won't matter if you're mainline, COMAIR, or any other carrier. If the companies can outsource your jobs at will, there are always pilots that would be glad to work for less and the profession will adjust to a compensation rate based upon the lowest common demoninator. The damage to the prestigue and lucrativeness of the profession would be substancial.

You are quite right about all of that with perhaps one minor exception. I don't think the damage would be "substantial", I think it would be devastating.

Again, we do not ask nor do we want the courts to strike down Scope. We want the court to find that the union acted in bad faith and improperly negotiated the scope clause in question. Therefore, the clause should be vacated and a new Scope section renegotiated in the proper manner.

Should the court rule in our favor it will not strike down Scope or render it meaningless. It will actually enhance future Scope by ensuring that is in fact negotiated in good faith with the affected parties at the table, participating fully.

The theory is actually quite simple. You may negotiate on your own behalf whatever scope you choose to control the allocation of your work. You may NOT negotiate any scope that controls the allocation of my work. Further, you may not negotiate anything on my behalf without my consent. There is no rocket science in that.

Fortunately, those in the profession who would relish in bringing down the bar, are few.

If your intention is to infer that is my position or desire you have failed totally to comprehend anything that I have written. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My advocacy and the entire purpose of my effort is to preclude the occurence of precisely what you allege. That is exactly why I think it is so urgent that we find an equitable solution to the problem that has developed. Failure is not an option.

The worse case scenario of which I wrote is not something that I see as desirable. Nevertheless, it IS something that I see as probable if we fail or refuse to adress the current issues that divide us.

I am a diehard unionist with 24 years of active volunteer service in defense of the rights of my fellow pilots and my own, both in IFALPA and ALPA USA. The very last thing that I want to witness is the demise of my union or the failure of my union to accomplish its intended purpose, i.e., the fair and unbiased representation, promotion, protection and defense of every member's profession and rights.

Just as it is my sworn responsibility to intervene and attempt to prevent any member of my profession from actions that damage his own reputation or that of the profession, so also is it my responsibility to intervene and attempt to change the course of my union when I believe that its actions fall short of its responsibilities to the membership, be it only one member or all 60,000.

I am trying to do that to the best of my ability. The union to which you now belong came into existence because the union to which I belong failed the members of American Airlines. Your predecessors decision was to leave. My decision is to remain and fight for what is right from within. I think that is the preferable course of action. You are free to think differently if you so please.

I can tolerate your calling me names or ridiculing my views, but do not accuse me of being anti-union or against my profession. Them thar is fighting words.

We shall see. For those in the early and mid points in their careers, the stakes are very high indeed.

Yes, the stakes are high for all. Too high to ignore or treat with benign neglect. "We'll find a way or make it!"

Surplus1

 

[73GDog]

Surplus1,
You have way too much time on your hands!!

 

[SF3CAP]

Hey Clown Boy: Your military arrogance shines through in your last post. What a bunch of horsesh*t! You mean, we're not gonna get a major job "just handed to us" like you did, right?

 

[Clownpilot]

HA

LOL

The truth hurts.

Hey Clown Boy: Your military arrogance shines through in your last post. What a bunch of horsesh*t! You mean, we're not gonna get a major job "just handed to us" like you did, right?

 

[trigeek]

Surplus,
Sorry, your whole argument on our scope is illegal because DAL owns Comair and your scope is legal because we don't Trans States is lost on me.
That aside, IF you do win your lawsuit, I don't think ALPA representing both pilot groups next time around will be a problem. ALPA will either withdraw representation from Comair/ASA or Delta pilots will withdraw from ALPA. Not a threat, just a prediction. There are a lot of pilots who were writing you strike assessment checks that now wish they never had.
And just for the record, Leo spoke to a group of new Captains the other day. I'm sure its just "spin" but he said absotely not to the merging of companies or list. DCI would lose its cost advantage. I sure he said that just to make us feel better though

 

[skydiverdriver]

Trigeek,
You are probably correct, but you missed the point. The point is not for them to combine us, or do anything else that is under the discretion of Delta Airlines. The point is to treat us the same as they would any other AIRLINE. So, if the rjdc does win it's lawsuit, and our union starts to do what it promised us it would, then either Delta or it's regionals leave ALPA, then we have won. I don't understand why people don't get this point, but I keep trying. You make it sound like our suit is counterproductive if one of the parties leaves the union. Well, it wouldn't be much different from the current situation, would it?

