RJ Vs. Alpa

[surplus1]

Even after strike, you guys are still cheap labor.

Yes, we are "cheaper" labor. Perhaps you feel that if our airplanes were flown by mainline pilots we would become "expensive" labor overnight. If that's your belief it simply reflects your inexperience.

We aren't the lowest bidders (yet). The pressure to move flying to the lowest bidder is real (witness Delta's most recent addition of a contract with CHQ to replace us at MCO).

Economics will ultimately determine who flies what. As the "lowest bidder" airlines continue to lower their bids, they will eventually be unable to cover their costs and will cease to exist. Their flying will then transfer back to those that remain financially viable and equilibrium will return. The same rules apply to the highest bidders. They have priced themselves out of the market (USAir being the best example). Others are doing the same and losing flying as a result. Eventually they will be forced to lower their bids too or continue to shrink as they lose the flying. The bidding war that I have repeatedly predicted will ensue. Actually, it has already begun.

When American attempted to keep Eagle from getting the 70-seat CRJ they entered into a TA (later rejected by AA pilots) that included pay scales for the CL-700. Their proposed pay rates were substantially lower than those put on the table by Comair pilots for the same equipment. The AA pilots didn't reject the TA due to the pay scales. There was other content to which they objected. The point is, that group of "mainline pilots" lowered the pay scale in an effort to take the flying from Eagle.

Delta already has hundreds of regional jets flying at the mainline. We are sitting in their cockpit seats. The only reason we are "separate" is because Delta pilots wanted it that way. The mainline pilot (not only at Delta) and their unions (ALPA and APA) created the exemptions to Scope that make subcontracting possible. They also rejected the opportunity (when it was there) to get all jet flying on one list. That was long before Comair had 100 RJs. Instead they went for the "scope" that you and others advocate. It hasn't worked. The scope has not prevented the proliferation of RJs and it isn't going to.

Look at COEX/ExpressJet... new route EWR-OKC. What the hell?? That's half across the country. But sure, the captain and the FO combined make less than $80k. Now you're talking about adding 90 seat RJ's. I mean really.... look at NWA's DC-9's and their payscales, and then look at the most you could get at a "regional" flying 70 or 90 seat RJ's.

I do look at that. So what? Until the recent IPO attempting to spin off XJT, COEX was a wholly owned subsidiary of CAL and fully integrated with it. The IACP (former union of CAL/COEX pilots) made no effort to integrate the seniority lists of CAL/COEX and they had the opportunity more than once. The current union ALPA, is opposed to that idea. CAL has "scope" --- it is useless. NWA pilots have refused any attempt to integrate Mesaba or Express1. They won't even help Mesaba get the flow-through it has wanted for years. The mainline pilots have caused the problem. Now they will have to live with it or attempt the only remedy that will work and that is NOT more scope.

RJ's in regional carriers are cheapening the profession, and RJDC is a cancer that needs to go away.

That's nonsense and reflects your inexperience. You're just repeating the myopic philosophy of mainline pilots whose MEC's and labor unions created the problem. Subcontracting should never have been allowed but, it was. Now that it is there, don't expect regional pilots to give up their jobs to cure the past mistakes of mainline pilots. Mainline pilot groups will not be allowed to put regional pilots on the street to make up for their own past folly. The RJDC will prevent that. It is not a cancer but a potential cure.

Noticing your flight time Surplus, 25k hours? Are you mad perhaps because you couldn't get hired anywhere? Is that why you are so adamant about this RJDC garbage? Just curious....

My personal background is not relevant to the debate and neither is yours. You should not get personal when you don't have answers and can't convince your opponent. However, since you did, I will satisfy your so-called "curiosity". 1) 25K is considerably below the actual number. 2) This isn't my first job but it will be my last. 3) As long ago as 1972, I was captain of a 4-engine jet transport (707) flying international; probably before you were born and certainly before you flew anything for a living. It wasn't my "first jet". 4) I've never had a DUI or any other criminal record. 5) I have a degree. 6) I was a military pilot before I became a civilian pilot. 7) There were some places where I didn't get hired, others where I chose not to apply and others where I did get hired, including my present pilot group. 8) I support the RJDC because the cause is just, my union is wrong and I want the errors to be corrected. Now if you have any more questions, ask them.

Meanwhile, I suggest that you argue your points and defend your views to your hearts content, just like I do. I haven't attacked you personally and I won't, but when you attack me personally I will defend myself. Avoid attempts at personal slurs. They accomplish nothing and make you look like the kid you are. When you've been in the business long enough to understand it, then you can question the backgrounds of pilots with whom you disagree. Until then, stick to the issues and refrain from the attempts to demean others personally.

