RJ Vs. Alpa

[surplus1]

Freight Dog,

I don't mind your difference of opinion or disagreement with me, the RJDC or anyone else. However, it is extremely difficult to debate with you when your "scope" does not include understanding of the core issues.

Please read some of FDJs posts in this and other threads. There is much disagreement between he and I, but he does understand the issues. That makes it possible for us to debate. I don't mean to offend you but you're so far off the core that meaningful debate is extremely difficult.

Still.. it's a misfired lawsuit. You should be suing the management, not DALPA. So, you sued ALPA for some ungodly amount, and if by some miracle you win, you'll expect to cash it in.

How can we debate the merits of our suit or the lack of merit when you can't even figure out who we're suing or why?

We are not suing "DALPA". In the first place, there is no such thing as DALPA. That's a misplaced acronym, invented by Delta pilots, to describe what they might like to become. DALPA does not exist.

There is a Delta MEC (DMEC), an internal unit of the ALPA, made up of Delta pilots elected to represent their peers, within the ALPA. It is not a legal entity an cannot be sued. It is not independent and cannot enter into legal contracts with anyone. The Delta pilot's exclusive bargaining agent is the Air Line Pilots Association, International. It is not DALPA or the DMEC.

The ALPA, is also the exclusive bargaining agent of the Comair pilots and the ASA pilots. There is no "CALPA" or "AALPA". These realities create the inherent conflicts of interest and generate the dispute.

Understanding the ALPA's basic structure is pre-requisite to debating whom should be sued or why. Since you do not appear to understand that structure, it is virtually impossible to debate with you.

The issues surrounding and leading to the litigation are extremely complex. They are only very remotely related to your aspirations of employment at a "major" airline or my reitrement from a regional airline. They involve the intricacies of the Railway Labor Act, the Federal laws and regulations eminating therefrom and the ALPA's Duty of Fair Representation, explit in those laws and regulations.

A modicum of familiarity with the RLA, the Federal rules, the NMB and the permissable behavior towards its members of a labor union operating under the Act, is essential and pre-requisite to discussion of the litigation's merits or lack thereof.

Unless one has completed Labor Relations 101, 201 and 301, launching into a post-graduate discussion of associated issues is difficult at best. The very same concept applies to ALPA 101,201, etc.,.

It's fine to have opinions about who should fly what and what a Scope clause should say or do. While those things are related to the issues underlying the litigation, they are not the purpose of the litigation. This is an action to enjoin the ALPA from violating its DFR responsibilities under the RLA, and to oblige the ALPA to honor its Constitution and apply its charter, without discrimination or arbitrary decision, equally to all of its members.

Management has an obligation under the law to negotiate with the union. It has no obligation under the law to represent the interests of the members of that union. Therefore, the fact that management signs a contract with the union, that is injurious to some members of the union and favors other members of the union is both permissable and irrelevant.

The obligation to represent its members fairly, to bargain in good faith, to refrain from arbitrary decisions and to not discriminate against its members, is incumbent upon the Union and required of it by law. Therefore, the union (unlike management) acts in violation of its obligations to the individual member, when it negotiates and enters into a contract that injures or descriminates against any of its members in order to favor other members. The union violates the law when it fails to honor its Duty of Fair Representation.

The litigation alleges that the ALPA, which is the only union involved, and which represents the Detla pilots, the Comair pilots and the ASA pilots simultaneously, has violated its Duty of Fair Representation. The litigation further alleges that the violations, if not enjoined, will cause irreperable harm to the litigants themselves and other members of their class. The litigation further asks the courts, if its arguments are held to be sound, to reverse the union's actions or require the union to compensate the injured members for the resultant damages, or both.

That is what this is all about. The job that you may get tomorrow or the one that I may have today are not the issue. They are the by-products of the union's alleged malfeasance.

I don't ask you to agree with the litigation's allegations or its demand for remedy and compensation for alleged injury. I do ask that you make an effort to understand the issues, after which we can argue their merit.

Per SDD's post... you fire things away and whatever hits... you scored.

SDD and I agree about many things. The shotgun approach to litigation remedies isn't one of them. But hey, we can't be perfect.

Well, so now what's really the difference between DALPA firing away at say, running COMASA out of existence by scoping yas to death and RJDC suing ALPA for millions and millions of dollars?!

It happens that the ALPA, in supporting the DMEC, did in fact try to so limit "ComASA" as to threaten to "run it out of existence" and severly damage the careers of CMR/ASA pilots (not at DAL, but within their own airlines) and cause the potential loss of their jobs. The damages sought reflect the hundreds of millions of dollars that CMR and ASA pilots could lose as a result of the ALPA's actions, plus punitive damage to preclude repetition of the offense.

