Mesa and Delta...It's official

[FDJ2]

FDJ2, Im a new pilot at CMR and dont know much about the RJDC and really dont care at this moment.

Kind of short sighted on your part, but whatever.


I will tell you this when the deal with Delta and Mesa came out you were all happy and making fun of the CMR and ASA guys

No I was not. Previous Delta scope protections would not have allowed Mesa to join DCI. Unfortunately we had to give up some scope protections this fall. Remember how the RJDC gloated about their effectiveness in gaining new growth flying for DCI shortly after our LOA was signed. Well welcome to the RJDC party. No scope for anyone. No my friend I'm not happy about our scope language and I'm not happy that more and more flying is being outsourced to the cheapest bidder.

so you have no right or place to ask anyone to be honest and show courage because those qualities in a person would make you realise that Mesa coming into Delta, DCI or what ever you want to call it is bad news for all of us.

News flash, more flying going to DCI is bad for all of us, but you'll learn that one day.

I think you are a very bitter man and I hope you can get over this childish and imature obsession (The RJDC).

I think you're naive and uninformed, so what.

Again I dont care about the RJDC but I am tired of reading the same thing over and over.

Then don't read it. Stick your head in the sand, keep your butt in the air and everything will be o.k.

Answer the question, answer the question. For god sake enough.

Perhaps if the RJDC folks could muster the courage to actually answer a few straight forward questions with some straight forward answers this would all be over. If I were you I'd worry more about what the RJDC refuses to tell you, then my silly little questions.

Please just let it end. Listen we have more important things to worry about like Delta going Banckrupt. Just let it end. Nothing personal just tired of the same thing over and over. UBA757

No you really don't have more important things to worry about. You are just beginning to see the effects of the scope free world the RJDC is litigating for. Mesa at DCI, you think that's bad, nothing against the good folks at Mesa, but that's just the tip of the iceberg the RJDC would reap for all professional pilots. Sorry, as long as there is a group of cowards, like the RJDC, running around trying to eliminate scope protections for all ALPA pilots, ducking and dodging answering just a few basic questions, I'm going to hound them.

 

[uba757]

First, If your opinion of me is that Im naive and short sighted then that is your opinion again I really dont care. What I do care about is that the company that I fly for is part of "THE DELTA CONNECTION" and I have a family to feed and if DELTA goes UNDER then I have a REAL problem.

Second, When the deal was announced you were the first to come out and say "Take that ASA/CMR how do you like it now" This is not word for word but is darn close to what you meant. That is why I say you were happy.

Third, Yes it is probably true that more flying going to other commuters not wholy owned by Delta is bad for all of us. And I know this is not what you really mean but Im going to put my own spin on it.

Fourth, So again you come out with the naive and uninformed comment, so I see that you repeat yourself when you have nothing better to put forward. Now I understand why you ask the same question over and over and over and over.

Fifth, Every thread that you go into is the same sh-t you ask the same question over and over so then basically what you are telling me is that I have to stop coming into Flight info completly if I dont want to read about you and the RJDC guys that in YOUR OPINION will not answer your question.

Sixth and Last, Sorry to all that have to read this long reply. FDJ2, this is not a personal attack on you. If you think it is im sorry you feel that way. Im new to CMR I am trying to get comfortable with the rules and procedures at my new company but once I do that I will learn all I can about the RJDC and we will sit down as adversaries and disscuss it at lenght in one and I really mean only one thread. UBA757

 

[FDJ2]

First, If your opinion of me is that Im naive and short sighted then that is your opinion again I really dont care.

I don't care if you think I'm bitter.

What I do care about is that the company that I fly for is part of "THE DELTA CONNECTION" and I have a family to feed and if DELTA goes UNDER then I have a REAL problem.

Mesa and Chq are also part of Delta Connection, don't those pilots have a family to feed?

Second, When the deal was announced you were the first to come out and say "Take that ASA/CMR how do you like it now" This is not word for word but is darn close to what you meant.

That's not even close to what I said. But I guess that doesn't really matter.

That is why I say you were happy.

Well you are wrong. What can I tell you.

Third, Yes it is probably true that more flying going to other commuters not wholy owned by Delta is bad for all of us. And I know this is not what you really mean but Im going to put my own spin on it.

As long as you realize that it is your spin.

Fourth, So again you come out with the naive and uninformed comment, so I see that you repeat yourself when you have nothing better to put forward.

Or I nailed it good.

Now I understand why you ask the same question over and over and over and over.

Actually, I repeat the question, because the cowards at the RJDC, who pretend to want to inform with their "updates" actually just want to propagate the same old misinformation and refuse to come clean and answer direct questions regarding their litigation.

Fifth, Every thread that you go into is the same sh-t you ask the same question over and over so then basically what you are telling me is that I have to stop coming into Flight info completly if I dont want to read about you and the RJDC guys that in YOUR OPINION will not answer your question.

