I've met the enemy,

[csmith]

Re: Re: I've met the enemy,

From Surplus1:


"Bingo! The market is in control and will always be. That market will determine the number of large aircraft as well as the number of small aircraft. It will also determine the number of pilots required to operate them and the wages they can earn from time to time."

After watching for some time here on this board, I think you have finally come up with a winner. This is absolutely true. Allow me to explain a bit further. I've watched you posts and how this board seems to be very biased toward the regional types--or types formerly known as regionals. How could it not be, with an obviously biased moderator and 4 or 5 people who work for Comair and ASA who are allowed to take their shots at mainline guys. When these same mainline guys shoot back, however, they get chastised, posts removed, and even banished from the boards. I have seen many regional folk on here post, yes Surplus including you, completely non-accurate information.

Your quoted paragraph above sums up the industry nicely. It also disproves the notion of your laswuit. The scope at Delta restricts none of these things. I'll say that again: SCOPE AT DELTA RESTRICTS NONE OF THESE THINGS.

So while you are going off on your omnipotent rants because you've been there and done that, which nobody has done everywhere, you can remember what I have said above. Delta has the freedom to fly any airplane on any route with any pilot from any carrier---for six months. It is then that they must merge lists if they have met criteria applying to this flying. Read this paragraph again, because it is significant and shoots an irreperable hole in the RJDC case. We are not restricting the flying of anybody, we are restricting the amount of flying which may be outsourced, and if this cannot be complied with, Delta must merge the lists. Delta is free to put all of the 30,40,50,60,70,80,90 seaters on mainline that they wish. We are NOT restricting the RJ, we are restricting the outsourcing.

We are the sole bargaining group at Delta. It is written in the language. No other group may bargain for Delta flying. While the actual outsourcing is negotiated, no other group may come in and bid, underbid, overbid for Delta flying. This is surviving language prior to any buyout. Regardless of who pulls the strings, there are affiliates set up ON PAPER for the Comair/ASA guys to negotiate with. Like it or not, those are the facts.

Emotional ploys such as the condescending tone of mainliners towards regionals are irrelevant. Pilot skills are irrelevant. College degrees are irrelevant. Pay for training is irrelevant. Realize that these guys are over here, as opposed to the ALPA boards where this actually has relevance, as the big fish in the little pond. They write nice diatribes about how the man is keeping them down, how ALPA has destroyed the world, contributes to global warming, and anything else which appeals to the locals. I agree with them that ALPA cannot and will not represent both types of groups equally. With the advent of the J4J, I seriously doubt on whether or not they can represent both groups FAIRLY--which is the F in DFR.

What you are reading, is disgruntled talk/lawsuit of a group whos existence is defined in section 1 of the Delta PWA. It always has been. They decided that since Delta bought them, and operate them as an affiliate, that this changes what restrictions can and cannot be imposed on them simply due to the fact that the same bargaining agent--read the guys who supply the money, pencils, strike funds, paper, lawyers--represents them. Local MECs provide their own negotiators who get what they can. Comair/ASA do not have the clout to do this on their own. Delta can, and does, bury them in negotiations.

The Delta pilots owe the Comair and ASA groups nothing, and vice versa. Each bargains for their own, with EQUAL access to ALPA funds, legal, supplies. Despite that, an offer to combine resources in a flow through type arrangement was proffered by the Delta MEC. As soon as the F word was mentioned, Comair walks away. Yet ole' surplus comes out with this "miracle idea" in easy steps which is essentially works out to be, yep you guessed it, a flow through. The hand has been put out, it just wasn't the hand that Comair wanted to shake.

I'd better close for now as I am getting off onto tangents. Just remember folks, some people may WRITE well, but that doesn't mean they are RIGHT.

CSmith

 

[Timebuilder]

"Bingo! The market is in control and will always be. That market will determine the number of large aircraft as well as the number of small aircraft. It will also determine the number of pilots required to operate them and the wages they can earn from time to time."

What is described here, CS, is a pure free market which has little to do with Delta or the RJDC. The purpose of ANY union is to circumvent the forces of a free market. If they did not do this, there would be no reason whatever for a union contract.

