Mesa and Delta...It's official

[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.