It's not my opinion that they won't answer the questions. They haven't. Besides, you don't have to read this thread and there are plenty of threads on this forum that have nothing to do with the RJDC, many that I don't read or post on and many that I share my comments on and never bring up the RJDC.

Sixth and Last, Sorry to all that have to read this long reply. FDJ2, this is not a personal attack on you. If you think it is im sorry you feel that way. Im new to CMR I am trying to get comfortable with the rules and procedures at my new company but once I do that I will learn all I can about the RJDC and we will sit down as adversaries and disscuss it at lenght in one and I really mean only one thread. UBA757

Well it's nice to know that nothing you stated was personal. Get comfortable in your new job, it must be exciting, learn your new rules and procedures and then learn all that you can about this profession. When you feel your ready, don't sit down as an adversary, but rather sit down as a fellow pilot and discuss this issue like a professional. A true dialogue.

 

[PCL_128]

Fins, Surplus, N, anybody? Is there no RJDC puke willing to answer these questions? We're still waiting.

 

[uba757]

FDJ2, I know a great deal about this profession. I have worked for a union carrier (ALPA) and also for a non-union carrier. I have flown large jets just like you do and just because the plane you fly has more than 50, 60 or 70 seats does not make you a know it all. For you to sit here and tell me that I will learn about the profession is a load of SH-t and you and I both know this. Learning about the profession has nothing to do with spinning everything in a way that makes me think that am always right. You do make things very personal and I dont understand why.

I have found 5 threads in which you have asked the same stupid question so what is it that you are looking for? No matter what answer you get you will never be satisfied and will continue to ask the same question untill you get the answer you want.

The pilots at Mesa and the pilots at CHQ have other companies to fall back to for flying, us pilots at ASA/CMR only have DELTA (WE ARE WHOLLY OWNED, they are not). That is a very big difference in my opinion obviously not in yours. This is why I say we need to work toguether no against each other. We all (DELTA,ASA,COMAIR) have the most to loose.

To sit down as fellow pilots to discuss ideas we both have to be willing to learn something from the other and you are not. You have to be willing to listen with an open mind and again you are not.

I hope this is the last of it. UBA757

 

[FDJ2]

For you to sit here and tell me that I will learn about the profession is a load of SH-t and you and I both know this.

You're right, you probably won't learn anything about this profession.

You do make things very personal and I dont understand why.

Hey bubba, you were the one who started with the personal stuff. If you can't take it coming back at you, then don't start. From your very first post to me:

"I think you are a very bitter man and I hope you can get over this childish and imature obsession"

Naw, that wasn't personal.

I have found 5 threads in which you have asked the same stupid question so what is it that you are looking for?

Let's see, hmmmmmm. How about some answers.

No matter what answer you get you will never be satisfied and will continue to ask the same question untill you get the answer you want.

How do you know, they haven't answered any of the questions yet? Geez.

The pilots at Mesa and the pilots at CHQ have other companies to fall back to for flying, us pilots at ASA/CMR only have DELTA (WE ARE WHOLLY OWNED, they are not).

So, what does being wholly owned or not entitle you too? The RJDC can't even come up with an answer to that one.

That is a very big difference in my opinion obviously not in yours. This is why I say we need to work toguether no against each other.

It sure is nice working with guys who have filed a lawsuit to eliminate the scope protections in my CBA and those of all the other ALPA carriers. NOT. BTW, our furloughed pilots would really like to thank the CMR MEC for slamming the door in their face.

To sit down as fellow pilots to discuss ideas we both have to be willing to learn something from the other and you are not. You have to be willing to listen with an open mind and again you are not.

Wait a second there big guy. I asked some questions, because I want to know what the RJDC position is on scope and they refuse to answer my questions and you think that I'm the impediment to discussing ideas. Amazing. I guess discussion is a one way street where you live, but I think it involves honesty and answering straight forward questions with straight forward answers.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

uba,

Forget it, there is nothing you can say to change his mind. He and fortunately just a few others like him in their thinking, are only a small handful of the good Delta folks. They think they have ALL the answers to Delta's situation, complete insight to the decisions made across the street, and of course, the only way or in their minds to solve the problem, get rid of all those pesky rj's! Great! Mainline wants us to disappear? Ok, how about ASA and CMR just take the weekend off and see if that helps Big D out!

 

[FDJ2]

uba,

Forget it, there is nothing you can say to change his mind.

ATR, nice personal jabs throughout your post. It's interesting how just asking questions can get you and your cohorts so worked up. What is it about just a few simple and straight forward questions that is so bothersome? Do you know the answers to any of these questions? Perhaps you could share them with us. I guess your answer is to attack the questioner? Nice.

 

[P38JLightning]

Answer the man's questions, geesh.

