InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
reply to: [email protected]
Industry Update
August 18, 2004
PSA Pilots Form Alliance to Fight ALPA's Injustices
In response to ALPA's blatant exploitation of its own members, the pilots of PSA Airlines have formed the PSA Pilots Alliance (PPA) in an effort to compel ALPA to uphold its duty of fair representation. The move by the PSA pilots follows on the heels of ALPA's unilateral re-write of the PSA pilots' contract giving displaced mainline pilots special rights and privileges not enjoyed by any other PSA pilots.
With the formation of the PPA, the PSA pilots have elected to follow the lead of the Piedmont and Allegheny pilots who just last year formed Pilots for Fair Representation (PFR) and initiated legal action against ALPA. The move also comes as a stinging rebuke of ALPA's politicians who only weeks before the hijacking of the PSA agreement met and agreed that the solution to the union’s internal problems was not a change in conduct, but merely “better communications.”
While the PSA pilots have not announced whether they will file their own lawsuit, the formation of the PPA is one more sign that ALPA's “regional” members will no longer tolerate ALPA's “business as usual” approach and the abrogation of their rights.
Related Links: http://www.psapilotalliance.8m.com/index.html
ALPA Proposes “Brand Scope” at Delta While Excluding ASA & Comair Pilots
Last month, ALPA formally presented a concessionary proposal to management that included an item entitled “Brand Scope.” According to official reports, the Delta pilot leadership notified the ASA and Comair pilot leadership after the fact, stating that the line-item was little more than a “place-holder” on the agenda to be revisited at a future date. Even if that explanation was credible, it only proves that ALPA is not adhering to its own “brand scope” protocols.
According to ALPA, “brand scope” should be defined by each “family” of pilots before it’s presented to management. But, as the RJDC has pointed out, ALPA's scope policies, including “brand scope,” are invariably defined by ALPA's conduct at the mainline bargaining table. The fact that ALPA is once again making unilateral scope proposals to Delta management only proves that its conduct does not conform to its rhetoric. In simple terms, if the ASA and Comair leadership must ask the Delta pilot leadership about its bargaining proposals—it isn't “brand” or “family” scope.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/dalpa_proposal_072004.pdf
ALPA Letter to Delta Pilots Affirms RJDC Warnings
On August 4th ALPA sent a letter to all Delta pilots accusing management of attempting to exploit the current situation and destroying the Delta pilots' contract. However, if you connect the dots, ALPA's own letter affirms several of the RJDC's recent warnings about the harmful effect of ALPA's misguided small-jet restrictions and its inability to protect “mainline” jobs.
ALPA's letter stated that, “there is no proposal for balance between Delta’s flying and its use of Delta Connection Carriers.” (“Balance” is ALPA's code word for small-jet restrictions.) ALPA's choice of words suggests that management has proposed the elimination or reduction in the flying ratios and/or the permitted number of RJ-70’s.
If this is indeed the case then ASA and Comair are materially restricted by the current scope clause, just as the RJDC has warned. More importantly, it affirms that in the absence of such restrictions, Delta management plans to increase its use of small jets—not decrease them as the anti-RJ pundits would like to believe. Likewise, ALPA's letter confirms the RJDC's recent warning that Delta management would pursue substantial work-rule changes that will presumably worsen the mainline staffing crisis.
While ALPA's letter seeks to chastise management, the union’s own words indicate that ALPA's members may end up paying a steep price for their leadership's follies. As the RJDC has long highlighted, small-jet restrictions do not produce “mainline” growth nor do they preserve “mainline” jobs. For all ALPA members within the Delta system the choice is clear: Either seek real solutions to today's problems or suffer the consequences of ALPA's misguided political agendas.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/dalpa_letter_080404.pdf
Contradiction Alert: Delta Pilots Call for ASA and Comair Concessions
The Cincinnati Enquirer recently reported that many Delta pilots were demanding that Comair’s pilots share in the concessions needed to return Delta to profitability. The Delta pilots implied that any mainline agreement should be made contingent upon the ASA and Comair pilots doing likewise. But the call for concurrent ASA and Comair concessions conflicts with many of the arguments used by ALPA to justify the unilateral imposition of scope restrictions:
1. ALPA has argued in court that ASA and Comair are “separate” sub-contractors of Delta flying, in effect, no different from Northwest and Continental.
2. ALPA has argued in court that each pilot group is “autonomous” and free to negotiate “the best deal it can” with management.
3. ALPA has stated that it was unable to interfere with the “right” of a pilot group to bargain in whatever manner it best saw fit.
4. ALPA has argued that small-jet restrictions are necessitated by the “pay gap” between Delta “mainline” and its “regional” carriers; and that the ASA and Comair pilots should negotiate higher pay and benefits.
