InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
ALPA’s Silence Raises Serious Questions Concerning New Delta Agreement
More than a week after ALPA reached a tentative agreement at Delta, the union continues to withhold details of the new small jet restrictions, thus raising serious questions about ALPA’s ultimate intentions. Even as of November 3rd, the Comair pilot leadership said it was still awaiting details from “reliable sources.”
Of special concern is the new requirement that ASA and Comair must hire Delta pilots before they can operate additional 70-seat aircraft. In so doing, ALPA has again violated its duty to the ASA and Comair pilots by permitting the Delta pilot leadership to unilaterally impose special conditions on the growth of ASA and Comair. More ominously, ALPA has used similar contractual mechanisms at other carriers to unilaterally grant “mainline” pilots special pay, employment, and seniority rights at the expense of “regional” union members.
That ASA and Comair leaders are forced to rely on “sources” exposes ALPA’s secretive conduct. The absence of details confirms that ALPA’s officials and staff are withholding pertinent information and that ASA and Comair pilots have (again) been excluded from a process that directly affects their interests. In doing so, ALPA has shown that the “improved” working relationship between the ASA, Comair, and Delta pilot leaders is, at best, superficial.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/negotiators_notepad.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/J4J_FactSheet.pdf
ALPA Prohibits Mesaba and Pinnacle from Obtaining New Small Jets
On October 16th, ALPA’s leadership at Northwest Airlines announced that the union reached a “Bridge/Investment” agreement intended to help the company avert financial problems similar to those encountered by USAirways, United, and Delta. However, the new agreement also contained provisions effectively prohibiting Mesaba and Pinnacle from operating any of the additional 40 small-jets “permitted under the new agreement. The union hypocritically required that new small jet flying be outsourced.
The RJDC has long warned that ALPA was engaged in economic warfare against an aircraft that mainline members erroneously deem a “threat.” Here, despite ALPA acknowledging the importance of the small-jet to Northwest’s success, it nonetheless is actively denying growth opportunities to Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots so that corporate funds cannot be used to acquire the “wrong” aircraft. Furthermore, since small jet restrictions also define ALPA’s demographics, the forced distribution of small jet flying among numerous “affiliate” carriers also protects the political power of the union’s “mainline” interests.
ALPA’s actions at Northwest again illustrate the union’s inherent and irreconcilable conflict of interest. As the exclusive bargaining agent of Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots, ALPA has a duty to work for, not against, their interests. ALPA’s demands that future small jets be outsourced are not only hypocritical, but a powerful example of how ALPA works against those it has a duty to represent. The union’s actions also prove that ALPA’s “brand” or “family” scope initiatives are merely political camouflage for the union’s business-as-usual approach to mainline bargaining and the unilateral imposition of small-jet restrictions.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/ziplines_101804.pdf
ALPA Boasts that it was “Paid” $15-Million Dollars for NWA Small Jet Agreement
In an effort to convince the Northwest pilots to accept the new “Bridge/Investment” agreement, ALPA boasted that it received a $15-million dollar bargaining credit in exchange for “permitting” the company to increase its 50-seat RJ flying. Likewise, ALPA went to great lengths to claim that the increase in small-jet flying would pose no threat to mainline job security.
In its summary of the Northwest agreement, ALPA stated the following about small-jets and scope:
Ø The Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar bargaining credit.
Ø Increased small-jet flying posed no threat to mainline job security.
Ø Northwest needed to deploy additional small jets in order to remain competitive.
Ø Increased small-jet flying would produce badly needed revenues for the company.