Although I find your general retreat from legitamate debate and reliance on "answer my freaking questions" mantra a bit annoying, I conceed you bring up some valid points and I will attempt to answer them as best a non RJDC supporter can. As always, if I miss the mark somehow, any "real" RJDCer is free to step up and answer the questions themselves.



>>>Let me ask you a few questions, I want to get a feel for where your interpretation of the RJDC and their lawsuit is:

According to the RJDC, does any pilot group own any DL code flying?


Yes. All ALPA pilot groups, in or out of DCI presently, have equal rights over DL code, unless ALPA sits down and agrees with all of us on a proper and mutually acceptable dividing line. (As you can imagine, this puts DAL pilots’ collective nards in a vice and at the very least is a slippery slope that only requires one ALPA pilot group with a desire to fly UNRESTRICTED DL code to ruin every single last block hour.



Now, on the other hand, if the RJDC wins this sort of unlimited injunctive relief, they think it will put the fear of the Almighty into DALPA/ALPA and they will come begging for a palatable solution.


According to the RJDC, can ALPA negotiate scope language for the DAL pilots that limits another ALPA pilot group access to the DL code?



No. It would be a free for all. Mesa would be able to bid 767ER flying, and wouldn’t even need to employ the mythical “separate certificate trick” people so often misunderstand.

According to the RJDC, does CMR/ASA being wholly owned or not have any effect on the RJDC lawsuit? If so, what does it change?



No. All ALPA pilots are equal and deserve equal representation, ergo all ALPA pilot groups deserve equal bidding chances on all DL code, absent an all party agreement, of course, prohibiting this. Good luck with that one of course.

According to the RJDC lawsuit, would ALPA be allowed to negotiate scope limits on the DL code which would prevent another ALPA pilot group from flying DL code passengers on 90 seat, 110 seat or 150 seat aircraft?



Basically the same as the above questions. If you really corner a chatty RJDCer and press long enough, he will say in theory its okay to “divide up the work” (i.e. create a 70 seat line in the sand for mainline/non mainline) but when the chips are down, they want it all.



The itemized monetary damage multipliers they publish and rely on, for now, are all based on 70 seats and under. Many of their hard core supporters say that’s all they want, unlimited 70 and below, with a few of the ASA RJDCers saying they deserve unlimited 105 seats (or whatever the max certifiable of the AVRO they once briefly had was).



But as you pointed out, their lawsuit officially only seeks, as it stands for now, to eliminate any ALPA group from limiting another ALPA group. It pays lip service to wholly owned airlines, hinting at how they deserve to be in a preferred class in a free for all bidding war, but to cover their bases in the event that they were ever spun off, they left it wide open on purpose.


They even courted non union and teamster pilots with their rhetoric (hey guys, look what evil DALPA scope could do to YOU!) but for whatever reason they were never included in the lawsuit (plaintiffs or remedies).

Its important to note that the RJDC was crafted during the best of times. A time when anything that operated on a regional property could generate as much as 30% profit margins. From this point of view, one is on top of the world, yet at the same time has nothing to lose. Its a dangerous perspective to have.


The RJDC forefathers, the supporters of the now infamous PID, left that movement wide open as well. Their stratedgy? To take the runway, power-up, reach V1+10 knots and then all sit down and try to iron out a mutually acceptable solution. They truly believed that in an integration of lists, staple was the floor and DOH was the ceiling, and as long as you negotiated hard you were likely to get some sort of happy medium within those parameters.


That all or nothing mentality has spilled over into the RJDC. Put ALPA/DALPA's nards in a vice, then only release them when all your demands are met. Its also important to note that the RJDC brings up some valid points, and correctly points out some damming evidence about ALPA's flawed practices and hypocricies. Much of their arguement and evidence is either true or based heavily on truth.

Many of their theoretical premises are true too, like the notion of a mutually acceptable dividing line. And some of their slightly lesser logical points have at least a basis in legal precident, like the concept of "squatter's rights" or common law property rights.

I think their strategy is to hold a piano over ALPA's head, start cutting away at the already frayed rope, and hope for ALPA to deal on their terms. At best they would get onelist, maybe even DOH but who knows, and at the very least, they would be able to put in a bid for 757/777/787, etc flying, which many have bragged they would be more than happy to do for considerably less than those, especialy at DAL, presently do it for.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Attack, huh? If you say so...sigh. I am not worked up at all over the rjdc thing. First off, I know nothing about it, have read nothing about it. About all I know is what I read on here and it seems all that is usually alot of yelling and name calling. I was on the ATR for about 5 yrs and just came over to this in Jan. You have questions about it? Ok, I would guess there is plenty of reading material on it available. Since it apparently is in the legal system there might be some things not available until the trip through the court is complete. You could call this Ford guy and see if he can answer your questions. If you think my comment is personal attack, (A) I apologize, (B) you seem to be pretty wound up yourself on this thing. Nothing you or I can do can change the legal wranglings, I myself am going to worry more about the day to day dealings at work than that at this point, just me. When I start my 4-day tomorrow, I am going to do everything I can to make sure the passengers who are paying my salary get to their destination quickly and safely as possible.
Hey, I don't like the fact that we are in negotiations and no progress seems to be the daily report, but I would rather show a smile and say thanks to the folks in back so they might get back on later down the road.

