Freedom Air questions...

[surplus1]

FrieghtDog,

Thanks. I already read the press release. It doesn't answer either one of the questions I asked and it doesn't really change much of anything. Maybe it might force Freedom into ALPA, but it would not make one airline or one list or even one contract, just like it did none of those things for CCAir.

Do you have any opinions of your own? That's what I was trying to find out, not the propaganda from either side.

 

[Freight Dog]

Surplus,

My opinion is that this whole gig is a threatening move by JO, and it may cause some heartburn, but somehow I don't think he'll get away with it.

What's JO gonna do when AWA gets their scope? I mean, it ties into RJDC argument, and that's why I don't support RJDC. Abolishing scope clauses would open doors to other "Freedom Airlines's" which is what I am opposed to.

Regards!

FD

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,
My opinion is that this whole gig is a threatening move by JO, and it may cause some heartburn, but somehow I don't think he'll get away with it.

I agree that the creation of Freedom is very threatening to Mesa pilots. That is the case whenever one corporation owns more than one airline, a condition that has almost always existed at Mesa. Freedom is not a concept that is "new" to the MAG property. While it does dilute the bargaining power of the Mesa pilot, Mesa pilots do have full access to the jobs at Freedom if they choose to accept them on the Company's terms. At least Ornstein hasn't yet asked them to give half of the jobs to pilots from another airline. In the current industry environment, it might be worth a little creative thinking.

Because of this long history of multiple airlines under the MAG umbrella (which I hope but doubt Mesa pilots will be able to eliminate), I frankly find ALPA's sudden fervor against Freedom to be highly hypocritical. Let's not ignore several relevant facts.

Mesa Air Group has a contract to conduct certain flying for America West. That contract includes the use of 50, 70 and 90 seat jets. The 50-seaters are currently flown by Mesa pilots. MAG was prevented from placing the 70 and 90 seaters on the Mesa certificate by a provision of the USAirways pilot contract which prevented MAG from operating any jet with more than 50-seats (even under contract with a totally unrelated and different airline) while it had a contract with USAir Group.

If USAG had not collapsed financially, MAG would have had to cancel its contract with USAG in order to operate those aircraft. In that circumstance, the Mesa pilots would not have any access to those aircraft. ALPA expressed no concern while that was the case. Ornstein moved to create Freedom as a means of avoiding the USAirways Scope, not the Mesa pilots. They were merely a fringe benefit. ALPA created garbage at USAG that has now created more garbage at MAG.

ALPA never objected to the alter ego airlines of ALG/PDT/PSA on the USAir Group property and fostered their continuation in that status. ALPA does not object to the alter ego subsidiaries of Comair and ASA on the Delta property and has overtly acted to keep them in that status. ALPA has raised no objections to the alter ego called COEX nor to Express1(Pinnacle). ALPA does not object to the alter ego status of American Eagle on the AMR property. ALPA has had no problem creating a fourth alter ego now called Mid Atlantic Airways on the USAir Group property. What then is the sudden reason for raising the hue and cry against Freedom? Do you really expect me to believe that it is ALPA's devotion to the welfare of Mesa pilots? I'm not that naive.

What's JO gonna do when AWA gets their scope? I mean, it ties into RJDC argument, and that's why I don't support RJDC. Abolishing scope clauses would open doors to other "Freedom Airlines's" which is what I am opposed to.

You've more or less answered the true ALPA motivation with your first sentence. That is precisely why ALPA has this special interest in preventing the creation of Freedom. It has nothing whatever to do with Mesa pilots and everything to do with AWA pilots. The Mesa pilots are simply being used as pawns.

ALPA has failed miserably in its long, misguided and concerted effort to block, then limit, the 50-seat regional jet. Now the focus is simply changing to an identical effort to block the 70 and 90 seat RJ's.

I have nothing at all against AWA pilots and would like to see them get a good contract, but when you ask me "what is JO going to do when AWA gets their scope" you make me grin from ear to ear. I must ask you, what is ALPA going to do when the AWA doesn't get their scope?

