RJDC update (4/4/04) part 1

[FurloughedAgain]

Scope

Actually Michael I would strongly oppose any language that would provide Comair/ASA/et al with any number of 737s?

Why? Because as a US Airways furloughee i'm intimately aware of the dangers of outsourcing.... to the tune of 1800 furloughees -- over 20% of the pilot group.

Now that I suddenly find myself a so-called "regional" lifer though I have to view the equation from another perspective.

I too used to spout the mantra "USAir can fly a MILLION RJs, as long as their on our property with our pilots flying them!"

Unfortunately that horse left the barn a long time ago. We (and by "we" I mean the pilots association as a whole) determined that certain flying was undesirable and that we were willing to allow the company to outsource that flying.

At first that flying consisted of the Twin Otter and the Metroliner. Then we added the Shorts, the Saab, and the Dash 8. Before long we were allowing the company to outsource equipment that could easily REPLACE what was traditionally mainline flying. The Dornier 328 turboprop was promptly placed on city-pairs that may not have been profitably flown by the mainline, but were EXTREMELY profitable when flown by a feeder. Then came the regional jet...

If we wanted the product we should never have allowed the company to outsource it... not one. It was the PERFECT opportunity to make the leap that there was no longer any such THING as a "regional" airline... but rather that we all did the same job and it was time to put us all on one-list.

We failed to take advantage of that opportunity.

So here we are.

We're fighting amongst ourselves for Delta Air Lines flying. Delta management is giving each branch of the company a little bit... and always dangling the carrot of more. Now they have expanded the playing field by bringing an even LOWER cost provider into the fray - Chautauqua, Skywest, ACA, Skyway?

We undercut you. They undercut us. Management is loving it.

If you think that I want a 737 at Comair, you're dead wrong. I dont want to see a SINGLE airplane at Comair with greater than 70 seats. Not one.

That being said your scope language is ARTIFICIALLY, numerically restricting the number of CRJ700s that my company can fly.

YOUR CONTRACT IS RESTRICTING THE ABILITY OF MY COMPANY TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL AIRPLANES. You are artificially limiting my ability to make a career at Comair.

What if your codeshare with Continental was implemented and Continental had scope language which prevented a codeshare with any company that operated in excess of 50 757s? What if Delta, in an effort to comply, parked all 757s in excess of number 50?

Worse yet, what if those 757s showed up at Virgin USA - A Delta Air Lines Partner - flying Delta passengers from Delta hubs at a fraction of your compensation?

Personally, Michael, I have no problem with you defining what flying is to be done by the Delta Air Lines pilots --- that is pure scope and EVERY SINGLE CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES MUST INCLUDE IT.

I say again - SCOPE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

What I DO have a problem with is your contract restricting the growth of my company by "remote control". You determined the flying was undesirable... you scoped it away. Dont try to restrict it or take it back.

Pick some benchmark.... maybe 70 seats... maybe 65,000 lbs... and release the scope on anything less. Give us a chance to build a career here.

Despite what General Lee would like you to believe we're not all a bunch of flight instructors who came to work in an RJ with 500TT and a shiny-new flight kit.

There are literally HUNDREDS of Comair pilots who are refugees seeking shelter from the aftermath of 09/11. We have former DC8 Captains from Emery, former L1011 F/Os from Sun Country, 737 pilots from US Airways, and 757 pilots from United. We have furloughees from Airborne Express, TWA/American, Mesaba, American Eagle and hundreds more military aviators trying to build a career outside of the services.

But for the grace of god, we are you.

We deserve the ability to negotiate our own contracts, and fly our own airplanes, in some percentage of block hours that is guaranteed to be ours, and without external influence from your pilot group and your contract. We dont want your airplanes. Dont take ours.

The sooner you guys tighten up that scope language and determine what exactly is excluded (i/e OURS) the sooner the company can get to the business of matching capacity with demand. But this business of numeric restrictions and sliding percentages based on mainline fleet size etc. is doing nothing more than harming my career.

I'm not in the RJDC but I'm a Comair pilot now. Why dont you tell me what flying is MINE?