The reason scope is incorrect for two airlines that are owned by the same company is because the ALPA bylaws say that those two airlines should be merged. Now, if we were merged, our combined scope would not limit one group against another. Does this help with your Trans-states question?

If you are still confused, and it is a difficult issue, please read all the recent posts by Surplus, and I think he has addressed your question in detail. Thanks for reading.

 

[Draginass]

So, if the rjdc does win it's lawsuit, and our union starts to do what it promised us it would, then either Delta or it's regionals leave ALPA, then we have won. I don't understand why people don't get this point, but I keep trying.

If winning means COMAIR pilots proceed with decertifying ALPA, why don't you get on with "winning" instead of throwing lawyer money down a rat-hole? Or is it that the RJDC is a mouse with a megaphone with no real popular support?

 

[trigeek]

SDD,
IF this is about mergering, then I have 2 questions. 1) If we don't have the power to merger the airlines isn't this a moot point? 2) In an earlier post you expressed great frustration with my questions concerning "one list". You stated,

QUOTE]"I can't understand why reasonably intellegent people can read something and all they see is onelist, which is only part of the problem (or solution, depending on how you look at it)."[/QUOTE]

(Never mind that IS the topis of this thread) So which is it. Your contridictions are lost on me.

Or is it really about about the possible winfall of millions of dollars? No, I'm sure you'll give any proceeds to charity because this is all about principle right?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

The reason scope is incorrect for two airlines that are owned by the same company is because the ALPA bylaws say that those two airlines should be merged. .

SDD,

Perhaps you could cite the section of the ALPA bylaws which mandates the merging of any two airlines. I believe that you are misrepresenting the language of the bylaws. I could not find anything that makes the merging of the lists a requirement. All that I could find was the merger policy which states that the policy shall only be "applicable when the Executive Council, in its judgement, determines that there is sufficient operational integration between or among two carriers..."

I believe that you might have an argument that there is "sufficient operational integration" between our airlines. However, unless I am mistaken, you cannot claim that the bylaws of ALPA were not followed. The rules state that the Executive Council must make the determination of integration, and that is exactly what happened. The rules were followed to the letter. The judgement of the executive council might or might not have been incorrect, but they were not in viloation of the bylaws, as you assert.

Perhaps I am wrong, but the language seems pretty clear to me.

Also, I would be interested in hearing a response from you and surplus to my previous post.

Thanks

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,
Sorry, your whole argument on our scope is illegal because DAL owns Comair and your scope is legal because we don't Trans States is lost on me.

Pardon but I've searched my previous posts and can't seem to find anywhere that I made reference to Trans States. Perhaps you could help me by pointing it out.

I am tempted to "guess" what you mean but giving it second thought have decided not to. We already have enough difficulty when folks selectively take things out of context in an effort to skew the meaning of a writer's remarks. I'll wait for your clarification.

That aside, IF you do win your lawsuit, I don't think ALPA representing both pilot groups next time around will be a problem. ALPA will either withdraw representation from Comair/ASA or Delta pilots will withdraw from ALPA. Not a threat, just a prediction.

Interesting. To be honest I'm not so sure that the ALPA has the legal right to "withdraw representation" of Comair or for that matter anyone one else. ALPA could expel us for cause perhaps. However, an attempt to do that because it lost a lawsuit would serve only to increase ALPA's liability, in my view. I think they are smarter than that. In my opinion, if the ALPA felt that it could relieve itself of potential liability by expelling Comair/ASA it would have initiated that sequence the day after the suit was filed.

