RFP Announced at DCI

[~~~^~~~]

I really guess I don't know what the RJDC wants ULTIMATELY. Do they want the right to have bigger airplanes ultimately? If they do, that will be bad for airline pilots and their future salaries. Do they just want more bargaining power with the Majors? If they do--that will mean less future airplanes for mainline---which will mean more jobs at the regional level---which will mean lowering the AVERAGE pilot salary again. We should want MORE higher paying jobs.Bye Bye---General Lee

They want the process of our Nation's laws and the Constitution of our Union to be obeyed.

This means - one group does not use the union to harm another group.

This means - employees are enabled to negotiate with their employers over matters of their wages and working conditions

This means - if the Delta MEC wants to "control" flying it does not perform, the only way is to represent those pilots. Otherwise - hands off.

I believe that would effectively be the end of alter ego flying, because if the Delta MEC could no longer illegally control it, they would establish their control in the appropriate manner by merging the lists and obtaining all the flying and all the control by legitimate means.

And don't give me this crap about mainline keeping us from lowering pilot salaries. Mainline Captains pilots at US Air and United are making less than this five year Captain at ASA. When ALPA agreed to make $58 an hour the top rate at Mid Atlantic on the E170 you lost that arguement.

But so far your MEC's divide and conquer strategy continues to backfire. What is going to happen when we get one more vote? Would you want to live in a world where RJ pilots abuse mainline pilots like what we are expected to be grateful for now? I think in the long run, you need what the RJDC is promoting as much as we do.

~~~^~~~

 

[FDJ2]

At the end of the day all the RJDC wants is the elimination of scope and the ability to allow all carriers to be able to under bid each other for the flying. The RJDC relief section would even undermine CMR scope, since CMR scope places limits on other carriers flying the CMR code, the size of aircraft other carriers can use when flying CMR code and whether or not MESA pilots could wet or dry lease CMR aircraft while flying DL code. Supporting the RJDC is supporting a race to the bottom.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Why would the RJDC want the Elimination of Scope when they go to such great pains to explain why Scope is the glue that binds the Company to the contract as well as defining "good scope" which protects our jobs.

Do you still think the Delta scope was a winner for your pilots?

 

[sleepy]

Why would the RJDC want the Elimination of Scope when they go to such great pains to explain why Scope is the glue that binds the Company to the contract as well as defining "good scope" which protects our jobs.

Do you still think the Delta scope was a winner for your pilots?

Scope is scope. How is the RJDC going to win the argument that scope is bad and harms the careers of regional pilots, but at the same time ask for "brand scope" that helps the careers of some regional airline pilots (ASA and Comair), but still harms the careers of other regional airline pilots (Chitaco and Skyworst).

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Wake up Sleepy

"Brand Scope" is the contrived termed coined by ALPA national, not the RJDC. It's definition is still unclear although it seems to represent some hazy middle ground. The contradiction lies squarely on ALPA's shoulders.

 

[sleepy]

Re: Wake up Sleepy

"Brand Scope" is the contrived termed coined by ALPA national, not the RJDC. It's definition is still unclear although it seems to represent some hazy middle ground. The contradiction lies squarely on ALPA's shoulders.

No, I hear of lot of the RJDC types at work talking about brand scope. They seem to want it, but not bad scope.

 

[Sinca3]

Brand

Scope is scope. How is the RJDC going to win the argument that scope is bad and harms the careers of regional pilots, but at the same time ask for "brand scope" that helps the careers of some regional airline pilots (ASA and Comair), but still harms the careers of other regional airline pilots (Chitaco and Skyworst).

Sleepy I am diving into hot waters here. I think since I have been trolling the board for the past 5 years I can give an honest and plain answer to this question, and b/c I have never spoken on he subject here goes....
