Fed Court OK's Comair Pilots Lawsuit

[General Lee]

FLB717,

Umm, yes, I was at Delta during the Comair strike. If I wasn't, I would have been furloughed by now. As far as ALPA and "the business side of the union," I agree with you. I also think ALPA has some downfalls, but overall it is better than nothing. I do think they have represented us well, and maybe they haven't been great for others, and I remember that from my own commuter days. But, as far as most Delta guys saying $crew you to the Comair guys and all that, I disagree. I don't know one pilot that wished you to fail during your strike. A lot of us have flown at the regionals and know the harsh conditions. Also, we wanted you to win to help justify our larger salaries. Doesn't that make sense? If you could get paid XXX amount per hour for an RJ and it was high, then our $320 an hour on the 777 didn't look so bad. Also, many of the current furloughs were pilots at Comair or ASA, and they wanted you to win. I have always stated that I wanted you to win, and I always get treated like a "Comair hater." Hey, I feel lucky to be where I am, and I hope everyone gets to do what they want to do. The only thing I am dissapointed at with regards to Comair is the Delta furlough/date of hire issue, and I won't get into that again.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[LowPassBob]

General where did you fly before Delta?

 

[FLB717]

General if you did support Comair I thank you. We got much more support from USAir and United and even American that Delta. I do agree that the best form of scope at CMR/ASA was and still is a great CL65 payrate. Everyone wins. So as far as them taking paycuts it seems stupid, just another way to put more of you on the street. And if it seems you are labeled at RJ hater then maybe you should read your old posts. Many are very hateful in tone. You may not feel that way, but typing does not give the true meaning of your words on the context. Best of luck to ya in 2005 I think you may really need it?!

 

[Looking4Traffic]

Conflict of Interest

From the preceding comments, it remains apparent that many Delta pilots and many Comair pilots share very different views of what is best for our respective futures. That isn't particularly surprising. What is surprising is that these widely divergent views are being represented by one union.

Don't get me wrong. I'm proud to be a member of ALPA and consider myself fortunate to be represented by a strong union. But we are currently in the midst of very unusual circumstances (i.e. two pilot groups employed by the same company with different financial and professional circumstances.) So I offer the following food-for-thought: unless and until Delta pilots and Comair pilots come to an agreement that protects both group's well-beings, it's dangerous for one union to represent both of their interests.

Compare, for example, the very strict rules of ethics governing when law firms are permitted to represent both adversaries in a conflict. Only when firms can demonstrate that a true "Chinese Wall" has been erected -- shielding confidential information of one client from attorneys in the same firm who represent the adversary client -- are they permitted to act as counsel for both sides.

I think that is what the RJDC is saying: it is inappropriate for ALPA to negotiate, for Delta pilots, any term that might affect Comair pilots, unless there are equally zealous ALPA representatives for Comair at the table.

 

[surplus1]

Catbird,

Why shouldn't our Alpa attorney's try to protect our careers during our own contract negotiations?

They should General. The point is those "ALPA attorneys" have the same obligation to protect the careers of ASA and Comair pilots during our own negotiations and during yours as well.

Instead of honoring that legal obligation, they have chosen to protect your careers at the expense of ours. That they may not legally do.

Should we have to check with Comair and ASA pilots before we try to secure our own futures?

No you should not. Should Comair and ASA pilots have to check with the DMEC before we try to secure our own futures? No we should not.

That's the problem that you don't seem to grasp. You have equal rights but you do NOT have superior rights. Your actions and those of the ALPA indicate that you think you do have more rights than we do. That's the problem.

The actions of your leaders (DMEC) and "our" union (ALPA) both indicate clearely that your MEC and the national union both believe that you have more rights than we do. You have both pursued that policy. It is flawed and it also violates the law (DFR).

That is why the union is being sued. When it stops violating its duty of fair representation, the suit will end. Since it will not do so voluntarily, it must be forced to do so by order of a court of law. If this continues, ultimately that order will be forthcoming.

We have Scope to protect our pilots,

Unfortunately, your Scope attempts to go far beyond protecting your own pilots and infringes on the rights of our pilots. No one wants you to give up your Scope. However, it must be confined to your own operations. Your attempt to control our activities, our lives and our futures, through Scope is inappropriate and violates the unions duty to its members.

For as long as we remain "separate" companies, a condition that your group and our union both maintain is desirable, you may not write scope that controls us without our agreement. You have done so and it is being challenged in the right place, a court of law.

You control the union politically and you have abused that control to deny our legal rights. That cannot be allowed to continue. If we wrote Scope clauses that controled your flying, without your consent, you would undoubtedly defend your rights just as we are defending ours.

