RJDC Industry and Legal Update

[braveheart]

RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com

Industry and Litigation Update
October 28, 2006​

This update includes:​

1. ALPA Admits it Withheld Crucial Information from the Piedmont and Allegheny Pilots.
2. FAA Proposes to Restrict Small Jet Access to LaGuardia
3. ALPA Says its Small Jet Restrictions Conform to Management’s Plans
4. Is ALPA Attempting to Kill Off Mesaba?
5. Litigation to Enter Next Phase
6. Deposition Transcripts Now On-Line
7. Will ALPA's Own Conduct Doom the Skywest Organizing Drive
   
8. [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]ALPA’s Small Jet Pilots Pay for ALPA’s Failure to Reform
   [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]LINK: [/FONT] [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]Update (Adobe Acrobat 70k)[/FONT]

 

[crashpad]

I think you meant to put this on the Regional Board. Please repost there.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

If you plan to divide and conquer ALPA make sure you have a re-unity plan.

 

[braveheart]

I think you meant to put this on the Regional Board. Please repost there.

The RJDC updates are intended for airline pilots from all walks of life. For example, ALPA is now saying it can only negotiate mainline scope clauses within the confines of management's plans. That differs significantly from what the union has told the rank-and-file in the past.

Thanks

 

[General Lee]

The RJDC is full of pilots who "don't want to start over like the rest of us." They want larger planes, without having to interview at a new airline and start over. They want to keep their 4 weeks of vacation, they want to keep weekends off, and they sure as heck don't want to go over to the right seat, where they could be justly critisized for their poor airmanship. They would never be questioned by new Embry Riddle grads in the right seat for the first time. That is how they like it.

Overall, RJDC members are just plain LAZY.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[AutoBus]

The RJDC is full of pilots who "don't want to start over like the rest of us." They want larger planes, without having to interview at a new airline and start over. They want to keep their 4 weeks of vacation, they want to keep weekends off, and they sure as heck don't want to go over to the right seat, where they could be justly critisized for their poor airmanship. They would never be questioned by new Embry Riddle grads in the right seat for the first time. That is how they like it.

Overall, RJDC members are just plain LAZY.


Bye Bye--General Lee

pretty much sums it up

 

[braveheart]

RJDC members are just plain LAZY

General,

Your hateful remarks are nothing more than a lame attempt to avoid the real issue of ALPA's conduct.

Unfortunately you don't realize that when ALPA admits it withheld pertinent information from the ALG and PDT pilots, it also begs the question whether the union has also withheld equally important information from the UAL, DAL, NWA, and USAir pilots.

 

[GogglesPisano]

The RJDC updates are intended for airline pilots from all walks of life. For example, ALPA is now saying it can only negotiate mainline scope clauses within the confines of management's plans. That differs significantly from what the union has told the rank-and-file in the past.

Thanks

If you want to make better money and fly bigger aircraft, why not just apply to ....

FedEx
UPS
Air Tran
CAL
Cathay
JB
SWA
World

Or, I guess you could simply sue.

 

[General Lee]

General,

Your hateful remarks are nothing more than a lame attempt to avoid the real issue of ALPA's conduct.

Unfortunately you don't realize that when ALPA admits it withheld pertinent information from the ALG and PDT pilots, it also begs the question whether the union has also withheld equally important information from the UAL, DAL, NWA, and USAir pilots.

ALPA, overall, is looking out for our collective interests. There may be some gaps here and there that beg for questions, but overall, they are trying to help the profession. The RJDC is full of lazy pilots that want larger planes without going the same route as all of us did--interviewing and getting hired. They try to do it through lawsuits. That is ridiculous. If you want to fly larger planes for more money, move away from the regionals. It is a simple concept that all of us have already tried. The ones who don't want to go that route are LAZY. ALPA should base most of it's decisions on the amount of dues it gets from it's members, and in reality the Legacy carriers provide most of the dues. So, if you don't like it, you should get your own union (a regional ALPA of sorts) and fight on your own, without the vast amount of resources that our ALPA provides. Since we pay the most, we get what we want more than those who don't pay as much. Move on to a larger airline, and get more of what you want. Welcome to America.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[C425Driver]

It's been so long since the last RJDC update - I thought they just faded away into obscurity. Oh well, it's nice to dream!

