Delta TA Scope

[DrunkIrishman]

ATR-

God forbid ALPA would then be forced to address its short-comings on protecting the livelyhoods of all pilots equally! The elimination of scope, as it stands today, is a necessary means to an end. If ALPA national would address this, there would be no recourse to the RJDC suit other than monetary compensation.

 

[N2264J]

Actually, the goal of the lawsuit is the elimination of all scope, even though it is not presented in those words.

It is not presented in those words because the elimination of all scope is not the goal of the lawsuit. Certain restrictive provisions of scope clauses that limit flying at another carrier is only a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. The Duty of Fair Representation is the problem.

What ALPA is doing through the mainline MECs is just as foolish and unworkable as if Skywest were able to negotiate a scope clause that limited the number of 737s Delta can fly. But you never hear of a scenario like that because it's stupid. The marketplace will decide how many 737s Delta can profitably fly, not a union contract and it's just as stupid to artificially limit the number of 50 or 70 or 76 seat planes. When those "regional" pilots belong to the same union, it becomes a DFR issue.

 

[atrdriver]

It is not presented in those words because the elimination of all scope is not the goal of the lawsuit. Certain restrictive provisions of scope clauses that limit flying at another carrier is only a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. The Duty of Fair Representation is the problem.

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.

 

[atrdriver]

ATR-

The elimination of scope, as it stands today, is a necessary means to an end.

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.

 

[~~~^~~~]

ATR Driver:

The only scope the RJDC seeks to eliminate is scope negotiated in violation of the union's obligation to represent its members. This is no different than any contract which is negotiated illegally. The RJDC's goal is to make scope stronger by allowing all represented parties to participate.

The Delta boys have to admit (and many of them do say) that their scope has been ineffective. In large part, I agree. Delta pilots should not be out on the street while CHQ hires pilots to fly E170's on former Delta routes.

If ALPA had allowed all the represented parties to come to the table and negotiate with the party that has operational control, the outcome would have been very different.

It is ironic that the junior Delta boys are the pilots who oppose the RJDC. If the RJDC leadership had got what we pushed for in 1999 no Delta pilots would have been furloughed, the list would still be 10,000 pilots strong and Troy Kane would at least be a senior RJ / E170 Captain.

The Delta's MEC's (ALPA's) divide and conquer strategy has failed, is failing, and will continue to fail to protect the Delta pilots, or anyone else. Why isn't anyone other than the RJDC doing a darn thing to fix the problem? Why does the Delta MEC continue to go its own way, losening scope and putting flying out to the lowest bidder?

I think the answer is the "bargaining credits" that ALPA claims to get for allowing the contracting out of its flying. These credits are used to prop up mainline pay at the expense of the pilots flying at the regional level. However, I think this strategy has also failed for ALPA - with ASA's CRJ700 rates being $10 an hour more than Delta's 70 to 100 seat rates.

ASA's rates will probably come down (thanks to ALPA) and Delta's rates will come down to buy back flying.

A real union would have a strategy, National control, and a participatory system that had all pilots working together to raise our profession.

We must fix ALPA because a National Union is the only way to put a handle on this problem. ALPA is the best we've got. There is Teamsters, but so far I have not been overly impressed with their management either. Is there any way to get ALPA to return to its roots and the principles that led it to success in the past?

 

[atrdriver]

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.

 

[~~~^~~~]

ATR Driver - you are otherwise a smart guy, why can't you understand that scope which would have contracted ASA, Comair and Delta back in 2000 would not have been the way to stop alter ego replacement?

And what today is keeping ASA from being replaced? Or Delta pilots for that matter? ALPA has remained ahead of the DCI aircraft orders since 1999. Delta has always had the scope relief to do pretty much what it wanted. The only effect ALPA has had is to force Delta to commit to airplanes which were not the optimum for the operation, or the marketplace. Flying 50, instead of 70, seat RJ's has harmed us and the Delta pilots too. Today the airline business is way too competitive to make these sort of mistakes.

If current scope policy is ineffective, why not try inclusive scope? If the Delta MEC had not stopped BA & JC from talking to Delta in 2000, 2001 and again in 2002, we would not be in the mess we are in now.