 

[crjdxr]

Not directly RJDC related

I heard an interesting rumor floating around the Comair GO; Mesa is going to buy Comair.

Again, this is just a rumor. But......

A buddy of mine at Mesa has heard the same thing.
GG is talking about "structural changes" for DAL.
Mesa might be (already is?) hurting for a dance partner after the AWA/US merger.
Skywest already has an interest in purchasing ASA.

Again...this is just a rumor. But it has recently gained some traction around here. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks.

 

[FDJ2]

P38, thanks for answering my questions. I believe your answers are consistent with the RJDC lawsuit. The elimination of scope. This also explains the RJDC supporters desire not to show their hand and let others know the free for all bidding and race to the bottom that would accompany an RJDC victory.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Fins, Surplus, N, anybody? Is there no RJDC puke willing to answer these questions? We're still waiting.

I did answer these questions.... Since you post without using the search feature, you can practice using it now to look up the questions again....

First - I am not "official" RJDC, but these are straightforward questions....

Yes, absolutely.

However, there is a problem when one airline buys another airline, ALPA refuses to follow merger and fragmentation policy, then locks out the MEC's of the other ALPA represented groups under the operational control of Delta. Then after locking them out, proceeds to negotiate predatory revisions in scope language.


Refer to previous answer - yes.
You can't. But the Delta MEC has tried to control, but yet not fly, outsourced flying. It is problematic to control flying you do not intend to perform. The Delta MEC has no right to control the representational rights of other ALPA members. Like cake and eating it too, it just does not work when one union has obligations to everyone on the property.
Yes, yes and yes - again the problem is that ALPA has denied the rights of ALPA members to be represented in the process of negotiating their wages and working conditions, ie scope. All these things can be accomplished, but in current form these contracts excluded ALPA members who had rights to be included. An illegal contract can not properly be enforced. ALPA's scope policy has not been effective because it was not done correctly. ALPA needs to leave the bigotry behind and focus on what meets the objective needs of its members.

Your often repeated quote ( without the rest of the document ) is self explanitory. The RJDC's position is that ALPA can not lock out ALPA members with a right to participate, then use their absence to harm their careers. The union has a duty to represent all of its members. If the union chooses to ignore its obligation to its membership, then the resulting harm should be voided and the process corrected. This is not rocket science, it is just basic fair play.

Without fairness, our union loses it moral legitimacy and becomes little more than an ineffective group of thugs as each little MEC mafioso tries to take all the turf he can get. Unionism is about unity, bringing pilots together. To the extent ALPA has failed to bring pilots together, ALPA has failed.

 

[FDJ2]

I did answer these questions.... ...

Yes you did. You were about the only RJDC supporter that had the courage to attempt to answer these questions. Although Surplus promised he would answer these questions, he apparently has gone back on his word. Other notable evaders are Braveheart, N, and Inclusive, who seems to have disappeared.

Fins, have you read P38JLightning's responses. They seem different then yours. Which demonstrates a certain lack of clarity concerning what the end result would be if the courts upheld all the RJDC claims for relief and made it the law of the land. Would you still support the litigation if what P38JLightning stated was true and was the end result? IOW, no ALPA pilot group could have a PWA that would prevent their own company from contracting with another ALPA pilot group to do the flying.

 

[SanJuanPlebe]

Well,

We should focus our energies on standing together as professional pilots...not competitors.

The notion that Mesa is evil is just plane silly. Management controls resources. And Mesa has many fine pilots, myself included.

To get on this board and blame Mesa or any other airline for the misfortunes of another is short-sighted and not based in fact.

The Plebe

Unity, nothing else will work under the RLA

 

[WSurf]

SanJuan,

You post is filled with so much Fog I can't really read into it. I agree that we need to stick together on making our QOL and Pay better. But I disagree with the fact that I do believe Mesa has affected other contracts in the industry. You have to raise the bar, not lower it on each contract. And the last one you signed by 87% didn't raise anything. I put as much blame on ALPA for allowing all this that has happen, they want to keep a strong division between regionals and mainline. And has totally backfired in there face, no way a 90 seat A/c should be flown at a regional. Sad, Sad.
There are some fine pilots over there (MESA), however they are willing to sell their soul to JO in return for more airplanes and fast upgrades.
Good luck over there, I know its tuff being the regional that everyone loves to hate the most.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 4

It's fun watching you RJDC guys run and hide from your own lawsuit. Refusing to answer the simplest questions. What do you have to be afraid of?

