RJDC Update

[trainerjet]

Re: All Good Logical Questions

I honestly don't know how many people contribute to the RJDC (there are no "members", just supporters).

The RJDC consists of pilots from Comair, ASA and other carriers. I believe there are some SkyWest pilots in the membership.

I'm confused. But apparantly I'm not the only one.

 

[Slim]

Trainerjet,

What are you confused by?

The RJDC, and its supporters, is not made up of Comair pilots alone. There are several ASA pilots involved. The website, I believe, is the contribution of a SkyWest pilot. I can't verify if there are pilots of other carriers who finacially support the RJDC. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there are other airline pilots involved.

Fly safe!

 

[enigma]

Re: where did I go wrong?

Enigma.

The part to the equation that has been left out is the paying customer. They have shown a major reluctance to pay what needs to be paid to support the infrastructure of the large carriers.

I'm a little lost here, I have been offering an explanation based upon proven marketplace economics, market economics means (by definition) that the marketplace will determine the allocation of assets/services. Now you try to say that the paying pax has been left out of the equation; heck, what do you think the market is? I've said before, I think that you are talking micro and I'm talking macro.

I've tried to say this before, but apparently unsuccessfully, so I'll try again. In an unregulated environment, with no bars to the entry of new competitors, ( the free market) supply and demand will determine price. The example that I have used repeatedly is AirTran and DAL. AirTran recognized a demand (lower fares) and offered a product to supply that demand. DAL with its high cost structure can't offer the same product. (and frankly, I'm not totally sure that they want to.) That's the free market. The customer drives everything.

Now, on to how that affects us. DAL's high costs don't allow for it to service the lower end of the available seat market. Airtrans costs do. Even though the DALALPA has a contract that is an effective barrier to entry to any pilot competitors (ALPA has a legal monopoly on pilots for DAL), they can't control the supply of pilots to DAL's competition, Airtran. AirTran has accessed the pool of labor that will work for less and is able to keep its costs lower. Eventually DAL will shrink, (it's already happening) while the lower cost carriers will expand. The total available seat market will probably expand because there are some pax who demand first class service instead of low costs, but the carrier who supplies the product demanded by the largest segment of the market will be the largest. And the pilot who provides his service at the market price will not make very much, until he no longer has any competition for the job. Then he will raise his price until the reward entices new entrants into the job market. Once that equilibrium point is reached, the free market will have determined (without governmental intervention) the most efficient allocation of assets. I am not arguing for a job market manipulated by the union scale, I am arguing for a job market that is not artificially depressed by the continued entrance of uninformed/mislead wannabees.
What I continue to attempt to accomplish is, to make new entrants into the pilot market aware that their desire to work for nothing in order to reach the big money is specifically undercutting their ultimate opportunity to ever get any big money because they are driving the pilot wage market down.

I've suffered too many interuptions for this to flow well, sorry.

On to some of your specific comments. You said, "The next thing you know we are paying a telephone receptionist $30k per year when the fact is that the task is a $14000 a year job and we could get people all day to fill the job." To which I say: you are attempting to spin the debate. We are not talking about an industry where the people at the bottom are working for what the job is worth. The pilots at the bottom of this industry are working for far less in hopes of attaining the top. I'll bet you twenty bucks and will come see you in Lauderdale to deliver it, if you can find a secretary who will work for $7000 a year and pay you $10K for the opportunity to work in your presence for a few years so that he/she can gain that valuable selectric time that he needs to move on to his/her dream job. You are attempting to look at the wannabee pilots in the light of normal job applicants and they are not. They are dreamers, who in large, don't know much about the inside of the industry. Except for what they read in the propaganda press, I didn't say his name I'll bet another twenty that the willingness to work for almost nothing would evaporate if there was an economic law stating that you could never make more than triple your entry level wage. Simply, these people work for nothing in anticipation of a future reward. Apply that circumstance to your secretarial situation and see what happens.

