RJDC in a Nutshell

[GogglesPisano]

Guys, I'd like a concise summary of the RJDC's mission statement. Let's keep it simple: No cut and paste quotes from their lawsuit/newsletter; no vague statements out of context. And above all, keep the posts short and sweet. Speaking for myself, I rarely read a post more than two or three paragraphs long.

What do they want? Are they against all scope clauses? Do they really want to fly bigger airplanes for lower wages?

(And, oh yeah, please be civil.)

 

[StaySeated]

T Minus...

This should get stupid in RECORD time!

 

[FL000]

Re: T Minus...

This should get stupid in RECORD time!

...don't forget long, boring, useless, irritating, polarizing, etc.

 

[N2264J]

Guys, I'd like a concise summary of the RJDC's mission statement.

The plaintiffs seek fair representation from their union.
From the website: www.rjdefense.com

Objectives

If legal action against the Association is initiated, it will have two objectives:

1. Prevent the ASA and Comair pilots from being harmed by ALPA's predatory bargaining.

2. Compel ALPA to treat all of its members at Delta Air Lines equally and without discrimination.

 

[FL000]

someone please lock the thread NOW!

 

[chperplt]

FL000

What's with your avitar? Did he get arrested?

 

[FL000]

Yeah. I think it was for fighting over a parking space or something like that during the 2000 election watch in Florida. It's on smokinggun.com archives somewhere.

 

[chperplt]

Thanks!

 

[acarpe3448]

Just my opinion!

In a nut shell, RJDC wants the scope clause removed from the Delta pilot contract. They would like to see the company free to determine the right size aircraft for the market. What does this mean? They want mother Delta to be able to purchase as many of the 70 seat jets as they want and to give those aircraft to ASA and Comair. With the freedom to purchase more 70 seaters they also expect to be able to get all of the flying that goes along with them. This will result in growth for them, upgrades, more money with the 100 seaters that they also feel they deserve. In short, more security for their pilots, and increase in the value of a career at ASA or Comair. (Security!) Something myself and 1059 other pilots have not experienced in years. They will argue that all they want is to be treated fairly and to avoid predatory bargining, but in the end what the RJDC is really wanting is more flying and bigger jets.

I also thaught I would add that it is my belief that the majority of these two pilot groups do not support the RJDC.

 

[michael707767]

Just my opinion!

They will argue that all they want is to be treated fairly and to avoid predatory bargining, but in the end what the RJDC is really wanting is more flying and bigger jets.

I also thaught I would add that it is my belief that the majority of these two pilot groups do not support the RJDC.

Thats it......in a nutshell. They will argue they are not against scope and all they want is to be represented fairly. Its all bull**CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**. Read what Surplus1 says. He admits that he wants to end run our scope and he thinks the CMR pilots should be able to fly anything below a 737, because thats the smallest plane DAL flies.

They are all full of it. They want to eliminate scope and have a free for all. The funny thing is, if they are successful, they will not get the flying. Cheaper airlines like Skywest will be the ones who get all the growth.

 

[Obi-Wan]

Basically they are saying that the scope clause of the Delta contract is against the interest of the regional pilots. In my opinion the opposite holds true. As regional guys we want most of the growth at the majors and not at the regional airlines. Why, well for one its the quality of life and pay the majors offer. Second, you have more veriety as far as the flying and aircraft go. I love flying RJ's, but the jet I really want to fly are at the majors. This is just a ploy by management and some old bitter pilots who dont have a college degree or are afraid of moving on, to further their careers at the regional level. All this does is hurt the majority that want to move up. My $0.02.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Not quite right.

Basically they are saying that union members should be allowed at the table when their work is being negotiated.

The union essentially says 'no, we are the sole bargaining agent and decide who will be at the table,' thereby excluding any regional pilots including those who work for the same company. (Save the wholly owned subsidiary krap for another thread).

There is no expectation that the good pilots of Delta have any interest or obligation to negotiate in the regional pilots' best interests, just check the postings on this board to confirm that. On the other hand, our union, the ALPA does have a fuduciary obligation to those of us dues paying members in good standing. ALPA has been happily collecting dues from Comair pilots for nearlly two decades now including several assessments such as the one at Eastern.

And in that regard, I do hold my union accountable. Just look at the J4J fiasco at USAirways leading up to the most recent LOA 91 to show what happens when one pilot group is unilaterally allowed to impose contractural mandates on another.

It is almost comical that people decry that the RJDC's efforts are leading to some "open skies" type warfare, that they really want to steal mainline flying while at the same time implementing their OWN restrictions via exclusionary scope and going after the flying that regional pilots perform.

It is a duty of fair representation case, it is alleged that ALPA has failed in that regard as evidenced by their scope practices.