What you must understand is that "your flying" does not extend to include "our flying". You can negotiate for what is yours but you cannot negotiate for what is ours without our agreement. Until you recognize this reality the conflict will continue.

If you think ALPA is screwing you over, then you should leave.

From our perspective we do not think that ALPA is "screwing" us over, we know that it has and we intend to prove it in court. Leaving the ALPA will not prevent it from attempting to harm us. On the contrary it would only give it a license to do so with impunity. We will not leave. However, we will force the instution of the ALPA to honor its legal obligations to us, just as it honors its legal obligations to you.

Perhaps you believe that you are entitled to more because of what you and the union apparently see as your superior mainline status. That is an error and it must be corrected.

Your job is undoubtedly "better" than our job. However, our status as members of the ALPA is the same. You may be "preferred" in your own mind and that of the union but you are not preferred under the law and the union is not above the law. Since neither you or the union will listen to what we have to say, we have asked the court to order you to comply with the law. I have little doubt that they will do just that.

Do you think ALPA was NOT support you during your unsuccessful strike?

The extent to which the ALPA supported us during our strike is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the "support" that they gave was the absolute minimium that they could give under the ALPA C&BL and the RLA. They did absolutely nothing more. As a matter of fact they did all that they could to prevent us from striking as well as all that they could to make us accept far less than we ultimately did. That included efforts by national officers to bypass our elected leaders and induce us to accept conditions that our MEC had rejected.

You have called our strike "unsuccessful" and perhaps it was. If we had not had to battle both the company and the national union throughout the negotiating and strike process, perhaps we would have achieved a contract without a strike or failing that, we might have had what you would call a "successful" strike.

Also, we weren't negotiating at the same time, and the ALPA attorneys were working on each contract seperately. We finished ours first, and it included the Scope to protect us. Then ALPA went to work on yours.

Your information is not accurate. We were negotiating during the same time frame, we just weren't doing it together. Yes, we were working on each contract separately. Although we knew that we should be coordinating our efforts on Scope, ALPA would have no part of that. The reasons are obvious and will become public during the process of discovery. You did "finish yours first" and that is becasue the national union did what was necessary to ensure that would happen by delaying us. In other words, I am accusing ALPA of deliberately working to provide you with and advantage directly to our detriment. It was no accident of events or timing but a diliberate series of actions.

I am sure ALPA has hired some big wig attorneys to fight the RJDC's, and our guys seem pretty confident, at least I hope so.

Indeed they have. ALPA has assembled its army of legal minds and is using the very best at its disposal; more than a 1/2 dozen. So far they have been unable to prevail against the single, low budget, RJDC attorney. If you haven't figured out why, you will have the opportunity later.

 

[Heavy Set]

Surplus1,

You sure seem cocky. I heard that atleast 6 other motions were dismissed. But, You probably will not advertise that. If ALPA knew they were going to lose, they would probably settle, but I am sure they have things up their sleeves too. Also, there was no ruling here, just the judge allowing the suit to go forward. You still have a large hill to climb, and there will probably be many obstacles along the way. If you guys don't like how ALPA is treating you, I would think you and ASA should leave.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Not ASA!

Surplus is a Comair pilot, not ASA.

 

[Heavy Set]

You (as in Comair) and ASA should leave. If you aren't happy with the representation, then you should go somewhere else. I think a lot of people like to bash ALPA, but don't want to leave it's protective cover. Make the leap and GO.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

No reason

There is no reason at all for Comair, ASA, or any other carrier to leave ALPA.

To even suggest such a thing is foolishness. The, "play by my rules or I'll take my ball and go home!" attitude has no place in union politics.

The fact is that ALPA has a duty of fair representation to ALL of its pilots and carriers. If they are not meeting that obligation as defined by its own bylaws than its members have a RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to force them to do so -- in a court of law if necessary.

I dont pay ALPA dues to get a colorful magazine. I expect fair and equal representation that results in a higher quality of life and better job security than I would have WITHOUT ALPA.

 

[General Lee]

I don't think ALPA likes being sued and might not appreciate going through all of this. Sure, it is hard to get equal representation when two groups (Delta and Comair/ASA) want protection from what the other one wants. It is a difficult situation. Would one list help? Sure, but Delta would not want that and the regional guys seem to not want a staple. Heavy Set is right when he says maybe Comair/ASA should find another union (teamsters etc) who could be more focused on their exact needs. You know ALPA is going to favor Delta mainline versus Comair/ASA because they get more $$$ from the Delta pilots.

Bye Bye--General Lee