Letter to ALPA's President

[PCL_128]

I take this to mean that ALPA only has time to represent "real" airline pilots, not its members who fly small jets.

No, ALPA merely doesn't have time to deal with outrageous claims that everyone knows will be thrown out of the court eventually. If the "small jet" pilots had legitimate gripes, then that would be a different story. There is, and never has been, anything legitimate to what the RJDC has claimed. That makes it a waste of time and resources during a very difficult time in our Association's history.

Sir, you are mistaken. ALPA members have the right to expect our National Union to abide by its Constitution and Bylaws. ALPA National fails when it fails to represent its members.

ALPA has done nothing to break the C & BLs. On the contrary, the RJDC plaintiffs and supporters have violated their responsibility as a member because they are seeking to abrogate the labor agreement of another ALPA council. That is grounds for permanent explulsion from the Association, and I've always felt that that's what the Association should do. Time to rid the Association of these malcontents that sap valuable resources for their outrageous and petty claims.

 

[braveheart]

the RJDC plaintiffs and supporters have violated their responsibility as a member because they are seeking to abrogate the labor agreement of another ALPA council. That is grounds for permanent explulsion from the Association, and I've always felt that that's what the Association should do. Time to rid the Association of these malcontents that sap valuable resources for their outrageous and petty claims.

PCL,

The Duty of Fair representation and the right to seek judicial redress is part of the Railway Labor Act. To say that anyone who seeks to apply the law should be punished is the same as saying that the union is above the law. In fact, acts of retribution such as those you advocate are squarely prohibited by numerous federal laws.

So rather than threatening those who advocate reform, let's stick to the facts and have an honest forthright debate.

 

[braveheart]

IF YOU WANT TO FLY BIGGER PLANES, APPLY TO CONTINENTAL.

General,

You overlook the fact that according to ALPA's own submissions to the US Bankruptcy Court, it's the Delta MEC who has unilaterally offered to negotiate a 79-seat pay rate (19-seats smaller than anything currently in the Delta fleet.) Since you're apparently not advising your fellow Delta pilots to apply elsewhere in order to fly "smaller" airplanes, the flaws in your argument are more than evident.

More importantly, rather than acknowledge that each piloting job has value, you belittle your fellow aviators in an effort to avoid admitting that the union has an equal duty to each. Then you threaten that there cannot be an agreement at Delta unless the union violates its duties to the ASA and Comair pilots.

I think our union can do better than that, don't you?

 

[PCL_128]

PCL,

The Duty of Fair representation and the right to seek judicial redress is part of the Railway Labor Act. To say that anyone who seeks to apply the law should be punished is the same as saying that the union is above the law. In fact, acts of retribution such as those you advocate are squarely prohibited by numerous federal laws.

So rather than threatening those who advocate reform, let's stick to the facts and have an honest forthright debate.

Mr. Ford (that's who you are, right?), your lawsuit seeks to remove the scope language from the DAL CBA. If you are successful, that would mean the loss of jobs for hundreds or even thousands of Delta pilots. The ALPA C & BLs prohibit any member from attempting to circumvent or abrograte a fellow ALPA member's contract. Since that's exactly what your lawsuit attempts to do, then you should be expelled from the Association for good. Your lawsuit has no merit, and you are merely a nuisance at this point.

 

[Catbird]

"The ALPA C & BLs prohibit any member from attempting to circumvent or abrograte a fellow ALPA member's contract."

I'll go along with that. The AA MEC should be at the front of the line with that application. With LOA 81 as exhibit a. .Oh thats right Worthless Sh#T forgot he signed it. Keep up the good fight I enjoy seeing the pompus as*'s dance when the hot poker is crammed deep. My checks in the mail to the RJDC with a little extra for Christmas.

Fraternaly & Merry Christmas- CBIRD

 

[PCL_128]

My checks in the mail to the RJDC with a little extra for Christmas.

Keep on sending those checks. The lawyers keep getting richer and you'll never get anything for it. I figured some of you idiots would wise up when 9 of 10 claims were thrown out by the judge. I guess some people just never learn.

 

[braveheart]

The ALPA C & BLs prohibit any member from attempting to circumvent or abrograte a fellow ALPA member's contract... you should be expelled from the Association for good.

PCL,

The C&BL's serve as the supreme law within the union. If requesting that the C&BL's be equitably applied is akin to sedition, then the C&BL becomes unenforceable and essentially non-existent.