Respectfully,
FurloughedAgain

 

[General Lee]

Furloughedagain,

Looking at your name here, I could tell that you weren't a newbee straight from Sanford. I did say that one reason MAYBE that Comair (management) was opposed to helping Delta furloughs was that it may have a guarunteed pipeline from the Sanford airport (DCI Academy) it had to fill. I then mentioned the apparent lack of support from the current Comair pilots.....But we won't go there again hopefully....

I am glad that your views include not wanting anything larger than 70 seaters---and that is really what should be remembered here. I really believe that there will be some sort of relief given to DCI in the form of extra 70 seaters. My deal here is that I hope some preference is given to the unfortunate ones who are on furlough---even if that means bottom of the seniority list. I don't think that is asking for too much--and we will see who steps up and what Dalpa does when it comes to eventual negotiations. I can't see them leaving that part out--especially with over 1000 pilots on the street.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

General,
FurloughedAgain is right on with it. WE don't want 737's here either, just the ability to have some say in what happens with our future.

 

[General Lee]

ATR-driver,

I can understand that. You are right, and it would be nice if that could happen for all of us. But, there has to be some limit to the expansion---or mainline will shrink even more--losing those higher paying jobs for good. Take care.

Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Full of LUV]

Comailr pilot said:
"There are literally HUNDREDS of Comair pilots who are refugees seeking shelter from the aftermath of 09/11. We have former DC8 Captains from Emery, former L1011 F/Os from Sun Country, 737 pilots from US Airways, and 757 pilots from United. We have furloughees from Airborne Express, TWA/American, Mesaba, American Eagle and hundreds more military aviators trying to build a career outside of the services. "

Wow, you have pilots from everyone except Delta mainline. I can't imagine why they have issues with seeing your side.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Scope

FurloughedAgain,

I like your thought process but I do see some things that I would ask you to take a second look at and reconsider your position just a little.

No problem with the "we don't want your 737's" concept. That is true and it is how it should stay. That flying has always been allocated to Delta pilots and no effort should be made to change it. We cannot expect to take from others if we do not want them to take from us. As long as we remain in the Delta system, 737 and larger equipment is off limits to us.

Michael's idea that "we did not allow unlimited 70 seat utsourcing" is not an accurate statement. Unlimited 70-seat flying was in fact permitted by the Delta PWA and that was never challenged by Comair pilots, making it a precedent. A review of the earlier Delta CBA will confirm that fact.

The dispute began when the Delta MEC activitely sought to change its Scope and remove the 70-seat aircraft completely and transfer them to mainline. They did not succeed because the Company would not agree with them. ALPA supported their efforts to "take the 70's" and obstructed our efforts to prevent it from happening. That is not my opinion, it is historical fact.

When they could not get all the 70's they settled for the scope modification in their current PWA. That language limited the -70's to a total of 57 and permitted their distribution among all DCI carriers.

The impact of that action was extremely damaging to Comair pilots costing us the loss of millions in career earning potential and subsequent retirement benefits. Comair's initial order for the -70's was 20 firm with an additional 70 optioned, a total of ninety. That order was placed before Delta acquired Comair and was for aircraft that would be operated exclusively by Comiar, flown by Comair pilots. Enough to place every Comair captain on the property (at the time) into the left seat of the -700 and promote ALL Comair F/O's (at the time) to captain in the -200. New FO's would have to be hired as the aircraft were delivered. The order would have doubled the size of the fleet over the delivery schedule. There is little doubt that without the changes in the Delta PWA and its new restrictions, Comair would have taken delivery of those aircraft, all 90 of them. There were additional -200's in the order as well. If memory serves me the total order was for 135 new aircraft over 10 years. Remember, these orders were not for DCI (which did not even exist). The orders were placed by Comair, for Comair, with Comair money, prior to its acquisition by Delta.

The action of Delta's pilots limited the -700 to a total of 57, not for Comair, but divided among all DCI carriers. The way it is structured we could actually wind up with zero -700's.

Additionally, there were no restrictions at all on the operation of the 50-seat equipment and no limits of any kind on the number of total aircraft. The only limit was the ceiling of seventy seats. Now there are a multitude of limitations and they apply collectively to all DCI flying, thus increasing the severity of the negative impact on Comair. Particularly true as the Company proliferates the number of DCI carriers.

