Northwest pilots offer to fly small jets, for smaller paychecks

[DoinTime]

JohnDoe - I'd be interested in seeing proof where 44/50 seaters have replaced so many DC9s. Most new CRJs have gone to upgage saab flying, downgage avros, enter new markets and add frequency.

The best example of how RJ's have been replacing mainline equipment is in cities like LIT, GSO, TYS, ect. What looks like new service on the surface like twice daily MSP-GSO (a route previously not flown) is actually a means of distributing traffic throughout the hubs. When you put 100 more seats a day on MSP-GSO you decrease the demand for traffic going to both DTW and MEM. This necessitates downgrading equipment from mainline to RJ's in those markets as well.

Allowing 44-seaters to bypass hubs is a blessing to Northwest. It allows them to flood a market that is being served by a competitor with minimal costs. NW would never aggressively go after IND if they had to do it with mainline equipment. They tried that in MKE and lost their a$$ with load factors in the 20% range on some routes. Now you see RJ's everywhere in MKE.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 3 (Another long one for the General)

Surplus1,

While much of what you say may be true I have to disagree with several of your opinions.

That's fine. If you noticed, at the end of my last post I said that I was not asking anyone to agree with me. What I was asking is that you think about this. You are doing that, which means we can have a discussion of the issues.

I believe that we have the problems that we do because there has been no serious discussion and therefore little understanding of the real issues. Normally what we do is "take sides" and square off against each other. That locked in mind-set, regardless of which side it comes from does not lead to understanding. In turn, if there is no understanding there can be no meeting of minds and no solutions.

In my opinion, this is the dream problem for what is known as "Interest Based Bargaining". For those that aren't familiar with what that is, you might want to do a little reading on the subject.

Personally, I have no interest in "choosing sides" with respect to this "NW70" proposal. It is merely a vehicle that I can use in an attempt to promote dialogue. I do not see this "NW70" proposal as the culprit or the cause of the union's problems. It is merely an exacerbation of them; more of the same old song and dance. I'm not against NW pilots nor am I for MSA/PCL pilots. What I want is a solution to the problems that threaten all of us. No faction is more important to me than the other.

In the last diatribe, I asked several questions. In the various rebuttals so far, I can't help but notice that no one, on either side of the issues, has made any attempt to respond to the questions. Instead we just dig in with preconceived ideas and critiques of how long the post was. (This one is even longer).

As the General says, I'm "not getting my point across". Well, why is that? Based on his posts and others like it the answer is pretty simple. His mind is made up and there is just no way that he is going to allow his opinions to be changed by the facts, regardless of the source. That attitude is precisely why our union has these conflicts and is unable to resolve them. The people in power have no desire to find solutions. They are determined to pursue their prejudiced opinions, regardless of any facts or realities. I do not think that is an intelligent approach.

Instead of focusing on who is right or who is wrong we need to focus on what can be done to resolve the problem. We have been attacking the results (treating the symptoms) and ignoring the cause. That is not effect methodology.

Most of the posts I have seen on here has been about how the MSA and PCL pilots may be screwed by this deal and it is not right.

That has not been my intent so if that's what you got from my posts (I can't speak for others) then I have failed to communicate. So, I'm trying again.

Well, I'm sorry but take a look at it from the NWA pilots view. These aircraft are a DIRECT replacement for the short -9 fleet and that will cause several hundred downgrades or job losses if the 70 seaters were given away.

I do want to consider the perspective of the NW pilots, which cannot be ignored if we really want to solve the problem. However, I don't agree that your fears will come to pass. Try a different approach. Let's suppose that these RJ's did not exist. Would the DC9-10 gain perpetual life as a result? The answer is no, eventually it would be phased out. If the "regionals" did not exist, what would the NW pilots do then? Answer: they would transition to the larger aircraft that replace the DC-9 or, if there was not enough work for all some would be furloughed (as now).

How do we go about guaranteeing that these new RJs do not replace the DC9-10 and cost the NW pilots jobs? That's one of the problems that we need to solve. Moving the DC9-10 pilots to the RJ70 and a contract-within-a-contract (NW70) may shift jobs but it will not recover or retain jobs. Those shifted jobs will be at substantially lower compensation, benefits and work rules. That is the equivalent of asking these NW pilots to go and work for Mesaba, except for the fact they retain a NW "number". Is that really the best solution? I don't think it is. That won't solve the problem it will actually increase the problem.

