FDJ2 said:
I haven't quite digested your entire 4 page answer yet, but on first blush I have a couple of questions, concerning your logic.
If Delta owns and controls its aircraft and code, then why is it permissable for DAL pilots to have scope control over the aircraft, but not the code?
Unfortunately you have already conceded the code control to Delta Air Lines. Your "code" is not only attached to a few regional flights, it is literally spread over half the planet. Would you expect to control the activities of Air France pilots through your "code"? How about KAL pilots, NWA pilots, CAL pilots? It's just not practical.
In my opinon you can do far better by guaranteeing yourselves the certainty of exclusively piloting those aircraft that are on the Delta Operating Certificate than anything else. You could also try to get DAL to guarantee you a specific fleet size/mix, which I think would be far more effective. You would also want a provision that prevents you carrier from transferring its equipment to another airline, without your pilots (not including routine sales of individual aircraft). In other words, no fragmentation. That is the true purpose of scope.
Shouldn't other ALPA pilots also have the opportunity to RFP Delta aircraft, just like they RFP Delta code?
No, I don't think that the pilots of another airline should have the right to bid for the aircraft that your Delta Air Lines operates on its own certificate. Your merger clause and a proper fragmentation agreement would protect you from that and it would not infringe on the rights of other ALPA carriers/members. They could all operate as many triple-sevens or 767's as they wish, but not yours.
That is a shortfall in our scope that results from the fact that we are owned and controlled by another airline. If that were not the case, we would have no RFP problems ourselves. They are there only becuse Delta is not bound by our own scope clause. For that little detail we have ALPA to thanik.
For example it should not, in my opinion, be important to us how many RJs are operated by ASA, but only that we fly all the RJs (or other aircraft operated by CMR), have a guaranteed minimum fleet size and a clause that prevents the transfer of our equipment to another airline. We would not them be exposed to shrinkage on the basis of RFP threats. We got some of that protection in our recent LOA, and we did not attempt to prevent other carriers from doing what they want to do in the process.
Such arrangements might not prevent bidding for new aircraft types which may limit future growth to some extent but would not expose your job security to predators. Scope language is always complex and details have to be developed. However, there is no need for prredatory scope on anybody's property, as I see it.
Comair's pilots, for example, should not expect to be able to bid on the 737's that Delta operates or any other airplane on the Delta operating certificate. If Delta placed CRJ's on the Delta certificate that wouldn't change anything as long as Delta can't transfer Comair CRJ to the Delta certificate or Delta CRJs to the Comair certificate. All of that can be covered in a proper Scope clause.
The "portfolio concept", when not subject to proper scope, is a far more serious threat to job security than anything the Delta pilots have ever faced.
Second is this statement: >>><<< (statement deleted for space)
Where do you get the and already has access to the “Delta code” part from the lawsuit. I don't see where the lawsuit differentiates on that matter in the relief section. It seems much more open ended. There appear to be no limits to the amount of bidding that can be done for the flying, all the limitations are on the ability of a pilot group to have scope that would limit the outsourcing of an airlines code, not over who it is outsourced too.
That lspecific anguage is not contained anywhere in the lawsuit. It is my view of how it should work and its intent. You frequently quote a paragraph from the Remedies section that I think you misinterpret. That paragraph would permit you to do all of the things I have mentioned (and quite a bit more) to protect your own interests. It would not strike down all of your Scope nor make it impossible for you to modify your scope, and that is not its intent.
The principle is actually pretty simple. As long as you never give up any of your rights, you have no problems. However, once you relinquish one of your rights and give it back to the company, if the company then gives that right to another carrier (a wholly owned subsidiary; a sub-contractor) and an ALPA represent pilot group comes into existence as a consequence or picks it up, you cannot
after the fact take it back without severe injury to that pilot group.
