Diatribe to CSmith - Part 1
csmith said:
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