Would it not be better to find a contractual solution that does not permit any loss of flying or reduction in force and also maintains the normal life style that NW pilots have become accustomed to? For example, what if instead of a scope clause that says the Company can't subcontract any 70-seaters, we were to say that the company cannot reduce its block hours or furlough any pilot as a result of any subcontracting?

I certainly don't have all the answers. Perhaps I don't have any answers at all. However, there are about 60 thousand pilots in the ALPA. Surely from among them somebody has the smarts to put their heads together and find a solution that is equitable for all. ALPA will argue that it has done so with the BSIC. I will argue that the BSIC is ALPA's second failed attempt and solving this problem with an ineffective committee with little more than the authority to wipe its nose.

Why doesn't that happen? Well, I have an opinion on that too. It doesn't happen because no one is really trying to find an answer. Instead we just square off against each other and proclaim "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too." "See me, I'm king of the hill" Unfortunately, that doesn't work for anyone.

The 50 seaters and Avros have already been used to keep NWA pilots on the street and used as leverage in negotiations, but I don't hear any noise about that.

With that I can't agree. Perhaps they have been used as leverage in negotiations but that is a by-product of your own (NW pilot's) behavior. I don't think the Avros or the 50-seaters have cost the NW pilots even one job. On the contrary I think the evidence would support the reality that many more NW pilots would be "on the street" if it were not for the passengers that these airplanes bring to the mainline. Additionally, NWA would have no presence in many markets thus further reducing its revenue stream and causing even greater job loss.

If at some point in time NW had been operating these small aircraft types (I don't mean 30 years ago) and they were then transferred to Mesaba or Pinnacle, what you say would be true. That did not happen. If NW pilots had an interest in this type of flying, you would never have permitted it to be subcontracted in the first instance. When that was allowed, way back when, you lost nothing, you simply agreed that it was OK for someone else to do what you did not want to do yourselves. Now you remind me of people that want the Mexican fruit pickers to go back to Mexico while at the same time they refuse to pick fruit. The whole idea that you have lost jobs to the feeders is a fabrication and it doesn't hold water.

Maybe you never should have given control of that work to the Company, but you did, and you did so voluntarily. Now that you are losing jobs for totally unrelated reasons, you want this work back. Unfortunately for you, other workers who were not above doing it are now doing that work. It now belongs to them and you can't have it back without putting them "on the street". That may be fine for you but is not an acceptable solution for them.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 3

The union is doing what it has to do to protect those jobs. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. Yes, the union has the responsibility to protect your jobs. What you seem to ignore is the fact that the very same union has an identical responsibility to protect the jobs of the MSA and PCL pilots. If the union takes your jobs and gives them to MSA and PCL that is dereliction of duty; agreed. If the union takes the MSA and PCL jobs and gives them to you that is an equal dereliction of duty. Will you agree to that?

That is the Catch 22. We have but one union. It cannot legally favor your interests at the expense of its other members interests. It also cannot favor their interests at your expense. That is exactly the position in which our union (ALPA) has placed itself.

When an irresistible force meets and imovable object what is the outcome? What you seem to advocate is that the union should do everything in its power to protect you and if in the process it has to shaft the others, then so be it. That sir is robbing Peter (MSA/PCL) to pay Paul (NWA). "A government [union] which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw

I agree that if the tables were reversed the MSA or PCL pilots would probably do exactly what you say they would; i.e., not worry about what happens to NW pilots. Why is it so difficult for you to see that you are doing the very same thing? How do two wrongs suddenly make one right?

We will never solve this dilemma if we maintain those attitudes, and if we do not solve the problem it will ultimately destroy the union. It is long past time for us to put our heads together and develop a solution that can satisfy both sides of the argument.

Regardless, the Avros have a shelf life, NW70 or no those jobs are going to go away and be replaced by 50 seaters. Replaced at MSA or PCL, who knows?

