Those who have read this board for a long time know how many hours we've spent debating the issues. Now that Delta has outsourced more than 65% of its flying on a block hour, or departure, basis history has confirmed the fact that "exclusive" scope language is built on shifting sand. It lacks a solid foundation. People are surprised that I'm not PO'd at the recent turn of events. Well, I was angry years ago when we started in this direction and now, I know where we are going, how we are getting there and the smoke only confirms the damage has already been done.
When I wrote about how to re-write scope to make it "inclusive" some debated and many called names and a few outright threatened me. As history has again validated my concerns, it is my hope you will look at the facts objectively.
If Delta pilots wish to capture and control flying, they must do so by writing their contract language to INCLUDE flying rather than EXCLUDE it. This means simple phrases like "Delta pilots perform all Delta flying" or "all jets over 50,000 lbs takeoff weight are flown by Delta pilots." This means acting like a union and bringing pilots together, instead of searching for ways to use one pilot's work to supplement another pilot's income.
Let me give another example. For years property insurers have tried to exclude flood damage. When there is an earthquake that destroys a dam (as happened in California) the houses flood. Was that an earthquake or a flood? Everyone went to Court and the insurers lost BILLIONS. In Katrina, there was a hurricane that caused a break down in civil infrastructure and both the pumps that provide drainage and the levies failed. Clearly most of the property was damaged in a flood, yet the insurer’s who specifically excluded flood damage lost BILLIONS again, not to mention all the bad will that is created by contentious fights over the exclusive language. This is the same situation we have.
The fix was to write contract language that INCLUDED flood and limited it. The insurers that wrote,
Flood is included up to a specific limit of $5,000, got out of Katrina with little losses, no litigation, and everyone was mostly happy with the same easy interpretation of the
inclusive language.
ALPA’s contract language is written more to meet political compromises than it is to be enforceable. It is the result of the political process and the lawyers who know they must be sensitive to the political breezes of their Client’s desires.
To fix this situation we need to be much more objective and rational about how we view scope and our contracts. I don’t know how to make that change happen. A decertification effort would only weaken our representative structure. A recall effort is only as good as the new people who would rise to leadership.
The unfortunate truth is that a generation of pilots who struggled through bankruptcies have been misguided by the concept that outsourcing pays them dividends. They see the bargaining credits they received as objective proof of their logic. They don’t care that they are burning the crops in their wake and that those behind them will starve and fight over the remaining resources.
Fundamentally the people in charge must understand & believe:
- The power of any union is its ability to bring the maximum number of pilots together to bargain collectively with one voice
- Policies that exclude pilots - undermine your power and the effectiveness of your contract
- Pilots do not buy airplanes... companies succeed when they deploy the most effective resources and services against their competition
- Inclusive scope language is stronger than exclusive language
- The goal must be “all Delta flying will be performed by Delta pilots.” Everything should be measured against this core tenet.