FDJ2,

I say again, I am not a spokesperson for the RJDC or the individual litigants. Therefore, I can’t answer your questions on their behalf. What I can do is give you my personal opinions. Although I’ve been doing that for nearly 4 years to no avail, I’ll try once more, just to keep you from foaming at the mouth. BTW, you never really answered my questions but that’s OK, I never expected you would do so objectively.

8 Simple Questions for the RJDC

The issues involved are not “simple” and neither are your questions. The answers are not “simple” either, as you will realize when you read them. It will probably take 4 parts to post this. Few on this board have that span of attention. You asked for it.

1. Can the DAL pilot group, or any pilot group own/control their code?

In a word, NO. The “code” under which your airline operates is not owned by the Delta pilots and it is not controlled by the Delta pilots. The “code” is owned by Delta Air Lines, Inc. and they alone “control” it. The same applies to other “codes” owned by other airlines.

What the DAL pilot group can attempt to negotiate or control, is which pilots will fly the aircraft that are operated by Delta Air Lines. Those airplanes are, without exception, on the Delta Air Lines operating certificate. The rule would apply equally to other airlines as well.

When you make reference to “the Delta pilots” in this context, you presume erroneously that the Delta pilots are the owners of Delta Air Lines or, at the very least, their own bargaining agent. Both presumptions are wrong. Perhaps you would like it to be so but, factually and legally, it is not so.

The corporation is not owned by the Delta pilots and the bargaining agent is the Air Line Pilots Association, not the “Delta pilots”. You belong by choice to an Association that represents many pilot groups and negotiates on behalf of each and every one of them. That Association (ALPA) has a fiduciary and legal responsibility to represent the interests of ALL of its members, in good faith, without discrimination and fairly.

When the interests of the parties involved in a negotiation are not in conflict with the interests of other parties, members of the ALPA, ALPA may negotiate on behalf of one group whatever it pleases. However, when such negotiations are in conflict with the interests of another group, ALPA may not legally favor one pilot group over another. Each must be represented fairly.

In general, it is accepted practice that a labor union my “allocate work” on a property. However, there is no precedence that it may allocate work between properties or on separate properties. Thus, ALPA may allocate work on the Delta property on the basis of seniority etc., between Delta pilots with impunity. However, ALPA may not give “control” of the work of Delta pilots, in whole or in part, to United's pilots without the consent of Delta pilots. Likewise ALPA may not give control of the work of ASA and Comair pilots to Delta pilots, without the consent of the former.

On your behalf, ALPA may agree with Delta Air Lines that only pilots on the Delta seniority list may pilot aircraft operated by DAL (Scope). ALPA may not properly negotiate with Delta Air Lines that pilots on the Delta seniority list may fly aircraft operated by Comair or anyone else, unless those parties agree to that premise before the fact. No such agreements have been made of which I am aware.

Likewise, ALPA may not negotiate on behalf of Delta pilots a contractual provision that limits the type of aircraft that Comair pilots may fly, without their consent. Without their consent, ALPA may not negotiate on behalf of Delta pilots the number of aircraft that Comair pilots may fly, etc., etc. This is the work of Comair pilots and only they may “control” it.

When ALPA does those things unilaterally and without the consent of Comair pilots, it subordinates the interests of Comair pilots to those of Delta pilots, thus it discriminates against Comair pilots in favor of Delta pilots and bargains in bad faith. Federal law prohibits such behavior in that the ALPA is bound by law to represent the interests of Comair pilots fairly and equally with those of Delta pilots. When and if ALPA negotiates away (on behalf of Delta pilots) the rights of Comair pilots, ALPA violates its duty of fair representation and the law. Such violation, when established in a court of law, would render that component of ALPA’s contract with Delta Air Lines null and void.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 4

2. If you can't control (own) the code, then how can you prevent outsourcing?

ALPA can negotiate on behalf of Delta pilots a contractual proviso that precludes Delta Air Lines from sub-contracting any part or all of Delta’s flying. As an example, such a provision was included in the Delta PWA that prohibited Delta Air Lines from entering into a code-share agreement with another airline without the consent of ALPA. That provision was subsequently bargained away with the consent of Delta pilots, with respect NWA and CAL.

ALPA could have negotiated a provision with Delta that prohibited Delta from subcontracting any of its flying to another entity. Originally, the Delta PWA was silent on that issue; ALPA didn’t do it. Therefore, Delta Air Lines was free to subcontract with other entities and did so. The Delta pilots did not challenge that subcontracting for nearly ten years, thereby establishing the precedent that it was permissible and essentially without limit. Since the subcontracted aircraft were “small” and of a type in which the Delta pilots expressed no interest, at the time, the camel’s nose was in the tent or the Genie out of the bottle (your choice). Since you let the Genie out of the bottle there is no way that ALPA can legally put it back, absent the consent of Comair and ASA pilots (and now MESA pilots).