The prospect almost seems to please you. Why? And why do they have to be replaced by 50-seaters, because your "scope clause" says so? Why can't an aircraft of the same size replace them? If they are replaced by a 50-seater or not replaced at all, will it not result in a loss of pay and benefits for those pilots? Why should they be required to lose pay because of your scope clause? That is an unreasonable imposition as well as a dereliction of duty on the part of ALPA. "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" although I have little doubt you will not see it that way.

I am not going to touch the CMR and U agreements because they are materially different.

Yes, the agreements are different, but the underlying cause of the problems is the same. Groups of pilots are being negatively affected by other groups of pilots and the union that we all belong to is the force behind it all. That union's policy of preferential treatment for certain groups and discrimination against others is the root of the problem. Policies don't just happen they are put in place by men. When the men in charge have the attitude that the group from which they come has the right to do as it pleases without regard for others, then we get what we now have; a house divided against itself.

However, in the case of the Airlinks they are, like it or not, contractors. Those contractors have no say so what the company may offer to them and the contractor's union are crazy if they think they can legally force the employing company to outsource work that is not being offered, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON.

Guess what, I agree with you. However, I do not think there is any evidence to indicate that the bargaining units (union) at either Mesaba or PCL have made any attempt to force NW to outsource more work.

In the situation at CMR, which I admit is different, the CMR pilots' union is also not trying to force Delta to outsource more work. It is trying to prevent the Delta pilots' and our union from changing the amount of outsourced work retroactively. In other words we are not saying "you must outsource more", we are saying "you can't take back what you have already outsourced after the fact unless we agree to it." You (Delta pilots) agreed to outsource all flying in 70-seats and below without limitation. We started doing it. Now you want to come back and say that we can't do that any more because you changed your mind. Sorry, it's too late and no, you can't do that. What's more it is against the law for the union to do so. Remember, there is no union named DALPA. Our union is the Air Line Pilots Association, International.

In other words, the NWA pilots have an agreement with NWA as to what work may be outsourced. The contractor has no say so outside of the contract they sign to demand any more work.

OK, I agree with that too. But, the subcontractor has not demanded anything. It is the NW pilots that seek to change the agreement in a way that would eliminate the 36 Avros, after the fact. ALPA can't do that, legally. If you don't want to outsource the other 36 aircraft that the company would like you to that's fine, but you can't take back the 36 that are already there. So, if the company changes the aircraft type from Avro to CR7, 36 should go to MSA and you (NW) can do what you want with the rest. In other words, NW pilots need to keep the agreement they made and stop trying to change it to something that favors them more at the expense of the MSA pilots. Just as you don't want them to do that to you, you should not think that you could do it to them.

So your line or reasoning is off base in that the NWA pilots have no obligation to take care of the Airlinks. In fact, in theory, they can renegotiate the scope clause and reclaim all of the outsourced work and the Airlinks would cease to exist at the end of their contract or by use of an escape clause.

Well it looks like my line of reasoning may not be as "off base" as you claim. I agree completely that the NW pilots have no obligation to take care of the Airlinks. However, when you tell me that you feel you can reclaim all the outsourced work and cause them to cease to exist, I say, you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem.

The NW pilots may be able to do that but what you obviously fail to understand or acknowledge, I'm not sure which, is that NW pilots belong to ALPA and so do MSA and PCL pilots. ALPA is the bargaining agent, not the NW pilots. The NW pilots can't make any agreement with NWA unless that agreement is approved and signed by the ALPA President. Like it or not, you are NOT independent and you are not autonomous. If the ALPA allows you to make an agreement that puts MSA and PCL out of business causing its own members to lose their jobs, ALPA is liable for violating its Duty of Fair Representation to the MSA and PCL pilots and it is ALPA that will be sued out of existence.

If you all (NW pilots) want to leave the ALPA you are free to do so, but as long as you are there ALPA does not have the legal right to enter into any agreement on your behalf that harms its own members. That's just the way it is.

I am very much aware that "mainline" pilots don't see it that way. You all have the attitude that you run the show and can do whatever you want, but you're also very quick to say that others can't feed you some of your own medicine. You yourself just demonstrated that above when you told me that the MSA/PCL pilots had no right to demand more outsourced work, but you have the right to negotiate them out of business.

