FlyDeltasJets
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 664
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Eagle Scope Arbitration
- Thread starter FlyingDawg
- Start date
- Watchers 13
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Fun to watch?? Got Scope? Got Comair? Got CHQ? This string is about a companies wonton violation of Eagle's scope clause. If it can happen to us, it can happen to you to..especially if/when the RLA act is amended! We'll all be flying for school teacher salaries if we're lucky in the coming years!
FlyDeltasJets
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 664
The pay and work rules at TSA are not as bad as many of you may think. I can't speak for Mesa and CHQ, but our MEC recently determined where we stand on pay relative to the rest of the industry. TSA's pay scales are currently 5% below industry average. This is taking into account the most recent and most substantial gains in the regional industry by airlines like ACA, Comair and Air Wisconsin. Trans States is a very lean company and often can provide the same or an even better product as other airlines for a lower rate. There are many factors that go into the cost of doing business and the pilot's contract is only one of many variables. We are nearing the end of our current contract which expires in 2004. We all hope to do our part to help continue to raise the standard in the regional industry and we hope we have your support.
Skull-One, don't be so quick to claim CHQ's performance superiority. I haven't seen any American Connection performance numbers, but from US Airways own releases, TSA has lead all of the US Express carriers in on time and completions for quite sometime.
For the Eagle guys: There are many of us who disagree with the way your pilot group has been treated. In fact, there are many of our pilots who will not bid the American Connection flying, despite the better schedules on that side of the company, for that very reason. Not to mention that our MEC Chairman stood shoulder to shoulder with many of you at your informational picketing. This may be of little solace to most of you, but it goes to show that regardless of what actions our respective management takes, we can still be supportive of each other.
Skull-One, don't be so quick to claim CHQ's performance superiority. I haven't seen any American Connection performance numbers, but from US Airways own releases, TSA has lead all of the US Express carriers in on time and completions for quite sometime.
For the Eagle guys: There are many of us who disagree with the way your pilot group has been treated. In fact, there are many of our pilots who will not bid the American Connection flying, despite the better schedules on that side of the company, for that very reason. Not to mention that our MEC Chairman stood shoulder to shoulder with many of you at your informational picketing. This may be of little solace to most of you, but it goes to show that regardless of what actions our respective management takes, we can still be supportive of each other.
Last edited:
resistance
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 56
Though I don't necessarily blame the pilots at contract carriers....I do blame our scumbag management at AMR for not honoring our contract. What is the point of laws and contracts if both parties don't honor them. We become a lawless industry which we are seeing now and will continue to see. This company can go down the tubes since I can careless. I feel that if a company cannot lead by example and honor the contracts than it sould not be allowed to operate.
Again I hope this company, AMR, goes bankrupt and the books are opened up. I think names like Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing will come up on this list with AMR as the most corrupt and dishonest company ever.
Again I hope this company, AMR, goes bankrupt and the books are opened up. I think names like Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing will come up on this list with AMR as the most corrupt and dishonest company ever.
Skull-One said:
About Unions driving up wages....Maybe in some industries, but inthe regional airline market place, they try to put college educated workers above the poverty level.
About the fine folks at Comair pricing themselves out....No they did not. You folks at CHQ whore your selves out to the mngt of the industry! Which make others who bust there but to change this industry look expensive, when they are still hardly middle class.
So keep up the good work CHQ, provide that "great, cheap product," and soon you may be flying 747's and 777's to Asia for $35/hr!.......PS you too MESA if you don't VOTE NO on that terrible TA.
Last edited:
The results from the much anticipated scope arbitration are in. Unfortunately, the Arbitrator has ruled that the Company was not in violation of the contract when it did not aggressively seek the St. Louis flying opportunities. In his ruling, the Arbitrator noted that the Association had not met its burden of proof to show that the Company made an unreasonable or uninformed decision. We could not possibly disagree more.