 

[Freight Dog]

Surplus,

You've just shown me why you back RJDC. An old guy not going anywhere. You and I have different priorities. This "kid" doesn't want to retire from ComASA, even if you as an old salt do.

As I said, I've seen what a firm scope can do for a mainline group and how it affects its regional affiliate, and in my case, I like it. It boils down to management and how they run things.

You are right, US Air priced themselves out, and they'll cease to exist most likely.

As for the lowest-bidder... as an "old experienced salt" perhaps you can tell me why do you have your flying farmed out to another airline? Now I see so many of you pissed off that MCO flying is gonna go away to a lower bidder. Isn't this exactly what's been going on with mainline losing flying to its regional affiliates? Now it's trickled down to the regional level and you don't like it... hmmm. You reap what you sow.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Frieght dog:

So explain - how exactly does more restrictive scope make it profitable to operate a 737 with only 30 seats filled?

The RJ is not a replacement aircraft for current generation mainline narrowbody jets. The seat mile cost (which I posted on the board a couple weeks ago) show that any airline management will upsize as soon as a route has sufficient traffic.

Without RJ's Delta would simply be pulling out of many markets after 9-11. However, having smaller capacity jets allows Delta to preserve their route structure so that mainline can come back faster as loads and revenue return.

If you leave the economics out of it - on a pure service replacement basis - the RJ is to a 737 what a 767 is to a 747. The introduction of the 767 certainly resulted in much less 747, L1011 and DC-10 operation across the Atlantic. However, more 767's serve the public with greater frequency and to more European destinations making them viable despite the higher CASM's.

I think you misuderstand the RJDC's agenda. First, the issue is representation. ALPA should represent each member equally and fairly. One ALPA member (under the Union's own Constitution and Bylaws) should not be able to negotiate harm to another member.

Certainly this would lead to the current conflict of interest between pilots of different groups inside of one airline (like Delta). However, the union's own Constitution and Bylaws addresses this problem too under the Merger and Fragmentation Policy.

As some Delta pilots now admit, the Delta MEC threatened ALPA when the ASA and Comair pilots applied for a merger. The Delta pilots feared that the Connection guys might get something better than a staple - so Delta ALPA killed the merger. Now we have six groups of pilots performing Delta domestic flying and we are all at eachother's throat over each precious job.

If the RJDC wins, it likely means that the Delta MEC will insist on onelist in order to establish the same control over the Connection pilots that they currently have through abuse of our union's exclusive agent status. Bottom line - All Delta flying performed by Delta pilots.