 

[surplus1]

Thats it......in a nutshell. They will argue they are not against scope and all they want is to be represented fairly.

Yep, you got that right.

Read what Surplus1 says. He admits that he wants to end run our scope and he thinks the CMR pilots should be able to fly anything below a 737, because thats the smallest plane DAL flies.

Wrong. Apparently you read but you failed to comprehend. I do not want to "end run" your scope. I want to eliminate the components of your scope that were illegally negotiated. I am happy with any scope that controls your flying. I am not happy with scope that attempts to control our fying. And no, all of the Company's flying does not belong to you.You have no legal right to control our flying, you just think you do. I seek to set your thinking straight.

You don't seem to have any problem believing that you should be able to fly the airplanes that we operate, including the 70-seaters and even the 50-seaters. You further believe that you have the right to limit their number and where they may fly. You do not think that is wrong, you believe that it is your sacred right. Other than your own agrandized view of yourselves, what gives you that right?

You have no problem believing that you should be able to fly the equipment that we already have, but you are upset that we might want to fly equipment that you do not have. Why? Why do you believe that you have more right to fly equiment that neither one of us currently operates, than we do? Tell us why you have the greater right. I would really like to know.

There's a hypocrit in all of this and it appears to be you. You remind me of those who believe that they, and they alone, are "God's chosen people" to the exclusion of all others. In contrast, I believe that the Creator is not nearly as prejudiced as the products of His creation.

They are all full of it. They want to eliminate scope and have a free for all. The funny thing is, if they are successful, they will not get the flying. Cheaper airlines like Skywest will be the ones who get all the growth.

We have something in common. You think we're "full of it" and we think your overflowing with it, i.e., your concept of yourselves. Neither you nor I know exactly what will happen in the industry when, not if, we are successful. However, we both know what will stop happening.

You will no longer be able to control our destiny or our future without our consent. You will no longer be able to use our careers as bargaining chips in your negotiations. You will no longer be able to impose your will upon us, against our will.

Face it my friend, what upsets you is not what might happen to your scope, it is what will happen to your power to abuse others at will. That is what you fear losing. It is also what you ought to lose.

 

[Future SNA]

I don't understand why ANY regional pilot WOULD EVER want to fly ANYTHING bigger than a 50 seater. I mean COME ON GUYS, all we're doing is taking away from flying that mainline does, AND DECIDINGLY RUINING any future we EVER have of flying something bigger, aka MORE MONEY. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that in 10-15-20 years, that the mainline carriers, whatever there title may be, won't be in better financial shape. If your a 40 something at a regional and are starting to think your days of finding a bigger better job are over, I truly am sorry, but for the younger population, man, think long term. I feel like the uninformed are the ones begging, pleading, praying for a 70 or a 90 seat jet at their company, I think the rest are just happy with a 50 seater.

 

[michael707767]

Yep, you got that right.



Why? Why do you believe that you have more right to fly equiment that neither one of us currently operates, than we do? Tell us why you have the greater right. I would really like to know.

Why do we have the greater right? We, contractually own that flying, just like we contractually own all DAL code flying. Like it or not, its in the contract. I can understand your beef with the limits on the 70 seats and below. But above that the fact that we do not operate an aircraft has no bearing. Look at your own contract. You do not operate a 35 seat aircraft, but yet your scope limits your company to 20 seaters? Do you loose the right to a 35 seat aircraft because you do not currently operate it? We don't operate an A-320 either, does that mean we do not have the right to fly that? Are you implying that scope is no good unless you are currently operating a specific aircraft?

Use all the rhetoric and long speeches you want. Bottom line is the RJDC folks are trying to gut scope so they can fly aircraft they do no currently fly.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Nice try, Mike, but your own analogy is flawed. If Comair operated 35 seat aircraft, our inclusive scope policy requires the company to either staff them with Comair pilots or merge with the other pilot group via the time tested Alleghenny-Mohawk protocol. The Delta pilots, whose MEC vigorously opposed any kind of merger with ASA and Comair, instead use their exclusionary scope (courageously contrived during our strike) to financially cripple the aircraft that we currently fly and that they have apparently no interest in themselves.

But it is not you that is being faulted for your myopia in the legal arena, it is OUR union.

 

[StaySeated]

lets go back to a happy place...

So I bought the chocolate bar and it had the winning ticket, I just don't know who I should bring to the chocolate factory for the big tour....

 

[surplus1]

Are you implying that scope is no good unless you are currently operating a specific aircraft?

No, michael, I am not implying that and do not intend to imply that or anything even close. You are letting your frustrations run away with you imagination.

Bottom line is the RJDC folks are trying to gut scope so they can fly aircraft they do no currently fly.

