FreightDog
Originally posted by FreightDog
So in other words, you are supporting what's going on at USAG?
Dude, you gotta get a Dell, 'cause I'm not getting through to ya.
I'll just say it again. NO, I do not support the creation of MAA at USAir Group. NO, I do not support "Jets for Jobs Protocol". I believe that the U wholly owned should have been on a single list with USAirways pilots. I think that should have happened years ago. I believe that the current crisis at U provided a unique opportunity for ALPA to make right everything that was wrong at USAG. I believe that if they had used the correct method, furloughed USAirways pilots would still have access to ALL the new jobs, with legitimate seniority, ahead of the wholly owned pilots at ALG/PDT/PSA and that the jobs of all ALG/PDT/PSA pilots could and should have been preserved in the process. It didn't happen for 2 reasons: 1) the USAirways pilots think only of themselves (normal) and, 2) ALPA failed to represent the interests of the ALG/PDT/PSA pilots (that sucks).
Sure, but now what would be the difference if AWA got the scope that prevented subcontractors like Mesa from flying 70 or 90 seat RJ's under HP code? Would you still call it predatory bargaining?
You're not reading what I'm writing. NO, I would NOT call that predatory bargaining. AWA does not own Mesa. AWA flying belongs to AWA pilots. Some of that flying has been subcontracted to Mesa. If the AWA pilots can get it ALL back, I have NO problem with that. That includes the 50-seat flying.
In other words, if the AWA pilots do not want any subcontractors I'm OK with them trying to prevent that. If they succeed and that means Mesa loses the contract that's too bad for Mesa. They can get different contracts somewhere else.
Just pilots? What about F/A's, rampers, fuelers, and so on? If you include them, what's to prevent the entire corporation to be merged?
Yes, just pilots. If you merge the corporations, ALL employees will be merged into the parent. The Company will never agree to that because the costs are too high, therefore it becomes impossible if the Company does not agree. You can create a common pilot list without a merger of the corporations and with different contractual provisions. It has been done before, more than once.
Note: Here's a "heads up" for you. Before very long you might see Delta Air Lines attempt to create a new wholly owned subsidiary, flown by Delta pilots (on the same list), with a new name that probably will NOT include the name "Delta". The airplanes will be 737s and 757s transferred from Delta mainline. F/A's, rampers, fuelers, mechanics and so on will be people "furloughed" from the mainline. This new subsidiary/company will be Delta's LCC and Leo Mullin's answer to SWA/JBlu/AirTran. If you see it, remember where you heard it first.
This is creating B-scales again.
No, it is not creating a B-scale. First of all, you and a lot of other people are not using the proper definition of "B-scale." Second, the idea that B-scales have been eliminated is simply not true. All we did was call them something else.
A B-scale is
a different pay rate for the same aircraft type in the same airline or
different work rules for pilots in the same aircraft type(s) in the same airline, or both. Different pay for 737's and 777's is not a B-scale. Different pay scale for RJs and 737s is not a B-scale. Different pay and contract provisions for pilots with a common list, different aircraft types and a separate corporation (subsidiary -- same parent Co.) is not a B-scale.
Even if it was, it's 100 times better than two or three or four separate lists and pilot groups all owned by one corporation.
OK, so hypothetically, what happens to all those airlines if the mainline and wholly-owned merged into one list like say COMASA and Delta became one?
They continue with their present contracts with DAL, but they get no bigger. When the contracts expire, the code share is done. They all have agreements with other carriers already and those carriers are Delta's competition, which they are free to continue. They can seek new agreements or they can go it on their own or they can discontinue operation. That's up to them.
So what would be wrong if AWA told Mesa due to pilot scope clause, "Look, you cannot fly anything more than 50 seats in AWA colors under HP code PERIOD." How is that predatory?
Nothing would be wrong. NO, it is NOT predatory. I've already said that above and in several previous posts here as well as in other threads. Mesa is not a subsidiary of AWA therefore, this is not a problem.
