Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

RJDC update 8/20/02

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

InclusiveScope

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Posts
385
Update

August 20, 2002

Comair Plaintiff Count Reaches 300 as ASA Plans are Finalized

After seeing their fellow pilots victimized by ALPA's predatory bargaining, more than 300 Comair pilots have asked that their names be added to the first of two lawsuits intended to compel ALPA to uphold its duties to ASA and Comair pilots. In addition, plans are underway concerning a second suit on behalf of the similarly situated ASA pilots, as well as involvement by ASA pilots in the pending lawsuit.

The legal action has taken on added importance after ALPA supported efforts of the US Airways MEC to unilaterally divert hundreds of new aircraft, otherwise destined for the wholly owned carriers, to a new "preferred" subsidiary staffed by US Airways pilots.

By organizing the largest suit of its kind in ALPA's history, ASA and Comair pilots have sent a clear message to anyone in ALPA who may be contemplating similar actions at Delta. The ASA and Comair pilots are prepared to compel the union to uphold its obligations to treat all its members in the Delta family of airlines equally and without discrimination.

Delta MEC Says it will Seek End to Force Majeure Scope Exemptions

On July 16th, the Delta MEC wrote Delta's CEO claiming that ALPA's legal and financial experts have determined that the force majeure period had ended and demanded that management cease furloughing pilots and establish a recall schedule. In a recent meeting between Delta management and ALPA, the company re-affirmed its need to maintain mainline capacity reductions and resultant furloughs. Consequently, the Delta MEC has decided to take the matter back to the System Board of Adjustment, which has scheduled hearings for October 30 and 31.

Of concern to the ASA and Comair pilots is the fact that the same force majeure exception clause that permits management to furlough pilots also provides temporary relief from the scope ratios. We have already warned ALPA's leaders that any attempt to enforce the ill-gotten scope restrictions will undoubtedly harm ASA and Comair pilots. Rather than attempting to enforce the egregious provisions, we believe that ALPA should instead find ways to preserve mainline jobs without violating its duty to ASA and Comair pilots.

Delta's Restructuring Plans May Lead to Mainline Scope Negotiations

As Delta releases more information concerning its restructuring, it is becoming apparent that significant changes in the current Delta mainline scope clause may be required. Thus far, Delta management has indicated that it wishes to negotiate domestic code-share alliances with other major airlines and is planning to restructure operations to fend off low-cost competitors, which may include major changes to Delta Express and the re-deployment of RJs.

Any domestic mainline code-share alliance and placement of larger aircraft at Delta Express will require changes in the Delta scope clause. The Delta MEC has already indicated that should management request changes to the Delta pilot working agreement, protecting mainline jobs and advancement opportunities will be its top priority. What role ASA and Comair's 475 aircraft orders and options will play in these negotiations remains unknown. It's our position that notwithstanding current scope restrictions, the Delta MEC may not seek to use the jobs or flying of the ASA and Comair pilots as bargaining capital in their negotiations, nor may it unilaterally negotiate issues that directly affect our interests.

Court Narrows ALPA's Motion

As previously reported, ALPA filed a motion for dismissal and summary judgment. The court previously permitted us limited discovery to respond to ALPA's motion. However, we sought court intervention after ALPA failed to adequately respond to our discovery requests. After hearing extensive arguments, the Judge determined that the portion of ALPA's motion that seeks summary judgment should be withdrawn and that they will not be permitted to use disputed facts in their motion for dismissal. At the same meeting, the court ordered ALPA to keep us apprised of any effort to commence scope reset negotiations.

ALPA's President Says that Sacrifices of US Airways Pilots Justifies Contract

On July 22, the Allegheny MEC wrote ALPA's President protesting the terms of the US Airways agreement that created a "preferred" US Airways RJ subsidiary and granted mainline pilots extraordinary employment and seniority rights at any airline that code-shared with US Airways. In response, the union's President refused to acknowledge the glaring breach of the union's duty to the Allegheny pilots and instead cited the enormous sacrifices made by the US Airways pilots.

Interestingly, the "sacrifices" cited by the union's President include "allowing" the company to acquire the RJs needed to compete in the changing marketplace and new terms that permit displaced mainline pilots to fly "regional" aircraft with "regional" workrules. But of utmost concern is the message that the union's duty to its "regional" members can be bought and sold as part of the mainline bargaining process.

