Combining the seniority lists

[MartinFierro]

Getting back to the original question: the issue of combining lists and convincing management it is a good idea. First, while I agree that management's willingness to combine lists is essential in making it happen, I think that even before one can worry about that, one has to convince mainline pilots that it is worth it, as Flydeltasjets originally pointed out. Let's face it, they have a lot to lose.

So, the principle question becomes what can be done to make mainline pilots want to? Regional pilots will want to for obvious reasons.

Well, what worries mainline pilots today? Outsourcing flying to RJs, fear that RJ growth will inhibit mainline growth, job security, among others. And, if lists were to be combined, then seniority issues and pay as well. Any proposal to integrate lists must address these concerns.

For seniority, perhaps there could be some type of "barrier" for those already on the mainline seniority list. Something like no mainline pilot (already on the list) can be displaced to "regional" equipment. If in the integration process, a regional pilot is placed above a mainline pilot, then that lower mainline pilot should be guaranteed the salary he/she would otherwise be making, if it weren't for that regional pilot. This way, regional pilots with many years of seniority would not be stuck on the bottom, but mainline pilots would not be making any monetary concessions. Perhaps throw something else in there similar dealing with days off, etc., to further preserve mainline seniority.

Then, once the lists have been merged, all new-hires get placed on the bottom, and work their way up normally. Another question which must be addressed is pay. Regional aircraft cannot support mainline wages and remain profitable, so those flying these aircraft will be making less (although it should be more than todays pay scales). How then would upgrades and F/O pay be handled? Perhaps just leave it to seniority, what you can hold. A captain on a turboprop or RJ would make more than some F/Os at mainline, but not all, but more than any F/O on a regional aircraft. So there would be seat jumping, but it would protect the integrity of the seniority list and make it a personal decision as to what to do.

Now, with one list and its pilots doing all the mainline and regional flying, mainline pilots may not worry as much with losing their jobs to RJs, as all of the flying is done by them. Better job security for everyone. Mainline pilots already flying wouldn't be giving up salaries. Regional captains with lots of seniority wouldn't be stuck at the bottom. New hires would have better and more assured retirements and good career advancement.

Anyway, just me blabbering. Just some thoughts, maybe not even good ones.
Once mainline pilots are onboard with integration, then management may not want to do it, but they would surely have to give it due consideration. Without pilot unity, it is dead in the water, and all management has to do is laugh.

 

[Timebuilder]

A few weeks ago, I opined that the only way one list would happen would be for DALPA and the clone's mecs to begin to act together, the idea being that an 89 day strike is a hit that Delta could survive, but a shutdown of all flying under the Delta ownership would be too great a burden, and a move to one list could be forced.

Since that isn't likely, I continued to think on this, and I remembered that the government sometimes chooses to put its nose where it doesn't belong. For example, the government believed that AT&T should be broken apart, and phone service has suffered ever since. Microsoft has sold the most successful computer platform, and its competitors are unable to come up with a system which is so much better that people would switch to a new OS, so the government punishes Gates and company.

Could a supreme court ruling, following a drawn out legal battle, make the observation that Delta's ownership of several other airline properties amounts to a failure to bargain in good faith? If Delta were to choose (or be forced) to spin off its "regional" properties, would the new owners be free to expand and fly all of Delta's routes, leading to more mainline shrinkage?

Sure, that may seem like so much nonsense, and perhaps it is. I have to wonder where this issue will end up, and looking back on where it has been offers no help. I see what is essentially one union that has failed to represent two of its pilot groups in a satisfactory manner. There is a lot of hosility, jealousy, and resentment. How can this be resolved? Is this aviation's version of the Mideast?

 

[Draginass]

Your thoughts on integration, seniority wise, involve costs to the company. Without providing economic incentive to the company, any discussion on seniority integration is irrelevant. Besides, heavy money goes on the bet that says mainline would insist on a pure staple for bidding.

 

[rjcap]

Draginass,

Without providing economic incentive to the company, any discussion on seniority integration is irrelevant

I'll take a stab at that one. How about unrestrained equipment growth, and economies of scale by reducing triplicate management ( Delta - ASA - Comair).

Besides, heavy money goes on the bet that says mainline would insist on a pure staple for bidding.

I don't see how it could be anything else. The notion of DOH for equipment and benefits has been spread like an "Urban Legend." Take a hard look at the seniority level of both Comair and ASA. Its about 75% 5 years and less. Do you really think a staple is an insurmountable task to accomplish with that level of seniority ??

rjcap

 

[Draginass]

"Unrestrained growth, etc etc. . . . "

If the managements thought that those items were economic incentive enough, they'd already be in talks with the unions. As an example, AMR refused to even acknowledge APA's recent proposal as a starting point for discussions.

As far as a staple goes, I think most regional guys would be glad to get it. But then again, there's the few that would bring lawsuits ad naseum.