If Mesa wants to fly a 110-seat RJ under it's own code, then by all means, but not under HP code.
EXACTLY! Bingo. I have No problems with that.
Right now that gap is closing with RJ's carrying more and more pax. Watch what happens in the next couple years when 90 and 110-seat RJ's poke their heads out.
So what? If you allow that to be subcontracted then deal with it and quit complaining. It's your fault for allowing it. Blame ALPA, because it was started by ALPA.
If it is happening in a wholly owned subsidiary, with a separate seniority list, that's tough. They should have corrected that by merging the list when they could have or by making an
agreement (not bullying) between the pilot groups as to who would fly what and forcing the Company to comply. If you did not do those things but you're still trying to take flying (by force or "changing scope") from one group that was doing it and giving it to yourself, then you are a predator, you have declared war and you will have a fight on your hands until it is fixed by
agreement, not by the unilateral imposition of one parties views. Meanwhile, the union will get sued for violating its DFR.
On the final note, I realize you didn't want to make this into RJDC thing, but I hope you can see the implications of your lawsuit industry-wide.
Sure I can see the implications of the lawsuit. I hope you can see the implications of what would happen to my career without it and why it is justified. What do you want me to do? Should I just limit my career to a 50-seat jet that is severely restricted just because ALPA thinks that's a good idea and prefers to give my work to the mainline?
I had my work, with no restrictions. I could fly as many 70-seat jets, with no restrictions as my company wanted to buy (and the bought/optioned 90). I could fly any size airplane my company wanted as long as it didn't code share with Delta. I was happy. [Delta (the Company) did not try to change that, ALPA did.]
Delta buys my Company and all of a sudden that gives ALPA the right to decide how many 50-seaters I can fly and where I can fly them, severely cut my 70-seat orders and force me to share them with 4 other airlines, prevent me from flying anything else anywhere, ever.
Not only that, never ask me what I want or think, just do it and then inform me after the fact that I have to accept it. When I complain and let you know I don't like it, tell me to pack sand. Why? Because that's what the Delta pilots want and ALPA likes the Delta mainline more than it likes the Comair regional. You really expect me to accept that BS without a fight? Well my friend, you already know what we think about that.
That lawsuit is actually very relevant in this case. Snakes like JO could easily manipulate any decision to lose the scope and really look to give their own unionized pilots a royal screwing.
So let me see if I got that straight. Are you telling me that because of what people like Ornstein might manipulate or do, I should take a royal screwing from my own union so that the union can pursue its agenda? Thanks, but I don't need my union to "help" me in that way. I'll be happy to fight the Ornsteins but before I can do that I unfortunately have to fight for my own survival against my own union. Sad, but that's the way ALPA seems to want it. They can change course whenever they want. Remember, I pay ALPA to represent my interests not to sell them out in support of an anti-RJ agenda that excludes me. ALPA doesn't have to screw thousands of regional pilots to the JO's of the world, it just wants to pursue the anti-RJ agenda because that's what the mainline pilots want. Well, I happen to be a RJ pilot and that's not what I want. I want to keep my job. It's the only one I have.
As far as the lawsuit itself, the relief section, if it's even 50% of what was sought in the relief section, you are still looking at 6 billion dollars which I believe would still bankrupt our union. That's one of the big reasons why I can't and won't support it.
If the union loses the case and agrees to remove the restrictions on our careers, we want no money. We can move forward with fair representation of ALL members and the battle is over.
If it loses the case and refuses to remove the limits it is trying to illegally impose on my career, then it has become useless to me and is my enemy and the enemy of everyone else like me. In that case, I couldn't care less if it goes bankrupt.
Besides, it won't really matter since the Delta pilots have said they will leave the union if they don't get their way. If they and their four friends want to do that, then it's OK with me. Then we would be able to make the union do its job without their continuous interference and dictatorship.
Take care. I envy your beautiful island environment.