If Delta pilots choose to decertify the union they are of course free to do so. However, I doubt that would relieve ALPA from any liability it may have incurred as a consequence of losing the case. Neither do I believe that your decertification of the union would operate to reinstate your relevant scope section if the court has found it to be invalid. I'm not a lawyer so of course I could be wrong. Time will tell I suppose.

On the other had if we should lose the case it will prove conclusively that there is no way that our interests can be represented to our satisfaction by the ALPA. In that case I suspect it is far more likely that we would decertify ALPA without delay.

There are a lot of pilots who were writing you strike assessment checks that now wish they never had.

That's an interesting observation. What you have done is helped to convince me of what I have long suspected. Most of you wrote those checks because you had to in order to maintain your "good standing" status in ALPA and NOT because you supported or sympathized with our strike efforts.

The attitude comes as no surprise and is consistent with past practice of the Delta pilot group. If memory serves me right more than 900 of Delta's most highly compensated pilots refused to pay the EAL strike assesment, fell into bad standing, and initiated a movement to take Delta out of ALPA. Your pilot group is noted for many good things, but being "strong unionists" is not among them. In most cases your "unionism", such as it is, has been self serving. Thanks anyway for the checks that you did send.

Thanks also for not flying our struck work (and thereby avoiding being called names). Thanks too for aguing so hard behind the scenes to force us to change our definition of struck work so that you could.

BTW, did you know that our family fund received almost as much money from American pilots (APA) alone as we did from ALL ALPA carriers combined? Thank you again AA pilots. This CMR pilot is appreciative and so are the rest of us.

And just for the record, Leo spoke to a group of new Captains the other day. I'm sure its just "spin" but he said absotely not to the merging of companies or list. DCI would lose its cost advantage. I sure he said that just to make us feel better though

We've more or less grown accustomed to Leo's well directed rhetoric. I wonder if he volunteered the information of if you asked him just to be reassured that you had his support?

 

[surplus1]

TO: Clownpilot

When did I ever say regional carriers were new????

In your post dated April 8, this is what you said:

In the beginning, there were no regional carriers. There was Eastern, TWA, Pan Am, etc. That was it.

While you did not use the word "new" you clearly state above that there were NO regional carriers. Since we now have many regional carriers, it follows logically that they must be new.

LOL. Majors own their feeds so they can control the schedules and feed their mainline. Selling them wold eliminate that control. It's a hollow threat. Analysts who think the majors will sell their wholly owned subsidiary feeds are idiots. They'd be cutting their own throats.

Your reply indicates that you disagree with my saying that the mega carriers may spin off their wholly owned subsidiaries. You further state that analysts that agree with my suggestion are idiots. It seems that you are not quite up on current events.

Did you know that Continental is in the process of floating an IPO that will spin off its wholly owned subsidiary Continental Express? Did you know that Northwest is changing the name of its wholly owned subsidiary Express1 to Pinnacle and will float and IPO that spins it off in the immediate future?

I admit I’m not the brightest kid on the block but I don't develop ideas in a vacuum. Before you call folk names like idiot and imply by inference that others with similar views are idiots too, you might do well to get caught up on current events. Reality does not appear to coincide with your opinions. Situational awareness is very important to a pilot; but you knew that..

Stop doing drugs. The FAA is allowed to test for that. Did you come up with this on an acid trip?

That's a supercilious slur. Do you often revert to that style when you can't think of something coherent or relevant to say? Shame on you. I did not ask you to agree with me, I simply expressed my point of view. If you disagree, express your point of view. If you have no point of view, I recommend silence. It is much more becoming and no one will know you had nothing to say. Now, everyone knows.

A regional pilots wet dream; "mainline must merge with us to protect themselves from management." What a joke. This is the last desperate grasp at straws of the pathetic regional pilot who can never climb out of the regional cellar. They wish doom and gloom on the Major pilots threatening disaster if we don't merge lists and align with their cause. The hysterical part is how transparent it all is. No mainline pilot believes your doomsday scenario and this pathetic attempt to get a job you couldn't get on your own by trying to scare the mainline pilots into giving into your fantasies is just plain pathetic. If you really believe your own drivel you're in bigger trouble than I thought you were. Go ahead, call me arrogant and tell me my arrogance will come back to haunt me. The fact is that I've studied this and your assertions are just plane unrealistic. If you want a real job apply for it. We're not gonna just hand it to you.

