Did ALPA get religion on alter egos?

[JoeMerchant]

A company operated outside of the intent of the CBA scope language in order to circumvent the CBA and transfer flying to non-seniority-list pilots.

....so would Skywest be included in your definition since ASA aircraft were transferred to Skywest during our secion 6 negotiations....?

How about ASA when CMR/DAL transferred aircraft to ASA during the CMR strike.....would that meet your definition?

 

[JoeMerchant]

I agree, but since nothing in any of the respective CBAs (or PWA) required a merger, none was going to happen, no matter how loud Dan Ford b!tched about a PID. It just wasn't going to happen.

I thought the answer was because the mainline pilots didn't want to exert the neg. capital....That is one answer you and Occam like to banter about.....Get your story straight....

No attempt was even made even thought DAL and CMR were BOTH in secion 6 negotiations.....It could have been a bargaining goal couldn't it have?

 

[IronCityBlue]

I thought the answer was because the mainline pilots didn't want to exert the neg. capital....That is one answer you and Occam like to banter about.....Get your story straight....

No attempt was even made even thought DAL and CMR were BOTH in secion 6 negotiations.....It could have been a bargaining goal couldn't it have?

It could have, you're right. And, depending on how it would have been done, maybe it should have. But you can't ignore the giddyness of the PID---->RJDC movement that actually thought they had leverage to force a merger and dictate the terms. While a staple may have been acceptable to many, or even most, you can not discount the obvious optimisim the PID----->RJDC movement had because when a merger looked possible, that meant a staple was the floor. Anything else was gravy, up to and including the remote possibility of the windfall of a lifetime as a possibility. So if you truly believe that (as many in the PID------>RJDC movement did) then why put a staple on the table? That's exactly why their stratedgy was first commit to merge, then worry about how later.

Maybe it would have had a chance, maybe it wouldn't. But that was more than enough to drive the mainline pilots to their corners and kill any chance of any kind of deal. PID---->RJDC thought they had leevrage and they got arrogant and rolled the dice. They lost and here we are. Now it will be up to the mainline pilots to reclaim scope. That is, if they are collectively smart enough to make it a priority issue.

 

[PCL_128]

....so would Skywest be included in your definition since ASA aircraft were transferred to Skywest during our secion 6 negotiations....?

How about ASA when CMR/DAL transferred aircraft to ASA during the CMR strike.....would that meet your definition?

Neither would meet the definition, because neither CMR's nor ASA's contracts had scope over the flying that was being transferred. GoJet is an alter-ego. The TSA CBA clearly states that their company cannot create an airline that operates without pilots on their seniority list. The same with PCL/CJC. Although CJC was an independent carrier before, Pinnacle management is now using them as an alter-ego carrier in violation of the PCL scope language.

 

[PCL_128]

I thought the answer was because the mainline pilots didn't want to exert the neg. capital....That is one answer you and Occam like to banter about.....Get your story straight....

Both answers are correct. The contracts didn't require the merger, so no merger would take place without the DAL pilots having to make large sacrifices to their bargaining leverage to achieve it.

No attempt was even made even thought DAL and CMR were BOTH in secion 6 negotiations.....It could have been a bargaining goal couldn't it have?

Sure, it could have. But how much would DALPA have had to give up to achieve it?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Neither would meet the definition, because neither CMR's nor ASA's contracts had scope over the flying that was being transferred. GoJet is an alter-ego. The TSA CBA clearly states that their company cannot create an airline that operates without pilots on their seniority list. The same with PCL/CJC. Although CJC was an independent carrier before, Pinnacle management is now using them as an alter-ego carrier in violation of the PCL scope language.

So ASA and CMR scope didn't cover ASA and CMR flying....but Mesa and TSA had scope language that covered their flying......This I got'a hear.....

What is the status of any TSA scope grievance regarding GoJet? Did Mesa file a Freedom grievance?
Isn't the "ownership" of the TSA/GoJet flying really that of their mainline partner according to you...???

 

[JoeMerchant]

Both answers are correct. The contracts didn't require the merger, so no merger would take place without the DAL pilots having to make large sacrifices to their bargaining leverage to achieve it. Sure, it could have. But how much would DALPA have had to give up to achieve it?

....ahhh....at least you are being honest now.....Nobody is saying it would have "just happened"....It would have had to been negotiated....That is totally different than saying "it would never have happened"......

Both sides have to live with the decision now.....I am quite comfortable going into this next downturn....

 

[PCL_128]

So ASA and CMR scope didn't cover ASA and CMR flying....but Mesa and TSA had scope language that covered their flying......This I got'a hear.....

The flying itself, as in the airplanes and routes, was not protected, but seniority list protections were provided that guaranteed all flying done by the company would be done by pilots on their list. The flying itself could be transfered by the mainline carrier through RFP at any point, as we've seen time and again, but if TSA or MAG did the flying, then it had to be with their seniority list pilots.

What is the status of any TSA scope grievance regarding GoJet? Did Mesa file a Freedom grievance?

The TSA pilots lost their scope grievance, which is amazing since the PCL pilots won their scope grievance with scope language that was pretty much identical. The TSA pilots just got very unlucky with an anti-labor arbitrator. The MAG pilots won their scope grievance, but their contract was settled already anyway which included merging the list.

Isn't the "ownership" of the TSA/GoJet flying really that of their mainline partner according to you...???

Yes, the flying is under the mainline code and belongs to the mainline pilots who have contracts over that code, but the TSA pilot group has scope that requires their pilots to fly any flying that their company has a CPA for. The flying itself isn't scoped, the seniority list protections are.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't know about Comair, but ASA did have scope over its flying when I hired in.

 

[PCL_128]

....ahhh....at least you are being honest now.....Nobody is saying it would have "just happened"....It would have had to been negotiated....That is totally different than saying "it would never have happened"......

A PID implies that a merger is going to take place. No merger was planned. Trying to force through a PID before any merger is on the table is asinine, and only breeds discontent. You would do well to read and learn from IronCityBlue's post. He seems to have some political acumen. Something you, Dan, Jesse, and many others seem to lack.