American Airlines Cites Scope Restrictions and Sells Eagle's Jets

On July 16, American management announced that it would sell 14 American Eagle 50-passenger EMB-145's to Trans States Airlines. American management stated that the move was necessary in view of the fact that the mainline scope clause limits the total number of 50 passenger jets American Eagle may operate and the ill-effects caused by the seat-mile limit triggered by the furlough of American mainline pilots.

The move by American's management provides another illustration that irrational and unilaterally imposed contractual provisions can harm ALPA's "regional" pilots. Such predatory provisions have not saved a single mainline or Eagle pilot job; instead, they merely limit how many RJs the company may operate. Unfortunately, ALPA refuses to acknowledge the impact that mainline predatory bargaining has had on its members. Instead, ALPA exclusively blames management even though the role of the mainline scope is painfully obvious.

Comair Pilots Please Check Your Receipts

E-mail receipts have been sent to all pilots who have requested to become a named plaintiff. If you turned in paperwork and have not yet received a receipt, please contact us right away. Drop us a note any time in the RJDC Mailbox in CVG ops or e-mail us at
[email protected] Thank you.

New on the RJDC Web Site here:

www.rjdefense.com

a. Attorney's July 22, 2002 Litigation Update
b. RJDC August 5, 2002 Press Release
 
InclusiveScope said:
also provides temporary relief from the scope ratios.

This is a false statement. Delta managment can violate block hour limitations at will now due to a weak scope clause that says after 2 consecutive loosing quarters the percentages get reset to a new number, then after 2 more loosing quarters the percentage number gets thrown out the window. All Delta is obligated to do is "meet and confer" with ALPA. Forced Maneur has nothing to do with this, so don't worry RJDC, you'll see even MORE DCI block hours harming your future (TIC) in the near future.
 
Re: Re: RJDC update 8/20/02

FlyingSig said:


This is a false statement. Delta managment can violate block hour limitations at will now due to a weak scope clause that says after 2 consecutive loosing quarters the percentages get reset to a new number, then after 2 more loosing quarters the percentage number gets thrown out the window. All Delta is obligated to do is "meet and confer" with ALPA. Forced Maneur has nothing to do with this, so don't worry RJDC, you'll see even MORE DCI block
hours harming your future (TIC) in the near future.

Well now that's nice but to say that "this is a false statement" is itself a false statement. You are dead wrong sir. Force majeure has everything to do with the block hour ratios, just as profitability also controls. The contract contains a double whammy that you have apparently failed to recognize.

Allow me to refer you to Section 1.E.6.b. of the Delta PWA. (That's your contract by the way.) You will find there that "The Company will be excused from compliance with the block hour plans and planned percentages, for all affected years, in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance." "Circumstance over which the Company does not have control" is the operative language. Force majeure is the exercise of that clause and it exempts the Company from compliance with the Scope restrictions.

Further in Section 1.J.2. of the Delta PWA you will find the same language that exempts the Company for compliance with the no furlough provisions of the contract. Also a force majeure provison and the section over which you lost the grievance arbitration.

Refer also to Section 1.B.2. of the Delta PWA where you will find the definition of "circumstance over which the Company does not have control." (Just in case you still have doubts).

Finally, refer to the Delta ME Grievance #ATL 02-11, filed by Captain William C. Buergey (Delta MEC Chairman) on January 31, 2002, in which Capt Buergey alleges that Delta is in violation of the block hour ratios of your contract. This grievance was withdrawn immediately after the arbitrator ruled against ALPA on the furlough issue, due to that ruling. The ruling was a force majeure decision which made your block hour grievance moot.

As you state in your post it is true that the Company's consecutive quarters of economic loss nullify the block hour ratios in you Scope language. It is equally true (as stated by the RJDC) that the block hour ratios are also nullified by force majeure. I've given you the proof of the statements validity.

I regret the need to upset your surmised revelation of an incorrect statement by the RJDC. However, before you accuse the RJDC of making false statements in the future, I strongly urge you to consult your own contract and get it right. Otherwise, you may get more egg on face.

You surprised me Sig, your arguments are usually pretty good. This time you're begining to sound more like ALPA's arguments. Lots of air but no substance. Don't follow them too closely, they really aren't always right.