Perhaps the career of a regional pilot has no value to you because you "dream" of something else. I hope your dream comes true. However, to the regional pilot that does not achieve or share that dream, his existing job is worth many millions over the normal span of a pilot's career. The idea or concept that all this can simply be taken away from him by his own labor union (without penalty to the taker) in order to satisfy the desires of another pilot in that union who has been afforded a "preferred" status is not only ludicrous, it may well be criminal. The courts will make that determination.

In my view, the management signed and endorsed DALPA's contract. They have nothing to do with RJDC. So you're suing the wrong people.. not to mention your agenda is plain wrong IMHO.

I really hate to say this but the truth is your "view" is off base. We are suing the only entity that is legally responsible. Our "agenda" is fair representation under the law. What's "wrong" about that? Does your "view" include the thought that there is some higher merit or power vested in mainline pilots and the ALPA which transcends the law? I hope not.

 

[Freight Dog]

You are right, I probably don't understand all this whizbang stuff Delta "politically correct" talk (DALPA, etc.) The fact is you are suing ALPA, which is also MY union, for "damaging your career."

Let's see here... conflict of interests between Delta MEC (being politically correct here) and COMASA ALPA units. Who controls the majority of flying at Delta Airlines Inc and that includes DCI? I'm just curious if it's ASA and Comair or is it Delta mainline? Am I correct to assume that you folks are outnumbered by mainline by something of 2-1 ratio? So even if you had a say in Delta's scope talks... what chance would you have to negate the scope and how would the result be any different if COMASA pilots were included in the vote? Just curious...

Also, SDD... how can you sue Delta? Well, I don't know.. you tell me. RJDC is suing ALPA for negotiating a contract for one of its largest units - Delta. Now, the management signs a contract inclusive of scope you don't like, and now you are pissed at ALPA.

I don't know dude... that's a misfire. DALPA wants to protect jobs for its pilots through scope, the management signs it... you want to force the merger of the lists, the management doesn't want it (it is NOT ALPA's call who merges and who doesn't), and now you are pissed and are suing ALPA.

WAY off-base....


Aloha!

Just another "regional airline" ALPA member.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Sir,
The reason we are suing ALPA is because our $25,000 lawyer told us to. We are going under the direction of the only lawyer that has every beaten ALPA, so I'm sure he knows what he is doing. I'm not a lawyer and can't speak about the law, but I believe what we are doing is right, and that's why I support the rjdc.

If you disagree with what we are doing, fine. But, deciding on who we should litigate against might be better left to the experts. I can admit that I'm not a lawyer, and cannot speak to this issue, can you?

I wish you good luck in whatever happens.

 

[surplus1]

Re: So what you're saying is.......

I'm still a couple years away from the regional level...more college left. But I know several people flying for both majors and regionals and unfortunately, the honest message people in my position get towards the ever changing status and direction of the Industry we dream about getting into everyday is this:

Welcome to the discussion, debate, argument or whatever you want to call it. If your dream is to become an airline pilot, I sincerely hope you realize that dream when you're ready. It's not for everyone, but for those who truly love flying its the greatest thing since mom's apple pie.

Yes, the industry is changing. If you look back through history that is really not inconsistent with the past. Change has always been a part of this business and it will be for the foreseable future. Some of the changes are good others great and still others not so hot for airplane drivers.

Most new pilots ultimately aspire to the day they'll fly "heavy metal", particularly those that want an airline career. Its the natural thing to want to fly the biggest and best equipment. In the corporate world its not too different with most hoping to fly a G-V or a Global Challenger, etc.

In terms of equipment we had a big change when we went to pressurized cabins for airliners an engines with internal superchargers or PRTs. The next really big change was the introduction of the large (for its day) jet transport. The most recent change is of course the introduction of the small jet transport that we call the "regional jet".

Each of these equipment changes revolutionized the industry in their day, much as the RJ is doing today.

Along with the changes in equipment have also come changes in economics and the money that pilots earn. On the down side of that is what I call a change in motivation of airline pilots. Once upon a time, not too long ago, how much money he would ultimately make was the last thing an aspiring pilot thought about. Just getting a job, any job, was a big deal. Not anymore.

Today I see new pilots expecting to be paid $100 grand in their 3rd yr as a pilot in a 50-seat jet and complaining loudly if they can't upgrade to Captain in a year or two. Both absurdities from my perspective.