I've watched you posts and how this board seems to be very biased toward the regional types--or types formerly known as regionals. How could it not be, with an obviously biased moderator and 4 or 5 people who work for Comair and ASA who are allowed to take their shots at mainline guys. When these same mainline guys shoot back, however, they get chastised, posts removed, and even banished from the boards.

My experience here on the board goes back about 18 months. I haven't seen the bias that you describe. I have seen that this board has a great number of people who are looking for a fair shake, from the level of a private pilot on up. Many Delta guys, those with the seniority to still be flying right now, don't have a lot of motivation to come here and discuss the "fair representation" issue. They are pretty happy with where they are right now. Others are not so happy, and would like to remedy what they think is an actionable situation. Since deregulation, many pilots have considered themselves to be at the top of the flying food chain. Times are changing, and that belief may be in jeopardy.

Since I don't have a dog in this fight, other than my journalistic desire to see justice done, I have to say that drawing a line between Delta and Comair is a distiction without a difference. Delta sees a terrific advantage when the public fails to see a difference between the two carriers. That's the reason the Delta name apears on the Comair jets. By using an alter ego carrier, Delta saves the costs which would be a part of Comair operation if it had to abide by the Delta contract where Comair pilots and other employees are concerned. Delta pilots have gone along with this. You can argue that the "mecs" are the union, but that idea may not stand up in court. Since Comair and Delta union dues go to ALPA and not the mec, there is at least a firm theoretical value to the argument for DFR.

The Delta pilots owe the Comair and ASA groups nothing, and vice versa.

Really? I thought this was a symbiotic relationship that kept everybody alive.

To paraphrase George Orwell, the current relationship between pilot groups that ALPA has blessed has made "some animals more equal than others".

It will be interesting to see what comes of all this.

 

[csmith]

From Timebuilder:

"What is described here, CS, is a pure free market which has little to do with Delta or the RJDC. The purpose of ANY union is to circumvent the forces of a free market. If they did not do this, there would be no reason whatever for a union contract."

I appreciate your response and I ask you what post did you read?
As I said, the Delta pilots have done nothing to preclude Delta from operating aircraft as per the market. They just have regulated to their employer what pilots will fly these aircraft.


"I haven't seen the bias that you describe. "

Maybe not, but I have yet to see "journalistic" people be unbiased. The US definitely loves the underdog since the Rocky Balboa days. Suffice to say that we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I have talked at length with some current and former members of this organization, and I just don't see an unbiased atmosphere here.


"Many Delta guys, those with the seniority to still be flying right now, don't have a lot of motivation to come here and discuss the "fair representation" issue."

Actually, there are a lot of Delta guys, myself included who paruse here without participating, again I cite the reason as bias against the "major" pilots. I didn't even participate myself until recently after quite a while of lurking. BTW, I am not in danger of losing my job in this round of FM.


"By using an alter ego carrier, Delta saves the costs which would be a part of Comair operation if it had to abide by the Delta contract where Comair pilots and other employees are concerned. Delta pilots have gone along with this. You can argue that the "mecs" are the union, but that idea may not stand up in court. Since Comair and Delta union dues go to ALPA and not the mec, there is at least a firm theoretical value to the argument for DFR."


I absolutely agree with the above quote save the "Delta pilots have gone along with it." I was a staunch supporter of the Comair strike. I contributed with my money and my feet. Despite obvious shortcomings in their strike center preparations, they were definitely dedicated to the cause. The ONLY way to get these guys on a combined list was to remove the incentive for management to keep them seperate--take away the financial differences. I did my part, they came up short despite their rantings to the fact that they weren't coming back without a mainline contract. MECs have negotiated their contracts since as long as I can remember. ALPA is there as a figurehead, and to sign the paperwork as the bargaining agent. You are correct that it may not stand up in court, and I think they are counting on such an unknowing judge. I have also preached to them the ramifications of such a victory, and the disastrous consequences of such an outcome. Scope declared illegal. How do you feel about your Delta jet being flown by the lowest bidder??? Their motive is more than obvious, and they've ran tail from it when faced with it on the ALPA boards. $12,000,000,000. What they tried to do was hold ALPA hostage in order to get their list integration, and ALPA didn't blink. While their is some justifiability in cursing ALPA, who are we kidding--the Delta pilots, there is plenty of dirt to go around.


