RJDC 05-10-07 Industry Update

[braveheart]

A courtroom is not the proper forum.

You overlook the fact that numerous ALPA VP's and Mainline MEC Chairman have sued ALPA (and won) when their rights were violated.

"You had the opportunity to voice your concerns on multiple occasions, and you even had the opportunity to speak with the BSIC on at least one occasion. Suffice it to say that no one was very impressed with you or your cohorts, and your claims had no evidence to back them up."

You overlook that BSIC members have stated under oath that they are "unfamiliar" with plaintiffs' claims. Therefore, you cannot say with any crediblity that the BSIC responded to the plaintiffs' concerns.

"...but the true context of everything can be seen by reading the entire deposition.

The transcripts are full of lawyer-directed statements where ALPA's officials deny knowledge of, or "can't recall" anything of relevance. There's little doubt that both ALPA's members and non-members can draw their own conclusions concerning ALPA's credibility.

You have to look at each drive individually.

I do. SkyWest #1= FAILED, Colgan= #1 FAILED, Chicago Express= FAILED, GoJet= FAILED, SkyWest #2 (in-house supported by ALPA)= FAILED. SkyWest #3= STALLED.

I personally have not received a single question in relation to the RJDC on any organizing event at either Colgan or Skywest

The actions of ALPA's other organizers indicates otherwise.

Per my reply to your other thread, your vitriolic attacks on reform-minded ALPA members is incompatable with your status as an ALPA organizer and harmful to any organizing drive.

You should consider the possibility that ALPA's opponents will download your inflammatory posts in order to demonstrate the contrasts between what ALPA says in SLC and what its organizers do elsewhere.

 

[PCL_128]

You overlook the fact that numerous ALPA VP's and Mainline MEC Chairman have sued ALPA (and won) when their rights were violated.

I don't overlook it. I just don't consider it to be an appropriate way to deal with things. Lawsuits never lead to reform. They only waste time and resources.

You overlook that BSIC members have stated under oath that they are "unfamiliar" with plaintiffs' claims. Therefore, you cannot say with any crediblity that the BSIC responded to the plaintiffs' concerns.

I believe that their testimony stated that they are unfamiliar with the specific claims in the suit, but they did recall your meeting with them. Do you deny that you met with the BSIC and had an opportunity to make a presentation to them? Not many members have an opportunity to have their personal pet complaint heard before a national committee.

The transcripts are full of lawyer-directed statements where ALPA's officials deny knowledge of, or "can't recall" anything of relevance. There's little doubt that both ALPA's members and non-members can draw their own conclusions concerning ALPA's credibility.

ALPA's attorneys barely spoke during the depositions (in stark contrast to Haber's constant interrupting and badgering). I do agree, however, that the membership can clearly draw the right conclusion from the depositions. It's blatantly obvious that your claims have no merit.

I do. SkyWest #1= FAILED, Colgan= #1 FAILED, Chicago Express= FAILED, GoJet= FAILED, SkyWest #2 (in-house supported by ALPA)= FAILED. SkyWest #3= STALLED.

Corrections: there was no earlier Colgan drive. There were low level talks, but no official drive. GoJet? No drive ever took place. Skywest stalled? Hardly. The drive continues and there will likely be a vote this fall.

The actions of ALPA's other organizers indicates otherwise.

You see a single question on the website and assume that this a widespread concern? Keep dreaming. The average Skywest pilot doesn't even know who you or the RJDC are.

Per my reply to your other thread, your vitriolic attacks on reform-minded ALPA members is incompatable with your status as an ALPA organizer and harmful to any organizing drive.

And as I stated on that other thread, I don't consider you to be a reformer. I look forward to you proving me wrong on that. Here's a suggestion: drop the dang lawsuit before you destroy all of our careers!

Seriously though, there's no vitriol coming from me. I use a lot of sarcasm and hyperbole on these boards for entertainment value, but I'd have no problem sitting down with you and having a friendly conversation about this topic or any other topic. I've made the same offer to John B. and Fins. I have no hatred towards you or anyone else involved with the RJDC. I do strongly disagree with you, but there's no vitriol here.

 

[braveheart]

"Lawsuits never lead to reform. They only waste time and resources."

Which landmark court cases protecting the rights of union members do you think were a waste of time?

I believe that their testimony stated that they are unfamiliar with the specific claims in the suit, but they did recall your meeting with them.

The transcripts show that the BSIC members were not only "unfamiliar" with the specifics of the litigation, but they claimed to be "unaware" of the details of ALPA's current scope clauses and "unaware" of ALPA's bargaining proposals. How anyone can say that the BSIC afforded redress when there was so much that they were "unaware" of defies logic.

ALPA's attorneys barely spoke during the depositions

I said "lawyer directed." That includes instructions given by counsel prior to testimony.

Corrections: there was no earlier Colgan drive. There were low level talks, but no official drive. GoJet? No drive ever took place. Skywest stalled? Hardly.