 

[publisher]

AMR

Please add Eagle to my list of companies that will be spun off. They too are an example that all the mainlines are agreed not tro let this even be an item for discussuion.

The reason that no incentive would exists economically is the airlines worth is much more on the spin off if is independant.

Of all the discussiions on these boards, I have never seen one that is failing to recognize what is going on and where the perception is so far from reality.

What you want them to do is basically shut down all the regionals. Not going to happen/

 

[Timebuilder]

So then, a question.

Suppose Delta spins off all its regional properties. Is there anything that would stop the new owners from flying all of Delta's routes, drawing off their passengers with lower fares? If this happens to all the wholly owned commuters, what flying would be left for "mainline" carriers other than overseas?

 

[NEDude]

There are a few reasons why a large regional would be ill-advised to branch out on its own to compete against its former code-share partner.

First, these regionals make a lot of money off of the code share. They also gain a lot of security in being affiliated with a large mainline. The minute a spun-off Comair (or ASA, Coex, Eagle, etc) dropped its Delta Connection title and went at it on its own against Delta it would, in the eyes of the traveling public, be considered a start-up.

Additionally at all of the airports where they currently use Delta resources (agents, gates, slots, etc) they would now have to set up their own operations. Given the size of Comairs' route structure, you are talking about a HUGE initial investment.

Also Comair would lose all of the Delta bookings and now be responsible for landing its own bookings.

And don't forget the enourmous failure rate of new airlines. Being in essence a new start-up (again in the traveling publics eyes) exposes the company to at least a portion of that risk.

In short you would be taking a profitable company in a good relationship with a mainline and suddenly exposing it to a large financial investment, sudden drop in passenger revenue, a sharply increasing the risk of the failure of the company, and tremendous competition from your former code-share partner who will no doubt be replacing your company with another connection or express partner to run against you.

No regional airline CEO in his or her right mind would want to try such a step.

 

[Timebuilder]

Well, if I had to write the ad copy for the TV spot, it would go something like "same planes, same pilots, same great service, same lower fares. Now you can Connect with us...."

When I was in Orlando last year to visit a flight school, something came up and I had to return to Philly. I had arrived on Delta with a round trip ticket, and getting out of there was a 16 hour chore, which was only fixed by a clever gate agent who found a way to bypass ATL by sending me to PHL via a stop in CVG. I was never sent to the Comair counter, which was some distance away, in another concourse. So, they weren't sending ME to Comair, that much is certain. If Delta doesn't complete a flight for a passenger through Comair, then they would have to use someone else's airline/wholly owned/or bonafide startup. That would REALLY be noticed.

There may have been an advantage to Comair early on to be a codeshare partner, but once they are on their own, I think Delta will realize that they just got off the tiger, and that they were safer when they were sitting on it. I think investors will see the advantage too. I've flown both now, and I don't see what Delta has to offer competitively, except for roomier planes. Comair already is its own company, with 98% of the ingredients it needs.

I don't think it will be seen by the public as a startup, since they already fly on their planes. Whoever replaces the Comair role in completion of a passenger itinerary will likely be seen as unknown and unproved.

 

[surplus1]

Part I of II

Originally posted by FlyDeltaJets Even if the PID was granted, even if the rjdc wins, even if every Delta pilot was for onelist, I don't believe it will ever occur. If you disagree, please give me a realistic strategy to convince mgt to combine the lists, keeping in mind the following points:

FDJ, You asked for my two cents so here it comes.

1. There is nothing in either of our contracts which compels mgt to combine the lists. We have no legal authority.

Agreed. Our contracts have nothing to do with ALPA merger policy. ALPA merger policy does not require the union to force the merger of the corporate entities. The inability to force a merger, whether real or presumed does not relieve the Association from the implementation and application of its established merger policies. The question is not "can we make a merger happen". The question is: should a merger happen under these conditions and this policy? Does the intent of the merge policy apply? IMO, and that of many others, the answer is yes. What the Company may think is immaterial.

2. There is a huge cost advantage in keeping the lists seperate. Management has publicly stated that they will never merge the lists. There are way too many cost issues involved, including f/a's, rampers, csa's, retirement funding, etc.

Agreed. Nothing in the ALPA merger policy specifies that it may be ignored because there may be a cost advantage to the carrier that refuses to merge. The policy speaks to protection of the rights of the affected pilots, not to protection of the airline. There is also a huge cost advantage to the establishment and operation of Alter Ego airlines. Does that mean that the ALPA should sanction their creation whenever management deems it appropriate? Even though the "meat" of the Association's Alter Ego policy was substantially neutered in 1998, the policy still exists. In these cases the Executive Council has simply chosen to ignore the policy.

3. Mgt. has already accepted an 89-day strike to maintain the current cost structure.

Yes it did. Does that mean that the ALPA should disregard its own policies because management does not approve? I would hope not. If as a union we must acquiesce to the whims of management, what is the purpose of the union? It appears to me the union would be redundant and should be eliminated if that were the case.