Brand scope would only allow DAL senority holders to fly DAL flying. What people want is JOB PROTECTION. How with the system that is currently in place do you do this? Brand scope seems to be the easiest and most logical way of doing it. I think the best example would be American and Eagle . Eagle does all of the small a/c flying for American both whom are owned by AMR Corp. Are they on the same senority list no not really but the basics are in place and that is a strating point. If ASA/Comair were to do all the small a/c flying for delta then there couldn't be as much if any whipsaw tactics used by mgmnt against us all. Why do you think it would be harmful to Chitaqua, ACA or Eagle for this to happen. They are all ALPA airlines but are not owned by DAL Inc. If you think it is harmful to these pilot groups then you are saying it is harmfu, to UNited and USAIR for DAL pilots to not allow them to fly there a/c and or routeswith the current scope. I mean they are ALPA pilots right? MAybe these are bad analogies but it makes since to me. I also fully understand where guys and gals like GL and FLD are upset that they are losing flying while another DAL subsidiary is growing. I also understand the argument that less mainline jobs means less "better" jobs in the future for everybody. I think they aren't grasping the whole pic sometimes but that's not for me to say or debate.
If an airline managment team had the ability to freely buy and fly any a/c sized they saw fit the comapny cold survive these downturns in the industry much easier. The pilots flying would too, because there might be reduction in MD 88 flying but there would be 2-3 more airframes to fill or replace this flying until the markets return to profitability. We all can agree that RJ's aren't very economical in good market conditions, so when a market improves magmnt could go right back to serving it with a more profitable/bigger a/c.
I really didn't mean to ramble like this...sorry. I hope it somewhat makes since to everyone though. I know I didn't get into the specifics of mergers and what not, but that is for our elect reps to figure out in accordance with the written bylaws.

Cheers

 

[FDJ2]

Why would the RJDC want the Elimination of Scope when they go to such great pains to explain why Scope is the glue that binds the Company to the contract as well as defining "good scope" which protects our jobs.

The RJDC might be saying one thing, but their lawsuit says something else. The relief section of the RJDC lawsuit seeks to eliminate all scope. It states that ALPA should be prevented from,

" Negotiating, facilitating, or advocating, or assisting others in negotiating, facilitating, or advocating, the use of scope clauses in collective bargaining agreements in such manner as to exercise control over the flying of pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the collective bargaining agreement is being negotiated."

That is the elimination of all scope, since scope by its very nature "exercise control over flying for a carrier other than the one for which the collective bargaining agreement is being negotiated". Scope prevents a carrier from outsourcing the work to other pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the CBA is negotiated. If the courts were to grant this relief, what would prevent CMR from utilizing MESA pilots in CMR aircraft, or to use MESA crews and planes as contractors to reduce costs and be more competive in the next RFP? The CMR pilots would be unable to prevent it since their scope clause would be exercising control over MESA pilots. MESA pilots would be free to use CMR CRJs to fly for DCI. It becomes quite clear that if the courts were to grant this relief, all carriers would be able to outsource their flying to the lowest bidders, and the job security provisions of all ALPA pilot groups would be unable to stop it. The RJDC lawsuit would in fact and practice eliminate all scope which would prevent management from outsourcing to cheaper pilot groups. The RJDC would facilitate the race to the bottom for all pilots.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

At the risk of Surplus standing on my head...

Scope is the Guardian. Jobs are the Key.

Unfortunately scope language, which traditionally is used to define the work to be performed by a contract's signatories (along with any exclusions), is NOT included in most "regional" airline contracts.

So an example of "good" scope might (and perhaps should) include aircraft types, gross-weight, or even seating capacity. A more traditional "generic" brand of scope language states,

"All flying to be performed by ABC Airlines will be performed by a pilot on ABC Airlines system seniority list except..."

The except is the work that the pilot group determines it is willing to allow management to outsource.

"Bad" scope, on the other hand, might restrict the number of permitted aircraft thereby restricting the corporation's ability to fit aircraft capacity with demand.

Every pilot group should have the ability to negotiate the work to be performed -- and expect management to uphold their part of the bargain. But when another pilot group writes language into their own agreements that artificially limits opportunities on another property, scope has failed.

We all want "ownership" of our flying -- It's the only thing that prevents whipsaw.

Right now there is not a single DCI carrier that owns their flying. Like dogs fighting over a raw steak the strongest will survive, and the weak will starve.

The dogs caretaker -- ALPA -- is sitting idly by and watching the melee.

Just my opinion.