Delta TA Scope

[General Lee]

Surplus1,

Way too long. Just remember this, Delta negotiates DIRECTLY with their own pilot group. Comair and ASA/SkyWest pilots negotiate with their own companies, and then their companies negotiate with DL. We have first rights to anything that is open to negotiations, and your companies do not. Whatever scope is negotiated is between us and our company. That is the deal. ALPA provides us with legal representation to achieve a contract, and our negotiators are actually Delta pilots, not full time ALPA personel. ALPA helps us facilitate a contract, that is it. And look, I didn't have to take 5 pages to rebutt your two pages.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[atrdriver]

Legitimate "Scope" has never "controlled" what another separate pilot group can fly or the work that it may do. Legitimate scope controls who does the flying in your particular airline; nothing more.

Wrong. Legitimate scope, in ANY contract, limits what OTHER people can do. In a plumbers union, their scope says all plumbing work will be done my members of this local. DAL scope says "all flying will be done by DAL semiority list pilots, except....". If that was not the case there would be nothing to stop DAL from allowing CAL pilots to fly DAL routes, since they get paid less. That's the whole point of scope, to make the company use people in the union that negotiated the PWA. And the DAL PWA was not negotiated by ASA pilots. Maybe that is a problem with ALPA's structure, but I can't think of any way to change it, simply because each pilot group has different needs, wants, etc.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Surplus 1 - excellent post.

ATR Driver - the purpose of scope is to bind an employer to its employees services. Perfect scope is all Delta flying performed by Delta pilots.

Further, to be legitimate, ALPA must allow the participation of those pilots who perform flying for the Company. By denying some pilots the right to participate in and ratify agreements which affect their pay and working conditions ALPA has failed in its responsibilities as a bargaining agent.

If you feel ALPA has no responsibility to represent ASA pilots, why do you support ALPA National? What service do they provide, if they do not represent their members?

By the way, I'm very pleased with the change in our MEC leadership.

 

[atrdriver]

Surplus 1 - excellent post.

ATR Driver - the purpose of scope is to bind an employer to its employees services. Perfect scope is all Delta flying performed by Delta pilots.

I thought that's what I said.

Further, to be legitimate, ALPA must allow the participation of those pilots who perform flying for the Company. By denying some pilots the right to participate in and ratify agreements which affect their pay and working conditions ALPA has failed in its responsibilities as a bargaining agent.

Not true. The DAL pilots negotiate with DAL management for their PWA. They have every right to make a scope clause that says "all flying will be done by DAL pilots" (in which case we would not have jobs here). They didn't, however, and they allowed a certain amount of flying to be done by us and others. We negotiate with OUR management to secure that flying. Thus, ALPA is representing both pilot groups, in negotiations with their respective employers.

If you feel ALPA has no responsibility to represent ASA pilots, why do you support ALPA National? What service do they provide, if they do not represent their members?

Even if you assume that they don't represent us, which I don't agree with, they still provide aeromedical, safety, contingency funds, etc. But I think that they do a pretty good job assisting OUR ELECTED officers in dealing with OUR MANAGEMENT, which is their sole responsibility.

By the way, I'm very pleased with the change in our MEC leadership.

I am as well, I think that Newie will do a great job. That is not to say that I think that BA did a poor job.

 

[Capi_Cafre']

Why isn't it that you throw stones at the JB guys?? 737

Throwing stones? I simply asked why you're willing to fly 100 seats for less than guys make to fly 70 if you already "own" the flying. Of course you don't have an answer for that, so now we're talking about throwing rocks and living under them.

Just for the record, JB wasn't even a gleam in Neelman's eye when ALPA decided to disenfranchise thousands of pilots just because the aircraft they flew didn't have a suitable place to hang a double-breasted jacket. They're just surfing the wave that was created when Delta took a big 'ol dump in the pool.

 

[StaySeated]

Why am I even adding to this drivel...



That is what the RJDC lawsuit seeks to do; restore ALPA. It does not seek to eliminate all Scope nor does it seek to destroy the ALPA. It seeks to right those wrongs perpetrated against ALPA members employed by regional airlines and to force the Association, by legal means, to treat all of its individual members equally and fairly. That is what the law requires and that is what we demand; no less will suffice! [/quote]



The above statement sounds real good, but it simply is not true. How is sueing for hundreds of millions in damages going to restore alpa?