If we are to understand the true nature of the dispute, we must be fully aware of the true impact of the Delta pilots actions, not on DCI, but on Comair specifically. It was and remains a staggering blow.

Beyond all that, the terms of the Delta PWA were structured in a manner that actually fosters additional outsourcing afer the purchase of Comair and the creation of DCI. We are living with that now.

Those actions and their complete sanction by the ALPA were the genisis of the RJDC.

We undercut you.

That is one of the statements I would ask you to reconsider. Comair did not undercut anyone at any time. As the first operator of RJ's we could not undercut other operators for there were none. We established the initial standard. Likewise, it was not possible for us to undercut the Delta pilots for they have never operated the same aircraft types. Further, our current contract (at the time it was signed) was the industry leader, it did not undercut anyone. This may be a small item, but it is a critical item, especially in this debate. As you well know, we have so far held the line and our CBA today still leads the industry.

What I DO have a problem with is your contract restricting the growth of my company by "remote control". You determined the flying was undesirable... you scoped it away. Dont try to restrict it or take it back.

Agreed. That is the crux of the issue.

Pick some benchmark.... maybe 70 seats... maybe 65,000 lbs... and release the scope on anything less. Give us a chance to build a career here.

Please reconsider that thought. As soon as you say "pick some benchmark" you have recognized their right to act unilaterally with respect to us. That is the cause of the current conflict.

If they have the right to "pick a benchmark" without our consent, it follows they also have the right to make that benchmark whatever they want it to be. If we are to survive that cannot stand.

Any "benchmark" that divides the flying must be agreed between the parties that it affects. Short of a merger, that is the only solution that can end the dispute.

What is at issue is not really where the line is drawn. The issue is the right of one pilot group to draw any line that takes from another or limits another without its consent. That right simply does not exist. The ALPA cannot establish such a right without violating its DFR.

When there is one company operating one airline there are no "lines" and no divisions. Scope then properly protects the work of every pilot in that single airline.

As soon as you permit one company to operate more than one airline, without a prior agreement as to how the flying will be divided among the two, you have created an alter ego and initiated a conflict of interest. Avoidance of the inevitable debacle of collective bargaining that ensues becomes virtually impossible. That is precisely why ALPA's alter ego policy was created.

Unfortunately and deliberately, ALPA has decided that it is OK to have alter ego airlines and subvert its own policy, as long as they are "regional" airlines "affiliated with major airlines. ALPA further decides that the major airline can unilaterally dictate what the regional airline may do. Time has proven that concept to be inherently flawed and unworkable. Fair representation of the interests of ALPA members is rendered impossible by such a system.

We cannot now reverse the system of subcontracting and multiple airline subsidiaries that we erroneously created. We (the union) do not have the power to force corporate or even seniority mergers with acquired carriers when we have previously exempted certain acquisitions from the contractual merger clause.

The nightmare that this monumental lack of foresight on the part of our union leaders has created literally endangers the very survival of the union itself. It is truly an absurdity.

There is however a possible solution. There may be multiple airlines under a single umbrella but there is still only one union and both of us (parent and subsidiary, mainline and affiliate) belong to it. There is nothing to prevent an internal agreement between the members as to how the flying will be divided between us. Nothing that is, except the intransigence of the ALPA.

Continued >>>

 

[surplus1]

Part 2

We do not have to merge corporations. We do not have to merge seniority lists. We do have to agree as to where the dividing line will be drawn and at the same time, we must also agree that it cannot be changed unilaterally with out the consent of all parties involved.

The mainline pilots must accept that they cannot impose their will and infringe with ever changing degree upon the work of the regionals. The regionals must also accept that they cannot expand beyond the agreed parameters and infringe upon the work of the mainline partner. This can be done internally within the union and does not require the approval of management.

There will be a "dividing line" as a result of such an agreement and we must both accept that reality. We must likewise accept the reality that this "line" can only be drawn by mutual consent. We must negotiate the placement of the "line" and it must be realistic. Just as we negotiate a seniority merger, we can also negotiate a division of flying. All that we lack is the will to do so.