If AWA pilots want Scope that says there will be no subcontracting of any AWA flying and all jets operated by, for or in the service of AWA will be flown by pilots on the AWA list, I could and would happily support them in that effort. That is the purpose of Scope and would be completely legitimate.

[Note: If ALPA is really concerned about alter egos, then it would be fighting to negotiate Scope that prevents them. It has done so at most majors, but has never tried and usually resists efforts to do so at "regionals". If Mesa had Scope, Freedom would not be possible. Given the current Mesa contract there is nothing at all that its creation violates in the Mesa contract. ALPA is now trying to prevent after the fact, what it failed to prevent before the fact.]

However, I do not and will not support them (AWA) in any effort that attempts to limit or control the number or type of aircraft that may be operated by Mesa Air Group or any other airline. That is predatory scope and completely illegitimate. I believe it is illegal and should be prohibited by the courts.

Neither will I ever support them in any attempt to place any AWA pilots into the cockpits of Mesa airplanes by any means other than the normal hiring process at Mesa. Any attempt similar to the J4J coercion at USAirGroup would be equally anathema to me at AWA or anywhere else. That is a gross injustice that forces the abrogation of seniority and should never happen. The union should be crucified for doing it and the courts should overturn it.

Mesa pilots unfortunately find themselves in the middle and victims of the mess. On one side they have an anti-union CEO who will definitely use Freedom as a lever against them whenever he can. On the other side they are represented by a labor union that has clearly demonstrated elswhere that it has far more intrest in preventing regional pilots anywhere from flying 70 or 90 seat regional jets (whether alter egos or not) and supporting the predatory interests of mainline pilots who, not statisfied with what they have also want what others have, than it does in protecting the rights or interests of the Mesa pilots.

ALPA is taking advantage of the opportunity to use the PR advantages of "defending Mesa pilots", to achieve its very different objectives. If ALPA should achieve what it wants at America West, it will abandon the Mesa pilots to whatever befalls them just as it has every other regional pilot group.

What ever "side" of this mess you choose to take is up to you and I have no ill will towards you, but I do wish that you and other regional pilots would stop believing in ALPA fairy tales and become more aware of the reality of what is happening, no matter how disgusting it may be.

Regards to you!

Surplus1

 

[Freight Dog]

Good post Surplus, as always. However, I still think it's far-fetched to fully integrate the regional airlines into the mainline operation. Sure, it may potentially work with ASA and Comair, but what do you do with airlines that are not wholly-owned by a major carrier like Delta in your case? What happens to Mesa, TSA, Chautauqua, and other airlines that are not wholly-owned? There are thousands of pilots at those airlines who have nothing to do with the airline they fly contract regional-type routes. What happens to those? Basically, it would create a chaos.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you about one list, however I think it's a little too idealistic and impractical to be implemented industry-wide.

Now, here is where we disagree - scope. I think the scope clause is a must on every level. However, your way IMO is impractical. What would be practical is if AWA gets a scope clause to effect to protect their jobs by limiting RJ flying done by subcontractors like Mesa. Mesa on the other hand should fight to get a scope to prevent alter-ego carriers like Freedom. So on and so forth. Bottom line - you secure what you feel is right for your pilot group.

As I've said before, I can see some points in RJDC lawsuit, and I would be indifferent about them for the most part. However the relief sought by the plaintiffs shoots down any potential moral or other support, at least with this regional pilot.

We agree to disagree.

 

[surplus1]

Good post Surplus, as always. However, I still think it's far-fetched to fully integrate the regional airlines into the mainline operation. Sure, it may potentially work with ASA and Comair, but what do you do with airlines that are not wholly-owned by a major carrier like Delta in your case? What happens to Mesa, TSA, Chautauqua, and other airlines that are not wholly-owned? There are thousands of pilots at those airlines who have nothing to do with the airline they fly contract regional-type routes. What happens to those? Basically, it would create a chaos.

Thanks Freight. You know, I haven't really been doing a very good job of communicating my thoughts because a lot of people don't really understand what I mean or where I'm really coming from. What you just wrote makes me see that clearly, so let me try to explain.