The plug may get pulled on Comair because they fought to improve the industry and no one had the money to buy them flying, like SkyWest did for us and Mesa and AirWisconsin have done on the US Air property. If that happens it is the direct result of ALPA's interference in Comair attempts to get a little protection.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

ATR-

To clarify my position to you better: Delta pilots should fly ALL Delta flights. There can be as many individual companies under the DCI umbrella as they want, but the pilots are on onelist at each carrier with the same pay. Look around, the marketplace has changed and Deregulation finally took hold. If we as a group do not adapt (ALPA), then we will continue to suffer whipsaw wether we are at a regional or a major.

 

[StaySeated]

Why does anyone even bother arguing this topic? Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of posts have said the same thing over and over and over. The only thing that can't be debated is the fact that ALPA has over 60,000 members, and a dozen or so out of that 60,000 are unhappy to the point of litigation. Fair Representation...that would be funny if your lawsuit didn't have seriously damaging potential. How can someone with obvious intelligence not see the ludicrous nature of this lawsuit? Have any of you actually thought of what would happen if you prevailed?

 

[atrdriver]

ATR-

To clarify my position to you better: Delta pilots should fly ALL Delta flights. There can be as many individual companies under the DCI umbrella as they want, but the pilots are on onelist at each carrier with the same pay. Look around, the marketplace has changed and Deregulation finally took hold. If we as a group do not adapt (ALPA), then we will continue to suffer whipsaw wether we are at a regional or a major.

Which is exactly what I said. But, there was back in 2001, and still today, no way in the world to force DAL, or any other mainline carrier to combine lists. Why would they want to, since they currently have pilots like us that fly for less than the mainline pilots? ALPA could have done whatever it wanted, but mainline managements would not have done it. Yes, onelist would have stopped a lot of out current problems, but there was no way to accomplish it.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Yes, onelist would have stopped a lot of out current problems, but there was no way to accomplish it.

I agree. Back then, there was too much arrogance at the mainline level and too much inexperience at the regional level (250 hour wonders) to convince all parties to combine. However, times have changed. If we do not do anything to right the ship, then we will continue listing. Is that what you prefer?

Stay-

Sometimes it has to hurt if it's to heal. Bankrupting a union that is not helping its clients and refuses to legitimately address the real problems all pilots are facing is not necessarily a bad thing.
I don't really believe that Ford's $2mil lawsuit would bankrupt ALPA though. Besides, there would be little need for the lawsuit to continue if ALPA were to admit the problem and then fix it. That is unless FORD is all about the Benjamins like I personally suspect he is. Nonetheless, that belief does not negate the fact that the lawsuit is a necessary agent for much needed change in our national organization.

 

[General Lee]

ATR Driver:

The only scope the RJDC seeks to eliminate is scope negotiated in violation of the union's obligation to represent its members. This is no different than any contract which is negotiated illegally. The RJDC's goal is to make scope stronger by allowing all represented parties to participate.

The Delta boys have to admit (and many of them do say) that their scope has been ineffective. In large part, I agree. Delta pilots should not be out on the street while CHQ hires pilots to fly E170's on former Delta routes.

If ALPA had allowed all the represented parties to come to the table and negotiate with the party that has operational control, the outcome would have been very different.

It is ironic that the junior Delta boys are the pilots who oppose the RJDC. If the RJDC leadership had got what we pushed for in 1999 no Delta pilots would have been furloughed, the list would still be 10,000 pilots strong and Troy Kane would at least be a senior RJ / E170 Captain.

The Delta's MEC's (ALPA's) divide and conquer strategy has failed, is failing, and will continue to fail to protect the Delta pilots, or anyone else. Why isn't anyone other than the RJDC doing a darn thing to fix the problem? Why does the Delta MEC continue to go its own way, losening scope and putting flying out to the lowest bidder?

I think the answer is the "bargaining credits" that ALPA claims to get for allowing the contracting out of its flying. These credits are used to prop up mainline pay at the expense of the pilots flying at the regional level. However, I think this strategy has also failed for ALPA - with ASA's CRJ700 rates being $10 an hour more than Delta's 70 to 100 seat rates.

ASA's rates will probably come down (thanks to ALPA) and Delta's rates will come down to buy back flying.

A real union would have a strategy, National control, and a participatory system that had all pilots working together to raise our profession.

We must fix ALPA because a National Union is the only way to put a handle on this problem. ALPA is the best we've got. There is Teamsters, but so far I have not been overly impressed with their management either. Is there any way to get ALPA to return to its roots and the principles that led it to success in the past?