Best regards,

Surplus1
 
Re: Re: Re: RJDC update 8/20/02

surplus1 said:
ell now that's nice but to say that "this is a false


Allow me to refer you to Section 1.E.6.b. of the Delta PWA. (That's your contract by the way.) You will find there that "The Company will be excused from compliance with the block hour plans and planned percentages, for all affected years, in the event a circumstance over which the Company does not have control is the cause of such non-compliance." "Circumstance over which the Company does not have control" is the operative language. Force majeure is the exercise of that clause and it exempts the Company from compliance with the Scope restrictions.

Surplus1

So you admit you are trying to destroy our PWA and ALPA.

I find it very hard to rally with your 300 soon to be dismised minions.

You see............ your group is hiring and mine is furloughing. I am sorry that I am such a threat to your job, being one of 867 furloughed pilots.

I
 
You are a threat Nyranger

You want to stop our growth, hire mainline guys to fly the same plane for more money and keep the regional pilot down. You and your other unemployed brothers are no better than me no matter what you think.
Why doesn't your pilot group take a pay cut, get you back to work?
Its lowest bidder flying, JetBlue and SWA caused this mess and now you want to blame us. Shame on you.
 
That's gutless of you, 9rj9, throwing rocks at a guy out of work. Just as gutless is ignoring replies to your own post when someone actually challenges your absurd assumptions. You know, the last time you tried to blame SWA and JBLU for your own internal problems? Why don't you revisit that thread (click here) and leave this guy alone. He had 0 (zero) say in his situation.
 
Only

responding to his baseless claim that RJDC was trying to destroy his contract. I'm not taking shots a him, only his greedy and pompus pilot group. I guess my comments before hit their mark since someone deleted my previous thread concerning SWA and Jetblue working for substandard pay.
SWA just announced $299 for a walk up fare, how can they do this? The pilots work for far less than any major, thats how.
They just caved in to a contract extention and got basically nothing more.
The discounters are the root of the problem not the RJ.

I have no idea about what internal problems you think we have. The only problem is another pilot group is trying to control when and what we do.
 
SWA just announced $299 for a walk up fare, how can they do this? The pilots work for far less than any major, thats how.
They just caved in to a contract extention and got basically nothing more.
The discounters are the root of the problem not the RJ.

Take it to the other thread, and I'll answer that.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: RJDC update 8/20/02

NYRANGERS said:

So you admit you are trying to destroy our PWA and ALPA.

No sir, I do not admit that and we are not trying to do that.

First: There are two provisions of your current PWA that have been rendered moot a) by circumstance that no one could have predicted and, b) by the ineptitude and lack of foresight on the part of those who wrote your PWA. We have nothing to do with either of those provisions or their consequences. Remember, we were diliberately excluded from any opportunity to participate in the bargaining that affected both of us, by OUR union and YOUR leadership. You the line pilot are not to blame for that and neither are we. Look to the National leadership and your own MEC leaders if you wish to affix blame.

We do not seek to destroy your PWA. We seek to modify, by mutual agreement, (or if necessary by order of the courts) one area of that PWA which we believe was improperly negotiated, is intended to cause us irreperable harm and does not in fact (now proven) protect you from anything (as evidenced by your current status).

Second: We do not seek to destroy our union. We seek to restore our union to its intended and Constitutional purpose of representing ALL members fairly and, to prevent its future deviation therefrom. Given the unwillingness of our union to even discuss seriously the relevant issues, we seek legal redress from the courts. You may not like that, but there is nothing destructive about it.

We believe that our union has violated its Duty of Fair Representation, which is required of it not by us but by law. We seek to force our union to comply with its responsibilities, as legally determined in a court of law. If our allegations are determined to be incorrect, by the courts, we will accept that decision. If they are determined to be correct, by the courts, will you accept that?

If our union chooses to continue to refuse to comply with its legal responsibilities as determined by the courts, its usefulness as a collective bargaining agent will have been abdicated by those responsible for the conduct of its business. If such action by our union's leaders ultimately results in the union's demise, the responsibility will be theirs, not ours.

We await their decision failing which, the ultimate decision will be made by a court of law with appropriate jurisdiction. Would you deny us that right?