1. I do not advocate the integration of all regional airlines with major airlines and I never have. The only time that I advocate a single seniority list, is when one company owns more than one airline. Independent airlines (like the ones you mention) are independent airlines and should not be "integrated" with anybody. They shouldn't have "one list" (except their own) and they should NOT have "flow throughs" either.

Note: That is exactly how I felt before Comair was acquired. I didn't want anybody to buy us, I already had one list (our own) and wanted no other and I didn't want to flow to anywhere. I still wish that's how it was.

2. I think that Section 1, merger provisions, should not include any exemptions, period. No BS about merging with this guy but not with that guy. If your Company buys or starts another airline, all the pilots need to be on a single seniority list. The exemption stupidity is one of the major causes of the current mess. It is a built in OK to alter ego creation.

3. I realize that we are where we are and the whole world can't be turned upside down. It's like a bug in a computer program. You don't have to dump the computer or rewrite the program. What you have to do is find the "work around" that solves the problem and allows the machine to function. That is how we solve the current situation and we only have to do it in in 5 scenarios at a maximum. Some are easier than others but the basic solution is the same in all.

a) create a common seniority list. b) do not merge the corporations. c) prohibit any flush, d) allow a different "contract within a contract" arrangement (cost concern), e) remove internal scope but create an "agreed" line between the segments (allocate the work), f) permit no further or new subcontracting, g) no new acquisitions, creations, etc. unless integrated fully. END.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you about one list, however I think it's a little too idealistic and impractical to be implemented industry-wide.

I've never advocated anything close to indusry-wide one list. I'm against that and always have been. See above. Because we are owned by the same Company and for NO OTHER REASON, I am willing to go DOH with ASA and staple to DAL (only with a no flush proviso). I have no interest whatever in one list with SKYW or ACA let alone Chautauqua or anyone else.

Now, here is where we disagree - scope. I think the scope clause is a must on every level. However, your way IMO is impractical. What would be practical is if AWA gets a scope clause to effect to protect their jobs by limiting RJ flying done by subcontractors like Mesa. Mesa on the other hand should fight to get a scope to prevent alter-ego carriers like Freedom. So on and so forth. Bottom line - you secure what you feel is right for your pilot group.

I'm not so sure that we disagree on Scope. I think that you don't understand what I object to. Look at my previous post again and read what I said about AWA Scope. AWA does not own Mesa. Therefore, I have no problem if the AWA pilots get Scope that eliminates ALL subcontracting! That's legitimate.

Do I think they will get that? No, I don't. The barn door is already open and the stock is gone. What's their option? Scope that limits subcontracting to its present level. No more period. That's appropriate. But don't try to tell Mesa what plane they can fly or where they can fly it. Tell your own Company what it can and can't do.

I never complained about Delta Scope when my airline was not a subsidiary of Delta. If we were still in that situation, I would not be complaining now.

As a comment only, I will say that AWA has not lost one job because of what Mesa does. They do not fly anywhere close to the same equipment. At one time AWA did, but I think that went away right before or shortly after ALPA came on the property. I believe it was Dash 8's and the AWA pilots didn't complain any about it going away.

Now, when you have more than one airline owned by the same Company you have an alter ego by whatever name you choose to call it. From that day forward, you'll be fighting with each other and the Company forever unless you take action to stop it. You can't do that effectively with the same Scope that you use for a subcontractor.

ALPA seems to think that if you just don't call it an alter ego, that means it isn't. That's BS. You can't deal with an alter ego the same way you deal with a subcontractor. That's what ALPA is trying to do and that's why there's a problem.

When you try to fix an alter ego problem with after the fact Scope, you create all sorts of representational problems and, to keep it short, the result is a disaster. That's what we have. You can sit on your side of the table and call the alter ego whatever you want, i.e., wholly owned, outsourcing, subcontractor, etc.,etc., till he1l freezes over and that won't change anything. All you're really doing is writing Scope against your own Company. That is stupid, self-defeating and ineffective. The proof of the pudding is there for us to see. All we have to do is stop covering our eyes with our hand and trying to eliminate the sky thereby.

As I've said before, I can see some points in RJDC lawsuit, and I would be indifferent about them for the most part. However the relief sought by the plaintiffs shoots down any potential moral or other support, at least with this regional pilot.
We agree to disagree.