Again, you don't have to agree with me. However, you don't have to make it quite so obvious that you have missed completely most of what the rest of us are discussing in this thread.

Major airlines do not have to merge with regional airlines to protect themselves from management. Pilots are the ones that need protection; management is doing just fine. While a merger might be one of the ways to resolve the conflicts, it is not the only way. I never suggested that it was. Matter of fact I have stated previously on this forum that I personally am not a proponent of "one list".

I also have not predicted doom and gloom if majors don't merge with regionals. I have predicted that there could be dire consequences, not beneficial to mainline pilots, if the existing conflict is not resolved. That is what I believe even if you don't. I'm sorry that a different opinion frustrates and upsets you so much.

You claim you've studied the situation and my assertions are unrealistic. Yet, you say nothing that would indicate that your study was productive in that you provide no evidence at all that supports the unreasonable nature of my remarks. Instead, in the complete absence of any relevant comment, you revert again to personal slurs and attacks.

I ask you to change strategy in your own behalf if you wish to stay in the conversation with any residue of credibility. You will not make me angry by those remarks. I'm very confident in who and what I am, I'm beholding to no one, I don't need a job now and I won't in the future. I'm not trying to get hired anywhere nor am I disappointed in the least about where I have previously worked. You don't possess anything that I have not already enjoyed so there is nothing I want that you could hand me even if you wanted to. So what exactly is your point?

No, I won't call you arrogant, that would be superfluous. Your frustration is reflected in your rhetoric or lack thereof. I'm not going to call you anything, but I'm sure the other readers in the thread will think of something appropriate so I'll leave it to them. You've shown your mettle and it is wanting. "Would ye had the gift He gi'e us to see ourselves as others see us."

 

[Clownpilot]

Re: TO: Clownpilot

>>While you did not use the word "new" you clearly state above that there were NO regional carriers. Since we now have many regional carriers, it follows logically that they must be new.>>

In the beginning there weren't any roads either. That certainly doesn't mean that roads are new. But the point actually was that many regional carriers were created to provide feed to the large carriers. Some "regional carriers" are regional by default. They didn't choose to be that they just never becaome successful enough to grow any bigger than that. I was saying that management won't combine a low cost carrier, that was created for the expressed purpose of being just that, with the mainline. That just raises costs and defeats the purpose of having it at all. Why is that a difficult concept?


>>Your reply indicates that you disagree with my saying that the mega carriers may spin off their wholly owned subsidiaries. You further state that analysts that agree with my suggestion are idiots. It seems that you are not quite up on current events.

Did you know that Continental is in the process of floating an IPO that will spin off its wholly owned subsidiary Continental Express? Did you know that Northwest is changing the name of its wholly owned subsidiary Express1 to Pinnacle and will float and IPO that spins it off in the immediate future?>>

There is a very big difference between raising cash by offering an IPO and relinquishing control of that entity. If you can show me that "spinning these off" will lead to the parent company relinquishing control of these companies then I'll give you some credibility. But, that really wouldn't make sense.


>>That's a supercilious slur. Do you often revert to that style when you can't think of something coherent or relevant to say? Shame on you. I did not ask you to agree with me, I simply expressed my point of view. If you disagree, express your point of view. If you have no point of view, I recommend silence. It is much more becoming and no one will know you had nothing to say. Now, everyone knows.>>

Yeah, its a slur. Its meant to be an insult. I'm insulted by and tired of this fear mongering you people try to use to support a position that ONLY BENEFITS YOU. Would I like somebody to just walk over and hand me a major airline job? Darn right I would. But, don't you realize how incredibly self serving it is to say we had better do it before its too late when you will be the only ones gaining from that happening??/

>>Again, you don't have to agree with me. However, you don't have to make it quite so obvious that you have missed completely most of what the rest of us are discussing in this thread.>>

