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.

 

[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.