Try this analogy. You own a house. You decide you would like to sell it. The company you work for buys it from you, and then sells it to another person (me). Three years later you decide you want it back. You then don't go to me and ask me to sell, you go to the company and cut a deal where they agree to give it back to you. However, I don't want to sell it, so they just take it from me, give to you and I get nothing in return. Meanwhile, I had planned a large addition that would greatly increase its value. Your new agreement not only prevents me from doing that but forces me out. You can bet that you, me and the company would all be in court in a heartbeat. Well, just add ALPA to the equation and that's pretty much what's been done.
Bottom line - If you want to prevent something from happening in the future, you must do what it takes BEFORE it happens. Once it has already occured, the road back is virtually impossible, unless you can get the third party to agree to what you want. If you attempt to do it without the third party's consent, there'll be weeping and nashing of teeth, just as there is now. When you and I are involved in such a dispute and we both hire the same lawyer to represent our interests, unless we willingly agree with each other, that lawyer cannot possibly represent our conflicting interests without harming one of us. That is exactly what's happened. ALPA is the lawyer and there is no way it can represent us both fairly, unless we agree with each other. Therefore it has to say NO to your desires and to our desires and maintain the status quo.
I predict the court will return your Scope to the status that existed before you made all the after-the-fact changes that negatively affect us.
Also, I take it that since DAL has code sharing with NWA and CAL, the DAL pilots should have no ability to limit the amount of DL code they could fly as well. CAL should be free to start operating the Delta Shuttle , Song flights and Delta's NYC international flights if they could win the RFP for that.
You are making the very same error in logic in your analogy. You overlook the fact that your contract contained a prohibition against DAL making any code-share agreement with NWA and CAL. There was nothing wrong with that. When you decided to give your company relief on that issue, you negotiated the terms BEFORE any agreement was signed between DAL/NWA/CAL. Those carriers decided to enter into the agreement with the conditions known in advance and agreed to. Therefore they have none of the rights you imply and no cause for grievance.
In the situation re Comair and ASA, the code share arrangement existed many years before your PWA contain ANY restrictions as to what Comair could fly, etc. ALL of the changes were implement after-the-fact and without the agreement of Comair or of Comair's pilots.
That created two potential disputes. One between Delta, Inc. and Comair, Inc., which never became a battle because Delta purchased Comair in its entirety befire Comair's contract expired. Had Delta attempted to impose its agreement with ALPA on Comair, against its will, there is no doubt that a monumental lawsuit would have been the result. The acquisition rendered that moot.
That was not the case between the pilot groups and an active dispute did arise as a consequence of ALPA's actions. When Delta purchased CMR, if the pilot groups had merged, or even agreed to merge (with the company refusing) there would have been no grounds for further disagreement. ALPA refused to entertain the concept of a merger between the pilot groups, thus precluding the possibility of any accommodation between them. ALPA then proceeded to deny, in writing, Comair and ASA pilots the right to negotiate with their new owners, thereby precluding an equitable settlement which Comair was not empowered to make. ALPA subsequently change the rules again, on two subsequent occasions, imposing even more restrictive and damaging provisions in favor of Delta pilots and against Comair and ASA pilots.
The result of ALPA's stupidity (I can't call it anything else) is a Grand Canyon like chasm between Delta and CMR/ASA pilots and two DFR lawsuits. Maybe ALPA will win the litigation but I think that is highly doubtful. If ALPA should lose, it won't affect just DAL/ASA/CMR but is likey to undo a plethora of ALPA agreements made under the same erroneous premises.
Regardless, thanks for sharing your interpretation of the lawsuit.
You are welcome. I know it is difficult for you but I recommend that you focus on the legal principles and issues involved and allay your fears that you will suddenly lose all Scope. The RJDC is not against scope, it is only against the improper behavior of ALPA under the guise of scope. It is against ALPA's failure to exercise its DFR. There are not ulterior motives lurking in the woodwork.
, I still respect the fact that you answered the questions. Thanks for taking the time.