Next, you wrote, "The guys on top you refer to know that factor and know that they benefit from the new people not having the votes. In life, the last guy on the train rarely cares if the guy behind him makes it." I'm beating my head against the wall here my friend. Your example quit having validity in 1979. Those new people do have votes. They can go to work for another carrier, and they are. Refer to my DAL/AirTran example. Only within the rank and file does your example hold water and it's an insult to a whole lot of senior union members who do attempt to maintain the profession for those who are yet to come. For example, I'll bet that the UALMEC will negotiate a "free" return from furlough policy for all furloughees. They will ensure that all who were on the seniority list before the furlough will be recalled, even those who "resigned" to take another job. Sort of like when they demanded and obtained the rehire of the newhires who refused to cross the picketlines in their last strike. (mid 80's if memory serves)

Finally, I don't want to put everyone at the bottom of the pay scale on the top. I just want the bottom guys to stop dragging the pay scale down because they are in a hurry to get to the top. You state that the senior pilots rarely care about the junior pilots.
I believe that it is the junior pilots who don't care. Speaking broadly of course, because I know many who do care. Most wannabees don't seem to mind stepping all over others on their way up. I remember numerous posts made by pilots who defended their PFT decision because the only thing that mattered to them was how quick they got to a major. I know that you want to attract the best and the brightest, but if you get what seems to be your wish, (busted unions) the best and brightest won't even come close to this industry. Why would the best and brightest want to enter an industry where they possess no control over their own lives? I guarantee you that in absence of union rules, management would have every pilot sitting at the airport for 18 hours a day seven days a week. There would be no guarateed days off, no ability to bid for your schedule, etc. I have worked for a nonunion 121 operator and they treated us just like they treated the airplanes, as if we were at their beck and call 24/7.

later
8N , editing will most likely be required

 

[RJFlyer]

Enigma,

Most of what you said is very true. To expand on your theme, though - if the 'uninformed/mislead wannabees' are willingly driving the entry level wages down, they are doing so in order to be able to one day get to their Dream Job at the majors. The only reason it is their Dream Job is because they will get to fly big airplanes and (more likely) because they will eventually get paid a LOT of money to do it. So it could be reasoned that ultimately what is driving down compensation at the bottom is the extraordinary compensation at the top. If it were not so high, maybe the dreamers wouldn't be willing to put up with the crap, repeatedly, for so long.

Just a thought.

 

[surplus1]

Enigma - Part 1 of 2

Surplus, First let me say that I can be convinced. I am opinionated, but my ego is not such that I am unable to change my mind and accept that I was mistaken. I'll continue to debate this name issue until y'all change my mind or you give up; or I change your mind.

We have a lot in common. I too am opinionated and, I can be convinced by logic and by facts. I'm old enough to know that I have been wrong many times before and undoubtedly will be again in the future. I can both acknowledge and accept that. Up to this point you haven't given me a strong enough reason why the name should be changed to alter my position (and I don't give up easy). Let's explore the details.

I would submit to you that your statement is only an opinion. How do you know that ALPA would not be doing what it is if there were no RJ's?

I readily concede that it is only an opinion. That opinion however, is not PFA (plucked from air). I don't know how familiar you may be with the series of actions taken by the ALPA since the introduction of the RJ. While I may not be privy to ALL of them, I have been directly exposed to many; those that are public and those that are not. As a result of that exposure to both covert and overt actions and rhetoric, I have formed the opinion that the ALPA would like to eliminate the use of RJs if possible.. Failing that, they would like to have them flown by mainline pilots. Should both prove impossible the objective becomes the imposition of so many restrictions as to severely limit their use, i.e., new Scope.

The visible manifestations are reflected externally in what ALPA attempts to achieve at the mainline bargaining table with respect to this class of aircraft. Though less visible, what ALPA fails to pursue and therefore does not achieve at the regional bargaining table is the other side of that coin. The internal campaign against the RJ is invisible unless you happen to be directly exposed to the politicians that run the Association and their actions or lack thereof.

Further evidence that supports the idea is the fact that ALPA took none of these actions against the subcontractors or "wholly owned" as long as they only flew the turboprops that Scope exemptions were created (by ALPA) to permit. Unlike the idea that RJs are taking mainline jobs, this is not paranoia.

You wrote, "The agenda of the ALPA is intent on stopping the RJ." Unless I have missed something, and it is quite possible that I did, ALPA has not stated what you are attributing to them.

You are quite right, ALPA has made no such statement. What is more the ALPA will never make such a statement. That would be political suicide. There are billions of dollars involved in the manufacture, sale, deployment and operation of this class of aircraft. In reality regional pilots are the smallest stakes in the game. If ALPA were ever to reveal publicly its agenda to stop the RJ, a mountain of opposition would descend from forces far greater than ALPA's. A few regional pilots are not the only folks affected by what ALPA is trying to do and they are by far the weakest element in the equation. Common sense dictates that you don't attack the strongest link. ALPA is people. There are many things I could call those people, but stupid is not among them.