At the crux of this case was a meeting held by American Eagle senior management in January of 2001. It was at this meeting that the Company first considered whether or not to pursue the St. Louis flying. In sworn testimony, a senior management official stated that the topic was only discussed for fifteen minutes. Another senior management official stated that no notes were kept of the discussion and that this was an unscheduled agenda item. Apparently, the Arbitrator felt that in those unscheduled fifteen minutes, without any documentation or feasibility studies, management was able to make a reasonable and informed decision. Of course, the Company managers claim that with their many years of airline experience they only needed this small amount of time to make a reasonable determination.
While you now know the final results, there is much more to this story. In late December, the Arbitrator released a draft decision which found that the Company did indeed violate section 1.F of our contract when it chose not to pursue the additional flying opportunities in St. Louis. For those of you who do not know, a draft decision is the Arbitrator’s initial ruling on a grievance. It is not a final ruling. Normally, after a draft decision is issued, both parties would convene an ‘Executive Session’ to discuss the various aspects of the draft ruling. In this case, however, the Arbitrator instead opted to receive additional comments in writing from both parties. After another three weeks had passed, the Arbitrator again solicited written responses to the first written comments after the draft decision. Several more weeks followed, and in an unprecedented move, and without explanation, the Arbitrator reversed himself, and now found that the Company acted reasonably and denied the grievance. It is fair to say that there have been rare occasions when Arbitrators have reversed their draft decisions at other airlines, but this has never occurred on our property. This stunning reversal has crushed the career expectations of all Eagle pilots.
Clearly, this is a stinging defeat. We will not try and “spin” this in any other manner. It is made worse by the fact that we initially were told we won, and that the Company had indeed violated the contract. Quite frankly, the initial ruling offers little in which to take solace. Nonetheless, I feel it is important that all of our pilots understand exactly what transpired in this case.
What remains is the simple and painful fact that at the end of the day, our contractual language did not protect us. As I have stated countless times before, the price we have paid for our current contract is simply, too steep. What we were supposed to obtain in return for a sixteen-year, pay-indexed, no-strike contract, has now failed the ultimate test, the protection of the very jobs it encompasses. It is fair to say that we have given the world and obtained very little, if anything in return.
Inevitably, there will be many questions regarding this case. Many will ask where do we go from here? This Thursday, your MEC Officers along with a host of advisors will be participating in an emergency meeting to consider our options. One fact we do know is that as a matter of survival, we must put a stop to our continued job erosion. We will not allow management to outsource our jobs to St. Louis or elsewhere.
For now, rest assured that the battle is far from over.
At the crux of this case was a meeting held by American Eagle senior management in January of 2001. It was at this meeting that the Company first considered whether or not to pursue the St. Louis flying. In sworn testimony, a senior management official stated that the topic was only discussed for fifteen minutes. Another senior management official stated that no notes were kept of the discussion and that this was an unscheduled agenda item. Apparently, the Arbitrator felt that in those unscheduled fifteen minutes, without any documentation or feasibility studies, management was able to make a reasonable and informed decision. Of course, the Company managers claim that with their many years of airline experience they only needed this small amount of time to make a reasonable determination.
While you now know the final results, there is much more to this story. In late December, the Arbitrator released a draft decision which found that the Company did indeed violate section 1.F of our contract when it chose not to pursue the additional flying opportunities in St. Louis. For those of you who do not know, a draft decision is the Arbitrator’s initial ruling on a grievance. It is not a final ruling. Normally, after a draft decision is issued, both parties would convene an ‘Executive Session’ to discuss the various aspects of the draft ruling. In this case, however, the Arbitrator instead opted to receive additional comments in writing from both parties. After another three weeks had passed, the Arbitrator again solicited written responses to the first written comments after the draft decision. Several more weeks followed, and in an unprecedented move, and without explanation, the Arbitrator reversed himself, and now found that the Company acted reasonably and denied the grievance. It is fair to say that there have been rare occasions when Arbitrators have reversed their draft decisions at other airlines, but this has never occurred on our property. This stunning reversal has crushed the career expectations of all Eagle pilots.
Clearly, this is a stinging defeat. We will not try and “spin” this in any other manner. It is made worse by the fact that we initially were told we won, and that the Company had indeed violated the contract. Quite frankly, the initial ruling offers little in which to take solace. Nonetheless, I feel it is important that all of our pilots understand exactly what transpired in this case.
