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

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
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
 
Part II....

ALPA's “NWA 70” Plan Again Illustrates “Brand Scope” Myth

ALPA recently announced that it was formulating an RJ-70 plan in response to management's request to increase the number of 70-passenger aircraft that Northwest may operate under the terms of the ALPA scope clause. However, in stating that Northwest's mainline pilots had “bought and paid” for all flying over 55-seats, ALPA again proved that its “brand” or “family” scope plans are merely feel- good gestures that were never intended to bring about a change in the union’s conduct.

According to ALPA's NWA 70 plan, ALPA would “permit” a limited number of 70-seat aircraft to be placed at a new wholly-owned subsidiary or division provided they were flown exclusively by Northwest pilots. The pilots of the subsidiary would work for substantially reduced pay and benefits compared to the existing mainline labor contract. Eventually, ALPA's “regional” pilots would be given the ability to “flow-up” to the new company.

But, in typical ALPA fashion, the NWA 70 plan was apparently prepared and submitted to Northwest's management without any input whatsoever from ALPA's members at Pinnacle and Mesaba airlines. This should come as no surprise, inasmuch as more than a year ago, the Northwest MEC (ALPA) voted that it would decide how to allocate small jet flying.

Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/nwa70.pdf


“NWA 70” Plan Fuels Growing Conflict of Interest

In countless publications and speeches, ALPA's leadership has criticized management for its efforts to form alter-ego companies and foster a “race to the bottom” by pitting pilot against pilot. However, as with ALPA's Mid-Atlantic plan at US Airways, the proposed NWA 70 plan again proves that the union will propose and aid in the creation of alter-ego carriers any time it is politically expedient to do so.

More importantly, ALPA's “NWA 70” plan raises serious questions as to how ALPA can properly discharge its duties to the Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots when one of the union’s largest contributors is bankrolling the creation of a “preferred” small-jet airline that will enjoy a favored status under the NWA pilot's scope clause. Make no mistake. ALPA's NWA-70 plan was intended to compete with Pinnacle and Mesaba, not to complement them.

“NWA 70” Shows that ALPA Still Views the Small Jet as a “Threat”

Anyone who is familiar with small jet issues will instantly recognize ALPA's NWA 70 plan as a rework of ALPA's Mid-Atlantic agreement at US Airways. However, while the Northwest MEC’s publication on this topic cited American Eagle, Comair, and Mesaba as comparisons, ALPA's Mid-Atlantic experiment was conspicuously absent.

The reasons for ALPA's apparent oversight are obvious. The creation of Mid-Atlantic disproved ALPA's assertions concerning the purported “benefits” of small jet restrictions. Previously, ALPA had stated that small jet restrictions would prevent the formation of alter-ego carriers and the negotiation of sub-standard labor agreements by “inexperienced” or desperate “regional” pilots. But with Mid-Atlantic, ALPA itself endorsed the creation of an alter-ego airline for which the “experienced” US Airways MEC promptly negotiated 70-seat pay rates that were 40% lower than ASA and Comair’s! Finally, Mid-Atlantic's creation exposes the biggest lie of all…that small jet restrictions will “force” airlines to fly “mainline” aircraft thereby protecting “mainline” jobs.

ALPA's NWA 70 plan shows that ALPA still views the small jet as something “less than” an airliner. As stated in ALPA's proposal, even though the RJ-70 would be crewed exclusively by Northwest pilots, it would remain numerically and operationally restricted. This illustrates that the root issue is not who flies the RJ but whether it flies at all. ALPA has declared war on an airframe in the same misguided way that it fought against the B-737 and DC-9. Thus, in failing (again) to recognize that an airliner is not defined by its size, ALPA's NWA 70 plan is destined to fail (again) and will harm both “mainline” and “regional” pilots alike.

Commentary: Frank Lorenzo Would be Proud

Frank Lorenzo, ALPA's arch-enemy of the 1980’s, used alter-ego carriers to whipsaw ALPA's members and undermine the union’s strength. But if Texas Air had purchased regional jets instead of 727’s, Frank Lorenzo may have very well have succeeded in destroying ALPA—with the help of the union’s leadership.

While duly striking, this view is not as far-fetched as it may sound given that in the last four years ALPA has endorsed the creation of more alter-egos than Frank Lorenzo ever imagined. Naturally, ALPA doesn't call them alter-ego airlines. Instead, ALPA uses such terms as “Jets for Jobs” carriers, NWA 70, or the “Embraer Division” of US Airways (i.e. Mid-Atlantic.)

