New Representation at "Regionals"

[DrunkIrishman]

Change for change sake, is that it? Exactly how would "RALPA" improve your situation?

Huh? I do not advocate change just to change. I think you misunderstood me. As for the second question - it would benefit the regionals by getting everyone on the same page. Bargaining together would allow us to secure your flying without undercutting ourselves. I say your flying because that is who it belongs to.
Of course, the only reason I support this is because there is no support from the "legacy" pilot groups to merge. This seems like the next best solution to me. Do you disagree.

 

[DrunkIrishman]

just my angle on the situation. i wish all the planes were at the major carrier and we could stop the endless efforts of undercutting one another. i'd be perfectly happy flying a turboprop while on a major's seniority list...knowing that i have a ladder to climb and equipment-commensurate payscale to go with it.

Most of the world does it this way...why can't we? Wait, I'll answer...ego.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You have bought off on management's plan -

ALPA certainly could negotiate "brand scope," or work towards "one list," across the lines of alter ego carriers. But ALPA lacks the leadership and political will to get it done..

Wait....... you are ALPA. You lack the leadership. Let's not buy into managments blame game....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Bad scope = Some Delta flying done by Delta pilots, excepting some flying, excluding other flying, with exceptions to the exclusions subject to arbitrary limits and management's whims.... blah blah blah for another 500 words which allow management to outsource while preventing anyone else from bargaining collectively to improve the profession.

Sounds like a much bigger problem than just a RJDC/ALPA issue. In order to address the RJDC issues with ALPA ...alot more things have to be fixed.... that are outside of ALPA and thier control....

You have a valid concern but your methodology is lacking...

 

[atrdriver]

You have bought off on management's plan - take flying protected by scope and outsource it to the lowest bidder.

ALPA certainly could negotiate "brand scope," or work towards "one list," across the lines of alter ego carriers. But ALPA lacks the leadership and political will to get it done.

Unfortunately ALPA and the management of major carriers have entered into an agreement where "bargaining credits" are traded for outsourcing of flying.

ATR Driver, you tell us to "move on." I ask, to what? US Air, Delta, and Northwest have put their 737 / DC9 replacement E - jets, & CRJ 7/9 at "Regional" carriers. The future will be in this seat range and ALPA's precedent is to sub that flying out. This gauge of aircraft is where the majority of flying always has been and where all the growth will be in the future.

So it is yours, and ALPA's position, that no one owns any flying outside of a major carrier. Therefore those pilots should not expect representation, or employment rights. I, and many other pilots, strongly disagree with your position.

Fins, I have not bought off on anything. I would have liked nothing more than to have us stapled on to the bottom of the DAL list when we were bought. Had we gone to DALPA with a prenup proposing that, they might just have gone along with it. But we didn't. We had Captains telling DAL FOs on our jumpseats that when the lists were merged they (the Captains) would be senior to the FOs. Had we been merged then your definition of "good scope" would be great, all DAL flying done by DAL pilots. But we weren't, and the simple fact is that DAL owns DAL scope. They have allowed their pilots to control come of it through their PWA. Realistically, that is good for us, because if they didn't allow others to fly some of it neither you or I would have a job right now...at least not the job that we have.

I believe that it is criminal what airline management is doing to labor. And I hope that some pilot or FA group can shut down their airline to make the point that enough is enough. But as long as we let them get away with what they are doing, it isn't going to change.

 

[FDJ2]

Good scope includes those who participate in the flying.

And how would an RJDC victory accomplish this? Is it consistent with the RJDC relief section to exclude any pilot groups from being able to "participate in the flying?"

You state that Good Scope "includes" those who "participate" in the flying, yet the RJDC makes no distinction between those who "participate" and those who don't, nor does the RJDC distinguish between those who are currently flying "x" routes and aircraft and those who don't.

It sounds like your definition of "good scope" is a free for all RFP. No thanks.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It sounds like your definition of "good scope" is a free for all RFP. No thanks.

Pssstttt... look around... that is what we have now. Free for all RFPs are all around us.....