I didnt miss it. The answer to your argument is very simple. Maintain a strong scope clause. Right now, American Eagle can operate 67 jets larger than 44 seats but smaller than 71. Also, they have block hour, feed percentage, stage length, weight, seat, as well as growth limitations. All set in writing. All agreed to in a contract and defendable in any court. Would AMR love to break them? Of course. They've already asked for scope relief twice since Sept 11. These limits have proved to be very valuable and an effective way to control the regional jet problem. I am quite comfortable with the limits set in the contract. In fact, should the mainline fleet shrink, Eagle must shrink. That is the answer to this problem. Not merging Eagle with AA pilots.

>>Major airlines do not have to merge with regional airlines to protect themselves from management. Pilots are the ones that need protection; management is doing just fine. While a merger might be one of the ways to resolve the conflicts, it is not the only way. I never suggested that it was. Matter of fact I have stated previously on this forum that I personally am not a proponent of "one list".>>

Good, neither am I. We agree on one thing.

>>I also have not predicted doom and gloom if majors don't merge with regionals. I have predicted that there could be dire consequences, not beneficial to mainline pilots, if the existing conflict is not resolved. That is what I believe even if you don't. I'm sorry that a different opinion frustrates and upsets you so much.>>

The only thing that upsets me is that your solution benefits only you and does nothing for us at all. To combine or merge lists the mainline pilots would have to be negotiated during a contract renewal. Why would we give something up to get you a job at a major? Try submitting an application. I heard that might work. Southwest is hiring.

>>I ask you to change strategy in your own behalf if you wish to stay in the conversation with any residue of credibility. You will not make me angry by those remarks. I'm very confident in who and what I am, I'm beholding to no one, I don't need a job now and I won't in the future. I'm not trying to get hired anywhere nor am I disappointed in the least about where I have previously worked. You don't possess anything that I have not already enjoyed so there is nothing I want that you could hand me even if you wanted to. So what exactly is your point?>>

Great, so enjoy your job and I'll enjoy mine. We're all happy.
We maintain tight scope. You keep your flying, we keep ours. You negotiate whatever you can get from management, we'll do the same, and we won't step on each other's toes. Everybody's happy.

 

[trigeek]

Surplus,
Trans States may have been a bad example. I was refering to the argument that your scope is legal but ours is not based on ownership. The last time I asked the question, I was answewred that ours was illegal because Delta owned both airlines and yours was not because your scope referenced carriers not owned by Delta.

[/QUOTE] What you have done is helped to convince me of what I have long suspected. Most of you wrote those checks because you had to in order to maintain your "good standing" status in ALPA and NOT because you supported or sympathized with our strike efforts.

That is not true. No one wanted you to win more than we did. If you won, we won in a way. The higher your pay and compensation the better. That reduces managements desire to whipsaw groups and replace mainline flying with DCI flying.

Thanks too for aguing so hard behind the scenes to force us to change our definition of struck work so that you could.

I'm not sure I understand this. DALPA went to great lengths to ensure we didn't fly struck work. We literally manned a "Command Post" if you will to answer any questions pilots had about reroutes or additional flying. There was NO increase of frequency or guage on ANY route Comair flew.

We've more or less grown accustomed to Leo's well directed rhetoric. I wonder if he volunteered the information of if you asked him just to be reassured that you had his support?

Oh we know we have his support...For baseball arbitration, for dismantling the contract he just signed, for many things that benefit him. I don't think ANYONE flying the line at Delta or DCI thinks he's looking out for us. That we can all agree on (I hope...)

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,
Trans States may have been a bad example. I was refering to the argument that your scope is legal but ours is not based on ownership. The last time I asked the question, I was answewred that ours was illegal because Delta owned both airlines and yours was not because your scope referenced carriers not owned by Delta.

From what you say there I don't recognize that as my argument. Perhaps it will help if I just state why I think the pretinent sections of your Scope (not all of it) is not valid. I pointedly use the word valid as opposed to illegal, because one refers to internal ALPA proceedings and the other imputes law.