I find it very hard to rally with your 300 soon to be dismised minions.

I understand that fully and I do not blame you for having those feelings. I do not ask you to rally round the RJDC. Also, there may be 300 named litigants but there are thousands of unnamed supporters, growing by the day. I actually wish the RJDC did not have to exist. Unfortunately, the behavior of the "powers that be" makes it not only necessary but essential to our protection and welfare. It's support will continue to grow until the conditions that brought it into existence are removed.

I do ask you to reconsider the impact on your own career that results directly from the failure of OUR union and YOUR leadership to address these conflicts and the resulting problems.

I do not ask "your side" to do things our way. I do not expect "my side" to do things your way. What I would like to see and hope for (speaking only for myself) are three things: 1) Acknowledgement by "your side" that a conflict/problem does exist and requires a solution. Not 10-years from now but immediately; 2) A decision by "your side" that reflects a willigness to resolve the issues, jointly and without pre-conditions, and the decision to take the necessary steps; 3) A joint effort by both sides to sit together and do whatever is mutually agreed to put and end to this absurd and unnecessary conflict which damages both our interests and risks the eventual elimination of our union's usefulness as a collective bargaining agent.

You see............ your group is hiring and mine is furloughing. I am sorry that I am such a threat to your job, being one of 867 furloughed pilots.
I

I sincerely regret your furlough. I did not cause it, the RJDC did not cause it and the operation of the aircraft that we happen to fly did not cause it. Again, I'm sorry, but we are not responsible. Blaming us for what we have not done, will not hasten your recall. Helping us to resolve the conflicts just might.

Yes, we are hiring and you are furloughing. Regretably, YOUR leaders and OUR national leaders have had multiple opportunities to make decisions that could have given you free access to those job opportunities. They chose not to do so. We are not responsible for that inaction, we tried.

Now the latest strategy of the national union, is to find ways to give you the jobs and displace us in the process (see USAG). That won't fly on this property. There is a better way.

I would love to see you come back into the new jobs that are being created, but I will not give up even one job to make that happen, just as you will not give up one job at the mainline to accomodate us. There is and in-between, a compromise that gives ALL pilots access to ALL jobs within our Company (Delta, Inc.) Notice I did not say Delta Air Lines, I said Delta, Inc.

WE must find that compromise together, not unilaterally. As soon as we decide to do that, these issues and conflicts can be resolved. Individual courses of action will simply produce more conflict. That is of no benefit to either of us.

I am not against you and you should not be against me. We are really in the same boat. Right now, you have fallen out and you are struggling to survive. That happened because WE have been trying to row in opposing directions and fighting over ownership of the boat. We must share the boat. WE must row TOGETHER. Today we are in the boat and you are in the water. That could easily reverse tomorrow. We need a joint solution that keeps us both in the boat over the long term. I am more than willing to work towards that, are you?

Best regards,
Surplus1
CMR
 
Re: Re: Re: RJDC update 8/20/02

surplus1 said:
Well now that's nice but to say that "this is a false statement" is itself a false statement. You are dead wrong sir.

While strong language like that makes for a nice soundclip, no I am not wrong at all... I will explain later in this post

The contract contains a double whammy that you have apparently failed to recognize.

Only if you are a party to the RJDC lawsuit and stand to gain millions of dollars can one interpret forced maneur as the reason for the violation of the block hours.

Thank you for pointing out some provisions in the DAL PWA, but since you're quoting it, let's point out everything and see how it really works.

If you read the paragraph above the one you quoted, Section 1-E-5-B, you'd find this:

5. Excused Compliance and Automatic Fixed Reset

3) the Company has an operating loss (excluding the effect of the retroactive costs of the PWA) in any two consecutive quarters commencing with the first full quarter after the date of signing of the PWA


OK, the contract was signed in June, so let's look at 3Q '01 and 4Q'01:

3Q '01 = Loss of $114 Million
4Q '01 = Loss of $251 Million
(source delta.com under investor relations

So what does this mean? Well, the DCI block hours in '02 were planned to be 34%. This excused compliance allows them to be reset to 35%.