Subsequently, the Delta pilots had second thoughts and, at their request, ALPA negotiated a new agreement with DAL. In this new agreement, ALPA broadened the definition of “Affiliate” to encompass their flying and the flying of all subcontractors (not legal), and prohibited the subcontracting of any flying in aircraft larger than 70 passenger seats. This is a retroactive proviso that attempts to reverse an already permissible status quo after the fact. That cannot be done without harm to the affected party but ALPA did it anyway breaching its DFR in the process.

Notwithstanding the impact that this retroactive provision might have on other ALPA pilots at Comair and ASA, ALPA never considered or determined that impact, and ALPA never queried Comair pilots with respect to their interests. Yes, Comair pilots did make their concerns known to the ALPA and to the DMEC. They were ignored, except for the creation of a meaningless “Committee”, which did nothing but obfuscate the issues. [Eventually that Committee did attempt some recommendations that might have alleviated the dilemma. It was immediately voted down by the MEC’s of DAL, UAL, NWA and AAA who at the time controlled ALPA politically.]

That contract did not contain any provision limiting the number of those 70-seat aircraft or where they might fly. At the same time, another provision was included in the new agreement, which introduced the restrictions on new code-share agreements but had no effect on pre-existing agreements between Delta and its code-share partners. Additionally, while this new contract limited the size of aircraft operated by carriers like ASA, CMR and SKYW, to a maximum of seventy seats, it did not preclude any of those carriers from operating larger aircraft under their own “code” or for other carriers under their code. [In other words it was not nearly as onerous as your current PWA at DAL.]

The new contract also required Delta Air Lines to obtain the consent of its subcontractors to the terms of the new Delta PWA. A clear indication on the part of the ALPA that it knew full well it could not retroactively obligate/bind corporate entities that were not a party to the contract. Strangely however, ALPA applied a different standard to its own members at Comair and ASA apparently believing that it could run roughshod over their interests, without their consent, and bind them to recognize the validity of the new provisions.

I have no idea what ASA did about that. [SKYW is irrelevant in that they have never been represented by the ALPA.] However, I do know that Comair (the corporation) had a pre-existing contract with DAL that included no such terms. To the best of my knowledge, Comair, Inc. did not formally agree to recognize or accept the provisions of the new Delta PWA at any time during its existence as an independent company.

Although these “new terms”, negotiated by ALPA, imposed limitations on Comair’s pre existing contract with Delta and adversely affected the future of Comair pilots, they were never consulted by ALPA and never consented to any of these provisions.

Approximately 5 years later, ALPA negotiated yet another contract on behalf of the Delta pilots. This new contract imposed many new and additional restrictions, again directly affecting the future of all Comair pilots in a very negative way. Those restrictions are included in your current PWA although they were “relaxed” in yet another round of bargaining post 9/11. By that time there is no doubt whatever that the ALPA was fully aware that Comair pilots did not agree with ALPA’s actions and were challenging them in court.

It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the ALPA not only negotiated on behalf of Delta pilots a plethora of new restrictions directed against Comair pilots and ASA pilots but, ALPA actively attempted to negotiate a provision that would have removed ALL flying of 70-seat equipment from Comair and ASA, transferred it to the Delta pilots and imposed a new limit at 50-seats on the flying of both. ALPA was only partially successful because Delta Air Lines refused to agree to ALPA’s proposals. Were it not for Delta’s disagreement, ALPA would have eagerly transferred Comair and ASA 70-seat flying to the Delta pilots. Nevertheless, ALPA’s negotiations did limit the number of 70-seat aircraft that could be made available to Comair (and others) severely. These negotiations were conducted without the knowledge or the consent of Comair pilots.

When Comair pilots learned of the intent of Delta pilots, supported by the ALPA, they immediately protested and raised their objections. To date, the ALPA has declined to respond to the objections of Comair pilots and continues to operate as though they did not exist. Additionally, ALPA has expanded its deliberate failure to represent “regional” pilots in general and favor the interests of “mainline” pilots at their expense, with ever-increasing arrogance, embracing and promoting such nefarious schemes as Jets-for-Jobs and slotted bidding. ALPA was never hesitant in violating both the contracts and seniority of its “regional” membership in order to serve the ends of its “mainline” constituency and its own blatantly manifest effort to “block the RJ”. ALPA continues to do so as I write.

Comair pilots were therefore left with no recourse other than to voice their objections in a court of proper jurisdiction. They have done so. ASA pilots have done likewise and so have pilots at other airlines whose rights have been denied by the ALPA. The litigation supported by the RJDC at ASA and CMR is not the only litigation related to similar issues that ALPA currently faces.