I really didn't want to make this an RJDC thing and I still don't. About all I'll say is that FDJ doesn't understand the relief section and a lot of his "big numbers" are meaningless. I know he'll say "do the math". I know how to do the math and most everything else about the litigation. I doesn't mean that all Scope will be eliminated and it won't cost $12 billion even if we win everything hands down. That sounds like he wants it to sound to make his point, but it just ain't so.

We can agree to disagree on that part with no problem. Hopefully, the explanation of my view is now clearer than it was before. I'm not seeking agreement, just understanding.

 

[Freight Dog]

Thanks Freight. You know, I haven't really been doing a very good job of communicating my thoughts because a lot of people don't really understand what I mean or where I'm really coming from. What you just wrote makes me see that clearly, so let me try to explain.

1. I do not advocate the integration of all regional airlines with major airlines and I never have. The only time that I advocate a single seniority list, is when one company owns more than one airline.

>>> So in other words, you are supporting what's going on at USAG?

Independent airlines (like the ones you mention) are independent airlines and should not be "integrated" with anybody. They shouldn't have "one list" (except their own) and they should NOT have "flow throughs" either.

>>> 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?


Note: That is exactly how I felt before Comair was acquired. I didn't want anybody to buy us, I already had one list (our own) and wanted no other and I didn't want to flow to anywhere. I still wish that's how it was.

2. I think that Section 1, merger provisions, should not include any exemptions, period. No BS about merging with this guy but not with that guy. If your Company buys or starts another airline, all the pilots need to be on a single seniority list. The exemption stupidity is one of the major causes of the current mess. It is a built in OK to alter ego creation.


>>> I can agree on this point.


3. I realize that we are where we are and the whole world can't be turned upside down. It's like a bug in a computer program. You don't have to dump the computer or rewrite the program. What you have to do is find the "work around" that solves the problem and allows the machine to function. That is how we solve the current situation and we only have to do it in in 5 scenarios at a maximum. Some are easier than others but the basic solution is the same in all.

a) create a common seniority list. b) do not merge the corporations.

>>> 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?

c) prohibit any flush, d) allow a different "contract within a contract" arrangement (cost concern)

>>> This is creating B-scales again.

e) remove internal scope but create an "agreed" line between the segments (allocate the work)

>>> I can somewhat I agree with this.

f) permit no further or new subcontracting, g) no new acquisitions, creations, etc. unless integrated fully. END.

>>> This I agree with.



I've never advocated anything close to indusry-wide one list. I'm against that and always have been. See above. Because we are owned by the same Company and for NO OTHER REASON, I am willing to go DOH with ASA and staple to DAL (only with a no flush proviso). I have no interest whatever in one list with SKYW or ACA let alone Chautauqua or anyone else.

>>> 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?




I'm not so sure that we disagree on Scope. I think that you don't understand what I object to. Look at my previous post again and read what I said about AWA Scope. AWA does not own Mesa. Therefore, I have no problem if the AWA pilots get Scope that eliminates ALL subcontracting! That's legitimate.

Do I think they will get that? No, I don't. The barn door is already open and the stock is gone. What's their option? Scope that limits subcontracting to its present level. No more period. That's appropriate. But don't try to tell Mesa what plane they can fly or where they can fly it. Tell your own Company what it can and can't do.

>>> 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?
If Mesa wants to fly a 110-seat RJ under it's own code, then by all means, but not under HP code.


I never complained about Delta Scope when my airline was not a subsidiary of Delta. If we were still in that situation, I would not be complaining now.

As a comment only, I will say that AWA has not lost one job because of what Mesa does. They do not fly anywhere close to the same equipment. At one time AWA did, but I think that went away right before or shortly after ALPA came on the property. I believe it was Dash 8's and the AWA pilots didn't complain any about it going away.

>>> 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.

Now, when you have more than one airline owned by the same Company you have an alter ego by whatever name you choose to call it. From that day forward, you'll be fighting with each other and the Company forever unless you take action to stop it. You can't do that effectively with the same Scope that you use for a subcontractor.

