RJDC letter to DW

[FurloughedAgain]

deleted due to lack of interest.

 

[AutoBus]

Would you oppose ASA/Skywest flying 100+ seaters on their own, separate from the Delta codeshare?

Joe

That would actually make them an airline, refreshing..... But naw, they would not want to do that way too risky, can't make money that way (see FLYI). better to have mainline pay all your costs and give you 5 to 7% margin..

 

[michael707767]

Would you oppose ASA flying 90 seaters for another codeshare partner now that we aren't going to be wholly owned?

Would you oppose ASA/Skywest flying 100+ seaters on their own, separate from the Delta codeshare?

whether or not I oppose it is irrelevant. I believe it is legal now under our contract, with some restraints. Actually, don't know about any aircraft over 100 seats, but I think the E-190 is legal as long as its not flown under Delta code or on a route Delta operates. So, within that, my opinion doesn't matter.

 

[JoeMerchant]

That would actually make them an airline, refreshing..... But naw, they would not want to do that way too risky, can't make money that way (see FLYI). better to have mainline pay all your costs and give you 5 to 7% margin..

That's not what I asked. Do you support mainline scope language that limits what ASA/SKYW does OUTSIDE of the DAL/UAL codeshares? If it isn't going to happen, then why the language in mainline scope sections that limit what the regional codeshares do OUTSIDE of the codeshare?

Joe

 

[JoeMerchant]

whether or not I oppose it is irrelevant. I believe it is legal now under our contract, with some restraints. Actually, don't know about any aircraft over 100 seats, but I think the E-190 is legal as long as its not flown under Delta code or on a route Delta operates. So, within that, my opinion doesn't matter.

Well then why did ACA have to terminate the DAL codeshare when it started Indy Air? Your scope language DOES limit what we do outside the DAL codeshare and thus the reason there is an RJDC.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Because I really don't want to spend much time on this: Can one of you RJDC's please explain to me what the end game is here? How big an aircraft would satisfy your needs? And at what kind of pay and benefits?

Trying to get a sense of the nature of the beast.

It is about representation.

What airplanes are flown where for how much are up to the union's membership.

The RJDC is not about a scope solution, pay rate, or "stealing" seniority, airplanes, or anything of the sort.

The scope problem is a symptom of ALPA's promotion of some members' interests while denying other members the ability to negotiate contracts which bind the party which has operational control of their flying. But scope is merely a symptom - the disease is the failure of representation.

The "end game" is the result of whatever pilots negotiate for themselves on a level playing field. The RJDC just wants to the process work the way it is supposed to.

Arguing about E170's is sexy, but it is really irrelevant to the RJDC battle. About the closest the RJDC gets to the issue is that they believe that scope which was negotiated in a way that excluded parties who had the right to be represented is invalid. Basically the offending contract language would have to be re-negotiated with the proper parties at the table. The result of those negotiations depend on the MEC's and Companies involved.

~~~^~~~

 

[FurloughedAgain]

"the disease is the failure of representation."

Don't they have a cream for that?

 

[JoeMerchant]

"the disease is the failure of representation."

Don't they have a cream for that?

No but ALPA does have a committee that will study why the disease is present. The committee will then recommend further study to determine if there is need for a cream. In 5 years, if the committee determines that there is need for a cream, it will form another study committee to best determine how to apply the cream.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

(yawn) the association is a dinosaur.

They're not providing useful representation to anyone. They just take their 2% and watch the thousands of furloughs, thousands of outsourced jobs, thousands of pension plans eliminated.

What is it they do again?

 

[AutoBus]

It is about representation.

What airplanes are flown where for how much are up to the union's membership.

The RJDC is not about a scope solution, pay rate, or "stealing" seniority, airplanes, or anything of the sort.

The scope problem is a symptom of ALPA's promotion of some members' interests while denying other members the ability to negotiate contracts which bind the party which has operational control of their flying. But scope is merely a symptom - the disease is the failure of representation.

The "end game" is the result of whatever pilots negotiate for themselves on a level playing field. The RJDC just wants to the process work the way it is supposed to.

Arguing about E170's is sexy, but it is really irrelevant to the RJDC battle.

dude, RJ lift providers are subcontractors. if you have an issue your contract talk to your company. If I have an issue with my contract I talk to my company.

I take exception to an employee of a sub contractor argueing that my contract (or who ever represents me) is unfair to him. ALPA need sto protect my interests to my company, ALPA needs to protect your interests to your company. ALPA has no business trying to protect your interests to my company.

So your saying ALPA is not representing you because they refuse to interfere (on behalf of you) with my contract with my company?

 

[Halo_RJdriver]

Piano Man is Correct... Grow the Majors...Big IRon her we come.

 

[michael707767]

Do you support mainline scope language that limits what ASA/SKYW does OUTSIDE of the DAL/UAL codeshares? If it isn't going to happen, then why the language in mainline scope sections that limit what the regional codeshares do OUTSIDE of the codeshare?

Joe

Short answer, yes I support it. Why? Well, I don't want a company like Skywest to make money off a Delta code share, and then turn around and use that money to buy airplanes which will ultimately be used in competition against us. Look at Independence. They are struggling and may not make it. Better for Delta since there will not be another LCC to compete against. Keeping the Delta code share may have given Indy time to become a dangerous low cost competitor for Delta, something which is not in the interests of the Delta pilots.

If your company wants to sign on to provide feed for Delta, fine. But when you start making moves to become a Delta competitor, thats fine too. But terminate your contract with Delta. So, yes I think its fair that we limit your ability to do so.

 

[jbDC9]

If your company wants to sign on to provide feed for Delta, fine. But when you start making moves to become a Delta competitor, thats fine too. But terminate your contract with Delta. So, yes I think its fair that we limit your ability to do so.

It's so simple isn't it? You've hit the nail on the head here, but the RJDC morons just can't see it. They want bigger planes, fewer restrictions, blah blah blah... they can have all that and more if they just ditch the Delta code share and become their own airline. Easy! As it stands now, Comair isn't an "airline", they're a contractor providing lift and pilots to service Delta routes. So, either fly your DL contract and stop bitching about it, or do like Independence Air has done so successfully and go it alone, run your own airline and get bigger airplanes.

RJDC, quit whining about "The Man" keeping you down.

 

[FDJ2]

Well then why did ACA have to terminate the DAL codeshare when it started Indy Air?

Indy flies aircraft configured with more than 97 seats, the current limit. At the time the limit was 70 seats. Since Indy made the decision to go to the Bus, DAL was no longer permitted to have a DCI contract with the competition.

Your scope language DOES limit what we do outside the DAL codeshare and thus the reason there is an RJDC.

Our scope language limits what DAL does.