Mindful that alter-ego airlines are used to manipulate and exploit pilots, there can be little doubt that Frank Lorenzo and ALPA's anti-RJ factions have a lot in common:

-- Formed alter-egos
-- Argued that airline subsidiaries were “separate” companies.
-- Undermined preexisting union contracts
-- Negotiated low-ball pay rates
-- Terms offered on a “take it or leave it” basis
-- Threatened transfer of assets

Even worse, ALPA's motives aren't any more honorable than Lorenzo's, especially in light of the fact that ALPA has a fiduciary obligation to its members whereas Lorenzo did not. Probably the most visible example of ALPA at its worst can be found at US Airways and its implementation of successive Jets-for-Jobs agreements.

There, ALPA made it very clear to the Piedmont, PSA, and Allegheny pilots that ALPA would do business with any “regional” carrier—even non-ALPA or non-union ones—provided they accepted the Jets-for-Jobs protocols. To be blunt, Frank Lorenzo would have been proud to see how ALPA's leadership adapted his tactics in pursuing political expediency over leadership and duty.

For those naive enough to believe that “Brand Scope” will bring equity to ALPA, read the fine print. Under “brand scope,” ALPA's mainline interests will decide how to divvy up the flying. That's a nice way of saying ALPA's mainline interests will retain control of the “whip” as in whip-saw. More importantly, “brand scope” is designed to accommodate, not eliminate, divisions among pilots flying for a single carrier.

But what would really bring a smile to Franks face is that apparently some of ALPA's “mainline” members would rather leave ALPA than see the union defend the piloting profession by upholding its duty of fair representation. In fact, ALPA's representatives have even suggested that they will use this threat to justify the continuation of ALPA's unfair practices!

Yes, the ghost of Frank Lorenzo still haunts ALPA. But rather than exorcizing the demons and learning from past mistakes, ALPA is instead embracing Frank Lorenzo's anti-union tactics. ALPA won't call it “anti-union,” but given the harm suffered by ALPA members flying all aircraft types, that's precisely what it is.

For ALPA's members, the question is whether you feel you job is more secure today than it was four years ago. If not, then demanding a reexamination of ALPA's attitudes and tactics is in order. If you believe ALPA hasn't done anything wrong, then do nothing. That's something even Frank Lorenzo would approve of.
 
InclusiveScope said:
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.
The PSA MEC approved the LOA by an overwhelming majority 8-1 vote. The RJDC couldn't even make it through the first paragraph without stating a blatant lie.


PSA ALPA Pilots Reach Agreement on 70-Seat Jets

DAYTON, OH -- The PSA Airlines pilots, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), International, late last week approved a letter of agreement (LOA) with their management, spelling out the terms and conditions for operating 70-seat jets. By a vote of 8-1, the pilot leadership ratified the proposal.

"We are extremely pleased to reach a settlement with our management for this aircraft" said Capt. William Barnett, secretary-treasurer of the PSA pilots’ unit of ALPA. "We want to see PSA prosper and grow. The operation of these larger jets will help us to provide better service and coverage for our portion of the US Airways network."

The LOA provides for the extension of the 50-50 staffing ratio, as outlined in the Jets for Jobs protocol with US Airways and its pilots. Under this arrangement, furloughed US Airways pilots are entitled to fill half of the positions assigned to this aircraft, per the limitations of this agreement. The PSA pilots will staff the remaining half of these positions. The LOA also provides positive reserve rule changes and other quality-of-life improvements for PSA pilots.
 
Last edited:
FDJ2,

You beat me to the post. Now don't try and cloud the issue with facts. These guys need everyone to put the blame on ALPA and not their individual MEC's when they make a bad decision. So can someone from PSA tell me if you MEC decided to make the decision for the masses without MEMRAT. If so then you recall YOUR MEC. They are the guys that you voted in to take care of you.
 
what it does not tell you is the PSA mec was made to believe that there was a 24-48hr deadline before PDT was going to sign a deal that would take all of our current aircraft and furture airplanes.

Also not included in the statement is there is now a slotted bidding system at PSA, based on a ration of 70 seat aircraft, so what that means is PSA pilots seniority is now blended with J4J pilots. No with mainline possible furloughing again I am sure they will be glad to have some seniority at PSA thanks to someone misrepresenting facts and bad faith bargning.

IMHO
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top