First, I stand corrected on Colgan, I should have said "Commute Air"= FAILED (NMB Case No. 6944)

Second, at GoJet, ALPA sought a NMB single carrier petition in order to forestall a union vote at GoJet (won by the Teamsters.) Ironically, the NMB cited American's 50-seat scope limits as further proof of "separation" between Trans States and GoJet.

Third, do you work for the Bush administration? As the latest SkyWest drive approaches the two-year point, and after a highly publicized "surge"; ALPA has delayed calling for the SkyWest vote citing the need for a "wider margin." I think "stalled" is an accurate term and the situation should be a concern for all ALPA pilots.

You see a single question on the website and assume that this a widespread concern?

Which of ALPA's three organizing web sites are you talking about, SkyWest's, Commutair's, or Chicago Express? All have attempted to address issues raised by the RJDC. Why? Because no one was interested?

I'd have no problem sitting down with you and having a friendly conversation about this topic or any other topic.

OK, I'll take you at your word. For a start, I'll append the link to the RJDC's publication entitled "10-Things Every Airline Pilot Needs to Know About Scope."

Please look through it (not tonight as its already 1 AM) and share your thoughts on how it can be construed as being "anti-scope" or potentially harmful to ALPA's members.

If you wish, feel free to post your thoughts in a new thread as this one's getting a bit long.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdf

 

[FDJ2]

Acarpe,

Did you know that prior to 9/11, ALPA was warned that its mainline bargaining practices were fundamentally flawed and would prove harmful to "mainline" and "regional" pilots alike? /quote]

Dan, do you know that the CMR MEC Chairman has stated in a sworn deposition, that the CMR pilots were not harmed by DAL scope? Look it up, it's in your own website.

 

[~~~^~~~]

FDJ2: Yes we know Lawson said. By the way, his paycheck says "ALPA" on it. Also, the Delta pilots did vote to undermine their own scope, working with management to keep the RJ deliveries more or less on schedule. I don't know the context of Lawson's response - but how can any of us argue with history? Just look around.

Once the Delta pilots sent the 49% of flying out of mainline, other ALPA members should have scoped that flying at ASA and Comair. Delta, ASA and Comair were all three in negotiations at the time and were all owned by the same Company doing the same branded flying. ALPA blocked the ASA and Comair pilots from having any scope over the flying they performed. Worse, ALPA worked with management to facilitate sending that flying out to the lowest bidder and took "bargaining credits" for the sale of flying being performed by another ALPA group.

The SkyWest, RAH, and many others are enjoying the fruits of ALPA's representational failure. Why would they join ALPA when they can sit on the sidelines and enjoy the growth that has resulted from ALPA's destruction of their members' carriers?

 

[JoeMerchant]

And as I stated on that other thread, I don't consider you to be a reformer. I look forward to you proving me wrong on that. Here's a suggestion: drop the dang lawsuit before you destroy all of our careers!

1. Why are you worried about the lawsuit.... didn't you just say that it is going to be thrown out? Why are you worried about it then?

2. How could it destroy "all of our careers"? Give specifics how it could destroy our careers.

 

[JoeMerchant]

We're more than happy to address the concerns in the proper forum. A courtroom is not the proper forum. You had the opportunity to voice your concerns on multiple occasions, and you even had the opportunity to speak with the BSIC on at least one occasion. Suffice it to say that no one was very impressed with you or your cohorts, and your claims had no evidence to back them up.

Ahhh.... yes the infamous BSIC..... created out of the 2000 BOD resolutions regarding predatory scope.... it was to be ALPA's highest priority. If this is true, then why didn't DW even know the names of all the members of the BSIC? If it was such a high priority, don't you think he would know who was on it?

It was created to simply give the illusion that ALPA was actually addressing the concerns that were raised by the ASA, CMR, and EGL MECs.... nothing more.....

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

RJDC Guys:

What is your purpose of getting on this message boards and flapping your dirty laundry in the Colgan Skywest Campaigns. IOW if your lawsuit had merit to stand on its own you wouldn't feel the need to take it to other areas of ALPA operations...

Do you believe that Colgan and Skywest should not become ALPA? If not what alternatives do you suggest? In house? The Status Quo?

In addition, although obvious, what responsibility do you hold yourself to by sandbagging the organization? Because in effect you are saying that suing ALPA is fair game for any ALPA member who feels unjust. Where is the line drawn? When does it end? At what point do you look at the collective interest instead of your own personal gain?

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2: Yes we know Lawson said. By the way, his paycheck says "ALPA" on it.

Only because the CMR pilots voted to make him their MEC Chairman. The CMR pilots have entrusted him to look out for the interests of the CMR pilots. Who elected Dan or you for that matter?

 

[FDJ2]

RJDC Guys:

if your lawsuit had merit to stand on its own you wouldn't feel the need to take it to other areas of ALPA operations...

BINGO!!!!

At what point do you look at the collective interest instead of your own personal gain?

It has always been about their personal gain and their insistence on a big award. $$$$$

 

[Occam's Razor]

Is there any reason a pilot group would need to protect themselves from yield-driven managements?