Is CHQ or Shuttle America really flying the E170s on routes that we USED to fly? The only one they currently fly that we used to do is DTW to SLC. All the rest are new routes that we have never done before, like AUS to JFK, and SLC to CHM and MZT. But, I get your point. Our furloughs should be flying that size plane and larger.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

I agree. Back then, there was too much arrogance at the mainline level and too much inexperience at the regional level (250 hour wonders) to convince all parties to combine. However, times have changed. If we do not do anything to right the ship, then we will continue listing. Is that what you prefer?

Stay-

Sometimes it has to hurt if it's to heal. Bankrupting a union that is not helping its clients and refuses to legitimately address the real problems all pilots are facing is not necessarily a bad thing.
I don't really believe that Ford's $2mil lawsuit would bankrupt ALPA though. Besides, there would be little need for the lawsuit to continue if ALPA were to admit the problem and then fix it. That is unless FORD is all about the Benjamins like I personally suspect he is. Nonetheless, that belief does not negate the fact that the lawsuit is a necessary agent for much needed change in our national organization.

Most of the DCI guys back then wanted DOH, and that would have never passed. That is the truth.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Most of the DCI guys back then wanted DOH, and that would have never passed. That is the truth.

Bye Bye--General Lee

NO, that was not the case. YES several of the senior guys wanted and expected a DOH. MOST all of the others new that would not happen and didn't even think of that. They were ready for a staple with appropriate fences.

 

[sweptback]

Is CHQ or Shuttle America really flying the E170s on routes that we USED to fly? The only one they currently fly that we used to do is DTW to SLC. All the rest are new routes that we have never done before, like AUS to JFK, and SLC to CHM and MZT. But, I get your point. Our furloughs should be flying that size plane and larger.

Starting in June, ATL-IND, ATL-SAT, and ATL-JFK... as well as some more that I'm sure I forgot about. Parking at B concourse too.

 

[General Lee]

NO, that was not the case. YES several of the senior guys wanted and expected a DOH. MOST all of the others new that would not happen and didn't even think of that. They were ready for a staple with appropriate fences.

But who seemed to be the voice of the group? The senior guys. They were the vocal MINORITY, and they spoke louder and made the mainline guys take notice.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

Starting in June, ATL-IND, ATL-SAT, and ATL-JFK... as well as some more that I'm sure I forgot about. Parking at B concourse too.

Yeah, I just saw that. Also in MAY ORD to SLC, and DFW to SLC. I guess that is to link the ORD and DFW flights to LGA.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Capi_Cafre']

But who seemed to be the voice of the group? The senior guys. They were the vocal MINORITY, and they spoke louder and made the mainline guys take notice.


Bye Bye--General Lee

But really, how different is that from U claiming that Cactus Captains are just keeping the seats warm for some of their guys currently out on the street? DOH comes up in any merger talks-that's just Negotiating 101. It's your fantastic claim that the DCI pilots were justly written out of ALPA's M&A policy by your pilot group that's at the root of the problem here.

 

[CarjCapt]

Most of the DCI guys back then wanted DOH, and that would have never passed. That is the truth.

As usual you are DEAD WRONG.

Only a few vocal individuals said DOH. And I would hazard a guess you only heard personally less than a hand full yourself.

Any knowledgeable person would know that DOH was out of the question if for no other reason but because of the ALPA bylaws!!!!

By the way you might consider changing your rhetoric because it is OLD besides wrong.

 

[Capi_Cafre']

One thing you fail to realize is that EVERY bit of flying under the DL code is subject to the DL pilots' PWA. You don't have to agree with it, that's why you are trying to bankrupt my union, but you have to abide by it!

737

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering why mainline pilots were underbidding existing small jet operators in order to "capture" this flying.

Your comprehensive lack of understanding of this issue has reached a transcendant level that few mere mortals could ever hope to acheive. There's a bright side though; even if things go south for Delta it looks like the Bush administration is hiring again. You'd fit right in.

 

[General Lee]

Most of the DCI guys back then wanted DOH, and that would have never passed. That is the truth.

As usual you are DEAD WRONG.

Only a few vocal individuals said DOH. And I would hazard a guess you only heard personally less than a hand full yourself.

Any knowledgeable person would know that DOH was out of the question if for no other reason but because of the ALPA bylaws!!!!