Not too long ago (depending on what you see as a "long time") back when NE merged with DAL, if I remember correctly the Captain of a ME F-27 earned less than $12.00 per flight hour. Today, we're paying a 2nd yr FO over $100K in a DC-9 or 737.

The FE, once a knowledgable and invaluable member of the flight crew, changed to become a know-little panel switch operator and eventually disappeared or nearly so.

Before "deregulation" airlines didn't really compete with each other, they fought with the CAB for ownership of routes and could easily gouge customers to satisfy the "needs" of pilot's ever-increasing contractual demands. Today, they can't.

Depending on who gives you your "coaching", your perspective on the value of the regional jet, will be very different. If your "friend" is a senior airline Captain, he often doesn't know which little airplane his company may code-share with, how many it may have or what they're really like and, what's more, he doesn't care. If he's that junior co-pilot in and old DC-9, he sees himself as a titan, feels threatened by everything, and often despises the folks that fly the equipment he himself was flying just yesterday. RJs are the enemy if they are operated by his own company, for they won't pay him 100K to respond to the "gear up" command. If they're operated by a subcontractor, they become an obstacle to his "growth" and upgrade in 2 years. After all, if they didn't exist, there would be hundreds more (in his mind) 737s and DC-9s, full of pilots junior to him. There's that upgrade again. He's quite willing to have his company go broke if necessary, as long as he himself is paid more, for doing less and can upgrade in a couple of years. And the wheel turns.

The customer, who pays all our bills, is no longer willing to be told that there's only one (1) flight per day to his airport in Peoria. He want's jets (not an "old" turboprop built last week) and he wants them available when HE wants to fly, not when the airline thinks he should.

Management, for some strange reason, wants to make a profit. The more the better. They want to give the customer the frequency that he prefers and they don't want to fly a 737 anywhere with 35 people in the back. It wont pay the bills, including the $100K salary of the copilot.

They seem to think the Company is a business, with shareholders, who want a return on their investment. They are confused, when pilots don't seem able to understand that the purpose of the airline is not to make pilot jobs available to those pilots that prefer to fly larger aircraft. How stupid of them.

At this stage of the game, we the pilots have ourselves created the situations that management is exploiting to the fullest. Instead of embracing each other, we tried to exclude each other. That gave management a loophole in our contracts that it never had before and they have used it well.

Today, instead of reuniting with each other and standing against the management, we are at war with each other. That isn't lost on them and the more we fight among ourselves, the more they win.

There was once a time when all airline pilots recognized each other and did not discriminate against each other based on the size of our equipment. A DC-6 pilot didn't think that a DC-3 pilot was "inferior". A DC-9 pilot lived happily with a CV-440 pilot or an F-27 pilot, in the same airline. Today, it is often all a major airline pilot can bring himself to do to simply nod and say good morning to an RJ pilot. We have become the victims of our own fabricated concept of superiority.

It is pointless to worry and squabble about what kind of airplane flys to where or for what reason. It's management's job to make that determination and to do it in a way that makes the company profitable. For example, if the SWA pilots were demanding that their company buy 767s and not so many 737s, SWA would not be the success that it is today.

You might find it "far" from ORD to TPA, but how long does it take in an RJ as opposed to a 737? What matters is not the airplane you use, but the number of people that will fly on it at a given time. If you have 50 people that want to go and you carry them on a 73, you will lose lots of money. Put them on a CRJ and you'll make a substantial profit.

Should we operate only RJs? Of course not. Neither can we operate only 747s. The market must determine which is appropriate.

The major airlines would be owning and operating the RJs if their pilots had allowed them to do so. Then every "regional pilot" would be a "major pilot" flying in a different airplane. The mainline pilots did not want to fly the small airplanes because they didn't want to be paid accordingly. They tried to prevent them from flying and excluded them from the mainline. The plan was a bad one and it failed miserably. Nevertheless, they are sticking to it and will not even talk about change. At the same time, they complain that the regional jets are "taking their jobs". Had they not excluded the regional jets in the first place, they would have ALL the jobs.

When and if we ever get over this stupid behavior and become one again, folks like you will be able to join the industry and climb the ladders just as it was before. That's what I ultimately hope for.

Best wishes to you in the future.

 

[Timebuilder]

Thanks, Surplus. A really good explanation.

I remember that kind of inclusive brotherhood among airline pilots, going back to my days in the back of the airplane.

I for one will be very happy when we slay this dragon, and stand together as an industry.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Re: Re: So what you're saying is.......

.