Delta’s acquisition of Comair served to further disenfranchise Comair pilots in that it made it possible for Delta Air Lines to impose its will on Comair, Inc., thus effectively neutering such protections as were provided by Comair’s previously independent status. Although Comair pilots were very aware of this and requested ALPA’s assistance to ensure contractual protection of their job security, ALPA declined, alleging that it could not find ways to draft contractual language that would protect Comair’s flying from arbitrary decisions by Delta Air Lines, Inc., or even Delta pilots. Further, ALPA denied Comair pilots and ASA pilots both the right to attempt to negotiate such security with Delta in their own behalf.

While you may find this behavior by ALPA both satisfactory and encouraging in that it serves your interests at the expense of others, thoughtful Comair and ASA pilots find it anathema.

3. According to the RJDC lawsuit, can ALPA negotiate scope language for the DAL pilots that limits another ALPA pilot group access to the DL code regardless of wholly owned status?

In the interest of accuracy, correct your rhetoric. The RJDC has no lawsuit against anyone. Individual Comair pilots have a lawsuit against the ALPA. Individual ASA pilots have a separate lawsuit against the ALPA. Individual ALG pilots have a separate lawsuit against the ALPA. So do individual TWA pilots. Each of these lawsuits deal with the same basic issue, DFR. The RJDC supports that litigation but has not sued anyone. Now to your question:

If that “other carrier” is also represented by the ALPA, and already has access to the “Delta code”, whether as a result of ownership by Delta or a sub-contract with Delta, ALPA may not legally negotiate any agreement that would terminate the agreement or modify it in a way that negatively affects the careers of other ALPA members without their consent. That violates ALPA’s DFR. Additionally and legally separate, ALPA’s efforts to obstruct or prevent a third party (corporate entity) that is not signatory to ALPA’s “agreement” on behalf of Delta pilots from conducting its own business, exposes the ALPA to potential liability for any loss of business that might result.

ALPA could negotiate and agreement that prohibits Delta from signing any new code-share agreements with another ALPA carrier. As long as the agreement is in place before the new code-share is signed or the new “affiliate” created it can be done. It can also be done at any time if the pilots of the affected carrier are not represented by the ALPA. This of course presupposes that Delta Air Lines would agree to such.

 

[say again]

Well,

We should focus our energies on standing together as professional pilots...not competitors.

Aviation is like sports, you support your team (and a few others?) and trash the rest, unless you need them to do something that helps.

The notion that Mesa is evil is just plane silly. Management controls resources. And Mesa has many fine pilots, myself included.

MESA is evil, but you do have some good guys over there.

To get on this board and blame Mesa or any other airline for the misfortunes of another is short-sighted and not based in fact.

This is how we do it here!! You have a choice of 2: agree or disagree.

 

[surplus1]

Part 3 of 4

This is not some “off the wall” idea that I have. As an example, if Delta was to purchase AWA (which is also represented by ALPA), ALPA cannot unilaterally dictate the terms of the merger integration with Delta pilots to the exclusion of AWA pilots. As a more recent and real scenario – Delta Air Lines has entered into a contract with MESA Air Group. That contract is permitted under the terms of the current agreement between ALPA and DAL.



As a consequence, MESA pilots (represented by ALPA) will gain flying and career progression. After the fact, ALPA may not negotiate an agreement on behalf of Delta pilots that would force termination of the MAG contract and injure the careers of MESA pilots, unless MESA pilots consent to it. If ALPA does so, it would violate its DFR to the MESA pilots.



On the other hand, ALPA does not represent the interests of Chautauqua pilots or of SkyWest pilots. Therefore, ALPA could conclude an agreement (on behalf of Delta pilots) that results in the termination of the CHQ and SKYW contracts with Delta Air Lines. ALPA has no duty to represent the pilots of CHQ or SKYW or their interests. Whether or not the corporations of CHQ and SKYW would then sue ALPA for damages is a separate issue.



Ironically, ALPA has negotiated on behalf of the Delta pilots an agreement that is far more liberal with respect to third party airlines that it does NOT represent than to those that it does represent. In fact, ALPA’s agreements penalize ALPA members and favor outsourcing to non-ALPA members. How ALPA pretends to justify and defend such action escapes me totally.



As a further example, this is why the Eagle pilots (ALPA) cannot challenge legally the restrictions imposed upon them by the APA. The APA does not represent the interests of Eagle pilots. It represents exclusively the interests of American pilots.

4. According to the RJDC, does CMR/ASA being wholly owned or not have any effect on the RJDC lawsuit? If so, what does it change?

In my opinion it doesn’t make much difference with respect to this litigation whether or not Delta owns CMR and ASA. The issue in dispute is ALPA’s duty of fair representation to its members, not the corporate ownership of the respective carriers. If you read carefully the courts ruling in its decision to hear the case you should be able to grasp what the judge thinks about that. The sale of Comair or ASA will not end the litigation.