I'll make a blunt statement: If you folks (mainline pilots) do not change that attitude this union will come to an end. Your ancestors at NWA were among the founders of this union. You are free to secede if you wish but that seems unwise. If and when you make that decision you won't just lose some of the rights you now erroneously think you have, you will lose them all. You will open a Pandora's Box the likes of which you can't even imagine. You will trigger a bidding war, not for 70-seaters but for ALL of your flying. To keep it, you will have to become the "lowest bidder" or your own Company will sell your work to anyone that will do it for less. If you think $400 millions is too large a concession try that and I guarantee you it will look like a drop in the bucket.

I don't want that to happen and I sincerely hope that we can come to our senses and avoid it. That won't come to pass as long as we believe that we can step on each other with impunity.

Airline managers don't care who flys the airplanes, they only care how much it costs them to pay for flight crews. When there are flight crews that will do for $100 dollars what they now have to pay you $279 to do, you will either accept lower wages or you will lose the jobs. It is that simple. Yes, you have a "contract", but when the time comes you will not be able to get a renewed agreement unless you make drastic concessions. You can strike if you want to, and you can also be replaced.

If you are going to "bid" for my work by offering to do it for 1/2 or 3/4 of what I am paid, I will have to match and better your bid to keep my job. When it comes down to survival, that will happen.

The onus of being called a "scab" will not protect you. ALPA already has in its at least a thousand of scabs that did just that. They replaced striking pilots at CAL. It will happen again and it will be much worse this time.

We can avoid this civil war and the chaos that will come to all by making reasonable judgements and prudent agreements with each other that protect us all.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 3 of 3 (Aren't you glad its over)

My point is that while the negotiations at NWA will affect the Airlinks they have no claim to any of the flying that they do other than the fact they are paid a contract rate to do X amount of flying. NWA tells them when, where, and what to do, but ultimately it belongs to NWA mainline.

You are absolutely correct, except for one thing that you miss completely. Your entire point is based on the idea that YOU (the NW pilots) are NWA mainline. I hate to burst your bubble but you are not. The work or the flying does not belong to the NW pilots and it does not belong to the Airlink pilots. ALL of it belongs to the Company, Northwest Airlines.

That's the mistake that all mainline pilots make. In fact, I don't think it's a mistake at all for you know the same thing that I know. It's a deliberate and orchestrated effort by the union to convince regional pilots that you really do "own" the flying and you're doing them a favor by letting them have the scraps that you don't want. It's all a giant scam that a lot of "babes in the woods" have bought into.

The fact is you don't own squat, you simply have a contractual right to do some of the Company's flying. Well guess what, so do we. You are "contractors" and we are "contractors" and in reality we are both contracting with the same Company. As you pointed out earlier NWA controls everything that its contractors, meaning MSA/PCL, do. You were right about that, you just haven't figured out that you are one of those contractors. The only difference is the corporate shell games, the main purpose of which is management's desire to humor you.

The Company has an obligation to bargain with you because you are represented by a labor union. But, the Company has no obligation to agree with you. If you can't come to an agreement you may withdraw your services or they may lock you out and hire replacements. The rules for you are no different than the rules for us and, on top of that, we are represented by the same union.

When things get tough and you strike they don't replace you only because it's a big hassle and it's very expensive. Replacements are not readily available because the Union binds us together and we don't cross each other's picket lines. Times have changed and we now live in a world where there are thousands of unemployed and readily available replacements, equally qualified. If the union implodes you will also destroy that bond and things will degrade to a free-for-all. "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."

None of this will happen overnight, but we are at the beginning of what could lead to a civil war. I'm not advocating it but I am predicting it. I would like us to heed the warnings, on both sides, and take action that stops this trend and prevents the destruction of what has been a great union for all of us. That action must eliminate the conflicts of interest that are prevalent now and increasing almost daily.

You'll notice that I do not subscribe to the 'Family' concept because it simply isn't a family. Just a company utilizing contracted services for supplemental lift.

Welcome to my club. I don't subscribe to the "family" concept either. There is no such thing. That whole idea is a part of the scam and so, by the way, is the latest version of it called "brand scope".

As long as we have separate seniority lists the only common bond is membership in the same labor union. If that common membership is destroyed, regardless of the reason, there will be no bond at all and we will be competing openly for the same work.