General Lee, how could you possibly know RJDC pilots are lazy and want to circumvent the hiring process to get to larger aircraft since DF himself won't actually say what the RJDC wants? Ask him what he wants to achieve with this lawsuit and he'll give you some vague answer about "inclusive scope." Ask him what inclusive scope is and he'll confuse you with some other vague answer. Ask him if he wants one list and he won't give you a straight answer. DF should have been a used car salesman!

GL, I hope my sarcasm shines through in this post. I've been to DF's meetings and asked him what his goals were with this and I couldn't get a straight answer out of him. I fundamentally agree with DF's point that ALPA will sell out a regional pilot at the expense of a mainline pilot (J4J super-seniority). But I absolutely agree that mainline carriers can decide how much and what kind of flying they can farm out.

C425Driver

 

[braveheart]

I fundamentally agree with DF's point that ALPA will sell out a regional pilot at the expense of a mainline pilot (J4J super-seniority).
C425Driver

By stating that you believe ALPA will "sell out" its regional members, aren't you in agreement with the RJDC's stated objectives to:

(1) Protect the ASA and Comair pilots from harm.
(2) Ensure equal and fair representation into the future.

http://www.rjdefense.com

 

[~~~^~~~]

C425 Driver:

Dan can be difficult to understand - mainly because he thinks far ahead of where most of us are thinking.

He wants to reform ALPA. One of the reforms would be an independent judiciary to balance power. If there was a dispute between MEC's it would be better resolved within ALPA than at the bargaining table with both MEC's trying to screw eachother with management as their ally.

ALPA was negotiating on behalf of the Delta, Comair and ASA pilots with Delta management all three at the same time. Would it not have been better to coordinate amongst the three MEC's a common approach to scope? We could have kept more flying at mainline, avoided mainline bidding down ASA's pay rates using phantom airplanes and avoided all the transfer of Delta flying to non-union carriers. But the Delta pilots refused to work with other ALPA members and we are living with the result now.

Mesaba and Compass is another example which fails both the regional pilots and mainline guys. (and is rumored to be THE reason Duane lost his support base)

Part of the reason Dan does not go into specifics is because with the proper representational structure it is up to all ALPA members to decide how to run their affairs (not Dan Ford, you, General Lee, or me). Dan just wants a level playing field so ALPA represents its members equally.

 

[PCL_128]

Dan can be difficult to understand - mainly because he thinks far ahead of where most of us are thinking.

Hahahahahha!!!! Thanks Fins, I needed a good laugh. That was great!

Mesaba and Compass is another example which fails both the regional pilots and mainline guys. (and is rumored to be THE reason Duane lost his support base)

Those rumors aren't even close to accurate. Captain Woerth's loss in that election had absolutely zero to do with Compass, Mesaba, or any other regional carrier.

 

[samballs]

The RJDC is full of pilots who "don't want to start over like the rest of us." They want larger planes, without having to interview at a new airline and start over. They want to keep their 4 weeks of vacation, they want to keep weekends off, and they sure as heck don't want to go over to the right seat, where they could be justly critisized for their poor airmanship. They would never be questioned by new Embry Riddle grads in the right seat for the first time. That is how they like it.

Overall, RJDC members are just plain LAZY.


Bye Bye--General Lee

I fly with alot of these guys at comair, sad to say but I agree with you. They talk silly. A couple days after the accident the CEO came to ops to talk about the accident, and did not want to talk at all about the contract, well one old guy (like you LEE) would not let it go he kept talking how we should get the mainline planes DL is ditching, because we can fly them cheaper and hence the planes will be profitable again. Funny thing is a few minutes later he was b!tching about other regionals are undercutting us.