"Really? I thought this was a symbiotic relationship that kept everybody alive.

To paraphrase George Orwell, the current relationship between pilot groups that ALPA has blessed has made "some animals more equal than others".

It will be interesting to see what comes of all this"


That feel good thing might look good on a recruiting poster, but it's practice is not very realistic. Do all people get an equally fair trial, is the press really unbiased? ALPA hasn't "blessed" anything. It's existence is for the preservation of safety first and foremost. Lobbying and getting all on the same page of safety is where ALPA comes in. Having good doctors on staff and good legal is where ALPA accels. My contract is mine and their contract is theirs. Yes the money goes to ALPA. Are you going to tell me that somebody who pays dues of 6K a year should get the exact same protections as the newbe who pays $350/yr? Who has more to lose? Tough questions, maybe, but very realistic. Besides, DFR stands for Duty of Fair Representation NOT Duty of Equal Representation. Yes it will be interesting to see, as well as the countersuits.

Again, this has nothing to do with pilot skill, being holier than thou, the position of the planets, or anything else. Just money and contracts.

There is much more history to this than what is written here, but not enough bandwidth to type it all.

CSmith

 

[Timebuilder]

I appreciate your response and I ask you what post did you read?

Okay. I read the post from surplus1, and also yours.

The idea to which you were agreeing is an abstract, and counter to the purpose of ALPA and any union. I though it relevant since this is a discussion regarding union representation. Although the market determines much of what hapens in aviation, the purpose of a union is to PREVENT the free market from controlling ALL that happens. The point of OUR discussion is whether the representation of the national union, who recieves all of the dues money, can legally place the interests of one pilot group before another when all concerned are dues paying members in good standing.

ALPA is there as a figurehead, and to sign the paperwork as the bargaining agent. You are correct that it may not stand up in court, and I think they are counting on such an unknowing judge. I have also preached to them the ramifications of such a victory, and the disastrous consequences of such an outcome. Scope declared illegal.

Correct me if I am wrong, and believe me, I've been wrong before, but if APLA signs the contract as a bargaining agent, don't they take on a responsibility for the language of the contract, and therefore the value of the contract to the dues paying members?

The litigants might be counting on an unknowing judge, but I think the real danger to ALPA might come from well informed judge. Just my opinion.

Scope declared illegal? I don't think this will be the outcome. Scope against other members of the same union, working for the same comapany, flying planes that bear the same name? Perhaps that won't stand up.

I thought that ALPA had blessed the idea of two levels of pilot members, the so-called major and regional pilots. Isn't this why we are looking at this mess? Truthfully, I wasn't aware that ALPA members paid different dues rates. If that is so, I don't agree with the practice. As an AFTRA/SAG member, I paid the same dues as Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts, and I recceive the same benefits. Even so, a tiered dues system isn't a justification of a union providing a diferent commitment to its members based on where they work. If your dues are based on your pay, that sounds to me as though ALPA is getting a kickback from the value of your contract. Could be a conflict of interest.

I you have read my posts before, you know that I value the efforts ALPA has made in the area of safety. What I don't understand is why they weren't eager to take all of the pilots who fly Delta-owned planes under the Delta contract. If that was not possible, I don't see why they would engage in ratification of contract language that clearly pits one group of members against another, particularly when working for the same company. This seems like a missed opportunity.

Since you have a tenure with Delta, I'd appreciate your further insights into how the union got into this mess, and what solution you would propose to bring the litigants to an out of court settlement. I don't think the RJDC wants 12 billion. I think they just don't want to be treated like the bastard stepchild.

Thanks for a lively discussion.

 

[csmith]

From timebuilder:

"Although the market determines much of what hapens in aviation, the purpose of a union is to PREVENT the free market from controlling ALL that happens."

The purpose of ALPA is safety. Aside from that, I'll have to give you that we do keep the free market from reigning from the perspective of labor. As I said I doubt that you want your pilot being the lowest bidder..and yes, it would happen. In that manner, there is a safety perspective to a certain extent from controlling free market labor. On that point I digress.



"Correct me if I am wrong, and believe me, I've been wrong before, but if APLA signs the contract as a bargaining agent, don't they take on a responsibility for the language of the contract, and therefore the value of the contract to the dues paying members?"