What remains is the simple and painful fact that at the end of the day, our contractual language did not protect us. As I have stated countless times before, the price we have paid for our current contract is simply, too steep. What we were supposed to obtain in return for a sixteen-year, pay-indexed, no-strike contract, has now failed the ultimate test, the protection of the very jobs it encompasses. It is fair to say that we have given the world and obtained very little, if anything in return.
Inevitably, there will be many questions regarding this case. Many will ask where do we go from here? This Thursday, your MEC Officers along with a host of advisors will be participating in an emergency meeting to consider our options. One fact we do know is that as a matter of survival, we must put a stop to our continued job erosion. We will not allow management to outsource our jobs to St. Louis or elsewhere.
For now, rest assured that the battle is far from over.
First take a minute to understand what the grievance was really about. When the company signed the “Jet Services Agreements” with Chautauqua and Trans-States in 2001, ALPA filed a grievance claiming that these agreements violate Section 1F of our contract. The contract language is as follows:
”INCREASED FLYING OPPORTUNITIES – The Company will aggressively seek to increase flying opportunities when it is economical, practical and feasible to do so, including, but not limited to, bidding on opportunities to provide additional feed to American Airlines, Inc.”
In the arbitration hearing, we were able to successfully prove to the arbitrator that the company flagrantly disregarded this contract language. Two large points made in the case were:
The company did consider putting Eagle in STL and “ran the numbers” on it. Those numbers, however, were not used to put Eagle into STL but were used to bargain cheaper rates with Chautauqua and Trans-States.
The company claims that they could not simply set up a new hub overnight. We presented evidence as to the overnight opening of the RDU hub to dissolve that claim, proving that the company was completely capable of putting Eagle into STL.
Although a bulletproof case was argued, the realistic expectation of a significant damage award was low. We could never expect an arbitrator to simply close down STL overnight nor could we expect the arbitrator to rule that the company had to buy all of the airplanes from Chautauqua. What we would get is a ruling in our favor with some damages, that would set a very strong precedent for other grievances filed regarding scope.
The arbitrator issued a draft award approximately 6 weeks ago, ruling in ALPA’s favor. There were several parts of that draft award that were slammed the company for the actions mentioned above. This draft ruling specifically stated that the Company was in violation of Section 1F, and was going to grant us the grievance. From that point on we were simply trying to negotiate damages to be awarded to us.
Allow me to provide a small amount of background information about the arbitration process. Our disputes are presided over by a “System Board of Adjustment” which is composed of 3 people, a company representative, an ALPA representative, and a neutral chair (the arbitrator). As a matter of legal ethics, all information concerning an award is privileged solely to the Board members until the award is finalized. When a draft award is issued, it is common for the Board to meet in “Executive Sessions” to assist in making a final award. Either side may call an Executive Session to make a change to the draft award, with the concurrence of the arbitrator. The changes made are usually minor in nature, and are to improve on shortcomings of the draft award. For example if a draft award rules for one side of the dispute but the award does not specifically address a remedy, then the Board may meet to discuss language to be inserted in the final draft that would include a remedy. It is almost unheard of for an arbitrator to reverse his original opinion during an Executive Session.
In this case, the arbitrator completely reversed his decision and rewrote the entire draft award. Apparently this was NOT because of compelling arguments from the company Board member, but simply because this arbitrator changed his mind. This leaves us only to speculate as to WHY this happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the first reactions are:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will be sending this arbitrator a “Letter of Dissent”, which is legal document that outlines our numerous disagreements with his actions. Also, we’ve had ALPA National file an appeal with the National Mediation Board regarding this case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I would look at the Arbitators bank accounts to see if he has made any large deposits lately.....
”INCREASED FLYING OPPORTUNITIES – The Company will aggressively seek to increase flying opportunities when it is economical, practical and feasible to do so, including, but not limited to, bidding on opportunities to provide additional feed to American Airlines, Inc.”
