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.
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.
Agreed. That is the crux of the issue.
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 >>>
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.
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.
Agreed. That is the crux of the issue.
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 >>>