Actually an interesting point. It has been brought up before. In this case, where the Delta PWA has--and always has had--the controlling language ALPA. Back when, Delta owned a substantial portion of both Comair and ASA, IMO controlling interest--meaning Comair and ASA did what Delta wanted them to do. These days, although complete ownership has been obtained, little else has changed in the Delta, Comair, ASA relationship. I think payroll, marketing, advertising all comes down from Delta. Taking a look at the operation, aside from the napkins and the water, and you find substantial differences. Hence we come down to the definition of operational integration which was found as insufficient for dclaring the requested PID on behalf of the Comair and ASA pilots---what you call the missed opportuntiy. From this sprang the lawsuit after the Delta PWA Section 1, SCOPE, was changed in C2K and was considered damaging, although not against the PWA of either, to the careers of Comair and ASA pilots. This brings us where we are.

By contrast, IMO, is the somewhat spoken of J4J deal which the USAirways pilots dealt to their wholly owned subsidiaries. Although much less informed of these ramifications, I understand that certain wholly owned language does have "ownership" rights which is being infringed upon. This is where ALPA needs to step in and take responsibility for the dispute.

Now is it just me, or is there a difference in the above scenarios?


"I thought that ALPA had blessed the idea of two levels of pilot members, the so-called major and regional pilots. Isn't this why we are looking at this mess?"


Blessed would not be the word I would choose. I agree that this should not have happened. I wasn't here for it. It was way before my time. I guess you could say "blessed" as they allowed it to happen. At the same time, these guys knew what they were getting into by working for a company whose existence is based on another groups working agreement. More on that later.



"Truthfully, I wasn't aware that ALPA members paid different dues rates. If that is so, I don't agree with the practice. As an AFTRA/SAG member, I paid the same dues as Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts, and I recceive the same benefits."


Actually, everybody pays roughly the same percentage of dues, but obviously the more your contract is worth, the more you have to lose. Hence, a United captain pays roughly the same percentage of his salary as the newest non-prob f/o. Some would say that this person should be able to bear more of a monetary hit, but IMO that is a non-relevant argument. The United captain doubtlessly has more to lose than his F/O counterpart. Let's face it, 18K jobs are much easier to find than 290K jobs. Like you said, if there is equal representation, than there should be equal dues. Most Delta pilots, and other pilots, I have spoken to are happy with the way it is now. They think, and I somewhat agree, that the United guy should pay more as he has more to lose. Form your own opinion. Obviously, this can lead to a proffering of deals to the more lucrative side of the house. This is what the RJDC would lead you to believe. In the case of the PID, I think a strong case was made against the cause of "operational integration". Was the descision correct? By the letter of contractual language, I think so. In theory, maybe not. It certainly wasn't a blatant disregard of ALPA merger policy as others would lead you to believe.


"Since you have a tenure with Delta, I'd appreciate your further insights into how the union got into this mess, and what solution you would propose to bring the litigants to an out of court settlement. I don't think the RJDC wants 12 billion. I think they just don't want to be treated like the bastard stepchild. "


I merely have opinions, as do the rest of the people on here--although they would have you believe theirs is the only possible side which could be right. The solution? I was ready, willing, and able to give up substantial negotiating capital in order to secure a valid, solid flow-through for these guys. They would not even talk about it. I really don't see where it is headed except for court. While the RJDC seeks solutions, there have been solutions. They just haven't been acceptable to the RJDC, MECs of Comair and ASA. In other words, the pilots whose very livlihood was created by ALPA--Delta pilots--have now decided that it is not good enough to merely survive and thrive, but now is time to attempt and overtake. They are attempting to circumvent a negotiated contract of another pilot group, against BL. IMO the solution is to let the lawsuit run its course. As far as I am concerned, they had their chance. Now it will be up to a court to decide if one list is to be. Even if it does, delta does not have to honor it. Even if they do, all of Delta flying will still not be under the Delta umbrella. ALPA provides financial resources, legal resources, medical resources, grievance resources, and emergency resources. Each MEC negotiates their contract, as long as it doesn't violate an existing contract. Fair representation? Ask the judge.

CSmith

 

[FlyComAirJets]

High Noon

CSmith

For now, I'll let others refute your ridiculous assertions.