To prevent that from happening we do need a dividing line that determines how the work will be allocated. We have a conflict because one of the two parties believes that it has the sole, I presume God-given, right to draw that line wherever it wants too, and that it may redraw the line at any time how an where it chooses. That is the error. If the line of demarcation is to be honored it must be fixed by mutual agreement of both parties. Thereafter, it can only be changed with the consent of both parties. I can't think of any other feasible way to end the disputes, short of a single "list", which just isn't going to hppen. If you or anyone else can my ears are wide open. All I know is that the concept of "my way or the highway" just doesn't work.

It is much like a merger. When a merger occurs we must both decide how the seniority list will be integrated. That requires negotiations and a mutual agreement. When the negotiations don't produce agreement we have an agreed method of resolving the dispute; arbitration. It is not a perfect system and folks do get hurt sometimes but it is a lot better than no system at all. In the absence of that system, we can always revert to the infamous Allegheny/Mohawk protocol, which was a government-imposed system for protecting the interests of competing labor groups.

The bottom line of all this comes right back to the union. As you said, the failure of the union to protect the interests of the NW pilots would be a dereliction of duty, I agree with that. You must recognize that a failure of the union to protect the interests of the MSA and PCL pilots is the very same dereliction of duty. "Dam_ed if you do, dam_ed if you don't." This is the dichotomy that we must resolve.

ALPA has done nothing to limit the regionals' rights to fly aircraft, their companies have chosen not to fly those aircraft because they could not profitably do so within their agreements they made to get the contract flying. So don't blame ALPA, if you want larger aircraft look at your own company. (i.e. I-Air)

I wish I could share that perspective but I don't. Broaden your own scope just a little and you may be able to see what ALPA has actually done. I would gladly look to my own company for more aircraft or larger aircraft if I were free to do so. I can't because ALPA has not only permitted but actively supports and helps a foreign pilot group to write a scope clause than prohibits me from doing so. The purpose of Scope is to protect the work that you have, not to take or limit the work of others. That is a perversion of Scope.

For years almost every mainline carrier has resorted, with the full support of ALPA, to assorted perversions of the Scope clause. Not only that, they continue to attempt to "tighten" that scope clause in an effort to reduce or remove the work that we already do or force its transfer to the other group. By the way, the proposed "NW70" in its current format would do just that, i.e., force the transfer of the 36 Avros from MSA to NW pilots. Let's not ignore the fact that the 36 Avros are included in the "NW70" proposal for 72-jets. Yes, ALPA is to blame. ALPA is the exclusive bargaining agent and bares full responsibility for all contracts negotiated in its name and signed by its President. Hiding behind the myth of MEC autonomy just won't fly.

In my airline's situation, I can't ask my company to sever its relationship like I-Air did, because my company is a wholly owned subsidiary of another company. When my company was not a wholly owned subsidiary, it was free to do as you suggest, but that is no longer the case. ALPA didn't make my company a subsidiary and I don't blame ALPA for that. However, ALPA did help by refusing to support a merger. I blame ALPA for creating a scope clause, at another airline, that imposes limitations on my work that did not previously exist, and for doing so without my consent.

My pilot group doesn't want anybody's 737's or DC9's or anything else they have and is not trying to take them. On the other hand the pilot group with which we are "affiliated" has, with the full support of the ALPA, consistently attempted to take our 70-seaterss, limit our 70-seaters, limit our 50-seaters, and restrict our operation.

What we also don't want and will not accept is a series of unilaterally imposed, arbitrary and patently unnecessary restrictions on the work that we do, which impede our growth and cost us millions in lost compensation and benefits. These restrictions are not sought by my company and are not wanted by its parent company, they are imposed by ALPA on behalf of a different pilot group. I pay dues to have the union represent my interests. I don't expect those interests to be "sold" to another pilot group.

It is indeed a dereliction of duty on the part of ALPA, and it is also against the law. I post because I do not want to see the dereliction continue. It is time for the ALPA to change, an the time is now.

The End (at last)

 

[Apollo]

Well said. Hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!!

 

[Caveman]

Surplus,

Outstanding post! I don't normally sit on the sidelines and let someone else do all the grunt work, but you are way out of my league on this topic. Let me know where to show up and I'll at least carry the briefcase for you.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

Outstanding post! I don't normally sit on the sidelines and let someone else do all the grunt work, but you are way out of my league on this topic. Let me know where to show up and I'll at least carry the briefcase for you.

