RJ Vs. Alpa

[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.