In its efforts to promote the new Northwest agreement, ALPA has affirmed the RJDC’s contention that small-jet restrictions do not enhance mainline “job security” but are instead used by ALPA’s mainline interests as bargaining capital. More importantly, ALPA has confirmed that its arguments defending the need for small jet restrictions are patently false. Small jets of all sizes continue to play a growing and vital role in the recovery of network carriers and restricting their use is not only bad business, but an egregious violation of ALPA’s duties to the thousands of ALPA members who depended directly and indirectly upon the small jet for their livelihoods.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/NWAtasummary.pdf
ALPA’s Letter to Mesaba Pilots Illustrates Why Legal Action is Necessary
In the aftermath of ALPA’s Northwest agreement, the chairman of Mesaba’s MEC sent to all Mesaba pilots a letter that conceded ALPA’s new mainline agreement was inconsistent with ALPA’s “family” or “brand scope” promises. The letter also confirmed that ALPA’s new agreement specifically prohibited Mesaba from operating any of the additional “permitted” small jets. However, instead of defending the interests of the Mesaba pilots, the letter defended the union’s bad faith conduct, including how ALPA “does not wish to allow NWA to finance aircraft not flown by mainline pilots.”
In characteristic fashion, ALPA’s letter glossed over the union’s glaring conflict of interest and the fact that ALPA violated yet again its duties to the Mesaba pilots. The letter also attempted to mislead the Mesaba pilots by portraying the new agreement as a “sacrifice” by the mainline interests, while ignoring the fact that the Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar “bargaining credit” in exchange for the new small-jet restrictions.
Significantly, the letter’s author is also an ALPA Executive Vice-President and the co-chair of ALPA’s Bilateral Scope Impact Committee (BSIC.) ALPA’s officers, including all if its Vice-Presidents, have refused repeated written requests to investigate the legitimacy and fairness of the union’s mainline bargaining practices. Likewise, ALPA’s BSIC Committee has ignored the real issues at the heart of the union’s “scope” problems and, not surprisingly, has elected to characterize quantifiable objections concerning ALPA’s mainline scope practices as mere “perceptions” and “feelings.”
While ALPA says the ongoing litigation is meritless, its own actions affirm that the union will ignore its duties to its “regional” members whenever it is politically expedient. As the Courts have ruled, the intent of having judicial oversight over a union is to ensure that union members are never left without recourse or remedy. When ALPA’s officials defend the union’s conduct while conveniently refusing to investigate its legitimacy, the need for legal intervention becomes even more apparent.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/msa_hotline_102704.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/woerth041803.pdf
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
Industry Update
November 8, 2004
ALPA’s Silence Raises Serious Questions Concerning New Delta Agreement
More than a week after ALPA reached a tentative agreement at Delta, the union continues to withhold details of the new small jet restrictions, thus raising serious questions about ALPA’s ultimate intentions. Even as of November 3rd, the Comair pilot leadership said it was still awaiting details from “reliable sources.”
Of special concern is the new requirement that ASA and Comair must hire Delta pilots before they can operate additional 70-seat aircraft. In so doing, ALPA has again violated its duty to the ASA and Comair pilots by permitting the Delta pilot leadership to unilaterally impose special conditions on the growth of ASA and Comair. More ominously, ALPA has used similar contractual mechanisms at other carriers to unilaterally grant “mainline” pilots special pay, employment, and seniority rights at the expense of “regional” union members.
That ASA and Comair leaders are forced to rely on “sources” exposes ALPA’s secretive conduct. The absence of details confirms that ALPA’s officials and staff are withholding pertinent information and that ASA and Comair pilots have (again) been excluded from a process that directly affects their interests. In doing so, ALPA has shown that the “improved” working relationship between the ASA, Comair, and Delta pilot leaders is, at best, superficial.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/negotiators_notepad.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/J4J_FactSheet.pdf
ALPA Prohibits Mesaba and Pinnacle from Obtaining New Small Jets
On October 16th, ALPA’s leadership at Northwest Airlines announced that the union reached a “Bridge/Investment” agreement intended to help the company avert financial problems similar to those encountered by USAirways, United, and Delta. However, the new agreement also contained provisions effectively prohibiting Mesaba and Pinnacle from operating any of the additional 40 small-jets “permitted under the new agreement. The union hypocritically required that new small jet flying be outsourced.
The RJDC has long warned that ALPA was engaged in economic warfare against an aircraft that mainline members erroneously deem a “threat.” Here, despite ALPA acknowledging the importance of the small-jet to Northwest’s success, it nonetheless is actively denying growth opportunities to Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots so that corporate funds cannot be used to acquire the “wrong” aircraft. Furthermore, since small jet restrictions also define ALPA’s demographics, the forced distribution of small jet flying among numerous “affiliate” carriers also protects the political power of the union’s “mainline” interests.