The fact that Delta does own all three airlines raises the separate issue of ALPA’s ignoring its own policy and endorsing the creation of two alter egos on the Delta property. There is no doubt that ALPA would not tolerate such and arrangement if the carriers involved operated “large jets”. This is evidenced by the fact that ALPA’s contract with Delta mandates a merger with any airline acquired by Delta, unless of course that airline operates aircraft with “less than 71 seats”. This “exemption” to the provisions of the Delta PWA is a clear indication of ALPA prejudice towards that segment of its membership that operates “small jets” and towards the “small jets” themselves. The prejudice towards regional pilots and the RJ is as blatant as the rhetoric at a rally of the KKK.



If that special “exemption” were not included in the Delta PWA, this litigation would probably never have come into being. Why, because the adverse provisions would have been rendered moot by a mandated merger. In addition all of the myriad conflicts of interest that the status quo embodies would also have been rendered moot. Had such a provision existed it is also highly probably that Delta would never have purchased either ASA or Comair. In reality your and ALPA’s apartheid policies have served no purpose other than to establish two alter ego airlines in your own backyard.



That is exactly why the CMRMEC requested a PID when Delta acquired CMR. It had nothing to do with your sacrosanct seniority or any veiled attempt to infringe upon it. That myth is sourced exclusively in the holier-than-thou attitude prevalent and manifest within your pilot group. Your vitriolic objections are but another classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Instead of regaining total control of your flying and protecting your own pilots from furlough you virtually guaranteed that you would lose even more flying and furlough over 1,000 of your pilots. It was a masterpiece of incompetence on the part of your MEC, which you all swallowed like lemmings. I’m sorry that you shot yourselves in the foot but what’s done is done.



“What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

5. According to the RJDC lawsuit, would ALPA be allowed to negotiate scope limits on the DL code which would prevent another ALPA pilot group from flying DL code passengers on 90 seat, 110 seat or 150 seat aircraft?

I believe this question has been answered by what I have already written. The size of an aircraft is not relevant to ALPA’s duty of fair representation. That you think it is, is precisely why you’re in this pickle.

6. If the RJDC lawsuit were to prevail, would a combined DAL/ASA PWA be able to apply DL code scope restrictions on CMR if CMR were a wholly owned or spun off? How about scope restrictions limiting DL code access to Mesa or Freedom?

If you understand what I wrote, I’ve answered this as well. You seem totally confused about what the issue is. It’s not about who owns what. The corporation is not a party to the litigation. The issue is fair representation by ALPA. As long as ALPA members are involved in the transaction ALPA is obliged to represent both sides fairly. Fair representation cannot be achieved if some of the affected parties are excluded from the process, particularly after the fact. MESA/Freedom is an ALPA represented carrier.

7. Explain the following from your lawsuit and how it prevents whipsawing and outsourcing:

"Plaintiffs thus seek an injunction ordering ALPA to stop negotiating or assisting in the negotiation of scope clauses in such a manner as to exercise control over the flying by pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is being negotiated"

It would not prevent whipsawing and that is not the purpose of the litigation. The litigation’s purpose is to require ALPA to honor its duty of fair representation and to preclude it from entering into contracts that violate the rights of certain of its members.



Your worries about all of your Scope being eliminated are unfounded. You need scope and so do we. You have a right to protect your flying and we have an equal right to protect our flying. Our mutual union cannot decide unilaterally what part of the flying is yours and what part is ours. That decision requires your consent and our consent. Absent that mutual consent ALPA can do nothing that harms you and nothing that harms us.



Delta pilots have problems with this because you have the preconceived notion that you “own” the flying or you “own” the code. Your questions are a perfect example of this misconception; they all center on the concept of ownership. In reality you don’t own either one. Delta Air Lines owns both the flying and the code. Delta Air Lines has agreed to give you a portion of their flying during the life of your PWA, nothing more. Each time your PWA becomes amendable you have to negotiate again to keep the flying you got last time around. You won’t make much progress with any of this if you can’t understand that detail. Your Scope can determine what part of your company’s flying you will get to perform. It can never determine legitimately what part of another airline’s flying you can control. You can control what your company gives you and nothing more. The truth is they are not obliged to give you control of anything. That is why we have contracts and it is why we call them “Agreements.” All “agreements” presuppose the concurrence of more than one party. You don’t seem to grasp that detail.



For as long as both of us are represented by the same labor union, that union cannot legally negotiate on your behalf at our expense. By the same token it cannot legally negotiate on our behalf at your expense. Therefore, it can’t really negotiate anything that negatively impacts you or negatively impacts us, without our mutual consent. If ALPA favors you it violates its DFR to us. If it favors us it violates its DFR to you.