Thank you for the very kind words. I don't write because I like to read my own rhetoric. I sincerely believe we have a very serious problem in our union and I would like to see it amicably and fairly resolved. However, I will not sacrifice the future of Comair pilots on the altar of ALPA hegemony. When the chips are really down, I know who my brothers truly are, all 1788 .... minus about 5, plus a few that retired.

Now about that briefcase ..... next time I see ya, I'll take you up on the offer.

Fly safe and
Semper Fi
Surplus1

 

[FDJ2]

Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. Yes, the union has the responsibility to protect your jobs. What you seem to ignore is the fact that the very same union has an identical responsibility to protect the jobs of the MSA and PCL pilots. If the union takes your jobs and gives them to MSA and PCL that is dereliction of duty; agreed. If the union takes the MSA and PCL jobs and gives them to you that is an equal dereliction of duty. Will you agree to that?

That is the Catch 22. We have but one union. It cannot legally favor your interests at the expense of its other members interests. It also cannot favor their interests at your expense. That is exactly the position in which our union (ALPA) has placed itself.

A union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions "can fairly be characterized as so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness' . . . that [they are] wholly 'arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.'" O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (quotation omitted). Judicial review of union action, however, "'must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that [unions] need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.'" Gvozdenovic v. United Air Lines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100, 1106 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67).



"[A] union's actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness,' . . . as to be irrational." O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (quoting Ford Motor Co., 345 U.S. at 338). A union's reasoned decision to support the interests of one group of employees over the competing interests of another group does not constitute arbitrary conduct. See, e.g., Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 892 F.2d 216, 221 (2d Cir. 1989); Jones v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 495 F.2d 790, 798 (2d Cir. 1974).

 

[jarhead]

A union's reasoned decision to support the interests of one group of employees over the competing interests of another group does not constitute arbitrary conduct. See, e.g., Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 892 F.2d 216, 221 (2d Cir. 1989); Jones v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 495 F.2d 790, 798 (2d Cir. 1974).[/color][/size][/QUOTE]​

​

[/FONT]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


There is the saying, “you can please most of the people most of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time”.

Indeed, there are times when the union simply cannot please all of the groups. When this happens, it may have no choice but to support the interests of one group over the interests of another. But when the union does have a choice, it may not support the interests of one group at the expense of another.

Here are 2 examples: In the first example we'll see a man favor his eldest son over his youngest. The second example shows the same man favoring his eldest son at the expense of his youngest.

Let’s assume that it is December 23'rd and a last-second Christmas sale exists at a local bicycle shop.

Example 1:

A father, desperate to locate Christmas gifts for his two boys, wanders into the bike shop and buys the only two bikes remaining in the store. They are the same exact bike, only the colors are different. He is a poor man, yet elects to spend the rest of his savings on these last two bikes - despite the no return policy associated with them.

On Christmas morning the two bikes shined like gems while parked next to the tree. But, much to the man’s chagrin, both boys ran towards the red bike. At this moment, the father knew that he had to decide which of his two boys would receive the red bike (supporting the interest of that son over the other) and who would receive the blue bike.

The father decided to let the older boy have the red bike.

Example 2:

During the following months the youngest boy spent his days earning money so that he could fix up his blue bike. He added a bell, and even a light to it. The older boy did not take care of his red bike but he used it constantly. One day he took it to the pool, forgot to lock it up, and it was stolen.

When the older boy came home he ran to his father to ask if he could have another new bike, but his father did not have the money to do that. He then saw his younger brother’s blue bike. It still shined like a gem. He wanted it badly. The boy then asked if he could take his brothers bike for himself. His father suggested that they share the bike but the older boy stated he’d like to take the bike to the pool everyday so sharing was out of the question.

The father really wanted to please his oldest boy, so he took the blue bike from the younger boy and gave it to him.

 

[surplus1]

FDJ2,

In classic form your focus has returned to proving who is right without regard to what is right. You want to "win" and you don't care how you do it.

It is sad that you and those who think like you are obviously disinterested in finding any solutions to the problems we face. All that you want to do is "get your way". I'm not even sure that you realize that a problem exists, let alone how serious it may become.