ALPA’s actions at Northwest again illustrate the union’s inherent and irreconcilable conflict of interest. As the exclusive bargaining agent of Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots, ALPA has a duty to work for, not against, their interests. ALPA’s demands that future small jets be outsourced are not only hypocritical, but a powerful example of how ALPA works against those it has a duty to represent. The union’s actions also prove that ALPA’s “brand” or “family” scope initiatives are merely political camouflage for the union’s business-as-usual approach to mainline bargaining and the unilateral imposition of small-jet restrictions.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/ziplines_101804.pdf
ALPA Boasts that it was “Paid” $15-Million Dollars for NWA Small Jet Agreement
In an effort to convince the Northwest pilots to accept the new “Bridge/Investment” agreement, ALPA boasted that it received a $15-million dollar bargaining credit in exchange for “permitting” the company to increase its 50-seat RJ flying. Likewise, ALPA went to great lengths to claim that the increase in small-jet flying would pose no threat to mainline job security.
In its summary of the Northwest agreement, ALPA stated the following about small-jets and scope:
Ø The Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar bargaining credit.
Ø Increased small-jet flying posed no threat to mainline job security.
Ø Northwest needed to deploy additional small jets in order to remain competitive.
Ø Increased small-jet flying would produce badly needed revenues for the company.
In its efforts to promote the new Northwest agreement, ALPA has affirmed the RJDC’s contention that small-jet restrictions do not enhance mainline “job security” but are instead used by ALPA’s mainline interests as bargaining capital. More importantly, ALPA has confirmed that its arguments defending the need for small jet restrictions are patently false. Small jets of all sizes continue to play a growing and vital role in the recovery of network carriers and restricting their use is not only bad business, but an egregious violation of ALPA’s duties to the thousands of ALPA members who depended directly and indirectly upon the small jet for their livelihoods.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/NWAtasummary.pdf
ALPA’s Letter to Mesaba Pilots Illustrates Why Legal Action is Necessary
In the aftermath of ALPA’s Northwest agreement, the chairman of Mesaba’s MEC sent to all Mesaba pilots a letter that conceded ALPA’s new mainline agreement was inconsistent with ALPA’s “family” or “brand scope” promises. The letter also confirmed that ALPA’s new agreement specifically prohibited Mesaba from operating any of the additional “permitted” small jets. However, instead of defending the interests of the Mesaba pilots, the letter defended the union’s bad faith conduct, including how ALPA “does not wish to allow NWA to finance aircraft not flown by mainline pilots.”
In characteristic fashion, ALPA’s letter glossed over the union’s glaring conflict of interest and the fact that ALPA violated yet again its duties to the Mesaba pilots. The letter also attempted to mislead the Mesaba pilots by portraying the new agreement as a “sacrifice” by the mainline interests, while ignoring the fact that the Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar “bargaining credit” in exchange for the new small-jet restrictions.
Significantly, the letter’s author is also an ALPA Executive Vice-President and the co-chair of ALPA’s Bilateral Scope Impact Committee (BSIC.) ALPA’s officers, including all if its Vice-Presidents, have refused repeated written requests to investigate the legitimacy and fairness of the union’s mainline bargaining practices. Likewise, ALPA’s BSIC Committee has ignored the real issues at the heart of the union’s “scope” problems and, not surprisingly, has elected to characterize quantifiable objections concerning ALPA’s mainline scope practices as mere “perceptions” and “feelings.”
While ALPA says the ongoing litigation is meritless, its own actions affirm that the union will ignore its duties to its “regional” members whenever it is politically expedient. As the Courts have ruled, the intent of having judicial oversight over a union is to ensure that union members are never left without recourse or remedy. When ALPA’s officials defend the union’s conduct while conveniently refusing to investigate its legitimacy, the need for legal intervention becomes even more apparent.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/msa_hotline_102704.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/woerth041803.pdf