Please go to Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Enigma - Part 2 of 2

I would argue that ALPA is intent on stopping the loss of mainline jobs to other carriers. It is only coincidental that the other carriers are flying RJ's.

I would counter that argument by stating that there is a mountain of available evidence from sources external to ALPA or any of the operating airlines, that clearly indicates that the use of RJs has not caused the loss of any mainline jobs. On the contrary, the evidence supports the exact opposite. Mainline flying has actually been increased anywhere from 11 to 38% by the effective use of the regional jets. Management would not be deploying them just to have them destroy the core business. Don't you find it just a tad absurd to be claiming mainline job loss in the midst of an unprecedented hiring boom? You can't suddenly cry 9/11 to justify everything.

The entire concept of "a loss of mainline jobs" is a cleverly created perception designed to rally support among the rank-and-file mainline pilots. It has worked and the political clout generated by the misconception has allowed the leaders to pursue their intended objective. Remember, those leaders are mainline pilots.

The real fear is not that mainline pilots are losing jobs. It is the fear that the proliferation of the RJ will lower the wage base of the mainline pilot. They (ALPA leaders) all know (and so do I) that these small aircraft cannot support economically the current wage structure of the mainline pilot when you include all of the other costs that would apply. Therefore, placing these aircraft at the mainline, while better (for mainline pilots) than the current situation, is not desirable. It is far more beneficial if they just disappear. The ALPA leaders are smart enough to know they aren't going away, it's too late. Therefore, they have resorted to ever increasing and after the fact attempts to restrict their operation. Regional pilots are caught in the crossfire and have become the victims.

When ALPA originated the Scope exemptions that permitted outsourcing of work to so-called "regional code-share partners", the RJ did not exist and the commuter airlines were not subsidiaries. None of the leadership anticipated that the little turboprops would evolve. Even when my airline decided to introduce this aircraft type, they all insisted we were crazy and soon would be out of business. Obviously, they were wrong.

The Genie was already out of the bottle but that hasn't abated the since continuous effort to put it back in. There is only ONE way to really do that. Management isn't going to permit it without a fight and mainline pilots don't want to pay the price of that fight. It is much easier to sacrifice the regional pilots. ALPA has chosen the ever-changing Scope clause as the alternative method of severely limiting the use of these aircraft. So far, management has been able to circumvent them all and therefore, mainline pilots are now seeking to transfer the equipment to their own seniority lists (AAA, DAL, AA), to be flown by them.

The fly in the ointment is the presence of pilots that currently fly these aircraft who, unfortunately for the mainline operatives, happen to be members of the union. It may not be the objective of the mainline leaders to intentionally hurt the regional pilots. Nevertheless their prime objective of limiting the RJ has become so important to them, that they don't care what the extent of the collateral damage to regional pilots may be or become. None of these "leaders" have yet mustered the courage to admit their error or acknowledge the truth about the mythical job loss they invented as cover.

For these and many other reasons too numerous to list here, I believe that the RJ class of aircraft is itself the objective of the campaign and not the pilots. If the litigation gets to court I expect it will be proven. It follows, the choice of name (not an accident) appears more appropriate.

You wrote, "The purpose of the litigation is to force the union to carry out its duty of fair representation to ALL its members. Not just to mainline pilots." To that I ask, since the fight is over RJ's, why is the litigation aimed at forcing the union to represent all of its members, should the litigation not be aimed at forcing the union to represent all of its airplanes?

The union cannot represent airplanes; they are intangible objects. The union represents people. Pursuit of its effort to control the RJ class of aircraft has required the union to allegedly violate its DFR to regional pilot members. They are a minority with virtually no political power within the union. This lack of political clout (a product of numbers) has allowed the mainline pilots that run the union to impose their will with impunity for years. They have not hesitated to do so.

In that most regional pilots never intended to remain regional pilots, but aspired to become mainline pilots, they offered little resistance. Most were new to the industry, unfamiliar with ALPA politics, inexperienced in life, etc., and were easily snowed or cowed by the often adulated (not to mention trusted) leaders of the union. Some of these young people still suffer that syndrome (whatever you call it) that makes the victims of abuse feel "guilty".