So let me ask you this. If the NWA pilots were to discover that the PCL pilots were engaged in activities that they believed contravened the ALPA's C&BL; what would be the appropriate course of redress for the NWA pilots?

 

[PCL_128]

So let me ask you this. If the NWA pilots were to discover that the PCL pilots were engaged in activities that they believed contravened the ALPA's C&BL; what would be the appropriate course of redress for the NWA pilots?

All of these problems should be addressed from within the Association. Going to a court of law in an attempt to bankrupt the Association and eliminate scope is reprehensible. In other words, if the NWA pilots suspected what you suggest, then they should go the BOD with a resolution to remove the offending pilots from the Association. It's as simple as that. The courts are not needed unless you are trying to steal something that doesn't belong to you like bigger airplanes or seniority that wasn't earned.

 

[General Lee]

General,

You overlook the fact that according to ALPA's own submissions to the US Bankruptcy Court, it's the Delta MEC who has unilaterally offered to negotiate a 79-seat pay rate (19-seats smaller than anything currently in the Delta fleet.) Since you're apparently not advising your fellow Delta pilots to apply elsewhere in order to fly "smaller" airplanes, the flaws in your argument are more than evident.

More importantly, rather than acknowledge that each piloting job has value, you belittle your fellow aviators in an effort to avoid admitting that the union has an equal duty to each. Then you threaten that there cannot be an agreement at Delta unless the union violates its duties to the ASA and Comair pilots.

I think our union can do better than that, don't you?

Braveheart,

Those 200 79 seat jets will be replacing which DL aircraft? Sounds to me like the 737-200s. We may negotiate for a 100 seat rate, but just like our current rates for the 737-700 and 737-900, those planes are nowhere to be seen. If the company will not guarantee a rate for the 100 seater and actual orders, then we must go for the 79 seater, which in reality is a 79 seater in a 90 seat body. We are not trying to bump you out of your 70 seaters that you have, rather ensure our current pilots and furloughed pilots still have a job, and not one in the right seat of one of your planes. Also, more mainline planes equals more mainline jobs, and possible career advancement---a la moving up to a widebody someday. You really should be ALL FOR IT, but your narrow view of your career is potentially hurting many other careers in the future. Even the judge has questioned and I quote "why can't the mainline pilots fly the 79 seat jets?" The Delta lawyer said it would be more expensive with our benefit package. The judge then YELLED back, "You see, this is all economic (they wanted free scope), and you(the company) had better come up with a $$ amount that is quantitative. The Delta pilots will get credit for that." It will cost them a lot of money to get scope back now, and maybe that will mean we will have a shot. You never know..... Let's hope for a fair agreement.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DwayneWorthless]

Message to ALPA

You Regional Guys need to wake up and smell the Coffee. As most of you are aware, ALPA cares only for your DUES. There is nothing you can do about it anyway. You're too scared to vote us off and we have too much money to defend our Majors from you. So, pay your DUES and cry someplace else.

 

[~~~^~~~]

"You see, this is all economic (they wanted free scope), and you(the company) had better come up with a $$ amount that is quantitative. The Delta pilots will get credit for that." It will cost them a lot of money to get scope back now, and maybe that will mean we will have a shot. You never know..... Let's hope for a fair agreement.

Bye Bye--General Lee

General: So do you now admit that your MEC sold scope and is now trying to buy it back? Further, your MEC is trying to buy it back using substandard wages, undermining the negotiations at ASA. Whipsaw has finally come full circle and now your negotiatiors are feeling the discomfort of alter ego competition, as we have felt since the BOD meeting in 2000.

The problem is that the scope your MEC sold now has a new owner, me. Just as the Judge said, we should get some credit for that. In effect substantiating the damages claim in the RJDC lawsuit.

I'm not in line for a penny of any damages - but as a true believer in unionism, I see it as a stick to coerce the union into propery representing its membership.

 

[General Lee]

General: So do you now admit that your MEC sold scope and is now trying to buy it back?

The problem is that the scope they sold now has a new owner, me. Just as the Judge said, we should get some credit for that. In effect substantiating the damages claim in the RJDC lawsuit.

I'm not in line for a penny of any damages - but as a true believer in unionism, I see it as a stick to coerce the union into propery representing its membership.

Wait a second. I never said that. I said the judge stated that the COMPANY will have to give us credit ($$$$) in any bargaining if they want scope back for DCI etc. We have a contract now with scope provisions. The company wants it all back for FREE. The judge disagrees, and says that it is worth something, and that they (DL) must come up with a quantitative amount. They want $325 million a year extra (over the $1 billion) and now want scope including code share scope for FREE, besides the $325M.