The obvious contradictions show how ALPA's arguments are too often borne of convenience and political motivation. Any attempt by ALPA to use the interests of the ASA and Comair pilots as mainline bargaining capital constitutes a gross conflict-of-interest and would provide further evidence that ALPA's “separatist” scope arguments are insincere and patently false.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/scope_contradictions.pdf
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
reply to: [email protected]
Industry Update
August 18, 2004
PSA Pilots Form Alliance to Fight ALPA's Injustices
In response to ALPA's blatant exploitation of its own members, the pilots of PSA Airlines have formed the PSA Pilots Alliance (PPA) in an effort to compel ALPA to uphold its duty of fair representation. The move by the PSA pilots follows on the heels of ALPA's unilateral re-write of the PSA pilots' contract giving displaced mainline pilots special rights and privileges not enjoyed by any other PSA pilots.
With the formation of the PPA, the PSA pilots have elected to follow the lead of the Piedmont and Allegheny pilots who just last year formed Pilots for Fair Representation (PFR) and initiated legal action against ALPA. The move also comes as a stinging rebuke of ALPA's politicians who only weeks before the hijacking of the PSA agreement met and agreed that the solution to the union’s internal problems was not a change in conduct, but merely “better communications.”
While the PSA pilots have not announced whether they will file their own lawsuit, the formation of the PPA is one more sign that ALPA's “regional” members will no longer tolerate ALPA's “business as usual” approach and the abrogation of their rights.
Related Links: http://www.psapilotalliance.8m.com/index.html
ALPA Proposes “Brand Scope” at Delta While Excluding ASA & Comair Pilots
Last month, ALPA formally presented a concessionary proposal to management that included an item entitled “Brand Scope.” According to official reports, the Delta pilot leadership notified the ASA and Comair pilot leadership after the fact, stating that the line-item was little more than a “place-holder” on the agenda to be revisited at a future date. Even if that explanation was credible, it only proves that ALPA is not adhering to its own “brand scope” protocols.
According to ALPA, “brand scope” should be defined by each “family” of pilots before it’s presented to management. But, as the RJDC has pointed out, ALPA's scope policies, including “brand scope,” are invariably defined by ALPA's conduct at the mainline bargaining table. The fact that ALPA is once again making unilateral scope proposals to Delta management only proves that its conduct does not conform to its rhetoric. In simple terms, if the ASA and Comair leadership must ask the Delta pilot leadership about its bargaining proposals—it isn't “brand” or “family” scope.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/dalpa_proposal_072004.pdf
ALPA Letter to Delta Pilots Affirms RJDC Warnings
On August 4th ALPA sent a letter to all Delta pilots accusing management of attempting to exploit the current situation and destroying the Delta pilots' contract. However, if you connect the dots, ALPA's own letter affirms several of the RJDC's recent warnings about the harmful effect of ALPA's misguided small-jet restrictions and its inability to protect “mainline” jobs.
ALPA's letter stated that, “there is no proposal for balance between Delta’s flying and its use of Delta Connection Carriers.” (“Balance” is ALPA's code word for small-jet restrictions.) ALPA's choice of words suggests that management has proposed the elimination or reduction in the flying ratios and/or the permitted number of RJ-70’s.
If this is indeed the case then ASA and Comair are materially restricted by the current scope clause, just as the RJDC has warned. More importantly, it affirms that in the absence of such restrictions, Delta management plans to increase its use of small jets—not decrease them as the anti-RJ pundits would like to believe. Likewise, ALPA's letter confirms the RJDC's recent warning that Delta management would pursue substantial work-rule changes that will presumably worsen the mainline staffing crisis.
While ALPA's letter seeks to chastise management, the union’s own words indicate that ALPA's members may end up paying a steep price for their leadership's follies. As the RJDC has long highlighted, small-jet restrictions do not produce “mainline” growth nor do they preserve “mainline” jobs. For all ALPA members within the Delta system the choice is clear: Either seek real solutions to today's problems or suffer the consequences of ALPA's misguided political agendas.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/dalpa_letter_080404.pdf
Contradiction Alert: Delta Pilots Call for ASA and Comair Concessions
The Cincinnati Enquirer recently reported that many Delta pilots were demanding that Comair’s pilots share in the concessions needed to return Delta to profitability. The Delta pilots implied that any mainline agreement should be made contingent upon the ASA and Comair pilots doing likewise. But the call for concurrent ASA and Comair concessions conflicts with many of the arguments used by ALPA to justify the unilateral imposition of scope restrictions:
1. ALPA has argued in court that ASA and Comair are “separate” sub-contractors of Delta flying, in effect, no different from Northwest and Continental.
2. ALPA has argued in court that each pilot group is “autonomous” and free to negotiate “the best deal it can” with management.
3. ALPA has stated that it was unable to interfere with the “right” of a pilot group to bargain in whatever manner it best saw fit.
4. ALPA has argued that small-jet restrictions are necessitated by the “pay gap” between Delta “mainline” and its “regional” carriers; and that the ASA and Comair pilots should negotiate higher pay and benefits.
The obvious contradictions show how ALPA's arguments are too often borne of convenience and political motivation. Any attempt by ALPA to use the interests of the ASA and Comair pilots as mainline bargaining capital constitutes a gross conflict-of-interest and would provide further evidence that ALPA's “separatist” scope arguments are insincere and patently false.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/scope_contradictions.pdf