By the way you might consider changing your rhetoric because it is OLD besides wrong.

One guy that told me it directly was your current MEC chairman. And that aint no lie. My rhetoric is dead on. You need to find out the truth for yourself.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[WSurf]

My rhetoric is dead on.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Now that is funny!!!

 

[WhatRUSmokinGL?]

You need to find out the truth for yourself.


Bye Bye--General Lee

Of course the 'truth' will change when genital lea needs it to.

Things that are 'Take it to the bank - FACT' become only speculation when she is proven wrong, Again.

 

[N2264J]

But, there was back in 2001, and still today, no way in the world to force DAL, or any other mainline carrier to combine lists. Yes, onelist would have stopped a lot of out current problems, but there was no way to accomplish it.

Well, of course there was. We have a right under federal law to bargain collectively. All we needed was a union to back us.

There was no way Delta management could have successfully argued that ASA, Comair and Delta were not a single transportation system. (ie common Board of Directors, marketing and administrative departments, common ticket stock, same code, schedules dovetailed at common hubs, same livery, common public image and on and on. It would have cost something out of everyone's contract but it was doable. Delta and Comair were both in Section 6 at the time.

But the mainline pilots didn't want that so there was no support from ALPA contrary to their own alter ego policy. They thought they could control us with scope and noone can deny how well that's working out for them.

 

[737 Pylt]

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering why mainline pilots were underbidding existing small jet operators in order to "capture" this flying.

Why isn't it that you throw stones at the JB guys?? How about the US Air guys? Because its just that much easier to blame the DL guys for YOUR problems. You want sympathy, look in the dictionary its between sweat and syphyllis

Your comprehensive lack of understanding of this issue has reached a transcendant level that few mere mortals could ever hope to acheive. There's a bright side though; even if things go south for Delta it looks like the Bush administration is hiring again. You'd fit right in.

Thanks for the compliments. If I ever need an ego booster, I'll look you up. Which rock did you say you lived under? Besides, we're not talking about turns around a point and lazy 8's.
The Bush administration....LMAO! No thanks!
737

 

[ohplease!]

Why isn't it that you throw stones at the JB guys?? How about the US Air guys?
737

Because you're a much easier target! 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.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

Most of the DCI guys back then wanted DOH, and that would have never passed. That is the truth.

I guess we'll never know since it never got far enough to vote on. Kinda sad.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

There was no way Delta management could have successfully argued that ASA, Comair and Delta were not a single transportation system. (ie common Board of Directors, marketing and administrative departments, common ticket stock, same code, schedules dovetailed at common hubs, same livery, common public image and on and on.

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 that it was TSA/*************************s, but you get the point.

 

[surplus1]

Actually, the goal of the lawsuit is the elimination of all scope, even though it is not presented in those words. The relief section states that no pilot group will be able to "control" what another pilot group can fly, which is what scope is. And if scope is made illegal, then it is essentially stealing every mainline job in the industry, because mgnt will try to outsource everything to save money.

Obviously we each have our own "opinions" and it is my opinion that either you don't understand the litigation or you choose for other reasons unknown to me to ignore its legitimacy and its purpose. You would not otherwise make that statement.

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.

It is your privilege to take the politically correct position that you prefer, but that stops short of any right to make unfounded allegations with respect to the litigation that are fundamentally untrue. The litigation does NOT seek to eliminate all Scope. This is not about semantics, as you imply, it is about reality and equity. Look up the term ‘equity’ if you have any doubts as to its meaning.

When the union, willfully and intentionally, permits or seeks to permit one pilot group in a particular airline to control the work of a separate and different pilot group, in a separate airline, that is illegitimate. That IS what ALPA has been trying to do (and in some cases has done), and it is what the lawsuit is trying to prevent.

Note: The problem is by no means limited to Delta Air Lines, Comair and ASA; it is systemic throughout the ALPA. Similar litigation has been filed by plaintiffs in other carriers. The fact that the group forming the RJDC was first to defend its rights and is most organized does not mean that it is alone. All small airline pilots employed by regional carriers are affected and all have been abused by ALPA’s actions.

ASA and Delta are not the same airline. CMR and Delta are not the same airline. Republic and Delta are not the same airline. SkyWest and Delta are not the same airline. Neither is Mesa nor CHQ, nor Republic Holdings the same airline as USAirways, etc., etc. ALPA itself has formally declared that to be so. ALPA has officially ruled that these separate airlines are NOT operationally integrated and each is a different entity.