In the arbitration hearing, we were able to successfully prove to the arbitrator that the company flagrantly disregarded this contract language. Two large points made in the case were:
The company did consider putting Eagle in STL and “ran the numbers” on it. Those numbers, however, were not used to put Eagle into STL but were used to bargain cheaper rates with Chautauqua and Trans-States.
The company claims that they could not simply set up a new hub overnight. We presented evidence as to the overnight opening of the RDU hub to dissolve that claim, proving that the company was completely capable of putting Eagle into STL.
Although a bulletproof case was argued, the realistic expectation of a significant damage award was low. We could never expect an arbitrator to simply close down STL overnight nor could we expect the arbitrator to rule that the company had to buy all of the airplanes from Chautauqua. What we would get is a ruling in our favor with some damages, that would set a very strong precedent for other grievances filed regarding scope.
The arbitrator issued a draft award approximately 6 weeks ago, ruling in ALPA’s favor. There were several parts of that draft award that were slammed the company for the actions mentioned above. This draft ruling specifically stated that the Company was in violation of Section 1F, and was going to grant us the grievance. From that point on we were simply trying to negotiate damages to be awarded to us.
Allow me to provide a small amount of background information about the arbitration process. Our disputes are presided over by a “System Board of Adjustment” which is composed of 3 people, a company representative, an ALPA representative, and a neutral chair (the arbitrator). As a matter of legal ethics, all information concerning an award is privileged solely to the Board members until the award is finalized. When a draft award is issued, it is common for the Board to meet in “Executive Sessions” to assist in making a final award. Either side may call an Executive Session to make a change to the draft award, with the concurrence of the arbitrator. The changes made are usually minor in nature, and are to improve on shortcomings of the draft award. For example if a draft award rules for one side of the dispute but the award does not specifically address a remedy, then the Board may meet to discuss language to be inserted in the final draft that would include a remedy. It is almost unheard of for an arbitrator to reverse his original opinion during an Executive Session.
In this case, the arbitrator completely reversed his decision and rewrote the entire draft award. Apparently this was NOT because of compelling arguments from the company Board member, but simply because this arbitrator changed his mind. This leaves us only to speculate as to WHY this happened.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the first reactions are:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will be sending this arbitrator a “Letter of Dissent”, which is legal document that outlines our numerous disagreements with his actions. Also, we’ve had ALPA National file an appeal with the National Mediation Board regarding this case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I would look at the Arbitators bank accounts to see if he has made any large deposits lately.....
nimtz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,442
Skull-One said:
Ahh, then why aren't you guys winning 'Regional Airline of the Year' awards. I've seen you guys operate side by side with my airline and I have yet to be impressed. Additionally, I haven't met a gate agent yet who didn't think the 'other express operation' wasn't a serious pain in the arse. BTW, notice that your management is too cheap to put the quiter and more efficent APU on the ERJ's. Not suprising I guess. Now the question is how long to repaint the AW airplanes to DAL colors. I give it 4 years.
RichardFitzwel9
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Posts
- 28
Skull-One
Very Large Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2002
- Posts
- 288
Nimtz just deep sixed what little credibility he may have had. Every ERJ CHQ has taken in the last 18 months has the new APU. Nice try. We also opted for the leather seats and three-pax oxygen mask system (4 oxygen masks in *every* row, not just designated rows like other ERJ operators). And unlike a certain carrier that saved money buying Universal FMSs...all our non-Jungfolk planes have Honeywells.
As for the other express carrier...they're probably p***ed that we're whuppin' their arse in every category...
Let's see...we scored the highest ever by any Delta operator on a recent safety inspection...and our jets will all be in fresh paint within four months.
Cheap APUs my arse! You must have Chautauqua confused with someone else! Besides, the new APUs might be quieter, but they suck! How are they more efficient any way? Not that I trust you to actually speak with authority on the subject!
As for the other express carrier...they're probably p***ed that we're whuppin' their arse in every category...
Let's see...we scored the highest ever by any Delta operator on a recent safety inspection...and our jets will all be in fresh paint within four months.
Cheap APUs my arse! You must have Chautauqua confused with someone else! Besides, the new APUs might be quieter, but they suck! How are they more efficient any way? Not that I trust you to actually speak with authority on the subject!
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