Regards,
~~~^~~~

 

[skydiverdriver]

Freight Dog,
Well, some of us younger guys are for the rjdc as well, so your theory is not correct.

Comair is not losing flying in MCO. We are losing a base. We are growing and expanding, and hiring. The person who is losing flying in MCO is Delta Mainline. We are trying to get together with them to prevent this from happening, despite what they have been told to believe. If you choose to think otherwise, that is your option.

 

[skydiverdriver]

FD,
What you gather rjdc is about, is not what it's about. I suggest you read the very informative posts by Surplus1, and then you might understand what it's about. We are not against you, we are for you.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

FD,
What you gather rjdc is about, is not what it's about. I suggest you read the very informative posts by Surplus1, and then you might understand what it's about. We are not against you, we are for you.

Actually, I would suggest to FreightDog that he reads the lawsuit itself. Concentrate on the relief section. It will become abundantly clear what it's about.

 

[Freight Dog]

FDJ,

I'm looking for a lawsuit, and all I see are RJDC "updates" on the site... can you give me a link to the actual lawsuit?


Thanks!

FD

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

FD,
I am not too good at this computer stuff! To get to the lawsuit, go to the "downloads" section of the rjdc website. Scan down until you get to the link for the lawsuit. It is roughly halfway down the page. You can access it via Adobe Acrobat or MS word.

Thank you for taking the time to read it. It is always nice to see a regional guy appreciate the value of scope. I felt the same way as you when I was on your side of the fence, and I still do. Good luck.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Yes, please do read the lawsuit. However, keep in mind that it's a negotiating point, and nobody ever gets everything they ask for. Just as if you had read what any pilots were asking for in negotiations, you would think they were crazy or very greedy. However, what they actually get might seem more reasonable. Perhaps we will have to wait until it's over to see what is really going on.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

You've just shown me why you back RJDC. An old guy not going anywhere. You and I have different priorities. This "kid" doesn't want to retire from ComASA, even if you as an old salt do.

As anticipated, you "heard" but you didn't "listen". The issues have nothing to do with your priorities vs. my priorities and nothing to do with where you would like to retire vs. where I will retire.

I'm all in favor of your being able to get the cream puff major airline job that you want. I've had it myself and it is very nice. The question is, how do you get there tomorrow. More Scope of the wrong kind isn't going to do it for you.

The "best scope" in the industry (acording to the mainline gurus and those of you that sniff around behind them) is at USAirways. The only thing it has accomplished is to help their bad management put their airline under. They are now desperately trying to eliminate that perfect scope in the hope of survival.

If tomorrow the wish of the Delta pilots were to come true and all the RJs at Comair and ASA were parked, the only thing it would accomplish is to put another 2000 of them on the streets and the Company in danger of bankruptcy.

The airline must be able to operate the most efficient equipment available to do a particular job. Being forced by Scope to use a 737 with 35 passengers on board is a recepie for economic disaster.

FDJ tells us, correctly, that there is nothing in his contract that prevents the company from operating RJs "at the mainline". What he does NOT tell us is what concessions he is willing to make so that it becomes economically feasible to do so. I believe there would not be much difference between the contract that would apply to a mainline operated RJ and the better regional contracts that exist today. Mainline pilots aren't willing to accept that and that's why they don't fly any RJs.

Of all the "real" major airlines that operate today (sorry, but Aloha isn't one of them) there is only one (1) that doesn't own and operate at least one "regional subsidiary" and that's UAL.

AA owns AE; DAL owns CMR & ASA, NWA owns EX1, CAL owns COEX, AAA owns ALG, PDT, PSA. Even little ALA owns Horizon. USAirways is the only one who's subsidiaries don't fly jets, and whose "scope" has limited the subcontractors to 70 RJs. Itself not much more than a regional carrier, U has been hurt severely by this flawed idea and misapplied scope.

United has "scope". In their last contract they had to relax it substantially and they did. As we write, they are not enforcing even the relaxed scope. If they did, ACA and SKYW and AWA would each have to park a number of their RJs and furlough the pilots. The follow up to that would be more furloughs at UAL.

All the majors I mentioned are in fact operating regional jets, just like FDJ says they can. They are just not flying them with mainline pilots. If they were, the "high paying jobs" that everyone wants, including you, would still not be in the RJs.

If the RJ pilots were all on the same list as the mainline pilots, the only thing your "new" job at the mainline would guarantee you, that you don't have today, is the eventual access to the bigger equipment without having to change employers. It would not produce any fantastic change in compensation or work rules.

If instead of being "scoped out" by Aloha you were on the same list, there would still be furloughs like there were. You would be the furloughed pilot instead of the more senior Aloha pilot. The junior pilots at Aloha who did get furloughed would be flying those Dash 8s (as they should be). The only thing there "scope" has done is keep them out of aiplanes their company operates and give you their job.

That is exactly what "scope" at Delta has done. The airline (Delta) is operating and owns hundreds of RJs. What FDJ doesn't admit is the RJs are already at the mainline . He just doesn't get to fly them.