 

[N2264J]

Don't agree there. Ask TSA about that. The judge ruled that because the equipment was different and the operating certificates were separate, they were different companies.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not 100% certain...but you get the point.

There is legal precedent about what constitutes a single transportation system and separate equipment/certificants are only part of it. Look at the list of the indicia again between Delta, Comair and ASA in 2000 (there may be more I'm missing). TSA/G0Jets didn't have all these:

common Board of Directors
common marketing and administrative departments
one shareholder group
same reservation system
common ticket stock
same code
schedules dovetailed for connections at common hubs
same livery
common public image

All we needed was a union to carry the torch for us. ALPA gave management a pass on Delta/ASA/Comair and in the process, failed all its members.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Taking away the ability of a pilot group to be able to control who does what flying for their company, which is what the lawsuit is asking, IS GETTING RID OF SCOPE. It's amazing that the RJDC people actually have people believing that it's not. If a pilot group can't force their company to use them to fly the companies code, then the company will not have anything to stop them from subbing out ALL flying to the lowest bidder. It's really easy to see, unless you have sucked down a few gallons of RJDC KoodAid.

Only by drinking Herndon KoolAid can you not see that flying is being subbed out to the lowest bidder - in some cases the low bids are now even coming from the mainline pilots themselves. ALPA and the mainline pilots created this mess by selling their flying to lower bidders in the first place. Some of us are tired of being used as negotiating chips by ALPA and the mainline pilots.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Yeah, well see what you say about that when scope IS eliminated by the lawsuit, and your regional forms a new unit with lower paid pilots and transfers all "your" flying over to them. There won't be anything stopping them from doing it, because that scope clause in YOUR contract that says all flying will be done by pilots from your company will be illegal.

What is to prevent that from happening now? What prevents SKYW management from transfering flying over to SKYW? How about Freedom, G0Jet$, Republic, and CCAir/Mesa. In fact, the Freedom, G0Jet$, and Republic "new units" were created as a DIRECT RESULT of failed mainline scope practices.

 

[JoeMerchant]

To say that a pilot group should get together with other groups before negotiating scope is just assinine. Yes, I believe that DAL's scope clause should say "ALL FLYING WILL BE DONE BY DAL PILOTS". Period. But that would be harming the CAL pilots, and the NWA pilots, because they couldn't fly any of the DAL code. That's the point, any scope language will "harm" another pilot group depending on how you look at it. And if you really think that if by chance the RJDC does win that YOU and I won't be replaced by lower paid pilots then you are dreaming.

ATRDriver,

1. The flying should never have been farmed out in the first place. Former ALPA President Randy Babbitt admits that it was a HUGE mistake.

2. You bring up the CAL and NWA pilots. Why is it they can fly Delta flight numbered flights on any size aircraft all the way up to a 747, yet here at the "regional" level we are arguing about 6 SEATS! Just a bit of a double standard don't you think?

3. YOU and I could be replaced TODAY. What is stopping us here at ASA from being replaced. If you think ALPA is stopping us at ASA from being replaced, then it is you who is dreaming?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Wrong. Legitimate scope, in ANY contract, limits what OTHER people can do.

Wrong. NWA and CAL pilots fly the DAL code, and they are not limited to what size aircraft they fly, or where they fly. ASA and CMR pilots cannot fly anything larger than 70 seats EVEN IF IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE DELTA CODE. There is a double standard for regional pilots in ALPA.

 

[atrdriver]

JM- There is nothing stopping us from being replaced, which is what I said in the first place. DAl scope isn't going to fix that. And I also said that All DAL flying should be done by DAL pilots.

As far as NWA and CAL flying DAL code, that is for a specific number of seats, where our flights are 100% DAL code. There is a difference. But the fact remains that the DAL code "belongs" to the DAL pilots, and it is their right to do what they want with it as far as allowing others to fly it.

Look at it this way. Lets say your neighbor is selling his house. There is a good chance that whoever buys that house will let it go to pot and cause property values around it to fall. That will obviously have a negative effect on you. Just because it might have a negative impact on you doesn't mean that you have a right to be there for his selling negotiations.