Not too long ago (depending on what you see as a "long time") back when NE merged with DAL, if I remember correctly the Captain of a ME F-27 earned less than $12.00 per flight hour. Today, we're paying a 2nd yr FO over $100K in a DC-9 or 737.




-------------I think that you will find, that it adjusted dollars, the average airline pilot today makes less than those 30 years ago did. This is only a guess, but I believe it to be true.





Depending on who gives you your "coaching", your perspective on the value of the regional jet, will be very different. If your "friend" is a senior airline Captain, he often doesn't know which little airplane his company may code-share with, how many it may have or what they're really like and, what's more, he doesn't care. If he's that junior co-pilot in and old DC-9, he sees himself as a titan, feels threatened by everything, and often despises the folks that fly the equipment he himself was flying just yesterday. RJs are the enemy if they are operated by his own company, for they won't pay him 100K to respond to the "gear up" command. If they're operated by a subcontractor, they become an obstacle to his "growth" and upgrade in 2 years. After all, if they didn't exist, there would be hundreds more (in his mind) 737s and DC-9s, full of pilots junior to him. There's that upgrade again. He's quite willing to have his company go broke if necessary, as long as he himself is paid more, for doing less and can upgrade in a couple of years. And the wheel turns.






-------------Surplus, that explanation is argumentative and insulting. I expect (and usually get) better from you. Perhaps you could consider the possibility that many of those major pilots whom you denegrate are well informed and have based their opinions on more than greed and ego. I, and others, have discussed these issues ad nauseum, and I would hope that by now you would realize that not all of us are against the rj, we are simply against our jobs being outsourced.








At this stage of the game, we the pilots have ourselves created the situations that management is exploiting to the fullest. Instead of embracing each other, we tried to exclude each other. That gave management a loophole in our contracts that it never had before and they have used it well.





------------Agreed.



Today, it is often all a major airline pilot can bring himself to do to simply nod and say good morning to an RJ pilot.





----------Again, argumentative. If that is the case with a small minority, it may be a result of being sued. Please try to refrain from making personal judgements. I have not done so, and you are painting with way too broad a brush. I could give many examples of regional pilots poor behavior toward us, but that does not advance the discussion one bit.





It is pointless to worry and squabble about what kind of airplane flys to where or for what reason. It's management's job to make that determination and to do it in a way that makes the company profitable. For example, if the SWA pilots were demanding that their company buy 767s and not so many 737s, SWA would not be the success that it is today.

You might find it "far" from ORD to TPA, but how long does it take in an RJ as opposed to a 737? What matters is not the airplane you use, but the number of people that will fly on it at a given time. If you have 50 people that want to go and you carry them on a 73, you will lose lots of money. Put them on a CRJ and you'll make a substantial profit.

Should we operate only RJs? Of course not. Neither can we operate only 747s. The market must determine which is appropriate.




--------------We agree. We should have the right, however, to determine who flies those airplanes in the service of Delta Air Lines.






The major airlines would be owning and operating the RJs if their pilots had allowed them to do so. Then every "regional pilot" would be a "major pilot" flying in a different airplane. The mainline pilots did not want to fly the small airplanes because they didn't want to be paid accordingly. They tried to prevent them from flying and excluded them from the mainline. The plan was a bad one and it failed miserably. Nevertheless, they are sticking to it and will not even talk about change. At the same time, they complain that the regional jets are "taking their jobs". Had they not excluded the regional jets in the first place, they would have ALL the jobs.





-------------I agree. ALPA screwed up, and they are not doing enough to fix it.




When and if we ever get over this stupid behavior and become one again, folks like you will be able to join the industry and climb the ladders just as it was before. That's what I ultimately hope for.


-------------As do I. I just don't think attacking our scope clause and trying to bankrupt the union is a very rational strategy towards that goal.

 

[surplus1]

FDJ,

That message wasn't directed at you, but I have no problem that you chose to reply.

----Surplus, that explanation is argumentative and insulting. I expect (and usually get) better from you. Perhaps you could consider the possibility that many of those major pilots whom you denegrate are well informed and have based their opinions on more than greed and ego. I, and others, have discussed these issues ad nauseum, and I would hope that by now you would realize that not all of us are against the rj, we are simply against our jobs being outsourced.