Adding more "scope" to his contract is not going to eliminate the RJs that Delta already owns and operates. It is too late to do that now and the pilots that already fly them (CMR & ASA) are going to fight for their jobs. We are already doing so. The Company has found its way around the existing Scope. It will do the same tomorrow if that scope follows the same course of trying to keep the RJ from operating.

Do we need Scope at all? H**L yes! However, effective Scope must scope the Company's flying IN, not scope it OUT.

At this stage of the game, the ONLY way to do that is to combine the pilot groups into a single group. Until the mainline pilots recognize that fact, their effort to stop the RJ is doomed to failure.

It will NOT be possible to achieve one seniority list if mainline pilots insist on applying their present contracts to the RJ operations. The Company can't realistically agree to that and never will. Therefore, we the pilots must find a way to do it that merges the lists without merging the contracts.

One of the first things we need to do is stop worrying about pilots that are not yet employed by the Company and take care of the pilots that already are. I don't care if you get a job at my airline tomorrow, if I have to give up my job today to make it happen. My first concern is for current Delta pilots and that includes ASA/CMR.

FDJ and his peers do not consider CMR & ASA pilots to be Delta pilots. While I understand that, I also think it is foolish. We ARE Delta pilots, Delta just calls us something else. It really doesn't matter whether you call us Delta pilots or S**t pilots. What does matter is that we are flying Delta airplanes now and we're on a separate seniority list; divided.

Delta pilots did that to themselves. How? By unsuccessfully attempting to scope us out, instead of scoping us in. It is not having Scope that's bad. The problem is the misapplication of the intent of Scope.

As I said, I've seen what a firm scope can do for a mainline group and how it affects its regional affiliate, and in my case, I like it. It boils down to management and how they run things.

What you're really telling me is that you don't understand what you're seeing. You haven't really grasped the significance of what you think you see so you are misinterpreting its value. You're judging the car by the paint job, when you ought to looking at the engine and the power train.

Aloha pilots needed to put those airplanes that you fly and the pilots that fly them on a single seniority list from day one. Use a supplemental agreement (if necessary) to cover your pay and rules. Instead they created two airlines just like everybody else. As a result, the Company can't fly where it needs to, how it needs to, Aloha pilots that are senior to you are furloughed and you're flying in a seat that should be occupied by a furloughed Aloha pilot. Scope your way or their way makes no sense at all. Scope my way, which is the original way, needs to be restored.

As for the lowest-bidder... as an "old experienced salt" perhaps you can tell me why do you have your flying farmed out to another airline?

Yes I can tell you. It's because the wrong kind of scope is in place at Delta airlines, thanks to Delta pilots and ALPA.

Now I see so many of you pissed off that MCO flying is gonna go away to a lower bidder. Isn't this exactly what's been going on with mainline losing flying to its regional affiliates? Now it's trickled down to the regional level and you don't like it... hmmm. You reap what you sow.

Its happening because ALPA created exemptions to Scope, ALPA permitted subcontracting, ALPA refused to apply its merger policy, and mainline pilots were so intent on not sharing a drinking fountain with regional scum, that they were willing to do without water all together. That may have worked while they had a huge supply of champagne, but now that's run out and the "scum" control the water supply.

Is it the same as the mainline losing flying to regional affiliates. No, it isn't. The mainline never lost any flying to regional affilitates for they did not operate that equipment. Now that the mainline does operate RJs any flying that goes to rjs outside the company is a loss of flying.

CHQ doesn't take any flying from the 737s and DC-9s that Delta operates. It takes fying from the Cl-65s that Delta operates.

When we understand what Scope should do and apply it correctly, its a great thing that we MUST have. When misused, as it has been, it becomes an enemy.

 

[Traumahawk]

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:

Example: United used to have flights that never changed for 5-6 years. But now, when a passenger walks up to the gate with his $350 ticket and looks out the window for that towering 757, he'll see an RJ. And, another one an hour later and maybe another a few hours later. There are places like ATL, CLE, MSP which within a couple months will have nothing but United Express RJ's, no mainline jets. What happened to what airline travel is all about??? Flying on large airplanes over large distances with great service(yes, lately this leaves much to be desired) But cmon. I thought regional airlines were here to bring people from Athens, GA to ATL so they could fly a longer distance on a mainline flight. It's the nature of the job...or what it used to be.
I have nothing against regional pilots. Often the same bang, just for less buck(at this point) Great guys...I hope to be one soon. And I think a lot of them would be lying if they said they didn't dream of flying for a Major Airline, flying large equipment, having gone though the motions, gone through the right's of passage, and finally settling down with a prestigious, fun, enjoyable career with excellent benefits and pay. Sometimes I look at whats going on, and as excited as I will be to start climbing the ladder and building 121 experience as a regional pilot, sometimes I think when I jumpseat on a mainline flight(if theres still some left), I oughta come up with the cash amount of that flight's ticket fare, divide it between the 2 guys up front and say, "hey guys, this is for you. because later today, I'm going to fly the routes you should be flying on." For those trying to get to that point, it seemingly involves involuntarily screwing people who paid their dues already. Thats not right.

