Did ALPA get religion on alter egos?

[PCL_128]

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

Yes, scope over OH and EV code. Big difference.

 

[IronCityBlue]

CMR and ASA has CMR and ASA scope, respectively. Neither was ever violated. TSA has TSA scope, which was violated according to most common sense interpretations of their contract. However, They didn't have 100% holding company scope, just 100% TSA scope. They got screwed by an arbitrator because they had a small hole in their scope.

Mesa didn't need to file a Freedom grievance, because they settled their contract to finally gain 100% holding company scope, thus eliminating their management's ability to whipsaw them. They can still be whipsawed by Delta and United (and other) managements of course, but they never had any scope with them.

The ownership of all outsourced flying rests with the companies and pilot groups that allow that flying to be outsourced. CMR, ASA, TSA and Mesa don't own one minute of their Delta, United, USAirways, American or any other flying. Never did. Legacy managements and/or legacy pilots are perfectly free to call in that flying any time they want when your company's outsource ACMI contract is up.

You have every right to all ASA flying, but no right to any Delta flying. Sadly, you don't even have the right to all SkyWest flying until and unless you negtiate 100% holding company scope. If you do, you will then own all SkyWest flying, which means all EV and OO code. You will never, EVER own one seat or one minute of DL or UA code.

You fly jets painted in someone else's colors by the temporary grace and permission of other company managers and pilot groups. Any outsource provider is free to break away from those terms and go it alone, ala Independance Air.

 

[PCL_128]

Thank God someone around here has a brain in his head!!!

 

[~~~^~~~]

PCL,

Do we not agree that ALPA has lost it's way on alter ego?

Instead of looking for political excuses to avoid unity, we need to look for leverage to protect unity.

EV code was not much, but it all became DAL code when ASA was acquired. ASA should have been treated as an acquired airline, because it was. As far as merger and fragmentation language, ALPA National attorney's drafted the contracts. The changes to the CBL's at D ALPA's behest undermined the position of the ASA pilots by pre emptively removing the definition of "operational integration."

ALPA did in fact lose it's religion and in the process lost its legitimacy. Since then ALPA has had five failed representational votes.

ALPA is very nearly suffering from irrelevance. The only way to turn this around is to remember that a union's primary purpose has to be to bring employees together to bargain collectively.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL,

Do we not agree that ALPA has lost it's way on alter ego?

I don't even agree with your use of the term "alter-ego" in relation to feeder carriers being used in accordance with approved scope language. ASA in not an "alter-ego," it's a capacity provider that operates in accordance with DAL scope that the pilots approved.

Now, if your question is whether I think we've made a mistake in how we've negotiated scope language that allows this outsourcing, then yes, I would agree. But throwing around words like "alter-ego" that don't belong in this discussion is part of that whole lack of political acumen thing I was telling Joe about.

 

[~~~^~~~]

OK, ASA is an approved "Alter Ego."

Still it is what it is. It performs the 737-200 and 727 flying that SWA did not pick up. (I give AirTran credit for actually beating Delta in some markets) Either way, it greatly harms Delta pilots.

A guy who commits suicide is equally dead, whether he did it to himself or had it done by a third party.

 

[PCL_128]

OK, ASA is an approved "Alter Ego."

Use of the term "alter-ego" in these cases isn't appropriate, and detracts from true alter-ego situations. Dan Ford and the RJDC wankers liked to use it because it sounded more ominous. Like I said, bad politics. Things will never get accomplished with this sort of political blustering.

 

[regionaltard]

Use of the term "alter-ego" in these cases isn't appropriate, and detracts from true alter-ego situations. Dan Ford and the RJDC wankers liked to use it because it sounded more ominous. Like I said, bad politics. Things will never get accomplished with this sort of political blustering.

The "approved alter-ego" mentioned elsewhere & implied by you is an oxymoron. That's why USAir was forced to underbid a "regional" airline in order to "capture" EMB 190 flying that it allegedly already owned. The only practical difference between TSA flying being done by GoJet and Delta flying being farmed out to the DCI portfolio is that one group had the gun stuck in its face while the other put the gun to its own head.

 

[N2264J]

Use of the term "alter-ego" in these cases isn't appropriate, and detracts from true alter-ego situations.

Of course it's appropriate. This is what alter ego policy used to say after ALPA got it's clock cleaned by Frank Lorenzo:

B. ALTER EGO POLICY
SOURCE ‑ Board 1980

1. When the management or stockholders of one airline company form another company for the purpose of creating a separate airline entity, it shall be called an Alter Ego company for the
purposes of this section.

2. ALPA will oppose the formation of Alter Ego airline companies and will initiate litigation at every appropriate level to either block their formation or, in the alternative, establish for collective bargaining purposes that the Alter Ego company and the original company are one and the same.

You're familiar with Frank Lorenzo aren't you? Anytime pilot groups are put in a position of bidding on the flying they do, it fits the classic definition of alter ego and ALPA is in with it up to their eyeballs.

To now feign outrage at the British Airways situation is just laughable.

 

[PCL_128]

Did you actually read that, N2264J? It basically repeats my own definition and doesn't back up yours at all. GoJet is an alter-ego. ASA is not.