It is possible that your pertinent scope contravenes the RLA's intent. I'm not a lawyer. It certainly violates the traditional purpose of scope and that may relate. The lawyers will have to argue those technical points.

Basically, you have written provisions in your scope that affect the employess of a separate airline that is not a subcontractor of your airline. If that is valid, it would mean you could write scope limiting the number of 747's that UAL can fly. There is no precedent for that type of scope and on that basis, it would be invalid.

I'm sure you will allege that Comair IS a subcontractor. I argue the opposite. Before Delta purchased CMR, it was a subcontractor. That contract died on the vine when the acquisition was completed. Unless you can produce a new subcontract entered into between Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Comair, Inc., we are not subcontractors. I don't believe that such a contract exists.

The queston of ownership is not particularly relevean, in my opinion. In any case, unless I'm mistaken, Delta Air Lines, Inc. does not own Comair, Inc. Delta, Inc., owns DAL. Inc., ASA, Inc. and CMR, Inc.. ASA and Comair are therefore both Alter Egos of Delta. They are separate airlines. Is that not what the ALPA Executive Council confirmed. Did they not also dictate that it should so remain. Where do Delta pilots get the right to impose thier will on the pilots of a separate airline, without their consent, and particularly when they are not subcontractors?

The fact is Delta, Inc. owns 3 different and separate airlines. They think it's a good idea and ALPA has agreed.

The corporate structure is very complex and involves multiple shell corporations. Legally, that is quite significant and will have much to do with the arguments.

I don't think we can establish one set of rules and then apply those rules differently based exclusively on the type or size of airlines involved and in particular, not based on the type of aircraft they choose to operate. In other words, what you cannot do to the separate airline UAL, you also cannot do to the separate airline CMR. The rules of the game don't change legally because we are a "regional". (Which arguably we are not anyway.) They aslo do not change because we happen to have the same owner.

With respect to the internal (ALPA) side. We belive that the ALPA has violated its C&BL with respect to the method by which the relevant portion of your scope was negotiated. We also believe that ALPA's decisions in that respect were arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of ALPA's fiduciary responsibility to Comair pilots. If that is so, ALPA acted in bad faith and therefore, the Duty of Fair Representation implicit in the RLA (a Federal law) has been violated. If the court finds that the ALPA did do all or any of those things. they could (jointly and severally) render the contract resulting from those violations equally invalid and vacated. The remainder of your scope would be untouched.

Finally, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that this type of Scope that the ALPA is pushing, is deliberately directed at limiting the introduction and operation of a specific category of aircraf called "the RJ". It has little if anything to do with protecting the work of Delta pilots or any other mainline pilot. "Stop the RJ" any way you can, is virtually an ALPA crusade. The problem with that is that the ALPA happens to represent thousands of ALPA members who fly this equipment. Therefore, the ALPA is destroying the jobs of some of its members to satisfy the perceptions of others of its members. That is illegal.

Again, these are complex legal issues. The average person knows what they believe but that is seldom accurate in the context of the legal system. What you meant to do or thought you were doing with your scope may be quite different from what you actually did and from what is permissable under the law .

Unfortunately, this mess isn't about niceties. Millions of dollars could be lost to Comair pilots. You can't expect us to just "grin and bear it". This action (lawsuit) is NOT about animosity towards Delta pilots. It is about our job security, our career expectations and our livelihood. It has absolutely nothing to do with your seniority list.

That is not true. No one wanted you to win more than we did. If you won, we won in a way. The higher your pay and compensation the better. That reduces managements desire to whipsaw groups and replace mainline flying with DCI flying..

OK, I'll accept your word. That may be what you as an individual feel. What "our" union and your elected leaders have done, does not match your words. Even your defense raises question for it illustrates the motivation as self interest, not genuine support of our efforts or desires.

If in fact your group thinks as you say you do, why are you continuously throwing in our faces reminders of what ever money you may have contributed? Are we expected to disregard our beliefs and acquiese to your whims because you paid a strike assessment? Candidly, you can forget that.