As a consequence, Scope language at Comair cannot legally control what flying Delta pilots will do at Delta Air Lines. Comair Scope language cannot control what flying ASA pilots will do at Atlantic Southeast Airlines. Delta Scope language is legally no different and it cannot control what flying will be done or by whom at any airline other than Delta itself.

If Delta Scope language cannot control what flying is done at United Air Lines by United pilots, why can Delta Scope language control what flying is done at Atlantic Southeast Airlines by ASA pilots? Is that legitimate because ALPA or the Delta pilots want it to be?

Why is it that USAirways’ pilots cannot control what flying/work is done at Delta Air Lines by Delta pilots but is assumed, by ALPA, to be able to determine and control what work may be done by the pilots of Mesa Air Lines under a contract that their company has with America West Airlines? What gives ALPA the “right” to do this; the whims of the USAirways pilot group?

The answer is simple: ALPA has arbitrarily decided that the pilots of any large airline (as defined only by the ALPA) should be able to "control" the flying and work of the pilots at any small airline (as defined only by the ALPA). ALPA, at the same time, has decided that the pilots at any small airline not only may not control the flying of the pilots at any large airline but may not control the flying at their own airline. Concurrently, ALPA does not permit the pilots at any large airline to even attempt to control the flying of the pilots at any other large airline. ALPA has established a system that caters to the “whims” of those pilot groups that it regards as “more special” that the rest of its membership.

Unfortunately (for ALPA), it represents the pilots of the large airline AND the pilots of the small airline. ALPA has therefore intentionally and willfully decided to discriminate against the pilots of small airlines in favor of the pilots at large airlines by arbitrarily determining that any apparent conflicts of interest that may arise between them shall be resolved, without exception, in favor of the pilots at large airlines.

ALPA willfully and intentionally uses the work of pilots at small airlines as a bargaining chip in its negotiations at large airlines, at the expense of the small airline's pilots. That “expense” to the pilots at small airlines is not figurative; it has a measurable monetary value, which in the aggregate is millions of dollars over time.

ALPA intentionally denies the pilots of small airlines the right to participate in negotiations for the work that they do and transfers that right, unilaterally and arbitrarily to the pilots of large airlines with whom the management of the small airline may be subcontracting. Therefore, ALPA bargains arbitrarily and in bad faith against the interests of its members employed at airlines ALPA has designated as “small” and whose pilots, its members, ALPA regards as inconsequential.

The Duty of Fair Representation is federal law that all labor unions are required to comply with. ALPA holds no unique position that exempts it from such law. That law requires that a union may not discriminate against some of its members in favor of others of its members. It also prohibits arbitrary bargaining and bargaining in bad faith. ALPA has repeatedly violated all three of the law’s mandates and continues to do so.

The litigation does NOT seek to prevent the pilots of any airline from bargaining for the Scope of their own work at their own airline. It does seek to prevent any airline from bargaining, through Scope or other means, for the work of pilots at another and separate airline. If this principle (of the litigation) is not upheld by the courts, it would literally be possible for the pilots of any large airline that ALPA chooses to “favor” on any given day, to unilaterally bargain away, without their knowledge or consent, ALL of the flying/work at any small airline whenever they might deem it appropriate to do so.

Should the litigation be successful it will NOT eliminate Scope at any airline. It will simply require that the pilots at a particular airline refrain from bargaining for the work at a different airline, without the consent of the affected group. That doesn't eliminate Scope it simply restores it to its original purpose and intent. There is nothing improper or illegitimate about that.

ALPA's discriminatory and arbitrary bargaining has even gone quite beyond what I have outlined above. ALPA has directly supported “Scope language” at one or more of its "favored airline" clients that attempts to arbitrarily control the flying of third parties that had no relationship to the scope-writing major airline. That is what ALPA did when it wrote "Scope language" at USAirways that attempted to control flying and equipment contracted between Mesa Air Group and America West Airlines.