That is not so Michael. I don't know what you mean by "gutting scope", but IF that means get rid of scope alltogether, the answer is NO. That is not what the RJDC seeks. Scope is an essential component of every labor agreement and the RJDC both knows and supports that.

There is legitimate scope and there is illegitimate scope. Only the latter is opposed.

You have changed what you used to tell me. You used to say that you had no problem with 70 seat scope, just to any limits on the 70 seaters and below. But now, suddenly you are saying that you have a right to any aircraft that we do not operate, scope or not. What has changed?

I say again, you are misinterpreting what I have said. There is no change in my position.

First you must understand that I am not an official spokesperson for the RJDC. I speak for myself. I know quite a bit about what the RJDC is trying to do, but I don't run it and I don't make its decisions. I merely support the effort. I also consistently attempt to avoid saying anything that I know to be at odds with RJDC positions.

It is still my belief that if Delta's scope was returned to what existed in the 1996 PWA, the dispute over scope would end. I also continue to believe that is consistent with the RJDC's objectives.

However, that would not end the dispute with the ALPA over representation. The ALPA is permitting an external MEC to negotiate the job security of ASA and Comair pilots, without their consent. The ALPA is doing the very same thing with respect to several other regional airlines, especially those associated with USAirways, NWA and UAL. That action violates the DFR. ALPA must take action to prevent that in the future and to ensure that the careers of regional pilots are not used as bargaining chips in mainline pilot negotiations. Until that is changed by ALPA, the litigation will continue. This is not a lawsuit against the Delta pilots or the Delta MEC. The action is against the ALPA.

Both that issue and the scope issue come from the same cause, i.e., the failure of the union to represent fairly. That is what has to be resolved.

When the judge dismissed several counts of the original lawsuit, many mainline pilots were exuberant. They were premature with their exuberance and wrong in their analysis. In fact the only thing the judge really did was recognize the core issue, fair representation. He realized that the resolution of that core issue was the key to the entire suit. He in fact dismissed nothing, he merely consolidated the issues, upheld the complaint and set the matter for trial.

It is still possible, as with every case, to settle out of court. I firmly believe that will NOT happen unless the ALPA agrees to changes in policy that remove permanently the cause of this lititation and preclude its recurrence in the future.

This is much bigger than who flys what airplane. Until you elect to realize that basic truth, all the talk about airplanes and scope clauses is wasted rhetoric.

I say again, my original position on the 70-seat flying has not changed. However, if no action is taken to return to the original status, the longer it lasts the more becomes fair game.

As the saying goes, "all is fair in love and war". This is a war of survival. The war was declared with the full agreement and support of the ALPA, by the Delta MEC, which launched a direct attack on the careers of Comair and ASA pilots and has continued its assault since day one. Until the attacking force is completely withdrawn, every legal strategy will be deployed against it.

If that means that we have to move from a position of defense to one of counter attack, it will happen. Our survival is at stake and we find life as an "occupied" province of the Delta MEC untenable.
You must withdraw your forces. If you do not, they may well be persued beyond our own borders in the effort to prevent future attacks. That statement does contain an inference, which you may read as you see fit.

That is not a change in my policy or beliefs. I've been warning of that possibility for at least two years. If you're interested, search my old posts to FlyDeltasJets and you will see the repeated warnings of a potential bidding war.

To date that bidding war is confined to competition between regional pilot groups, which is not what I was predicting What I am predicting is a bidding war between major and regional.

While I do think that would be a disaster for airline pilots, I am not blind to the danger. Unfortunately, most mainline pilots seem to be.

You might want to take a second look at the probabilities. Unless your policies change, the worst may well come true. Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.

 

[acarpe3448]

I don't know about anyone else, but I sure get sick of reading Surplus1's thesis length answers. For all those that feel the same way, let me try to paraphrase him.

1. We still want all of the 50 seaters we can get.

2. Give us all the 70 seaters we want.

3. We think we are entitled to all the 90 seater, 100seater aircraft ordered in the future.

4. We want to get rid of the planned percentages. If Delta Pilots can not accept low wages like we are willing to fly for than we should be able to fly 50% 60% 70% of all Delta flying.

5. I could never get a job at a major airline. I was to lazy to apply, I did not have a college degree, so being very senior where I am now, I'll try to change the system so that I can take what I did not deserve. All those wanting on board, please join in! www.takeyourjobaway.com

 

[jarhead]

acarpe3448

You lose most of your credibility when you resort to hyperbole (that's a lie, if you don't know the meaning) Your point #5 about Surplus 1 is so far off base, that it hardly is worth responding to.

But I will.

Surplus is a college graduate.

Surplus has flown for a "major airline"

Surplus has flown as an Air Force officer.

Surplus has flown international, four engine transport aircraft.


It's fine to vent and argue your point, but for God's sake,
don't invent non truths. You destroy all your credibility when you do that.