OK, looks like that section was met so let's read on....now we're to the section that you quoted. What you didn't tell everyone is the part in 1.E.6.A which reads:

a. If an event in Section 1 E. 5. a. 1), 2), 3) or 4) excusing compliance, occurs after there has been an automatic fixed reset, there will be no second automatic fixed reset, but the Company and the Association will promptly meet and confer to reset block hour plans and planned percentages at levels appropriate to the circumstances.

Section 1.E.5.A-3 happened again!! It happened in 1Q '02 and 2Q '02
1Q '02 loss= $435 Million
2Q '02 loss= $127 Million

Again, let's translate to English for the folks out there trying to finish the internet....

This now means, thoretically, that 100% of Delta flying can be done by Comair, ASA, and other DCI pilots.... as long as Delta management "meets and confers" about their plans.

That's right, the Delta MEC negotiated themselves such a carreer damaging to the DCI pilot contract that the whole airline can be legally outsourced as long as it's done with airplanes certifed to less then 70 seats.

So what this really means to the RJDC, and the reason they claim forced maneur is the reason instead of the actual contract is that all the dollar signs in their eyes will dissapear.

How can one claim that DALPA (and ALPA allowed DALPA to do it blah blah to be PC here) harmed their carrer when this very PWA negotiated by DALPA allows for unlimited growth at the DCI carriers?!?

Nope, as long as the RJDC clings on to the straw that as soon as FM is declared over then Delta management will say, sorry fellas, you gotta go back to 34% (which you and I both know will never happen), then they can keep on spewing false statements like the one I originally quoted.

It makes for a good soundbite. But it's not the truth.





Allow me to refer you to Section 1.E.6.b. of the Delta PWA. (That's your contract by the way.) ........Force majeure is the exercise of that clause and it exempts the Company from compliance with the Scope restrictions.

Again, this section is nullified due to the fact that two resets were met. FM doesn't matter now because now the limit is unlimited growth for DCI block hours. Again, good for you, but bad for winning millions of dollars from ALPA.

Further in Section 1.J.2. of the Delta PWA you will find the same language that exempts the Company for compliance with the no furlough provisions of the contract. Also a force majeure provison and the section over which you lost the grievance arbitration.

No argument there. FM applies to the no furlough clause. Yup, we grieved it and lost. Yup, I'm still unemployed. So what's the point of writing this in your post? I honestly don't think you're trying to rub it in my face... but really, that was a low blow and has nothing to do with the current debate.

Refer also to Section 1.B.2. of the Delta PWA where you will find the definition of "circumstance over which the Company does not have control." (Just in case you still have doubts).

Have doubts over what? What the definition of FM is? That it was ruled to be ok to furlough? What? My favorite gem of that section however reads The term "circumstance over which the Company does not have control" will not include the price of fuel or other supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company's then-current operations.

...but that's a debate for a whole other thread (and a pointless debate at that since we lost the grievance)


This grievance was withdrawn immediately after the arbitrator ruled against ALPA on the furlough issue, due to that ruling. The ruling was a force majeure decision which made your block hour grievance moot.

The grievance was withdrawn but the reason is pure speculation on your part. There is no written or verbal reasoning given for withdrawing the grievance (if there is, please provide it, because DALPA never provieded it to this at the time dues paying member). Delta did not claim force majeur in regards to the block hours. They simply informed ALPA that they would not meet the block hours in 1.E.5.B (the section I quoted, differant then the section you quoted which is .6.B).

Because there is no written reason for withdrawing the grievance all I can do is speculate too... I figure DALPA knew that the second reset was imminent and they didn't have a case because the new percentages would be legal per the PWA. Can't grieve what you negotiated yourself.....


I regret the need to upset your surmised revelation of an incorrect statement by the RJDC. However, before you accuse the RJDC of making false statements in the future, I strongly urge you to consult your own contract and get it right. Otherwise, you may get more egg on face.

Personally, I suggest next time, before you start quoting a contract you read the whole contract. But then again, this is a debate and why would you want to point out all the sections that don't support your arguement?



You surprised me Sig, your arguments are usually pretty good.

Just because my last post wasn't as long as this one (or any of yours ;) ) doesn't mean the point isn't there... I was surprised that you responed to it (though I was expecting a reply from some others here) as you have a good working knowledge of the DAL PWA. I guess you were just in the mood for a debate....


For the rest on this board that actually read this thread, sorry to bore you.

Have a nice night.
FlyingSig
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top