It does not cost any money to do this and no one has to give up any "negotiating capital". The only "price" that has to be paid is that of ego. Once the line is agreed, we can then bargain with the company independently for Scope as long as we remain within the internally agreed parameters.

Such an agreement can be made between parent and subsidiaries or between mainline and subcontractors as long as everyone is represented by the same union. If there is no union or different unions that would be a problem for there would be no way to ensure future compliance.

Scope (negotiated with the company) can be used to prevent the future addition of new subcontractors or to remove subcontractors that do not belong to the same union. However, scope cannot be used to control members of the same union that happen to be employed by different companies. That application of scope violates the law.

Labor law permits a union to allocate work among its members within a single bargaining unit. It does not allow the union to discriminate in favor of one bargaining unit and against another.

Remember, the type of agreement of which I speak is an internal union agreement. It will still be necessary to negotiate Scope with the Company, but the agreement will result in no conflicts between the scope proposals and the Company's decision will be quite easy.

Don't confuse this procedure with "brand scope" that the ALPA is pandering. It is not the same. ALPA's version would permit the mainline to negotiate on behalf of the subsidiaries or subcontractors, without their individual consent. That is what we have now, by a different name.

Yes, I have ideas as to where the "line" should be and I'm quite sure that others will have different ideas. That is what we negotiate between ourselves. We begin by knowing that whatever we ultimately agree to, neither party can take away what the other party already has. We must also agree that "the line" will not include any restrictions, ratios, numerical limits, or other gimmicks before we begin (otherwise the process will bog down and probably fail). Any agreement will require consensus.

We deserve the ability to negotiate our own contracts, and fly our own airplanes, in some percentage of block hours that is guaranteed to be ours, and without external influence from your pilot group and your contract. We dont want your airplanes. Dont take ours.

I take two exceptions to that, 1) We do not "deserve" the ability to negotiate, it is our legal right to do so. 2) Percentages of block hours must be avoided. That is too complex and would require the Company's agreement. It is an unnecessary obstacle. I agree with the remainder.

Why dont you tell me what flying is MINE?

Can't agree with that. That is exactly what they are doing now. The mainline pilots do not have ownership of any flying and neither do we. All of the flying is owned by the Company. If the mainline pilots are going to "tell me what flying is mine", then I have given them control of my life. They would never permit us to tell them what flying is theirs, would they?

It also creates problems for the Company and removes its flexibility to run the business. The Company must retain the right to decide what equipment it will use and how and where it will be deployed. All we have to do is agree on the dividing line for equipment guage, which in turn establishes who flys what and ends the infighting.

I don't enjoy nit-picking your post but I think you know that the devil is in the details of these concepts. I'm only trying to reduce the number of "devils" before the process begins. There can be no agreement if either party can "tell" the other what is or is not his. That would put us right back to square one.

Please consider these thoughts.

Regards,
Surplus1

 

[FurloughedAgain]

I honestly dont see the difference between what you wrote,

"The mainline pilots must accept that they cannot impose their will and infringe with ever changing degree upon the work of the regionals. The regionals must also accept that they cannot expand beyond the agreed parameters and infringe upon the work of the mainline partner. This can be done internally within the union and does not require the approval of management.

There will be a "dividing line" as a result of such an agreement and we must both accept that reality. We must likewise accept the reality that this "line" can only be drawn by mutual consent. "

and what I wrote...

"Pick some benchmark.... maybe 70 seats... maybe 65,000 lbs... and release the scope on anything less. Give us a chance to build a career here. "

I think we're dancing around the same point here. Until both pilot groups are able to sit down and agree on that "dividing line" we're going to continue to have people on both sides claiming ownership of the others flying.

As you well know Comair management insists that we bargain only with them and ALPA -- for better or for worse -- agrees. They contend that we have no right to bargain with the folks in Atlanta even though it is THEY who pull the strings.

So why not put Comair management to work FOR us? How?

Make them a deal they cant refuse.

They are no doubt keenly aware of the fact that contract negotiations will begin in only a few short months. In order to Comair to remain competitive they will try to negotiate cuts in compensation and work-rules. This will no doubt result in months of labor-unrest which benefits noone. They know from your strike that the pilot group can be quickly spun-up into a frenzy and all cost-cutting measures and performance indicators will go out the window.