 

[~~~^~~~]

PCL, I heard it had everything to do with NorthWest, many of whom don't like Compass either - I wasn't there, just repeating what I heard from those who were in attendence. What are your thoughts on why he lost?

Thanks for taking my scan off your Avitar. I always thought it ironic that your Avitar was born on this computer. I need to honor my retirement and leave this stuff to you anyway. Congrad's on the upgrade.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL, I heard it had everything to do with NorthWest - I wasn't there, just repeating what I heard from those who were in attendence. What are your thoughts on why he lost?

Check your PMs in a few minutes.

I need to honor my retirement and leave this stuff to you anyway. Congrad's on the upgrade.

Retirement? When did that happen?

 

[Beanie]

The RJDC is full of pilots who "don't want to start over like the rest of us." They want larger planes, without having to interview at a new airline and start over. They want to keep their 4 weeks of vacation, they want to keep weekends off, and they sure as heck don't want to go over to the right seat, where they could be justly critisized for their poor airmanship. They would never be questioned by new Embry Riddle grads in the right seat for the first time. That is how they like it.

Overall, RJDC members are just plain LAZY.


Bye Bye--General Lee

GL, I used to be so against you on this,(pretty vehemently) but now I see you were pretty much right on. The only thing I think I could add is that some of them might not be lazy, they just have topped out career wise and cannot get throught the interview process beyond the regionals. Now, if they can't get into the game because they lack the skill set to move on to the next level, they will sacrifice everything to bring the game down to their level. I might not agree about some things with you GL, but you are right about this one.

 

[braveheart]

ALPA's own history books vilify E.L. Cord's (dba Century Airlines) practice of telling pilots they're fired while simultaneously giving them job applications at his "new" airline.

Yet, the basis of the arguments throughout this thread is that if we're unhappy with our union's conduct, we should terminate our employment with our current employers and then seek employment elsewhere; rather than bringing about a change in the union's objectionable conduct.

Such lame arguments illustrate the RJDC's point that for every objectionable thing management does, it can be shown where the union has engaged in the identical conduct against its own. Worse, when the union engages in such conduct, it sends a clear message to management that they can do likewise.

So rather than hurling inaccurate and hateful remarks against those who advocate reform, why not focus on what ALPA should do differently in order to avoid a continuation of the last five years-- which I'm sure no one wants to repeat.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2006/102806up.pdf

 

[BeCareful!]

ALPA's own history books vilify E.L. Cord's (dba Century Airlines) practice of telling pilots they're fired while simultaneously giving them job applications at his "new" airline.

Yet, the basis of the arguments throughout this thread is that if we're unhappy with our union's conduct, we should terminate our employment with our current employers and then seek employment elsewhere; rather than bringing about a change in the union's objectionable conduct.

Such lame arguments illustrate the RJDC's point that for every objectionable thing management does, it can be shown where the union has engaged in the identical conduct against its own. Worse, when the union engages in such conduct, it sends a clear message to management that they can do likewise.

So rather than hurling inaccurate and hateful remarks against those who advocate reform, why not focus on what ALPA should do differently in order to avoid a continuation of the last five years-- which I'm sure no one wants to repeat.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2006/102806up.pdf

The only lame thing here is the vague language in your post. You're never going to convince anyone with all of this mumbling, man.....come out with it! What do you really want? I don't hear anyone but you saying we should change employers if we are unhappy with ALPA.....that's just complete and utter nonsense. What the General is saying, quite clearly, is if you want to fly big airplanes then you should apply and get hired at an airline that operates big airplanes. Unions and lawsuits can't change that basic principal, but I do understand how a career at the regionals would make you think that....sorta makes one a little crazy, eh? (Me too, btw.)

 

[A350]

I won't say that all regional pilots who support the RJDC are lazy... but I will state the obvious from my past.

When I flew for a regional....I flew for one of AMR's carriers. We existed solely for the purpose of FEEDING mainline planes at the carriers hubs, PERIOD. We did no flying over the hub, we did no flying for other carriers. Every flight was for one purpose...to support the mainline carrier whose code we carried. My job, my paycheck, my career at that moment belonged to and was at the behest of the mainline partner.