ALPA seems to think that if you just don't call it an alter ego, that means it isn't. That's BS. You can't deal with an alter ego the same way you deal with a subcontractor. That's what ALPA is trying to do and that's why there's a problem.

When you try to fix an alter ego problem with after the fact Scope, you create all sorts of representational problems and, to keep it short, the result is a disaster. That's what we have. You can sit on your side of the table and call the alter ego whatever you want, i.e., wholly owned, outsourcing, subcontractor, etc.,etc., till he1l freezes over and that won't change anything. All you're really doing is writing Scope against your own Company. That is stupid, self-defeating and ineffective. The proof of the pudding is there for us to see. All we have to do is stop covering our eyes with our hand and trying to eliminate the sky thereby.




I really didn't want to make this an RJDC thing and I still don't. About all I'll say is that FDJ doesn't understand the relief section and a lot of his "big numbers" are meaningless. I know he'll say "do the math". I know how to do the math and most everything else about the litigation. I doesn't mean that all Scope will be eliminated and it won't cost $12 billion even if we win everything hands down. That sounds like he wants it to sound to make his point, but it just ain't so.

We can agree to disagree on that part with no problem. Hopefully, the explanation of my view is now clearer than it was before. I'm not seeking agreement, just understanding.

>>> 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. 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. Not to mention AWA's pilots fighting to save their jobs from being outsourced. AWA doesn't own Mesa or any other regional. 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.

Regards!

 

[surplus1]

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.

 

[Freight Dog]

A couple of questions for ya surplus:

You claim you don't like the Jets 4 Jobs deals because the mainline comes in and takes jobs away from WO's. Yeah, I think it's kind of B.S. myself. But let me be the devil's advocate here:

What are the WO's getting out of this? I don't have much info, but I've read on ALPA's message boards that WO's are on the same seniority list as mainline US Air? Is that true? Also, isn't it the case that if and when any hiring happens at US Airways, they will be junior to people there now and on furlough, plus the junior bird will be the RJ or a Dash 8? I'm only going off of things I read on ALPA's message board. I don't know the details of how they're working it, I'm wondering if you know them.

If that indeed is the case, would you want that for Delta? Why/why not? If not, how would you do it differently? Staple? Great... so 900+ COMASA guys get zapped off the bottom? I'm just curious what sort of protections for "your" group would you propose? Also, what happens to Delta furloughees who came from COMASA? Do they go junior to everyone and forgo seniority that would have been theirs if they had stayed at their regional Delta affiliate? What's your take on this?


Aloha!

 

[surplus1]

A couple of questions for ya surplus:

You claim you don't like the Jets 4 Jobs deals because the mainline comes in and takes jobs away from WO's. Yeah, I think it's kind of B.S. myself. But let me be the devil's advocate here:

What are the WO's getting out of this? I don't have much info, but I've read on ALPA's message boards that WO's are on the same seniority list as mainline US Air? Is that true? Also, isn't it the case that if and when any hiring happens at US Airways, they will be junior to people there now and on furlough, plus the junior bird will be the RJ or a Dash 8? I'm only going off of things I read on ALPA's message board. I don't know the details of how they're working it, I'm wondering if you know them.

What are the WO's getting out of this? Basically a royal screwing. They are really guaranteed nothing. Not even one new jet. The most likey scene is that they will simply go out of business as they are gradually replaced with jets that they are not permitted to fly (MAA). Is that 100% certain? No it's not. Oh yes, they have a flow-through to Mid Atlantic which has a flow through to USAirways (neither of which will ever happen in the real world). Basically it boils down to the WOs being replaced by the furloughed U pilots who will fly whatever new jets the Company buys.

Have you ever played darts with your back to the dart board and you look straight ahead and throw the dart blind over your shoulder? How many bulls eyes do you think you might get like that?

No, they do not have seniority numbers on the USAirways list. The whole thing is a pretty complex agreement. I do know the details and I have copies of the agreements. However, it would take many, many posts to hash it all out here and I don't think there is enough interest. If you really want the details, perhaps you can get a copy of the agreements from your MEC. That way you can read it and form your own opinions.

I would send them to you but I can't do that because I have no way to verify that you are an active ALPA member. I believe you are, but I can't prove it since we don't know each other. I hope you understand. It's nothing personal.