So why not offer them an olive branch? Offer to EXTEND the existing agreement for a few years in EXCHANGE for their willingness to go to Atlanta and negotiate a PERCENTAGE of DCI block-hours for Comair? What percentage? I would be pulling a number out of thin air but I would think 40% would be close. That would leave another 40% for ASA and 20% for the affiliates to fight over. ASA could do the same. The prospect of known costs which already produce profit for a set period of time without the unknowns of negotiations MIGHT just be enough to convince Delta to bite in exchange for addressing some of our job-security concerns.

These negotiations will be painful. I know from the people that I fly with that the memory of your strike is still fresh in your minds. The wounds have not yet fully healed. Even if the pilot group were to somehow get dramatic increases in compensation THOSE GAINS WOULD BE WORTHLESS WITHOUT JOB-SECURITY PROVISIONS WHICH PREVENT DELTA FROM TRANSFERRING THE FLYING AWAY FROM COMAIR/ASA.

So from my seat as a fairly new Comair lifer we have two immediate steps which must occur in order for this pilot group to be ABLE to negotiate increases during the next round of negotiations in 2010(?)

#1. Sit down with the Delta MEC and find the dividing line. Draft a gentlemen's agreement that neither party will attempt to cross that line. In exchange the Comair pilots can eat their pride a bit and publically endorse the hiring of furloughed Delta pilots.

#2. Encourage MANAGEMENT to carry the burden of negotiating job-security for ALL Comair/ASA employees by way of guaranteeing a percentage of all DCI block-hours. We should not have to continuously try to do their job for them. Randy has a house in Northern Kentucky just like the rest of us... lets see him get out there and fight for the long-term survival and continued prosperity of Comair.

Perhaps i'm being overly optomistic or even downright naive, but I dont believe that either of these goals are unattainable. They ARE, going to involve people thinking outside of the box a bit AND perhaps even eating a bit of crow.

Job Security Should be Job #1

 

[ALCOHOLIC]

I honestly dont see the difference between what you wrote,


So why not offer them an olive branch? Offer to EXTEND the existing agreement for a few years in EXCHANGE for their willingness to go to Atlanta and negotiate a PERCENTAGE of DCI block-hours for Comair?


THAT IS CALLED CONCESSIONS!!!!!! If Comair is making money like everyone say, why in the HELL would you not want to negotiate a BETTER contract....

 

[FurloughedAgain]

This is called NEGOTIATION and negotiation involves give and take.

I would never advocate that the Comair pilots give back one single ITEM that they endured an 89 day strike to achieve...

... but if an extension of the current agreement was appealing enough to management to have them address job security concerns (which protect the entire list from the most junior to the most senior) then I believe that an extension deserves consideration.

 

[ALCOHOLIC]

READ MY TYPING....


An extension is a concession. Every year you extend and do not get a raise is money out of your pocket. Has Comair been furloughing people or something? Has Comair not been growing? Why would you think you do not have job security..

 

[FurloughedAgain]

You could negotiate a $500/hr payrate and without job security provisions such as scope, the payrate is meaningless.

There is absolutely no contractual language in the Comair PWA that guarantees us any flying whatsoever. In just the last few years flying that was traditionally Comair's has been transferred/outsourced to Chautauqua, ACA, and to a lesser extent Skywest. That flying is gone. It is not coming back.

Without a GUARANTEED percentage of DCI flying (as measured by % of total block hours) then any other contractual gains are wasted!

If the flying is transferred away from Comair -- whether it be tomorrow or over the next 10 years -- it is still gone.

No, Comair has not been furloughing... yet.

I prefer that the Comair MEC take action to PREVENT furloughs BEFORE they occur. I will not vote for a reactionary MEC that is unable to address industry trends.