I learned from the vagaries of the business that that wan't a way I wanted to live so I did everything I could to get on the other side of the equation.

Somewhere along the way, the regionals became major airlines by themselves. However they still suck at the teat of the mainline and have been used, with or without their knowledge, to suck the life out of what was a great career. No longer is the regional loyal to the mainline, nor are they even to help the mainline make a profit. They have been morphed into nothing but a cost center supplier of seats that can be replaced whenever the mainline decides it can go elsewhere for cheaper.

You decide for yourself...

A350

 

[PCL_128]

why not focus on what ALPA should do differently in order to avoid a continuation of the last five years-- which I'm sure no one wants to repeat.

I am focusing on what ALPA can do differently, but I'm doing it in a productive manner instead of the destructive manner that you insist on. My way will slowly change the Association from within. Your way will destroy the Association and the profession for good. I'll stick with my way, thank you very much.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I am focusing on what ALPA can do differently, but I'm doing it in a productive manner instead of the destructive manner that you insist on. My way will slowly change the Association from within. Your way will destroy the Association and the profession for good. I'll stick with my way, thank you very much.

Trying to change the problem "slowly from within" is how we got to the mess we are in. Big problems, such as the current fee-for-departure portfolio bidding war, can't wait for "slow" changes. This is a fundamental problem with big organizations, be they unions, corporations, or govt. - the big problems tend to grow faster than the solutions.

ALPA has been trying slowly since the early 90s to solve the scope debacle. However the problem has been growing faster than any solutions. As with any major problem, the longer it festers with out a solution, the more unlikely it can be solved.

 

[PCL_128]

Trying to change the problem "slowly from within" is how we got to the mess we are in. Big problems, such as the current fee-for-departure portfolio bidding war, can't wait for "slow" changes. This is a fundamental problem with big organizations, be they unions, corporations, or govt. - the big problems tend to grow faster than the solutions.

ALPA has been trying slowly since the early 90s to solve the scope debacle. However the problem has been growing faster than any solutions. As with any major problem, the longer it festers with out a solution, the more unlikely it can be solved.

So your answer is a lawsuit that, if successful, would destroy the profession? Sorry, I'll stick with the slow and steady approach.

 

[JoeMerchant]

So your answer is a lawsuit that, if successful, would destroy the profession? Sorry, I'll stick with the slow and steady approach.

It is the "slow and steady" failure by ALPA that is helping to destroy the profession. The lawsuit may be the wakeup call this union needs to pick up the pace a little. Many times, big organizations need big wake-up calls to really start solving the problems they face.

 

[braveheart]

if you want to fly big airplanes then you should apply and get hired at an airline that operates big airplanes.

ALPA's spin doctors have long alleged that anyone who objects to ALPA's conduct must secretly covet mainline aircraft for themselves. This is a blatantly false statement that's intended to inflame the masses and detract from the real issues.

For example:

• ALPA has now admitted that it withheld pertinent bargaining information from the ALG and PDT pilots. What does that have to do with flying mainline aircraft?
• ALPA first imposed Jets-for-Jobs at PSA and then imposed "slotted bidding" thereafter. What does that have to do with flying mainline aircraft?
• At NWA, ALPA prohibited Mesaba and PCL from obtaining any of the additional CRJ's authorized in the 2005 "Bridge" agreement. What does that have to do with flying mainline aircraft?

So let's stop throwing the unfounded allegations and insults and have a cogent factual debate, even if we disagree.

http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/J4J_FactSheet.pdf
http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/psa_loa_8.pdf

 

[JoeMerchant]

The only lame thing here is the vague language in your post. You're never going to convince anyone with all of this mumbling, man.....come out with it! What do you really want? I don't hear anyone but you saying we should change employers if we are unhappy with ALPA.....that's just complete and utter nonsense. What the General is saying, quite clearly, is if you want to fly big airplanes then you should apply and get hired at an airline that operates big airplanes. Unions and lawsuits can't change that basic principal, but I do understand how a career at the regionals would make you think that....sorta makes one a little crazy, eh? (Me too, btw.)