The glaring mistake that you and others of your ilk make over and over again is really quite simple: by consistently ignoring and underestimating the integrity, intelligence, and resolve of regional pilots in general and ASA/Comair pilots in particular, you are setting up for a showdown at ALPA HQ and/or a federal court close to you.

Lame attempts at exclusionary arguments don't work. Most regional pilots would put up their experience and qualifications against yours any day of the week.

What's next? Intimidation and bullying tactics, I'll bet. That will not work either.

Yeah, this is going to run its course. You cannot escape it. Y'all take care, now.

 

[1900laker]

After many months of observing/participating in the RJ vs mainline issue. It has finally sunk in, the RJ crews are making over two times the amount of pay per seat that I make.

Wow, using that measure, I never realized how good I had it working at Great Lakes. I had a ratio of 1.47 dollars/seat/hour. That has got to be one of the highest in the industry. Sure didn't seem like $28/hour was all that much though. Went to my new job only making .18 dollars/seat/hour, but somehow worked out to roughly the same pay. Point is this measure only works some of the time.

 

[csmith]

Re: High Noon

From FCJ:


"CSmith

For now, I'll let others refute your ridiculous assertions."


Why, don't you have anything to say about my rediculous assertions?



"The glaring mistake that you and others of your ilk make over and over again is really quite simple: by consistently ignoring and underestimating the integrity, intelligence, and resolve of regional pilots in general and ASA/Comair pilots in particular, you are setting up for a showdown at ALPA HQ and/or a federal court close to you."


You're wrong here. What YOU fail to realize is that some of us mainliners ARE former regional and have those same survival, integrity, intelligence, and resolve qualities. Just because you are regional does not mean you have a monopoly on them as Delta pilots do not have the monopoly on arrogance. Why don't you stick to the discussion at hand and we'll save the flaming for another thread.



"Lame attempts at exclusionary arguments don't work. Most regional pilots would put up their experience and qualifications against yours any day of the week."


It's not the qualifications nor the experience which I have heartache with. You need to go back and reread my postings. I would venture a guess that any one of your Brasilia or ATR drivers could outfly me on an ILS--as could I in my prop days. If compensation were based on raw flying skills and experience, prop drivers would be the ones making 300K. Does that make you feel better now? Can we get past the ego here and stick to the issues?



"What's next? Intimidation and bullying tactics, I'll bet. That will not work either.

Yeah, this is going to run its course. You cannot escape it. Y'all take care, now."


Tell you what, I'll refer back to your first sentence. You really don't seem to have anything of substance to say.

C

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Guess the point of my posting sailed completely over your head, so let's try it a bit simpler so that you might understand.

My point, and the theme of this thread, is that the biggest opposition in these matters is ourselves. Pilot vs. pilot. Management is laughing their collective backsides off as the bickering drags on ad infinitum.

As long as regional pilots are consistently treated as an inferior subgroup of our own union of which we are dues payers in good standing, then you are going to have dissent.

No, you don't have a monopoly on arrogance, but you sure have it cornered! Take care.

 

[surplus1]

Diatribe to CSmith - Part 1

From Surplus1:
After watching for some time here on this board, I think you have finally come up with a winner. This is absolutely true. Allow me to explain a bit further.

Thank you. I of course would argue that this "winner" is but one of many. It's all a matter of prespective isn't it?

I've watched you posts and how this board seems to be very biased toward the regional types--or types formerly known as regionals. How could it not be, with an obviously biased moderator and 4 or 5 people who work for Comair and ASA who are allowed to take their shots at mainline guys. When these same mainline guys shoot back, however, they get chastised, posts removed, and even banished from the boards. I have seen many regional folk on here post, yes Surplus including you, completely non-accurate information.

Interesting, but I fear more inaccurate than you accuse me of being. I've seen some heated exchanges and participated in many but I know of only one mainline pilot having a post removed (Clownpilot) and I don't know of anyone being banned.

If you find and inaccuracy in one of my posts, please point it out. However, do not confuse differences of opinion with inaccuracy. I am not inaccurate because I see things differently than you do.

Your quoted paragraph above sums up the industry nicely. It also disproves the notion of your laswuit. The scope at Delta restricts none of these things. I'll say that again: SCOPE AT DELTA RESTRICTS NONE OF THESE THINGS.