 

[surplus1]

FurloughedAgain

Thank your for the reply. First, this is a complex problem. I don't have the ability to respond in "sound bites" when discussing complex issues. That is why these posts are so long. I don't seek to be verbose in an effort to dazzle you or anyone else with rhetoric. That will not accomplish anything. I certainly don't want to make matters worse by making statements that are not clear and might expand the difficulties rather than reduce them. All that I want, for starters, is a complete understanding (at least among Comair pilots) of the problem itself. Once that is achieved we will all be able to work together in seeking appropriate solutions for the assorted effects. I apologize for the length of my comments but sometimes it is not possible (for me) to reduce a large issue to a few words. We all have our faults and that is one of mine.

Before answering your remarks directly I would like to make some observations for your consideration. Every problem has a root cause and a series of manifestations or symptoms that stem from that cause, which I call "effects". If we are to resolve the problem itself and prevent a recurrence in the future, we must first address the root cause. When that has be resolved we will be able to deal with the effects.

In my opinion, the underlying "root cause" of the problem is a policy of the Air Line Pilots Association that seeks to establish the right of one bargaining unit to control and limit the rights of another bargaining unit, both within the ALPA.

Examples: 1) The USAirways MEC - Controls the equipment, job security, growth and career potential of the PDT, ALG, and PSA pilots, whose MEC's are impotent and unable to negotiate their own future with the Company. The AAA MEC also controls partially the same items at MESA, CHQ, TSA, and other small affiliates. The AAA MEC, places its pilots into positions at all of the above affiliates, in both the left and right seats, ahead of more senior pilots employed at each of those airlines and pays some of them more that senior pilots at the respective carriers. The AAA MEC attempts to control the ability of independent corporations, not owned or controlled by USAG, from entering into separate contracts with third parties, and limits the size aircraft that those airlines can operate in their own right or contracting with third parties. 2) The UAL MEC - Controls the equipment, job security, growth and career potential at ARW, SKYW and (until recently) ACA. Makes unilateral agreements' requiring the employment of UAL pilots at those carriers in preference to others. 3) The NWA MEC - Controls the equipment, job security, growth and career potential of the MAS, and PCL pilots. Makes unilateral agreements with NWA that force the employment of NWA pilots at PCL in preference to others. 4) The Delta MEC - Controls directly the equipment, job security, growth and career potential of CMR and ASA pilots, whose MEC's are prohibited (by ALPA) from negotiating in their own behalf with the parent corporation. The Delta MEC further limits the expansion of ALL affiliated DCI carriers and prohibits these independent corporations from operating certain aircraft in their own right or in unrelated agreements with third parties.

ALL of these usurpation's of bargaining authority are sanctioned by the ALPA and effectively remove or severely limit the ability of the pilot groups at affected carriers to bargain collectively in their own behalf. ALPA, through its policy and as the sole bargaining agent, has transferred the bargaining power of no less than eleven (11) separate bargaining units within ALPA, and two (2) bargaining units external to ALPA, from the members (pilots) of those units to the pilots of AAA, UAL, NWA and DAL.

Simply put, the future and the destiny of thirteen (13) distinct pilot groups has been placed, by their own union, under the control of 4 external pilot groups, without their consent, because ALPA has decreed that it must be so. Additionally, the ALPA has failed/refused to vigorously defend the interests of the Eagle pilots whose careers have suffered from similar predatory efforts by the APA. In the process ALPA violates its Duty of Fair Representation and its own Constitution and ByLaws.

This policy attempts to establish permanently two different and separate classes of membership (pilots) within the ALPA and throughout the industry as a whole, one classified as superior and dominant, the other inferior and submissive. That premise is false and violates the Union's legally established Duty of Fair Representation. Until this fundamental cause is eliminated, the problem will not be resolved. To date, a majority of our efforts have been focused on attempting to deal with the "effects" and not with the cause. That strategy has not worked and will not work in the future. This policy is wrong, illegal, morally corrupt and must be ended.

Your proposals so far, appear to fall into the category of dealing with the "effects" (of the policy). This may appear to provide temporary solutions but it will not resolve the basic problem permanently. As long as the "root cause" remains in place, new and different "effects" will continue to emerge from time-to-time.

I applaud your recognition of the fact that without adequate job security, the remainder of a contract is essentially meaningless. I don't fault you for seeking a quick remedy but I do feel that a more in-depth consideration of the problem will reveal to you its true cause and motivate you to seek a permanent solution. We may differ on how to deal with individual "effects" but those differences are relatively minor and can be resolved. On the other side of that coin, our inability to agree on the "root cause" and take subsequent action to remove it, will result in the ultimate failure of any effort to deal with its negative effects.This is the fundamental difference that I see between our approaches (yours and mine) to "the problem".