This has nothing to do with the RJDC. Nothing. If the company wants unlimited scope, they may have to give up on any more pay cuts, and Dalpa wouldn't give up the scope anyway. You should be more concerned about the judge's apparent stance on mainline pilots flying the 79 seat jets. I guess you can fill her in on the RJDC. She would probably laugh.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

All of these problems should be addressed from within the Association. .

AMEN!

Going to a court of law ...is reprehensible.

OK, PCL, what do you do when your association refuses to hear your grievances and gets hijacked by an MEC that wants to feed on your dead body? If you have a solution better and quicker than Court, please lets us know and we will certainly try it.

The courts are not needed unless you are trying to steal something that doesn't belong to you like bigger airplanes or seniority that wasn't earned.

And why would the Courts allow that? Courts do their very best to consider all the facts and make the best possible decision.

General has as much as admitted that the Delta MEC sold the flying and is now negotiating to get it back. The problem is that our union is doing absolutely nothing to restrain MEC's from feeding on each other's flying.

What caused this problem was ALPA's failed scope policy, which is the direct result of their failure of representation.

ALPA coined "Brand Scope." Why didn't they push the concept? Why doesn't ALPA fix this? I dunno.

 

[General Lee]

AMEN! OK, PCL, what do you do when your association refuses to hear your grievances and gets hijacked by an MEC that wants to feed on your dead body? If you have a solution better and quicker than Court, please lets us know and we will certainly try it.
And why would the Courts allow that? Courts do their very best to consider all the facts and make the best possible decision.

General has as much as admitted that the Delta MEC sold the flying and is now negotiating to get it back. The problem is that our union is doing absolutely nothing to restrain MEC's from feeding on each other's flying.

What caused this problem was ALPA's failed scope policy, which is the direct result of their failure of representation.

ALPA coined "Brand Scope." Why didn't they push the concept? Why doesn't ALPA fix this? I dunno.

Say what? I admitted what? Wrong. You RJDC guys like to twist everything. Dalpa never sold scope, and they aren't fighting to GET IT BACK? What? The judge told Delta that they couldn't get it all for FREE, and that they would have to come up with a monetary amount and then give the Delta pilots credit for that. That, will likely make it very costly for Delta. Maybe they will come up with rates that allow us to fly those 79 seaters. You know Fins, the company is allowed to negotiate with us first, and would rather ink a deal with us and actually still have a company.

RJDC=LAZY


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

Wait a second. I never said that. I said the judge stated that the COMPANY will have to give us credit ($$$$) in any bargaining if they want scope back for DCI etc. We have a contract now with scope provisions. The company wants it all back for FREE. The judge disagrees, and says that it is worth something, and that they (DL) must come up with a quantitative amount.

This has nothing to do with the RJDC. Nothing. If the company wants unlimited scope, they may have to give up on any more pay cuts, and Dalpa wouldn't give up the scope anyway. You should be more concerned about the judge's apparent stance on mainline pilots flying the 79 seat jets.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Ok General, so if you agree that the flying has value, why doesn't it have any value when it is performed by pilots on a DCI seniority list? Sounds like a heck of a double standard.

If you agree that this flying has value, then the changes from CY96 scope to CY2000 scope has a few Billion dollars worth and ALPA is really shooting themselves in the foot by admitting this. ALPA has already admitted to doing no economic analysis of how ASA or Comair pilots were effected by the changes (which ALPA is required to do as part of its Representational obligation)

Prgamatically, if ALPA gets a "win" for the Delta pilots, how would Delta buy these airplanes? More credit? With losses continuing at $5,000,000.00 a day I think a lenders would be reluctant to sign on.

The Delta MEC and ALPA are in a hole that they continue to dig deeper every time their attorneys open their mouths. For the RJDC plaintiffs, some of ALPA's arguements have been like gifts from a benevolent god. Of course, it is just the truth of ALPA's hipocracy being exposed for what it is. It was bound to come out sooner, or later. Remember - time brings truth to light.

 

[PCL_128]

Fins, as usual, you start with a false premise and move from there. Your idea that DALPA "sold" scope is ridiculous. DALPA is the sole authorized bargaining agent with Delta Air Lines, so they always have the right to negotiate scope over the DL code. Nothing was "sold."