Not your pilot group...or my pilot group...or an "Airlink" pilot group...or a legacy pilot group...but any pilot group.

If so, why?

Until the RJDC losers answer that question without their ususal salvo of chaff & flares...the issue will remain partisan, when it doesn't have to be.

In the meantime, they'll continue to be mosquitos on a mummy...working hard, with results unlikely.

 

[xray678]

Dan, I'm going to laugh my ass off when Delta chops up CMR and sells off the pieces. Your rediculous lawsuit will be meaningless once Delta sells you.

Enjoy working for Mesa.

 

[PCL_128]

OK, I'll take you at your word. For a start, I'll append the link to the RJDC's publication entitled "10-Things Every Airline Pilot Needs to Know About Scope."

Please look through it (not tonight as its already 1 AM) and share your thoughts on how it can be construed as being "anti-scope" or potentially harmful to ALPA's members.

If you wish, feel free to post your thoughts in a new thread as this one's getting a bit long.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdfhttp://www.rjdefense.com/2003/10_Things_About_Scope.pdf

Dan, I've read that document several times before, in addition to most of the other documents on your website. The anti-scope elements aren't in the propaganda documents; they're in the lawsuit itself. Your lawsuit (and that of Mr. Cooksey) demands an end to ALPA bargaining for scope language that could be considered harmful to another ALPA group. That would be detrimental to our profession.

 

[PCL_128]

FDJ2: Yes we know Lawson said. By the way, his paycheck says "ALPA" on it.

No it doesn't. His paycheck says "Comair" on it. Only the ALPA President and the ALPA staff are employees of ALPA. Captain Lawson is a regular pilot just like you and I.

 

[PCL_128]

1. Why are you worried about the lawsuit.... didn't you just say that it is going to be thrown out? Why are you worried about it then?

Defending against this lawsuit has wasted countless resources over the years. Our attorneys should be focused on the upcoming collective bargaining cycle, but some of them have to spend time on this lawsuit instead. Yes, it will most likely be thrown out very soon, but how much time and money have we wasted over the years because of it?

2. How could it destroy "all of our careers"? Give specifics how it could destroy our careers.

I refer you to my above response to Dan.

 

[flyboyike]

As someone still very new to the industry, I'd like a couple of things explained to me.

1. How can any union (ALPA, Teamster, IBEW, whoever!) provide equal representation to everyone? Is that even physically possible? I mean, there are big carriers and small carriers, regionals, majors, freighters, etc. At some point, the interests of one pilot group are bound to conflict with another. Therefore, there will be times when a union would have to, for the lack of a better term, choose sides, I don't see how this can be avoided.

2. That being said, might it not be a better plan to have smaller unions that have a "tighter" coverage area, so they are not having to be all things to all people? Perhaps, there might be a union that specializes in regional issues vs major vs LCC vs cargo etc? Majors would have theirs, cargo people theirs, and so on.

3. Supposing this lawsuit succeeds, then what? Compensation will be paid, lawyers will get even richer, but the basic situation won't change. You can't sue a turtle into being a cheetah, can you?

Now, I don't claim to have the answers, but it seems to me we're in an impossible situation, as a profession. I think we ought to be thinking about how to change the fundamentals of the industry as opposed to "who killed who".

 

[IamGumbyDammit]

It was a vague reference to the "Eloi". The race of humans that are used as a food source for Morlocks in HG Wells "The Time Machine".

I actually found one web site that helps me understand the RJDC.

TheEssentialRJDC.com

Thanks for making me blow my coffee out my nose.

 

[FDJ2]

1. How can any union (ALPA, Teamster, IBEW, whoever!) provide equal representation to everyone? Is that even physically possible?

It may not be possible, nor is it required. A union must treat its members fairly and provide fair representation, not necessarily equal.

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

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

2. That being said, might it not be a better plan to have smaller unions that have a "tighter" coverage area, so they are not having to be all things to all people?

Economies of scale. ALPA provides resources that would otherwise be prohibitively costly to a small independent union. ALPA also provides a structure which empowers each individual MEC to seek its own contractual goals. Of course each pilot group can decertify ALPA whenever it wants.

3. Supposing this lawsuit succeeds, then what?

Pilots would not be allowed to prevent their company from outsourcing their flying. The dirty little secret at the RJDC is that the entire purpose of the litigation is to put money in their pockets and eliminate scope.

 

[rstev1955]

The RJDC is a crock. I haven't read a single argument that makes any sense, other than they want money. In my view, all they are doing is embarrasing themselves. I have better things to do.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Dan, I've read that document several times before, in addition to most of the other documents on your website. The anti-scope elements aren't in the propaganda documents; they're in the lawsuit itself. Your lawsuit (and that of Mr. Cooksey) demands an end to ALPA bargaining for scope language that could be considered harmful to another ALPA group. That would be detrimental to our profession.

So we can't come up with scope that doesn't "harm another ALPA group"? Some brotherhood......