ALPA's thinking appears to match your thinking rather well. You are prefect players on the stage of the "Ostrich Effect" -- bury your heads in the sand and then wonder as to why you cannot see the world around you. You have become part and parcel of the problem, rather than the solution.

I can only hope that your attitudes will not be the one's that prevail. If they do, there will undoubtedly be weeping and nashing of teeth; primarily yours. You don't get that either.

You are correct in the sense that ALPA and other unions have won most DFR litigation and perhaps ALPA will win again. If it does, the problems won't go way, they'll just get bigger. Soon after you proclaim "victory" you will come to the recognition of reality. You will have won the battle and lost the war. Your "thrill of victory" will undoubtedly be short lived as you begin the new bidding war, and the stakes will be your own jobs.

When it's over you may once again declare yourselves the victor but what is left will be the ashes of what you have today and not worth having.

I don't find that prospect entertaining and when it happens, you won't either.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"It is sad that you and those who think like you are obviously disinterested in finding any solutions to the problems we face. "


The way I see it, there is NO solution to this current problem.

As long as you have separate employee groups, with separate and vastly different contracts, being represented by the same union, and both trying to obtain the same jobs, it will never work.

And the cry of "one list" to fix this is a dream. No airline management in this country is ever going to allow one list between mainline and regional. They stand to lose too much. And no employee group out there has the negotiating leverage to demand one list.

This is no different than any other situation in this country. There is always going to be a winner and loser. No way around it.

If the rjdc wins, that means Dalpa lost. Does that mean they can then turn around and sue alpa themselves because they are now losing jobs to you, an alpa carrier??

 

[surplus1]

quote:

The way I see it, there is NO solution to this current problem.

There will always be those of us who see the glass as half empty and others who see it as half full.

I not only think there is a solution, I think there are several viable options. However, we can't ever find solutions if we don't first acknowledge problems.
Additionally, recognizing the existence of a problem is not enough, we must also want to solve it.

Attempts have been made to solve the problem already; unfortunately none of them have worked. One such attempt is the ever changing scope clause, which morphed from a legitimate vehicle designed to protect work, to a illegitimate vehicle designed to prevent work by others, prevent the operation of certain aircraft types and transfer work from one group to another. That has failed miserably.

From there we went (at the same time) to promoting "flow-throughs" as the panacea that would solve everything. It didn't, mainly because we invented a need to negotiate with each other, when we really needed to negotiate with the Company. Additionally, we created grossly unbalanced systems in favor of one group, and we arbitrarily decided to use this vehicle as furlough protection. Might over right on the part of the kings and naivete on the part of the dogs caused this idea to fail too.

Then we went to "Jets for Jobs", yet another scheme designed not to resolve problems but to favor some of us over others of us. An attempt to legitimize the theft of seniority and impose dictatorial policy by outright coercion and subterfuge. Some think it is working but in fact it is not. What could have been turned into an equitable solution has been made into little more than a revelation of treachery on the part of our National Union. A black mark on its very soul.

Now we're talking about "brand scope", yet another means of attempting to obscure the problem by giving one group of the favored control of the other group of the less favored. Doomed to failure for the same reasons, i.e., it's not really a solution, it's an attempt at maintaining the status quo. Keep the problem alive as long as I come out on top. A perfect example of the famous quotation "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." - G. B. Shaw.

Have any of us ever genuinely chosen to sit down with each other and even try to work out a viable solution? NO, not on your life. Until we do, none will be found.

There are solutions out there, some better than others but solutions nonetheless. The powers that be are so drunk with their perceived power and the desire to keep it that they don't want a real solution. So, instead of talking with each other we talk to each other. Much is said but little is heard and even less is listened to.

We will not find the solutions in that way, even if they are handed to us on a silver platter. Truth is half of us want a solution (the under dogs) but the other half does not (the kings of the hill). Meanwhile the situation continues to deteriorate and the kings don't realize that their kingdoms are crumbling. By the time they no longer have kingdoms to rule over it will be too late for solutions, and the biggest losers will not be the dogs, it will be the kings.

As long as you have separate employee groups, with separate and vastly different contracts, being represented by the same union, and both trying to obtain the same jobs, it will never work.