The answer to your question is simple however: if you don't like the way that ALPA National is handling things, then I suggest that you start bringing resolutions to your Local Council meetings to address the issues. As it is right now, the ASA and CMR MECs claim that they have no connection to the RJDC (although we know that Lawson is a liar). Because they are trying to keep their distance, they haven't brought any resolutions to the BOD to address your concerns. So, why don't you bring a resolution to the Local Council meeting, and if the MEC doesn't carry it to National, then bring a resolution to the next meeting to recall your reps. That's how things get done in a democratic organization. Honorable people don't resort to the courts without fully exhausting all options within the Association. I'm curious Fins, have you ever brought a single resolution about anything to a Local Council meeting? Do you even go to your Local Council meetings? Most people that complain are never involved at all. I'd be interested to know if you're the exception.

 

[General Lee]

Ok General, so if you agree that the flying has value, why doesn't it have any value when it is performed by pilots on a DCI seniority list? Sounds like a heck of a double standard.

If you agree that this flying has value, then the changes from CY96 scope to CY2000 scope has a few Billion dollars worth and ALPA is really shooting themselves in the foot by admitting this. ALPA has already admitted to doing no economic analysis of how ASA or Comair pilots were effected by the changes (which ALPA is required to do as part of its Representational obligation)

Prgamatically, if ALPA gets a "win" for the Delta pilots, how would Delta buy these airplanes? More credit? With losses continuing at $5,000,000.00 a day I think a lenders would be reluctant to sign on.

The Delta MEC and ALPA are in a hole that they continue to dig deeper every time their attorneys open their mouths. For the RJDC plaintiffs, some of ALPA's arguements have been like gifts from a benevolent god. Of course, it is just the truth of ALPA's hipocracy being exposed for what it is. It was bound to come out sooner, or later. Remember - time brings truth to light.

I have been told that financing with the Brazilian and Canadian governments for their planes is not that difficult, and that they want ANY business. How did Air Canada buy 15 777s and 15 787s just after exiting Canadian Chap 11? The answer: Magic.

Also, I just heard from a training manager at Delta that the lease negotiations are going fairly well now, and that even the 737-200 lessors came way way down on some of those birds (the newer ones...I guess), and that we may keep some of those around a little longer then planned. That, of course, would mean they hope we stick around period.

And Fins, PCL is correct---Dalpa is the priority when dealing with negotiations, and the company has the ability to work with us prior to anyone else. It would behoove them to do that, also.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[~~~^~~~]

The answer to your question is simple however: if you don't like the way that ALPA National is handling things, then I suggest that you start bringing resolutions to your Local Council meetings to address the issues.

I did. The first time our MEC Chair stepped in to stop the vote citing a scheduling issue. The MEC Chairman did not actually have the standing to interfere with a LEC vote, so he twisted the arm of the Captain's Rep, who argued in favor of the resolution, then quashed the vote upholding the MEC Chairman's objection. In effect, the MEC Chairman's only objection to the resolutions was that "ALPA National will put us into bankruptcy and we will not even have money to put paper in the photocopier."

Later the resolutions made it through, at Comair. ALPA National referred them to the Bilateral Scope Impact Committee, which in five years now, has done absolutely nothing but suggest that we hold meetings with the Delta MEC.

So other than go to the Delta MEC and ask them to be "nicer" what do you suggest?

Copies of the resolutions are on the RJDC web site. I can look it up and post a link if you are interested.

 

[PCL_128]

Copies of the resolutions are on the RJDC web site. I can look it up and post a link if you are interested.

Actually, yes. I would be interested in reading them.

 

[~~~^~~~]

And Fins, PCL is correct---Dalpa is the priority when dealing with negotiations, and the company has the ability to work with us prior to anyone else. It would behoove them to do that, also.

Bye Bye--General Lee

DALPA should not be ALPA's sole priority. If ALPA was representing its members, it would not allow one MEC to hijack the National Union. To quote PCL "That is not how things are done in a Democratic union."

By picking the wrong road (when it decided that separate and unequal representation was fine) and sticking to it (by allowing the Delta pilots to get the Merger and Fragmentation language in the C&BL's) ALPA has reduced all of us to alter ego contract carriers.

You used to fault the Jet Blue pilots for their lousy 100 seat rates. Now you have changed your tune in order to try to secure flying you think might go to DCI. Like it or not, you are now competing with DCI and it is a direct result of ALPA's representational failure. But as you fight DCI pilots, armed with pay rates 20% less than ASA pilots on similar equipment, you still support ALPA's failed scope policies. What is it going to take for you and ALPA shrills like PCL to see the truth?