If that indeed is the case, would you want that for Delta? Why/why not? If not, how would you do it differently? Staple? Great... so 900+ COMASA guys get zapped off the bottom? I'm just curious what sort of protections for "your" group would you propose? Also, what happens to Delta furloughees who came from COMASA? Do they go junior to everyone and forgo seniority that would have been theirs if they had stayed at their regional Delta affiliate? What's your take on this?

Honestly there is not even one thing in the U restructuring agreements that I would ever want to have happen to a Comair pilot. While I obviously have not discussed the details of the U agreements with every Comair pilot, I am willing to bet anything that if I was to propose they accept that, I would be stoned. Comair pilots would never ratify that garbage.

An agreement that I would recommend for DAL/CMR/ASA would not result in any furloughs of CMR/ASA pilots. I would create one list and the Delta pilots would be senior. It would be a staple with a no flush provision (that's what prevents the furlough and also prevents displacements). All the new jobs would be open for system bid (since the DAL pilots would be senior, they would get them --- that includes the furloughed pilots). No pilots would be hired except to the bottom of the combined lists. There would be no more "internal Scope" (the DAL/CMR/ASA pilots would agree to a dividing (equipment) line between mainline/regional parts of the system. It would not be 50 or 70 seats -- this is flexible). There would be plenty of normal Scope and ALL new subcontracting would be banned. Current subcontractors would be phased out as their contracts expire. The corporations would NOT be merged (except maybe ASA/CMR).

Those are the basics. Many details of course, but those listed are the big ticket items. The no flush provision, the no subcontracting standard scope and removal of the internal scope (agreed divider) are deal breakers. If those aren't there, then there's no reason to do any of it. Of course all of it would require agreement by the Company.

You asked specifically what happens to Delta furloughees who came from ComAsa. I assume you mean pilots who once worked at CMR or ASA and now work for Delta but are furloughed? That's easy. They are Delta pilots and would not be treated differently from any other Delta pilot. How they got to Delta is of no concern.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

Regards.

 

[BE02FO]

Surplus1,
With all due respect, I think your solution is nothing but self-serving. There is nothing wrong with wanting a better situation for yourself, but don't claim it's the solution to the scope issues we have in this industry.

First of all, you say there will no more new flying given to subcontractors and that their contracts will not be renewed when they expire. If your so called solution is applied throughout the industry half the regional pilots would be out of work: CQ, SKYW, ACA, TSA, MESA...

As for the no flush provision, no comment there obviously. You will get all the upside in this deal, while the contract carriers and mainline pilots get screwed.
Everybody asks what's in it for me. I don't think mainile pilots or MGMT will go for your "solution".

I bet if Comair was still a contract carrier, you woudn't be advocating this.

 

[MetroSheriff]

This response may sound a bit harsh, and I apologize in advance. It is just reality.

Surplus1,
With all due respect, I think your solution is nothing but self-serving. There is nothing wrong with wanting a better situation for yourself, but don't claim it's the solution to the scope issues we have in this industry.

It is self-serving. It is called competition and desire for one's employer to be succesfull so that one can reap the benfits.

I don't think it will solve the scope issues in the industry. Every carrier is different, as are its' problems. We only care about Delta. If the others fall apart from labor trouble or go bankrupt, someone will step in and fill the vacuum. Hopefully DAL will be smart enough to capitilize on the opportunity.

First of all, you say there will no more new flying given to subcontractors and that their contracts will not be renewed when they expire. If your so called solution is applied throughout the industry half the regional pilots would be out of work: CQ, SKYW, ACA, TSA, MESA...

Correct. and so be it. Contract carriers do not care about Delta. They care about themselves. If this wasn't true than they would not contract for multiple carriers. As such, they are COMPETITION. If they go away, Delta can fill that vacuum. That is GOOD. For DELTA!!!

As for the no flush provision, no comment there obviously. You will get all the upside in this deal, while the contract carriers and mainline pilots get screwed.
Everybody asks what's in it for me. I don't think mainile pilots or MGMT will go for your "solution".

