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.

 

[surplus1]

Part 4 of 4

In the status quo, ALPA has clearly chosen to benefit you at our expense. The choice is not accidental, it is patently deliberate. That is what we object to. You can’t see it that way because you have decided that your self-interest is more important than ours. That won’t fly. The numbers of you, the size of your airline, the dues you pay in the aggregate or the size of the aircraft you pilot do not confer superior rights within the Constitution of this union. We are all of the same “class and craft.” When you come to accept that reality, whether voluntarily or imposed by a court of law, these issues can be resolved.



If you decide to leave the union it will not have a negative effect on the litigation. It’s too late for that. The injury occurred while you were in the union and the ALPA is liable for its consequences whether you leave or not. The “crime” is committed under existing law and there are no retroactive exemptions. You cannot escape judgment in one State by moving to another State.



When the union makes a decision that it will not negotiate on our behalf with the entity that controls our livelihood, which it has done, it is also telling us that it refuses to represent our interests. In that we are members and pay dues to the union to represent those interests, it is not free to do that. Like it or not, we were accepted as members and our status as members is no different than yours.



Were we to permit ALPA and the Delta pilots to do what has been done in silence a new precedent would be established, i.e., that the Delta pilots thru the ALPA may, without limit, control not your DL code but the future and the careers of Comair pilots. From my perspective, we will never cede that right to you or to ALPA. If we did so you could tomorrow, with the stroke of a pen, terminate our very existence. I suspect you would love to do just that.



You originally had the right to contractually prevent your company from acquiring other airlines or from subcontracting any of its flying to other airlines. You voluntarily decided not to do so, either deliberately or through neglect. To think that you can now retroactively put us out of business with an ever more restrictive scope clause is error and ludicrous. It is too little and too late.



You express concern that what we do may in the future extend to aircraft with 90, 110 or 150 seats. Yes, it is possible. Not because we necessarily seek it but because Delta Air Lines may seek it. That will depend on the wishes of Delta Air Lines and ALPA’s ability to negotiate it on your behalf. It can only happen if you yourselves concede it in direct negotiations with your own company. Should your company declare bankruptcy and cancel your contract it could also become a reality. On the other hand, if we allow you to continue to do as you please with respect to us, the result is self evident. You have already gone from no restrictions to 70-seats with no limits, to 70-seats with severe limits, to 50-seats with limits. Tomorrow you may well try for no seats at all. I know where that would leave you. But, where would that leave us?

8. Is there any claim for relief in the RJDC lawsuit which would compel a single list or PWA? If so, which one?

There is no such claim in the litigation and in my opinion there never was. The litigation is not against Delta Air Lines and a victory by the litigants will not force Delta, Inc. to do anything.



Originally there was mention of how ALPA dealt with the PID request. That however was merely an indicator of one more example of a lack of fair representation. The judge correctly, IMO, concluded that all of the separate claims, i.e., the counts that were dismissed, were all issues of DFR. He did not throw out the allegations. He merely stated that a DFR claim, which he allowed, encompassed them all. In other words we didn’t need 10 separate Counts to prove a single point. DFR is the salient issue and always was. I sincerely believe that the final outcome will substantiate the need to adhere to it.

There is no demagoguery or political slant to any of these questions. Straight froward questions deserve straight forward answers, not evasion.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to the demagoguery of your questions content. As for the political slant, well, that speaks for itself.



The answers given here are only my personal opinion and I don’t know how the litigants or the RJDC would view them. This is how I view them and that view is also why I support the efforts of the RJDC. ALPA is not your union it is our union, and it must represent my interests just as it represent yours, with equal vigor. Representatives of your carrier and others like it may control ALPA but neither you, nor they, nor may ALPA control my future and that of my fellow pilots against our will or without our consent.

 

[FDJ2]

Better late then never. Surplus, thank you for your reply.

Your answers are more in line with what I thought.

What do you think the chances of Braveheart or Inclusive answering these questions is?

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Wasn't it Inclusive Scope who was banned from this site for good?

 

[surplus1]

Your answers are more in line with what I thought.

Does that mean you concur or merely that you got what you expected?

What do you think the chances of Braveheart or Inclusive answering these questions is?

I don't know any more about Braveheart of Inclusive than I know about FDJ2. Therefore, I haven't the slightest idea what they may do or not do.

 

[CarjCapt]

Surplus1, Thank you.

 

[FDJ2]

Does that mean you concur or merely that you got what you expected?

For the most part those were the objectives of the lawsuit that I saw. 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? Shouldn't other ALPA pilots also have the opportunity to RFP Delta aircraft, just like they RFP Delta code?

Second is this statement:

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.


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.

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.

Regardless, thanks for sharing your interpretation of the lawsuit.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1, Thank you.

You're more than welcome. BTW, great avatar! Whatever it Takes.

 

[FDJ2]

Wasn't it Inclusive Scope who was banned from this site for good?

