RJDC update (4/4/04) part 1

[gordon24]

Think long term folks. I swear that I will kick any one's a s s that threatens my profession .

Relax Francis....

 

[Capt. Caucasian]

Relax Francis....

Reference the smiley face, however you are correct .

 

[ALCOHOLIC]

[ This appears to create a conflict of interest since the growth of small jets is currently at the expense of mainline jets, but remember that it's Management who chooses to grow the regionals over the majors; not ALPA.

Why does management do this.

1. We work for peanuts

2. We do not have great work rules so they can work us to death

3. Very little retirement


Alpa national does not negotiate our contracts. We do it on the local levels. It is nobody's fault buy our own..

 

[TWA Dude]

Alpa national does not negotiate our contracts. We do it on the local levels. It is nobody's fault but our own..

The ALPA administration in Washington exists among many reasons to govern the national programs such as insurance, to provide training to local committee members, and to comprise strategies that benefit the pilot profession as a whole. Is it not ALPA National's business when one ALPA carrier's contract is detrimental to another's and the result is conflict? Would it not benefit everyone to encourage communication that prevents contracts at one carrier to the detriment of another?

Management has done a very good job of getting around restrictive Scope clauses when the RJ's came on line. Had ALPA developed a national strategy local MEC's could've worked together to mitigate the friction. The key here is working together. One need look no further than the all-out war between the APA and Eagle ALPA. Who does it benefit?

Dude

 

[ALCOHOLIC]

AMR management...

 

[JECKEL]

Capt Caucasian,

First of all, let me start by saying that I am not an RJDC supporter, I just play one on TV. No really, all joking aside.

Be carefull with the S C A B word when taking about these RJDC guys. They do wear the ALPA "Battle Star" for walking the line for three months towing the union line, so I certainly don't think that S C A B is even close.

When and where have you been involved in a strike and put it all on the line for the betterment of all. These RJDC guys have done that you see and most of you haven't.

You may disagree with what they are doing now, but you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to S C A B talk.

 

[Capt. Caucasian]

You may disagree with what they are doing now, but you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to S C A B talk.

If you noticed, I never actually called anyone a SCAB. What I did say however, is that the "its all about me" phrase is most definately the SCAB mentality. Once again I deal with SCABS on a daily basis and I have learned to spot the traits. We see it all the time CAL and CALEX. The "its all about me" mentality is what is driving CAL down the pooper. It won't be until all the SCABs and those they have infected have retired that the CAL pilot group will become a leader of the industry. Unfortunately, that will not be until after 2020.

Also, I have towed the Union line my fair share. Sure, I have never had to strike, but that does not make me any less of a Trade Unionist.

Frats,
CC
Former IAH First Officer Representative and tireless Union volunteer

 

[JECKEL]

Capt,

I then must only question your ability to pinpoint S C A B traits.

While I'm not a RJCD supporter, I do professionally know those who are and converse with them. They are really the furthest from being S C A B s.

The nuts and bolts, I believe, are that they are trying to fix what the see wrong with with THEIR UNION. Not cross it or tear it down.

You may have S C A B problems where you work, but at Comair there is no question that we do not.

 

[Capt. Caucasian]

Once again and with brevity: The biggest SCAB trait is the "its all about me" mentality. Every RJDC supporter I know has used this term is some way, shape or form. I also hear it from the CAL strikebreakers, many of whom are my friends as well. And, those folks have since said they regret their past actions.

And again, it is a TRAIT only. However, the biggest one. It is trying to tear down the Profession.

Frats,

 

[michael707767]

In laymans terms, if you wanted 70 seat airplanes at Delta, you should'nt have ever agreed to language in your PWA to allow it to be outsourced. Now its gone and you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Putting artifial numeric restrictions on growth hurts both the company and the pilot groups.

.

actually, we did not allow unlimited 70 seat outsourcing. Our contract allows them to outsource 57 70s seaters, any more need to be flown by DAL pilots. Before you question numeric limits, what would you say if as part of any concessions, we allowed outsourcing on 50 or so 737s? I'm sure would be fine with that.

Also, for the record, nothing, repeat nothing, in the Delta pilot contract prevents Delta from buying and operating any aircraft they want and as many as they want to have. If anyone disagrees with this statement, produce the contract language which says Delta can only have a certain number of RJs.

 

[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.