The evidence of overt behavior speaks far louder than any words I write. Perhaps the statement is argumentative but its content is how I see things based on demonstrated attitudes of the Union and many, many, mainline pilots. I don't know what part you consider "insulting", I don't see it that way. However, I'll point out that we too find it insulting when we are repeatedly told that we work here because we couldn't get hired there. I find it insulting when I'm told repeatedly that I probably have a criminal record or several DUI's. I find it insulting when I'm told I'm not educated and can't qualify. I find it especially insulting when numerous of your pilots key their mikes and call me a Scab because I fly an airplane with the same paint scheme as yours, a condition imposed upon me and my fellow pilots against our will. So I guess if I say one or two things that you find distasteful, the score is even. At least many of my remarks can be substantiated, while none of the remarks referenced, made by your people, can be. I respect you FDJ, because of the way you've expressed yourself in your writings. Unfortunately there are many of your peers that I don't respect any more.

As for ALPA being against the RJ, I believe it is and I also believe that has been demonstrated by ALPA's efforts to prevent its use wherever possible. It's not just about preventing outsourcing. The only outsourcing that occurs takes place with the express consent of every mainline ALPA contract. Therefore, it appears self evident that it is also about preventing the use of an aircraft type that mainline pilots feel will lower their pay base. No mainline group that I am aware of has made any serious effort to fly this aircraft type itself. All that they and the union have done is attempt to scope it out of existence. Before the current furloughs, none of the mainline pilot groups wanted to fly these aircraft nor did they want anyone else to do it. There is substantial evidence that supports that allegation. Now that they're being furloughed, its convenient to blame the RJ, the regional pilots that fly it and the "outsourcing" that they created and choose to maintain.

----------Again, argumentative. If that is the case with a small minority, it may be a result of being sued. Please try to refrain from making personal judgements. I have not done so, and you are painting with way too broad a brush. I could give many examples of regional pilots poor behavior toward us, but that does not advance the discussion one bit.

Argumentative I concede. Also factual. Perhaps a minority, but not a small minority and it does not result from being sued. It existed long before there was even the thought of a law suit. If the brush is too broad, I apologize. I know it's not everyone, but it's hard to be friendly when another crew refuses to ride in the same bus because they don't want to be with people like us and they say so. It's happened to me personally at more than one station and more than once. Recently your group didn't hesitate to use an all-encompassing brush while telling the tale of an errant Comair Captain that improperly denied a jumpseat. It was plastered all over the ALPA forum, this forum and several others. Normally I shy away from that sort of stuff, but in the final analyses I am only human. I agree that it does not advance the discussion and will try to get back to normal. Sorry to offend you and the other innocents. No apologies to the guilty.

------We agree. We should have the right, however, to determine who flies those airplanes in the service of Delta Air Lines.

Well FDJ, therein lies the crux of the matter. We already fly those airplanes in the service of Delta Air Lines and you do not have the unilaterally right to determine that we can no longer do so. Your attempts to make that unilateral determination and exclude us are the cause of this dispute. We do not accept that you have that right and have no intention of doing so.

If we were not already flying them then I would grant you that right. However, your company bought our company, together with our airplanes and our pilots. To think that you can now come along and exclude us from flying them in the service of Delta Air Lines is a figment of your imagination that needs to be erased. It's not going to happen.

When your MEC announced its intention to do just what you advocate, my MEC warned them that such an action on their part would be the equivalent of a declaration of war. They ignored us and did it anyway. We are defending what was ours and remains ours. It will not be ceded to you, to ALPA or to anyone else without a fight. How far you want to carry that fight is up to you. We are small and outnumbered, but we're feisty.

-------------I agree. ALPA screwed up, and they are not doing enough to fix it.

It is not a question of "not doing enough to fix it". It’s a question of being the perpetrator of the wrong and doing nothing to fix it. Not only does the union deny its actions, it continues to repeat them with respect to us and now, even more blatantly, at the USAG regional pilots. If they won't stop it themselves, then we must try to stop them. Whatever it takes!

------------As do I. I just don't think attacking our scope clause and trying to bankrupt the union is a very rational strategy towards that goal.

So what strategy do you think we should adopt? Should we just accept whatever you choose to write in your Scope clause regardless of what it does to our jobs and our lives? You must realize that we think your attempts to impose that type of scope against us is just as irrational as you think our attempts to remove it may be. We are not trying to bankrupt the union. When the union does what we pay it to do, i.e., represent our interests fairly and equitably, our problems with the union will end.

Your MEC is not being sued because it is not a legal entity. The ALPA is the bargaining agent and has aided, abetted and currently supporst your MECs activity againts us. ALPA is our union, as it is your union. We are acting to ensure that it is prevented from bargaining away our careers without our consent.

If the union continues on a course of action that protects your interests at the expense of our livelihoods, then the union will have to deal with the consequences of that course of action.