4. The current trend is to spin off regionals rather than combining the lists. We have no way to prevent management from doing this, even if we put massive pressure on them to combine the lists.

Just how did you determine that this was the "current trend"? I hope you're not hanging your hat on the assumptions of the Boyd group or a few other analysts. There are two IPO's in the offing. Both are presented by airlines strapped for cash post 9-11. One of the IPO's predates 9-11. Raising cash by selling stock in a company that you own is not a revolutionary idea. While we cannot prevent management from doing this, why would we need to? The relevance escapes me. Selling stock while maintaining the same pre-sale relationship does not, in and of itself, negate the viability of a single seniority list in companies that own more than one air carrier. It is possible to operate two or more companies with one seniority list for the same craft. It is being done as we write.

5. We (DALPA) could not possibly get released to strike for at least 4 or 5 years.

That is a reasonable assumption. I do not see this as a factor. I would not expect you to strike over this issue. I would not expect us to strike over an SSL either.

6. Our contracts are staggered, so we would not be released at the same time.

You are correct again. Even if they were not staggered, I have little doubt that ALPA would find a way to delay our release until you had achieved your objectives. They've done that already. Based on my reply to #5, I don't see why this matters.

7. The idea is impossible without the support of the Delta pilots.

Actually it is not. That assumes that the Company will resist any and all forms of seniority integration. If the Company (not that they would) chose to pursue a merger or a seniority integration, the support of the Delta pilots or lack thereof would be irrelevant. I realize the Company is not going to do that anytime soon. Nevertheless, your technical premise is not correct. From a practical point of view you are correct. Lack of support from Delta is precisely why the ALPA rejected the PID. Operational integration clearly exists. The Executive Council chose to ignore it because the Delta MEC wanted them to. Money talks, b*** s*** walks.

8. The rjdc has virtually eliminated any chance of that support being gained.

That may be true but it is ONLY because there was NO support before the existence of the RJDC. The idea of the RJDC being "the obstacle" is nothing more than a politically expedient ruse to cover up a position of total opposition that your group held BEFORE THE RJDC came into being. Remember, when your MEC hired a lawyer to oppose the PID, there was NO RJDC. There are some of you that don't object to the idea as long as you can dictate the terms, but the overwhelming majority of you have made it quite clear that you want no part of us on your list. That's exactly the same as what's happening at Continental. There was great rhetoric about "support" for a SSL over there when they felt it was necessary to get the vote of COEX pilots to join ALPA. Once that objective was realized, the swell of "support" from CAL pilots and the allegations of "support" from ALPA, vanished overnight. Don't blame the RJDC for causing a lack of support.

9. The majority of concessions would have to come from the mainline contract.

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.

10. See number 8.

Ditto.

11. The support that the rjdc hasn't been able to kill is further strained by the Delta pilot's fear of losing seniority.

It never ceases to amaze me how a group as rich and powerful as the Delta pilots could possibly be afraid of losing their seniority to a small group like Comair or ASA. I think you're crying wolf. Much ado about nothing.

12. No staple has been asked for, lending credence to the Delta pilot's fear of losing seniority.

Why do we need to ASK for anything? We don't want you to do us a "favor", we are simply demanding what is our right in accordance with OUR unions written policies. How could our failure to "ask for a staple" cause you to lose your seniority? That's stuff and nonsense. It is true we did not ask for a staple. We also did not "ask" for anything else, other than implementation of an official, written policy.

You have repeatedly reminded us, over and over again that our case, our complaints, etc., are completely without merit. Why then are you afraid? Given the differences between our airlines and the merger policy's prohibition against windfalls at the expense of another, what are you afraid of? Unless you believe that we are in fact entitled to much more than we believe is justified, you have nothing to fear but fear itself. I think the paranoia has clouded the vision of your group. Either that or someone is raising a lot of unjustified fears in an effort to obscure their basic feeling of "we want no part of you unqualified come latelys' on our list. The very idea that you have the gall to think you could be Delta pilots is just too much."

Don't take it personal, FDJ. I don't think you feel that way yourself, but based on what a great many of your pilots have written in as many different places and the statements of your leaders, both public and private, what I put in quotes is representative of your feelings as a group. I can assure you that your leaders have not left their disdain to our imagination and that happened LONG BEFORE THERE WAS AN RJDC.

Remember please: The RJDC is not suing Delta pilots. It is not suing to force Delta pilots to do anything. The lawsuit does not demand any specific integration. In fact, it does not even demand integration at all. What it DOES demand (from the ALPA) is adherence to written policy, adherence to the Duty of Fair Representation, adherence to fiduciary responsibility, adherence to the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association. For the failure to do any or all of those things, it further demands compensation for the damages suffered and punitive damages to ensure future adherence to the law. There's nothing illegitimate about that. "Me thinks thou doth protest too much" (or whatever he said).

Please continue to Part II

 

[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."