 

[N2264J]

Lets say your neighbor is selling his house. There is a good chance that whoever buys that house will let it go to pot and cause property values around it to fall. That will obviously have a negative effect on you. Just because it might have a negative impact on you doesn't mean that you have a right to be there for his selling negotiations.

Let's try to keep this reality based. You and your neighbor are not members of the same house selling union.

And why do you assume the new owner will let it go to pot?
Poor self esteem?

I (a simple and lowly "regional" pilot) am making more right now in the CL-700 than the Delta pilots bid to fly the new 100 seater.

Confused?

 

[atrdriver]

No, I am not confused. My neighbor and I are part of the same homeowners association. The simple fact is that scope IS going to "harm" someone. You and I are lucky enough that the DAL pilots let the flying go years ago. Had they not, we would not have jobs, at least not at ASA. Yes I believe that we should have been put on one list (stapled) when DAL bought us, but we weren't. And even had ALPA tried, there is not a very good chance that DAL management would have allowed it.
But I do know that if scope is eliminated, as the lawsuit promises to do in the relief section, there will be even less job security here at ASA than there is now, because OUR scope section, the one that says "all flygin will beperformed by ASA pilots" will also be eliminated.

 

[Capi_Cafre']

"all flying will beperformed by ASA pilots"

Aren't those pretty empty words if, as you seem to believe, that "all flying" (your livelihood) "belongs" to pilots at another airline?

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1,

Way too long. Just remember this, Delta negotiates DIRECTLY with their own pilot group. Comair and ASA/SkyWest pilots negotiate with their own companies, and then their companies negotiate with DL. We have first rights to anything that is open to negotiations, and your companies do not. Whatever scope is negotiated is between us and our company. That is the deal. ALPA provides us with legal representation to achieve a contract, and our negotiators are actually Delta pilots, not full time ALPA personel. ALPA helps us facilitate a contract, that is it. And look, I didn't have to take 5 pages to rebutt your two pages.

General,

The fact that you choose to write ten separate posts in and effort to say one thing, whereas I write one post in an effort to say ten things, does not make your post short and mine long. It simply means that you have a limited span of attention and expression whereas I do not.

Delta Air Lines negotiates with whomever it decides to negotiate and for whatever it chooses to negotiate. It is not limited to negotiating only with the Delta pilots, and it is not precluded from negotiating with the Comair pilots. I know that you harbor that illusion but you harbor a great many others as well; a majority of them are equally erroneous.

Delta Air Lines has indicated, in writing, its willingness to negotiate directly with the pilots of Comair. That did not happen because the ALPA intervened and prevented Comair representatives from negotiating directly with Delta. That fact is of record and in writing as well, under the signature of the ALPA president.

The only place that you have 1st rights is to negotiate, through ALPA, for your own work. You do not have 1st rights to negotiate for my work. That you think you do does not make it so. That ALPA thinks you do does not make it so either. It only means that both you and ALPA are prone to a lot of wishful thinking. It also means that you like to usurp rights to which you are not legally entitled.

Yes, ALPA negotiates with your company for your Scope. Your negotiators are agents of ALPA; they are not independent of or from it. I have no problem with that. The problem begins when ALPA negotiates with your company for MY Scope, which is what ALPA thinks it can do. I think that ALPA cannot permit you to do that on its behalf nor can it do it on its own without our consent. It has never solicited or been granted our consent. The courts will decide which of us is correct, and that's what the litigation seeks to determine.

You may view your MEC as independent and ALPA as advisory. Your view is not legally correct. The ALPA is the sole bargaining agent for Delta pilots and for Comair pilots. Neither the Delta MEC nor the CMR MEC can negotiate anything with anyone without the consent of the ALPA. No matter what your appointed negotiators may agree to or what our appointed negotiators may agree to, neither will become a binding contract without the signature of the ALPA President. The contracts are null and void without ALPA's endorsement. The ALPA therefore is solely responsible for the content of both our contracts. Whether you like or dislike that is irrelevant. It remains the legal structure of the Air Line Pilots Association and you are governed by it so long as you are members of the ALPA.

This is why the Delta MEC is not a legal entity and is not a defendant in the litigation. Likewise, the Comair MEC is not a party to the litigation. The plaintiffs are individual members of the ALPA and the suit is against the ALPA.