Here we have an example of what you earlier called and inaccuracy. In my opinion your idea that Scope at Delta restricts none of these things could not be more erroneous. I'm sure you would call that statement accurate, I would not. The portion of your Scope that is in dispute does attempt to restrict market forces. It artificially limits one aircraft type, severely restricts the utilization of other types and attempts to force the Company to operated types that you prefer to fly. If those things are not all market restrictions, pray tell what is? Fortunately for the Company your Scope is currently disabled or the Company would not be able to address its current needs.

My so-called omnipotent rants are no more than responses to your peers inflated egos. Review the posts again and you will see that Mr. DiMora initiated the "been there done that", not I. I can't help the fact that I've been there too and done more. Sorry that you're chagrined by that, but it happens to be true. I don't tout where I've been or what I've done, but you folks have a propensity when unable to debate, to challenge the background of your opponent. Your peer did so twice, before I responded. As it turned out, his assumptions were inaccurate and his own background comparatively deficient. That's not my fault. If you don't want answers don't ask the question.

I don't think my comment in this thread shoots any holes in the RJDC case and your comments most certainly do not. I understand the merger provisions of your PWA and find them to be intentionally discriminatory and based only on aircraft seating. That doesn't hurt the RJDC case, it helps it.

Who's flying you say you're not restricting depends on agreement with your concept of ownership of all the flying. That concept is flawed from the get go. You own nothing. The flying belongs to Delta, Inc. Some of it is allocated to Delta Air Lines (where you work). The rest is allocated elsewhere, including where I work and has been for extended periods. The fact that you want to change that because you now want it all, doesn't make it so. You just think it does.

Your statement that Delta can put RJs of any size into Delta Air Lines, thereby giving you control of all the flying, is technically accurate but otherwise ludicrous. Delta can do that. However, Delta, Inc. never has done that. Each time you negotiate, the portion that Delta, Inc. chooses to allocate to you can change. So can the portion allocated to us. Your efforts to gain total control of everything, at our expense, is the crux of the dispute. You not only want what you have, you also want what we have and actually have convinced yourself that is your sacred right. Yes, you can have whatever you negotiate, but the fact is you don't negotiate anything. The Air Line Pilots Association does the negotiating and is responsible for its actions. When the negotiations are conducted in violation of the ALPA constitution and further, in violation of ALPA's Duty of Fair Representation, the product of those illegal negotiations is rendered void.

Further, the placement of the RJs and the mainline is essentially precluded by the content of your PWA that would render them unprofitable. Neither you or ALPA are unaware of this. The conditions you seek to impose on the airline through your PWA would make the RJ product unmarketable. Not only have you effectively priced yourselves out of the RJ market, you may well have done the same with the other aircraft assigned to you. The more that you do this, the less chance there is that Delta, Inc. will agree to give you the RJ flying. You know that, so don't pretend otherwise.

Since the union knows full well that it has priced you out of the market for RJs, why then does the union object to our flying them and attempt to take them away? Easy, it doesn't want them to operate anywhere because they might "lower your average wage base". So it attempts to impose agreements that will control or limit them, for the sole purpose of furthering your interests at our expense. Further, it attempts to dictate to the Company, how many may be operated, where they may fly, and who will fly them, forgetting in the process that we already fly them and we, like you, are also represented by that very same union.

The union has acted arbitrarily and bargained in bad faith to damage us and favor you. That happens to be against the law. It is precisely what the Duty of Fair Representation prohibits.

First of all "you" are not only not the "sole bargaining group at Delta", you are not the bargaining agent at all. Your MEC is not a legal entity, it is but a tool of the agent. So is mine. ALPA is the exclusive bargaining agent. Your company, Delta Air Lines, Inc., is owned by the same corporation that owns my company and ASA. Delta, Inc. is the controlling corporation, not Delta Air Lines, Inc.. You are as much a subsidiary as are we. Granted you are the biggest one, but you are still a subsidiary. When ALPA bargains for you, Delta, Inc. makes the final decisions. When ALPA bargains for me, Delta, Inc. also makes the final decisions. We are indeed "affiliates" of Delta, Inc., so are you, whether you like it or not. Delta Air Lines is equally "set up on paper" for ALPA to bargain with as are Comair and ASA. As subsidiaries of Delta, Inc. none of what any of the three of us do for Delta, Inc. is "outsourcing". It is all owned and operated by Delta, Inc.