We are not fully agreed on the identity of the problem or its cause, which in turn precludes agreement on the solution. Some of us are willing to accept external control of our futures and others (like me) are adamantly opposed to the idea of surrendering our careers to adverse determinations made by an external pilot group and the labor union that we pay to protect our interests. From my perspective we (as in Comair pilots) must be in control of our own destiny. I can't agree to a system that transfers that control to the pilots of Delta Air Lines.

I think our ultimate objective is the same, i.e., we both want to achieve as much job security as is possible for all the affected pilot groups. The objective remains elusive because we have not solved the real problem that underlies it all. ALPA's policy must be changed. If it is not, we will never be able to successfully negotiate our own future with any corporate entity.

Hopefully that makes sense to you. I'll speak to your specific proposals at a later date in a separate post.

Respectfully,
Surplus1

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Thank you

Thank you for your response.

I'll withhold comment until I see your specific, concrete proposals that can be brought forward to the Comair MEC by resolution which, if accepted by both parties, would improve job security prior to or during the upcoming negotiations.

 

[General Lee]

It is my opinion that the RJDC aims to bring mainline sized airplane salaries down to regional levels by trying to bid for that service. Scope protects salary levels, and with out it there would be just one lower level pay scale, and a lot of happy management types. (all high fiving---to the bank) I think if you guys aren't happy with ALPA representation, you should get your own union.(But then you wouldn't have the resources available to you from the current ALPA thanks to all of the dues from the larger airlines--like larger strike funds etc....---it goes both ways)


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[spinproof]

It is my opinion that the RJDC aims to bring mainline sized airplane salaries down to regional levels by trying to bid for that service. Scope protects salary levels, and with out it there would be just one lower level pay scale, and a lot of happy management types

Scope pits one pilot group against another,period. Whether you agree or not , the only way to completely solve the problem would be with a "one list".

With that said, you would require a "staple", whereas there are those of us that would require "intergration".

Now that we're back to square one the RJDC will play it out. To no ones satisfaction I'm afraid.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Then why are you so eager to spin us off? Wont that create the exact situation that you fear? Separate companies would make it more difficult for a single seniority list (just look at CAL-CALEx to see what happened there) thus ensuring an abundant number of airlines competing for the same flying.

It looks like you are fully prepared to ride this one in just like the USAirways pilots are. Haven't you learned anything?

 

[N2264J]

RJDC update

It is my opinion that the RJDC aims to bring mainline sized airplane salaries down to regional levels by trying to bid for that service.

Well thanks for sharing! I'm sure the RJDC is thrilled and honored to have an opinionated Delta pilot speaking in their behalf.

It is my opinion that the Delta MEC must be in turmoil right now considering the almost hysterical allegations being parroted around these forums.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Thank you

Thank you for your response.

I'll withhold comment until I see your specific, concrete proposals that can be brought forward to the Comair MEC by resolution which, if accepted by both parties, would improve job security prior to or during the upcoming negotiations.

With all due respect, I would not place specific proposals that relate to contract negotiations on this or any other public forum. In my opinion successful contract negotiations cannot be conducted in public and especially not on an internet bulletin board, particularly the one that is operated by the ALPA.

Since you are a Comair pilot, I would be happy to discuss those issues with you in private, if you wish to do so.

My posts here must be limited to concepts, not specifics of contract negotiations. ALPA's relations with its members and the interrelationship of separate bargaining units within the Association are issues that lend themselves to public debate, but that is quite different from the specifics of contractual proposals.

If you wish to communicate privately let me know through the PM section of this forum and we can make the arrangements to do so. However, I won't put specifis in that section either. It is not in fact "private".

I hope you understand that thinking on my part.

Respectfully,
Surplus1

 

[FurloughedAgain]

I understand entirely, and I fully expect that you're communicating your wishes to the current MEC.

I will be doing the same. As far as i'm concerned job security should be our first priority in contract 2006.