So, ALPA doesn’t help you facilitate a contract. Legally, the contract is between the Company and the ALPA. MEC’s are not legal entities and they are not autonomous; the are create, regulated and function only through the ALPA.

Your rebuttal in fact rebuts nothing. It’s just more of the same worn out rhetoric. When the case goes to trial you will learn where your imagination ends and the law begins.

 

[surplus1]

The above statement sounds real good, but it simply is not true. How is sueing for hundreds of millions in damages going to restore alpa?

ALPA has the option of choosing. It can restore proper behavior and commit to not doing it again, or, it can continue on its present course and pay the penalty if it should lose.

A settlement can be reached at any time with no financial penalty to the ALPA. ALPA already knows this. It is up to them to decide if they want to risk it all in hopes they will win.

The problem is not beyond resolution unless the ALPA chooses to make it so.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Look at it this way. Lets say your neighbor is selling his house. There is a good chance that whoever buys that house will let it go to pot and cause property values around it to fall. That will obviously have a negative effect on you. Just because it might have a negative impact on you doesn't mean that you have a right to be there for his selling negotiations.

I don't think that is an accurate analogy. A more accurate analogy would be if your neighbor sold his furniture to you. This furniture was too small, and he didn't want it anymore. This would represent the small aircraft flying that we now do. Using your logic, he still owns this furniture and can use it or take it back whenever he wishes. You may believe that, but many of us don't. They sold this flying years ago in order to pay for other things that they wanted. It didn't work out for them, and now they want it back. Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't belong to them anymore despite what ALPA says.

 

[JoeMerchant]

But I do know that if scope is eliminated, as the lawsuit promises to do in the relief section, there will be even less job security here at ASA than there is now, because OUR scope section, the one that says "all flygin will beperformed by ASA pilots" will also be eliminated.

This is what I don't understand. I thought you said all of our flying belongs to the Delta pilots. If it belongs to them, as both you and ALPA seem to believe, then what good is "all flying will be performed by ASA pilots"? It can't belong to BOTH groups. If scope can ONLY limit us and not protect us, then who cares if it is illiminated? Again, what job security do we currently enjoy thanks to ALPA? In fact I don't see any "job security" at either the mainline or the regional level.

 

[USAirways1149]

Ok children. If Comair just gives back the $10,000 you guys paid for your jobs do you think you could all get along?

 

[D'Angelo]

ALPA is Latin for "every man for themselves"
ALPA DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME
"Dont piss on me and tell me it's raining"

I like it, thats a great saying. ALPA DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE. They are a greedy organization too self absorbed to really care about what is happening in "the real world". Time to impeach those SOBs and make em take a paycut.

 

[RJ Bum]

Ok children. If Comair just gives back the $10,000 you guys paid for your jobs do you think you could all get along?

PFT has been over at Comair for a number of years. A good portion of our pilot group did not PFT. Not sure of the numbers, but I would say the vast majority did not pay.

 

[atrdriver]

This is what I don't understand. I thought you said all of our flying belongs to the Delta pilots. If it belongs to them, as both you and ALPA seem to believe, then what good is "all flying will be performed by ASA pilots"? It can't belong to BOTH groups. If scope can ONLY limit us and not protect us, then who cares if it is illiminated? Again, what job security do we currently enjoy thanks to ALPA? In fact I don't see any "job security" at either the mainline or the regional level.

Well, that's really simple. The flying belongs to DAL. They give it to the DAL pilots, who negotiate for it in their PWA. Whichever part of it they don't wish to do, such as 50 seat or ATR flying, is passed on to, among others, us. Our scope provision states that any flying that ASA is contracted to do, and that IS ALL WE ARE, A CONTRACTOR, will be done by pilots on the ASA seniority list. It's not our flying, except as the DAL pilots allow us to do it. And I don't think that your funiture analogy flies, because the flying is dynamic and always changing (with an open contract), while a purchase is final (executiob of a contract). JMO.

 

[737 Pylt]

Because you're a much easier target!

Hey, if I wanted any lip out of you, I'd scrape it off my zipper!

AND, the rest of the guys/girls in the airline industry are nice, resonable, rational folks. While you and your butt brothers at the big D are arrogant, egocentric, pompus a__holes!

Thats why.

Coming from the biggest prick on these boards.....LMAO! You seem to know a lot about the butt, male at that! Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Tell you what skipper, when I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!
737