I do not agree. You are taking the position that the problem is beyond resolution, just as you did above. As long as you believe that, you are probably correct. "It takes two to tango." The fact that we have separate employee groups and separate contracts is an obstacle, but it is one that can be overcome. We have to want to do that; at present, one of the parties does not. That is why we can't get over this obstacle. "Where there's a will there's a way."

When we agree to sit down with each other as equals and chose the best option from among available remedies, we will find the solution best applicable to each of the related groups. The soulution may not be the same in every affiliated group, for one size does not fit all, but each of the affiliated groups can find an equitable balance, if they want to. Right now the kings do not want to, they are more interested in being kings. Keep that up and they will eventually be kings without kingdoms. "I have seen the emperor without his clothes."

And the cry of "one list" to fix this is a dream. No airline management in this country is ever going to allow one list between mainline and regional. They stand to lose too much. And no employee group out there has the negotiating leverage to demand one list.

I agree with you on that. Even if the kings and the dogs in fact wanted "one list", which no king does, the third party is the real Emperor and will not agree. We waste time pursueing this option, it is not viable.

This is no different than any other situation in this country. There is always going to be a winner and loser. No way around it.

We disagree again. You're the pessimist, I'm the optimist. There does not have to be a winner and a loser in this situation. The win/win solutions are out there, but they all require compromise on both sides. As long as the kings remain uncompromising, nothing will happen and the day of reckoning I predict will come to pass.

If the rjdc wins, that means Dalpa lost. Does that mean they can then turn around and sue alpa themselves because they are now losing jobs to you, an alpa carrier??

This should not be about the RJDC "winning" and the ALPA losing, nor vice versa. As for Dalpa, that is not an entity of import. In fact it is not an entity at all. The problem extends far beyond them. The problem that we need to solve affects all "mainline" and all "regional" groups. It is not limited to the DAL/ASA/CMR groups. This is a problem within the ALPA as a whole. Delta pilots are but one of the many players as are ASA and Comair. Neither the universe nor the union revolves around those three airlines, only one of which thinks that it does.

This is an ALPA-wide problem and it needs an ALPA-wide solution. Solving it at Delta and keeping it going at NWA, AAA, UAL and CAL, is not the answer. There are already lawsuits related to AAA with more to come. If the subject of this thread is realized, there will be more related to NWA, etc.

If the RJDC "wins" it won't win against Dalpa, it will win against the ALPA, Int'l. and everyone will be affected. This should not have to come to that. In my opinion we do not need a "victory". What we need is an equitable settlement of the issues that divide us, variations of which can be applied to all carriers.

I'm a dreamer, but I'm also a pragmatist. 'The meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, the function of thought is to guide action, and truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief.' -- C.S. Pierce & William James

 

[JohnDoe]

Ok.......so what exactly are some of these "viable options," as you say, to the problem??

I'll admit I may be missing the explanations of them (especially if they are hidden in 40 paragraph responses lol), but so far it seems the only thing I have seen are all the cries of "there is a problem and we don't like it, you are hurting our growth, the union is screwing us, so we have to sue."

And please don't get into what the problems are. It should be evident from my post that I agree there are problems. I am looking for the "proposed solutions" that you say are viable.

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2,

In classic form your focus has returned to proving who is right without regard to what is right.

No Surplus, I was just once again pointing out how wrong your assertions are. I made no comment, I just quoted the legal standards you either are unaware of, or choose to ignore.

 

[InclusiveScope]

FDJ2,

In classic form your focus has returned to proving who is right without regard to what is right.

No Surplus, I was just once again pointing out how wrong your assertions are. I made no comment, I just quoted the legal standards you either are unaware of, or choose to ignore.

FDJ2, you quoted legal standards. Surplus said that whether or not ALPA wins based on those legal standards, there will still be a problem within ALPA. Surplus is correct. There are almost 4000 ASA and CMR pilots. Regardless of how the litigation goes, don't expect us to be subservient to you. If we combine with Eagle, ALG/PDT/PSA, XJT, TSA, ARW, INDYAIR, Mesa, Mesaba, and PCL you are looking at an alliance of almost 20,000 ALPA pilots that could cause problems within ALPA if you continue with the current direction. The litigation will go forward it appears. Even if ALPA wins this round, don't expect the problem to disappear.