We do not interfere when ALPA negotiates your pay rates or your retirement, etc., because those items are exclusively with the subsidiary of Delta Air Lines. Likewise, you do not interfere when ALPA negotiates our pay rates or retirement, etc. However, when it comes to who will do what portion of Delta, Inc.'s flying, you believe that you are the exclusive arbiters of that and you use your financial clout within ALPA to cause its decisions to favor your ideas at our expense. ALPA has a legal responsibility to represent our interests, just as it has a responsibility to represent your interests. When those interests are in conflict, the only way that the ALPA may represent either one of us fairly, is to first achieve mutual agreement between us on the conflicting interests. That is what you don't seem to comprehend or, if you do, will not acknowledge.

You cannot use ALPA, which is also our agent, to negotiate away our livelihood without our consent. ALPA did not seek that consent and does not have it. I'm not a lawyer, but it does not take rocket science to know that an illegally negotiated component of a contract is rendered void. Whether you take money, jobs, flying or all of the above from another illegally, you will ultimately by forced by the courts to return what you took. It is ill-gotten spoils and you aren't entitled to keep it.

What you call the "little pond" that we have on this board is far more diverse than the big pond you have on the ALPA boards, where you outnumber us more than 10 to 1. Is it any wonder that you prefer to discuss the issues in an environment that you dominate? I think not. That's exactly how you do everything else. You dominate the union with your money and force it to do what YOU want, regardless of how adversely it may affect other members. You evidently believe that you are "more equal", by virtue of your size and wealth than the rest of us. That may be so, but it does not excuse the union from compliance with the law.

I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that ALPA does not represent us equally. Please note that we have not asked for "equal" representation. We are demanding fair representation You express doubt as to the union's ability to provide fair representation. That is noteworthy. While you're at it, take note of the fact that providing FAIR representation is not optional on the part of the union, it is required by law. We are not asking for it, it is our legal right and we demand it. The union may either comply with the law of pay the consequences of failing to do so. That has nothing to do with what I like or what you prefer. That's the way it is.

Continue to Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Diatribe to CSmith Part 2 of 2

I have no knowledge of Comair pilots claiming that Delta pilots "owe us" anything. Neither have Comair pilots asked Delta pilots to give us anything. ALPA owes us both fair representation and must provide it. That is all that we are demanding. We are not demanding anything of the "Delta pilots" nor do we intend to. Our legal dispute is with the ALPA. The Delta pilots are not defendants in the litigation.

As for your reference to the alleged Delta MEC "proffer" of a flow-through, I won't argue that here for it is not relevant. However, I will say this much. The Delta MEC cannot "proffer" anything that it does not have the sole power to grant. The Delta MEC has no power to "grant a flow-through", did not in the past and does not now. Additionally, your statement is misinformed, but that's for another time.

The idea that I offered in another thread is not a "miracle idea" by any means. It was no more than one suggestion for a more palatable and honest solution to the dilemma at US Air Group, made in answer to a specific question. None of your group has chosen to find fault with any component of the idea and none of you has offered any alternative. You simple object to that that something was suggested. How shallow can you people be? It is most definitely not a "flow-through" but if it has any merit, I do not care whether you call it a flow through or something else. My interest is in the achievement of equity, not preferred names and spin. Call it anything that pleases you. Do it and it could change things for the better.

Just remember folks, some people may WRITE well, but that doesn't mean they are RIGHT.

I like that. I notice also that you are among those that write well and I hope you'll accept that the axiom applies equally to you.

The Scope policies that the ALPA chooses to pursue do indeed attempt to flaunt market forces not only at Delta, but at every major airline in the industry that ALPA represents. That is precisely why they have to date been a dismal failure. There intended purpose of "stopping proliferation of the RJ" or of "transferring the RJs to the mainline", have failed miserably and most assuredly because the market forces dictate otherwise. This flawed protocol has served no purpose other that division within our union and has accomplished nothing for mainline pilots who appear married to the idea.

Legitimate Scope that protects the flying of Delta pilots in Delta Air Lines, is not only appropriate but essential. Predatory Scope that attempts to usurp the work of others and transfer it to your control has been illegally negotiated and needs to be thrown out.

