Combining the seniority lists

[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.