Why was he banned?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Surplus 1

Thank you for your post

~~~^~~~

 

[surplus1]

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.

 

[letthebigdogeat]

Why was he banned?

Ask the moderator Ifly4food, who I believe banned Inclusive Scope. I don't know the exact reason.

Surplus1 - A big thank you from me as well.

 

[uba757]

Surplus thanks for helping me understand what RJDC is all about.UBA757

 

[PCL_128]

Surplus, although I disagree with pretty much everything you said , I still respect the fact that you answered the questions. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[FDJ2]

Surplus, thanks for sharing your interpretation on the litigation and the law.

I take it that you believe that CMR or any other ALPA carrier should be allowed to fly unlimited DL code on the 777 if it wins an RFP for that flying, so long as that 777 is on their certificate.

Do you think this will increase RFPs and the whipsaw or decrease it?

 

[FDJ2]

Surplus thanks for helping me understand what RJDC is all about.UBA757

Do you like what you hear?

 

[uba757]

FDJ2, I hope that we can find a way for CMR and ASA to prossper under the Delta umbrella without taking jobs away from the mainline pilots or bringing down your pay scales. That would also mean for all of the Delta flying to be performed by Delta mainline and its wholly owned subsidiaries CMR/ASA only. This is the first time that I have been able to read something that kind of describes what the RJDC is about. Again I have to read some more to make an educated decision to see if I agree with the RJDC or not. What do you think about the explanation given by Surplus? What points do you agree? And which points do you not agree with.

I dont think that as a Comair pilot I or any other Comair pilot or ASA pilot should ever have the right to bid flying on Delta mainline unless we leave CMR or ASA and become Delta mainline pilots. I dont know if that answers your question or not. I hope it does. The few people that I have talked to at CMR about the RJDC tell me that it is not suit agains Delta mainline but a suit against ALPA'S way of doing business. Again I need to educate myself on what it really is before I can make an educated decission on my support or lack of for the RJDC. UBA757

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2, What do you think about the explanation given by Surplus? What points do you agree? And which points do you not agree with.

Uba, I think Surplus laid out what he believes to be a) what the RJDC litigation seeks by way of a court ordered injunction against certain scope clause protections b) what he believes to be the law of the land, c) where he believes he was wronged. I was actually only looking for his take on "a".

For the most part I agree with his take on "a", and that is basically what I have been saying all along. The RJDC does not believe that any pilot group can have scope over the code their airline uses, only the aircraft. Of course having scope over the aircraft and not the code is about as usefull as tits on a bull. You need both. In the RJDC world all flying can ultimately be put up for bid to the lowest bidder. It does not matter whether you are wholly owned or not. As an example, Delta could give Mesa the 777 contract to Narita, Japan, so long as that flying was not done on a Delta aircraft, CMR could order a bunch of B737s and start flying the Delta Shuttle, American Eagle could get some B757 and take over the Song flights out of JFK. If the Delta pilots wanted to fly some of the Delta code they would have to underbid the other competing pilot groups to get a slice of the action.

As far as "b" and "c" are concerned, I think he is dead wrong on many points. However, it was never my intention to debate the merits or law involved in this litigation when I asked the questions, I just wanted to confirm the agenda.

 

[FDJ2]

Condensed answers offered by an RJDC supporter of what the RJDC seeks.

8 Simple Questions for the RJDC
Simple questions Braveheart refused to answer

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


No.

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


You can not control your code, only your aircraft. Companies would be allowed to outsource flying to the lowest bidder so long as they use their own aircraft.


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?


No.


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?


Wholly owned status is not relevant to the RJDC litigation.


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?


No, there can be no size limitations


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?


There can be no limitations placed on the outsourcing of the DL code, so long as it is outsourced to another ALPA pilot group, such as Mesa.

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 doesn’t prevent whipsawing.


8. Is there any claim for relief in the RJDC lawsuit which would compel a single list or PWA? If so, which one?


There is nothing in the RJDC litigation that would compel a single list or PWA.

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ2 :

I sincerely hope someone is paying you for your crusade. I do not understand how anyone could be on the apartied side of a "union."

When we get to our next airline, after Delta, I hope you can this crap and understand that perfect scope is when all flying is done by an airline is performed by pilots on the list. No subcontracting.

I also hope you understand that pilots at airlines like ASA and Comair are not naked aboriginies who sacrifice employment rights on the altar of the scope God, praying for codeshare. We are also not a sub-human group of employees who do not deserve representation, and we are not slaves to work the fields, bringing in the harvest for the Masters of the house.

Our representational struggle is not unlike any representational struggle in history. Also note that in recorded history, the oppressed have always won against their opressors. It may take 500 years, or another 10 years in the case of the RJDC lawsuit, but how long it takes really does not matter. What does matter is what is "right." ALPA itself is on a path towards destruction because it has completely lost its founding principle of unity.

Most of the airlines that will be here in 10 years are not ALPA. I very seriously doubt they will vote to become ALPA. Could you blame them?

Oh, and since this thread is about another of ALPA's failures, to stay on topic - whipsaw $ucks.

~~~^~~~

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2 :


Oh, and since this thread is about another of ALPA's failures, to stay on topic - whipsaw $ucks.

~~~^~~~

Fins, when asked how the RJDC litigation would prevent whipsaw, this is the answer I got.

It would not prevent whipsawing and that is not the purpose of the litigation.

So don't muddy the issue. Do not pretend to interject an anti-whipsaw agenda into anything related to the RJDC. The RJDC agenda, as demonstrated in their lawsuit, is to increase the whipsaw. Do not pretend for one second, that an RJDC victory would do anything other then increase whipsawing. That's what it is all ultimately all about.

Fins, did you notice how different your answers were from those of Surplus on nearly all the questions.