As an aside, I want to thank those who donated to our family fund. Did you know that the American pilots were the largest single contributors? Did you know that what we got from the APA was almost as much as we got from ALL ALPA airlines combined? Thanks AA pilots and Kudos to you.

I'm not sure I understand this. DALPA went to great lengths to ensure we didn't fly struck work. We literally manned a "Command Post" if you will to answer any questions pilots had about reroutes or additional flying. There was NO increase of frequency or guage on ANY route Comair flew.

Yes, you did do ALL of those things. Thank you. Now, while Delta pilots were doing all of those things, behind the scenes at the national level, Delta leaders were arguing and pressuring to get the Comair MEC to relax its definition of struck work.

If your activities (that you outline) were done because you wanted to support us instead of because you wanted to avoid being called the "S" word (as I suggested), why the pressure to change the definition? I would think that true support would produce an argument from you to tighten the definition, not loosen it.

Truth is trigeek, there were a lot of things that our union and your pilot group could have done to support us that were NOT done. I don't want to belabor the point but the fact is both the ALPA and the Delta MEC did what they were required to do. Nothing more. I thank my MEC for the wisdom of anticipating just that.

You know what, I'll bet that very few if any Delta line pilots had a clue about what was happening behind the scenes. I'm not surprised that you find what I say incredible. The unfortunate fact is that most MEC's never tell line pilots 90% of what they really do. Politicians are not noted for candidly revealing the details of their behavior to their constituents. Delta is a big airline with 10,000 pilots. It's hard for you to know much. Comair is a small airline with 1400 pilots. Much easier for us to find out what our MEC is up to.

A lot of the squabbling we have between line pilots over these issues and this lawsuit, is directly related to how much who knows about what really happened. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.

Oh we know we have his support...For baseball arbitration, for dismantling the contract he just signed, for many things that benefit him. I don't think ANYONE flying the line at Delta or DCI thinks he's looking out for us. That we can all agree on (I hope...)

Yes, we can agree on that. Hurrah!! There IS a Pony in the pile.

I wonder if you know where this baseball arbitration idea for pilot contracts originated? (It wasn't Leo). What if I told you that it originated in a proposal to the APA from an AA VP of Labor Relations. What if I told you that VP was a former MEC Chairman in ALPA and was also a former official in the ALPA's Representation Department (before he went to AA)?

Tell you what, there are a lot of unionists among us. There are also a lot of opportunists politicians running our union under the guise of unionism. That I learned the hard way.

Sorry if I get a little heated at times but Comair pilots are my family and a lot of them will be hurt badly if something isn't done to correct what ALPA is tryin to do to us. That is why there's a lawsuit and it is why I support it. I used to be a believer and among the faithful. Now I'm a full fledged heretic. As they say, even a rat will fight if you corner him.

 

[trigeek]

Surplus,
Yes, I am aware that baseball arbitration was a brain child of AA. But as I know you are well aware, Leo has taken this up as a personal crusade. He speaks on it every time he has a public forum. After enduring your strike and our contract, he is determined to strike proof the airline.

As for the other points...we'll agree to disagree. You did touch on a very relevant point however. This is certainly taking its toll on the pilot groups involved. From Comair new hires taunting furloughed Delta pilots on the ALPA national forums to idiot captains on both sides using jumpseats to show their displeasure with the events. Fact is, regardless of the outcome, when it is over, ITS OVER. We will all be back on the same side.

 

[skydiverdriver]

On that point, I totally agree with trigeek. When I first arrived at Comair, I was a bit shocked at how nice the Delta mainline pilots were to me. They treated me like a Delta pilot, and even said we would probably be merged someday. I couldn't believe it, as I had worked at three other regionals previous to this one (first two as a dispatcher). The mainline pilots at my other regionals were not very kind to us, and that is putting it mildly.

I sincerely hope that when it is all over, that we will have that comraderie back as before, and that we don't get into the mess that American and Eagle guys endure. I think we work for one of the best, if not the best airline in the world, and we can keep it that way if we work together.

Good luck to all.