I think Suplus' proposition gives first right of recall to furloughed Delta pilots (who would be senior to DCI pilots on the combined list) for seats that open up when the contract carriers are sent packing.

Management would only go for something like this if their low cost structure was allowed to remain in place.

What happens to the contract carriers is of NO signifigance to the pilots in the employ of DAL or DCI. Sounds harsh but that is life. Do you think that the people at Walgreens are concerned with the success of Payless (again this is competition). If DAL wants to PURCHASE those carriers and integrate the operation, that is a diffent story and I would welcome such an integration.

I bet if Comair was still a contract carrier, you woudn't be advocating this.

No kidding. But Comair isn't a contact carrier and and we are advocating this. Our concern is the sucess of DAL. Competitors be d@mned. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[BE02FO]

Thanks for the reply MetroSheriff.

At least you make your intentions known to everybody and that's good.

Again I highly doubt either MGMT or mainline pilots will go for it. The proposal that you and Surplus1 are talking about is nothing more than a Comair pilot wish-list.

MGMT knows that once the pilots are on a single seniority list, FAs, rampers, CSA and so on will want the same thing. Why wouldn't they?

You said you guarantee that the cost structure will remain in place. You are saying that now, but what guarantee does MGMT have when the next contract is up for negotiations. There are a lot of areas where the DAL contract is light years ahead of Comair: retirement, vacation, sick leave, scheduling... pay rates are only half the story. Even if pay rates stay the same post-integration, one day or another the pilots flying the RJ will want the same bennies as those flying mainline equipement and that will mean increased cost.

I don't think you have the bottom line in mind more than MGMT itself, and if they are using CQ, SKYW and ACA there must be a reason for it.

Just don't be suprised when half the ALPA regional pilots are opposed to your idea because that will mean the loss of their job. But you said yourself that you don't care about that.

 

[MetroSheriff]

BE,

Please don't get me wrong. I don't want to see anyone lose their job. I just want to mgt lose the ability to utilize contract carriers. That is the ONLY way to end the whipsaw. If DAL wants to use CHQ, Skywest, ACA, they can BUY them, integrate them with ASA/Comair and then we can all work to improve our contract together.

The PORTFOLIO must be smashed.

As for rampers and FAs and gate agents, etc. I am not sure why this argument always gets brought up. The pay and benefits are rampers and gate agents are not ours to negotiate or fight for. They too will get what they can negotiate.

To clarify my statement about cost structure. I did not say that Surplus proposal would ensure the cost structure stays in tact. I said that the ONLY way that managemnt would even consider such an arrangement is if they were able to keep the cost structure in tact.

In summary, I don't want anyone out of work. However, what happens to the myriad of codeshare partners comes second to DAL and the wholly owned subsidiaries. If DAL chooses to purchase all the contract carriers and incorporate them into the DCI systems under one banner and contract, I would welcome the integration of those pilots. As they stand right now, they are competitors and as such I would like them eliminated. Unfortunately this is exactly what management wants. Unless we find a way to force their hand, the portfolio concept will fester and grow and keep us all under the boot.

 

[BE02FO]

As you know negotiations are about leverage, the Portfolio concept is what gives MGMT more leverage, they will give more flying to the lowest cost provider, be it contract carrier or wholly owned, for this reason alone MGMT will never give up this concept.

You said "the ONLY way that managemnt would even consider such an arrangement is if they were able to keep the cost structure in tact." Well, there is no way to guarantee that, therefore they won't go for it.

One more point to the discussion is flexibility, by using contract carriers, MGMT can deploy more RJs without the burden of financing them directly. Look at Us Airways for example, their new scope close allows for 465 RJs, there is no way in hell U would be able to finance that number by themselves, they can do it faster and whith less leverage by using contractors. The same stands for DAL.

 

[MetroSheriff]

One more point to the discussion is flexibility, by using contract carriers, MGMT can deploy more RJs without the burden of financing them directly. Look at Us Airways for example, their new scope close allows for 465 RJs, there is no way in hell U would be able to finance that number by themselves, they can do it faster and whith less leverage by using contractors. The same stands for DAL.

Believe me, I know very well why they do it. It still is detrimental to us, no matter what their reasoning.