Here was a settlement proposal from 5 years ago:

http://www.rjdefense.com/settlementproposal.pdf

 

[JoeMerchant]

So your answer is a lawsuit that, if successful, would destroy the profession? Sorry, I'll stick with the slow and steady approach.

Here was an RJDC settlement proposal from 5 years ago. It didn't ask to destroy ALPA, and it didn't ask for any money. Read it and see what you think...

http://www.rjdefense.com/settlementproposal.pdf

 

[braveheart]

My way will slowly change the Association from within. Your way will destroy the Association and the profession for good.

PCL_128:

It was the RJDC who warned prior to 9/11 that the union's anti-small jet scope clauses were seriously flawed and would fail to protect mainline jobs. If you care to research the scope dispute at ALPA, the politicians have been promising reforms for over ten years, so the notion that objectors are merely "impatient" is simply erroneous.

More so, crucial labor reforms have always been driven by legal action. For example, the Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) standard came from the landmark case Steele v. Louisville-Nashville Railroad. There, the railroad union used its "scope"clause to disenfranchise African-American workers, including imposing such egregious terms as denying non-white workers advancement opportunities and requiring that they be furloughed out of seniority-- before any white workers.

So accusing dissenters of attempting to "destroy" the union is a tired old argument intended to only to obfuscate, delay, or block needed reforms. As history shows, organized labor is better off because of those who took a stand against unjust practices.
________________

Links:

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

Historical Reference:

From Steele v. Louisville-Nashville Railroad

"On March 28, 1940, the Brotherhood, purporting to act as representative of the entire craft of firemen, without informing the Negro firemen or giving them opportunity to be heard, served a notice on respondent Railroad and on twenty other railroads operating principally in the southeastern part of the United States. The notice announced the Brotherhood's desire to amend the existing collective bargaining agreement in such manner as ultimately to exclude all Negro firemen from the service. By established practice on the several railroads so notified only white firemen can be promoted to serve as engineers, and the notice proposed that only 'promotable', i.e., white, men should be employed as firemen or assigned to new runs or jobs or permanent vacancies in established runs or jobs."

 

[PCL_128]

Here was an RJDC settlement proposal from 5 years ago. It didn't ask to destroy ALPA, and it didn't ask for any money. Read it and see what you think...

http://www.rjdefense.com/settlementproposal.pdf

What do I think? I think that much like everything else Dan Ford says or writes, that document uses a lot of words to say very little of substance. The parts that pertain to Scope are extremely vague, and leave us open to future litigation from the same group of malcontents after the "settlement" is complete. Many of the other items (especially under dispute resolution and local finances) are just completely unacceptable, and it's obvious why the Association's legal team wouldn't even consider this settlement.

 

[PCL_128]

More so, crucial labor reforms have always been driven by legal action. For example, the Duty of Fair Representation (DFR) standard came from the landmark case Steele v. Louisville-Nashville Railroad. There, the railroad union used its "scope"clause to disenfranchise African-American workers, including imposing such egregious terms as denying non-white workers advancement opportunities and requiring that they be furloughed out of seniority-- before any white workers.

The idea that you're trying to compare your seniority/money grab to the plight of minority workers being discrimated against is simply unbelievable. But, I guess I should expect something like that from the RJDC.

So accusing dissenters of attempting to "destroy" the union is a tired old argument intended to only to obfuscate, delay, or block needed reforms. As history shows, organized labor is better off because of those who took a stand against unjust practices.

Anyone who has read your lawsuit knows that a victory on your part would mean an end to the Association. The changes that would be required of all Scope language would cripple the Association's ability to protect careers, and this profession would quickly devolve into nothing but a common blue-collar job. Not to mention the ridiculous monetary claims that you originally included that the judge threw out. Those claims would have bankrupted the Association many times over.