Delta Air Lines does not own and does not operate any regional jets. Delta pilots have never flown any regional jets or any other "regional" aircraft currently in service. You have never done the flying that we do, you do not own it, you have never owned it and you have no rights to it. Please don't bother to tell me that you once flew crop dusters in Monroe or DC9's with 65 seats 30 years ago. I really don't care. Comair was the first airline to buy and operate "regional jets" in this country and has been operating them ever since. We bought them with our money, not yours. The fact that Delta, Inc. acquired Comair does not give Delta pilots the right to transfer our traditional flying to Delta pilots or to otherwise restrict it. We have taken nothing from you and have not sought to do so. We will not give you what is ours, simply because you want it. Try a different strategy for the course you have coerced our union into following is doomed to failure.

If you wish to work with us, we'll be happy to do that. The terms will be those to which we mutually agree, not the one's that you choose to unilaterally dictate. As soon as you understand that, we can move forward to a solution that benefits all of us.

Regards,
Surplus1

End of Diatribe.

 

[csmith]

Guess the point of my posting sailed completely over your head, so let's try it a bit simpler so that you might understand.

My point, and the theme of this thread, is that the biggest opposition in these matters is ourselves. Pilot vs. pilot. Management is laughing their collective backsides off as the bickering drags on ad infinitum.

As long as regional pilots are consistently treated as an inferior subgroup of our own union of which we are dues payers in good standing, then you are going to have dissent.

No, you don't have a monopoly on arrogance, but you sure have it cornered! Take care.

I guess that is about enough of the discussion with you. I would like to say, AGAIN, that I don't feel any of you are inferior. You seem to draw that out of every post that doesn't go your way. I think I went way out of my way to explain it. It's nothing about arrogance or inferiority.

As for management, I think they have much more important things to think about than infighting among their various subsidiaries and affiliates.

C

 

[KlingonLRDRVR]

Surplus1,

Keep up the good work. Excellent and thoughtful post as usual. This one really shines.

KlingonLRDRVR

 

[FlyComAirJets]

CSmith wrote, "I would like to say, AGAIN, that I don't feel any of you are inferior. You seem to draw that out of every post that doesn't go your way. I think I went way out of my way to explain it. It's nothing about arrogance or inferiority."

The point that continues to elude you is that there is a caste structure within our union. Arbitrary qualifications were the last exclusionary argument that could be drawn up. When I say that we are viewed as inferior, I don't mean it is because we have less qualifications (in many cases, we do not) but that being a regional pilot entales one to different and second-rate representation. A permenant underclass, if you will. And that does continue to show up in your postings.

And CSmith further states, "As for management, I think they have much more important things to think about than infighting among their various subsidiaries and affiliates."

Wow, you missed that one too. Management is well aware of this situation. How else could they continue whipsawing carriers against one another, create alter ego airlines, and resurrect the dreaded b-scale? Read Hard Landing and you'll see why management goes after labor, it is the biggest controllable expense that airlines have as they compete against one another.
Keeping unions off property or off balance or at each others' throats is PRECISELY what they have in mind. Look how much USAirways' management reorganization efforts are directed at the various labor groups on the property. Jets4Jobs anyone?

That was Enigma's original point, I believe. We are our own worst enemy. Let's get over this silly-a$$ed schoolyard name calling and employ the awesome union process that ALPA could exert. Now that is what I'd call a union.

 

[AAflyer]

FlyComairJets,

Very intresting, you cut down CSmith in every paragraph of your last post, then say let's stop the childish name calling.

The one thing I have noticed like CSmith has mentioned is how many regional pilots cut down major pilots when they express their OPINION. I have seen it one both sides but it does seem to be coming more from the other camp. The name calling has gotten rather silly. As for understanding contracts, I .have seen well written posts on both sides of the fence, but in all reality it takes a lawyer to figure some of this stuff out, why do you think there are so many grievances at different companies (lot's of gray area).

Like CSmith mentioned, many of us have crossed over, and only a small percentage of mainline pilots have that " I am God" because I fly for a major attitude.

If so many pilots see that we are our own worst enemy when will we sieze the day and change course?

AAflyer