I mean, just from a consumer standpoint, the Airline Industry looks like it is on the road to become a low wage, cheaply run taxi service. Darn, missed the 5 o'clock, eh, there will be another one in 20 minutes. But I'm still often paying the full(if not more)fare that I payed for that spankin' new 767-400 with nice big chairs, more than 1 flight attendant etc.....

Again, I'm new to this, I don't have a side. It isn't my present focus nor anything I can do anything about. Don't hate me for it, but this is what it looks like to us bystanders....TPA-ORD is Hardly United Express, it's UNITED AIRLINES. Express...lets think about that word. Regional is another one to think about.

--T-hawk

 

[Freight Dog]

Well that's what I'm trying to say Traumahawk, "regional" affiliates have absolutely no business flying across the country in "regional" jets. ALPA is right... they are "small jets."
ORD-TPA as United Express... yeah really. Or CVG-HOU as Delta Connection. Reeeeheeheheheheheheeeeeeally!!

I mean come on surplus... first of all, there are no more furloughed Aloha pilots, the last were recalled 2 months ago. Secondly, NO, they should NOT be given my flying. I fly a 37 passenger turboprop. They fly a 124 passenger jet. Their second year FO pay is more than our most senior captain pay. That's how it should be.

Your argument of RJ's instead of 737's... well explain this to me.
Why is it that when I went IAH-BNA in the morning I flew on a B737 on Continental and an hour prior, I had just missed a COEX RJ flying there? Market doesn't support it? Hardly... the answer is: cheap labor.

You mentioned Aloha. As you know, this is a limited market. There are only so many airports to be served. Aloha serves HNL, LIH, OGG, KOA, ITO, and is the only carrier that can fly direct between these airports under AQ code. We fly under AQ code. But we cannot fly direct between those airports due to scope clause, we have to make a stop. That's how I think you should be scoped, or something to that extent. Flying across the country, overflying the hubs and taking over routes from the mainline should be prevented. I don't mind expansion as long as it doesn't take away from the mainline, or inhibits mainline expansion.

Also, one thing that neither SDD, nor you Surplus, have mentioned is if RJDC lawsuit is filed also against Delta management? I mean, they've signed DALPA's contract, they're the ones opposed to merging you into one list - even if DALPA opposed it, if management wanted it... you'd be merged.
It's kinda like your lawsuit which I think it's ridiculous and the things you're asking for. As SDD stated that no one gets what they want in a lawsuit, that's why you pile things on. So now if DALPA went on a rant about RJ's and wanted to scope COMASA out of existence, and the management agreed on it... whose fault is it? Who runs the joint?? DALPA or the management??

This whole RJDC is a joke... you guys are fighting DALPA while the management uses Skywest and Chautauqua (non-ALPA carriers) and giving your flying away. Whipsaw at its best.

Your entire fight is grossly misdirected...


Aloha!

 

[~~~^~~~]

Well that's what I'm trying to say Traumahawk, "regional" affiliates have absolutely no business flying across the country in "regional" jets. ALPA is right... they are "small jets."

I think he is finally starting to understand part of the story. Regional Jets, also known as small jets, are simply smaller units of capacity for mainline carriers. Based on the capabilities of the aircraft it should be operated by mainline. The same folks who now lead the RJDC tried to get ALPA to bring us together - which would make the small jets part of mainline. One list = one airline.

Also, one thing that neither SDD, nor you Surplus, have mentioned is if RJDC lawsuit is filed also against Delta management?

No Delta was not sued. Delta does not owe their pilots a "duty of fair representation." I pay ALPA to represent me. Right now my attorney in fact (ALPA) is fighting desperately to (1) keep our operations separate from Delta mainline, (2) stop as much of my flying as possible and (3) put me on the street. Obviously ALPA has failed in their legal duty to represent Connection pilots fairly and ALPA will be held responsible for their predatory actions.

You are correct that we should be fighting for better wages and working conditions with management, but right now ALPA is trying to put us out of work. There is not much reason to fight for better wages when you do not have a job. Further, a Captain upgrade nearly doubles a first officer's pay - growth is important.

I would love nothing more than to heal this civil war within ALPA. However, as long as ALPA tries to keep in an apartied system we will fight for the kind of union provided by the laws of our Nation and ALPA's own Constitution and Bylaws.

Regards,
~~~^~~~

 

[Freight Dog]

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.

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

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?!

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.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Freight dog,
How can we sue Delta, when they didn't do anything wrong? Our union is the one that didn't follow the law, or their own rules. We are suing the correct party.

Tramahawk,
Those people who you say are paying full fare and getting on an rj are getting exactly what they asked for. Just ask any passenger what their first priority was when purchasing their ticket, and they will say price. The airlines are catering to their wishes by eliminating meals and useless seats on flights that cannot support them. It is true that you could have a large jet and a small jet on the same route at different times. Well, have you ever seen a traffic jam at 2am? It's because there are peak times for travel, and that is what the airline is catering to.

 

[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.