The result was the creation of an alter-ego airline (Freedom) and concessionary bargaining that adversely affected ALPA members at Mesa Airlines and, coincidentally, every other regional airline allegedly represented by the ALPA. ALPA directly violated its DFR to the Mesa pilots and indirectly to other regional pilots by undermining their Collective Bargaining Agreements. The Mesa pilots’ efforts to protect their jobs resulted in a CBA at Mesa so inferior to others that it triggered a chain reaction of concessionary bargaining at other regional airlines represented by the ALPA. The consequences were experienced at SKYW, AWAC, ACA, CHQ, TSA, PSA, PDT, and MSA, are currently being experienced at my airline and will soon be experienced at yours. Additionally, at least two other alter-ego airlines directly resulted from these practices (Republic at Chautauqua and G0J alter ego at TSA). This forced the pilots of CHQ to accept a lesser contract to protect themselves against Republic and has left the TSA pilots abandoned with nothing but meaningless rhetoric from ALPA.

ALPA has negotiated "Scope language" willfully and intentionally designed to place the pilots of a "major airline" into Captain positions at a small airline, in direct abrogation of the CBA at the small airline. Both airlines' pilots were and are "members of the ALPA". ALPA then pressured and coerced the pilots of the small airline into accepting (under duress) this completely illegitimate perversion of "Scope". This has happened at MES, PSA, TSA and CHQ.

The NWA pilots now face a repetition of the debacle called MDA, yet another ALPA creation. It will ultimately reek havoc at both Mesaba and Pinnacle. “Pay to Play” by management is no more than the side effect of ALPA generated policies. ALPA gave them the opportunity and they took it.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part II

ALPA has arbitrarily selected a "preferred class" of airliner and designated other types of airliners as "inferior" by virtue only of their size, weight or seating capacity. ALPA has willfully and intentionally relegated that "inferior class" of airliner and the pilots that operate it to a lesser status within the Association. As one might expect, ALPA reserves the "right", at the whim of any particular "favored pilot group" to change the "preferred class" or airliner at will. Should the pilots of a legacy carrier change their minds and desire the airliners flown by their peers at a small airline, ALPA will simply re-draw its abitrary "line" to suit the whim of the month.

Simultaneously ALPA has granted (in violation of its DFR) to pilots of the preferred class of airliner, the arbitrary and unilateral "right" to control the number of such aircraft that a variety of different airlines may operate, the routes and destinations they may serve, and the frequency of operations. Thus ALPA denies or restricts career progression to the pilots that fly these small airlines and negatively impacts the businesses of the companies that operate them. All to facilitate the misguided “wishes” of ALPA members that happen to be employed in the operation of ALPA’s “preferred” airliner types, at the direct expense of those who are not. Ironically, this policy has been detrimental to the very pilots it was presumed to protect.

All of this is deliberately designed to protect the alleged interests of those ALPA members who happen to be employed at one or more of the “legacy” airlines, at the direct expense and to the detriment of those ALPA members who happen to be employed at “regional” airlines; with total disregard of the latter’s interests. It has failed repeatedly to protect the favored and has harmed the objects of discrimination, yet it continues blindly. Ludicrous.

ALPA has repeatedly denied access to internal remedies requested by its regional members, thus denying them willfully the opportunity to address their grievances respecting these policies. ALPA not only refuses to grant redress, it arbitrarily declines to grant even a hearing of legitimate concerns.

Therefore, the victims of ALPA’s arbitrary and discriminatory practices have no recourse other than to seek redress of their grievances through the federal courts.

If the Air Line Pilots Association does not wish to represent fairly the interests of its members employed by regional airlines then is should deny them admission to the union or expel them from it. However, ALPA not only admits them and accepts their dues, but ignores completely its fiduciary responsibilities to these members and blatantly declines to honor its Duty of Fair Representation.

If you can’t or won’t see those facts for what they are and act to protect your own rights and interests Atrdriver, that’s up to you. However, your willingness to permit the ALPA to ignore your legitimate rights, deny to you the fair representation to which you are entitled by law, deliberately cause you significant financial loss and limit your career progression arbitrarily, will not prevent me from defending my rights or seeking redress for ALPA’s inappropriate behavior. Thankfully, I am not alone.

Although I am not myself a named plaintiff in this action at law, I fully endorse and support the effort and will see it through to the final court decision. I applaud the integrity of those who had the courage to demand legal redress and wish them every success. Some wrongs simply cannot be allowed to continue un-righted. ALPA’s behavior in this matter is one of them. Unless a legitimate ALPA that represents fairly each and every one of its members, without regard to the type of equipment they may operate or the name of the Company that employs their services can be restored, the association will have outlived its usefulness.

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!