Part 2 of 4
FDJ2 said:
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.