However, it's been almost 10 years since the RJ was introduced. All regional pilots are no longer the "kids" that they were before plus the jets have attracted other pilots who were not babes in the woods when they started. Some of them have grasped "the plan" and educated their peers. They have offered alternatives that they believe might improve the situation and reduce the conflict of interests. Without exception, mainline pilots have unilaterally rejected all efforts at reasonable compromise.

Some mainline pilot leaders allege that they have made good offers which regional pilots declined. I argue that is as untrue as the mythical belief that RJs are taking mainline jobs. These placebos don't help regional pilots, they merely delay the injury or psychologically reduce the pain. All regional pilots are not willing to accept that. I can be counted among those that do not.

The RJDC has exhausted every possible internal avenue available, within the Union, to find an equitable solution. There is none in the offing. That is why we have reached the stage of litigation to enforce our rights.

The rights of regional pilots do not require mainline pilots to give up anything that they did not independently relinquish prior to introduction of the RJ. That's not sufficient. They are determined to recoup what they see as their loss. In the process the union, directed exclusively by mainline pilots, chooses to ignore its legal obligations to represent some of its members. That cannot be accepted. What is at stake for my fellow pilots is our livelihood and I see it as no less important than the livelihood of any mainline pilot. Even more importantly, I do not see the livelihood of the mainline pilot as being threatened at all. That is a figment of the imagination and is not substantiated by fact.

You claim that the title is appropriate, yet most of your post addressed the need for pilots to be properly represented. I agree that pilots need to be represtented, and the more I learn about your case, I'm beginning to agree that you all have not been properly represented.

Try to keep clear in your mind that the lack of representation is the effect, not the cause. The cause is the effort to eliminate, transfer or reduce the use of RJ's. If we remove the cause, the effect will go with it. Therefore the coalition defends the RJ. A successful defense will leave the RJ in place and allow it to grow as driven by market forces (not by the perceptions or whims of mainline pilot leaders).

One of the reasons we have so much disagreement between pilots is that most of us have not fully explored this problem in depth. Each side believes the "spin" that its leaders have provided. That results in our fighting each other while no one addresses the root cause of the difficulty. I believe that the RJDC's position will stand the test of a courtroom and fascinate a jury. DFR litigation is extremely difficult to win but this is a strong case. As each week goes by, the ALPA adds more fuel to the fire as in the recent USAir protocol and J-4-J agreement.

While mainline pilots fight regional pilots over a perceived but truly unjustified idea of mainline job loss due to RJ proliferation, management reaps the rewards. Our Union is in more danger today than it was when the AA pilots were forced to leave due to the ill-advised decisions of a few politicians back then. The almost identical misguided scenario is being allowed to repeat itself. Don't be surprised if you begin to see similar attempts to expel the leaders of the opposition from the union. It didn't work with the AA pilots and it won't work here either.

The real crusade of the RJDC is not seniority or money it is equity. The principal people that organized it are not opportunists as many allege. They are really idealists. In today's world idealism is not regarded as meaningful or worthy. The ruthless pursuit of more $$$ is the current force majeure.

Fly Safe

 

[enigma]

RJFlyer

Enigma,

The only reason it is their Dream Job is because they will get to fly big airplanes and (more likely) because they will eventually get paid a LOT of money to do it. So it could be reasoned that ultimately what is driving down compensation at the bottom is the extraordinary compensation at the top. If it were not so high, maybe the dreamers wouldn't be willing to put up with the crap, repeatedly, for so long.

Just a thought.

We're on the same page. The big dollars at the top are obviously the main motivation for a wannabee to work for nothing at the bottom. My concern is that the big numbers at the top are being drug down by the actions of the bottom. I'm afraid that the wannabees will finally get to the top only to find that the top the mountain looks like Mt. ST Helens. No longer there.

If you run the numbers, you will find that the average compensation is already down. Long ago, when one reached an airline, he could expect to start making a decent wage. Now when one reaches an airline, he has multiple years ahead at which he will earn bottom wages. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but if you add up all of the 121 pilots at low wages, they will far outnumber those at top wages. At the top, you have AA, DAL, NWA, UAL, AAA, etc. In the middle you have CAL, Cactus, Alaska, SWA, JB, etc. At the near bottom you have AirTran, MidEx, Spirit, Mesabe (Avros) etc, and at the bottom you have most all of the regionals. Of the top paying airlines, AAA and UAL look to be in line to give back some wages, or face more furloughs. What it all means is that those willing to work for less have enabled the formation of second level employers, and in essence they've dug their own grave.
regards

 

[skydiverdriver]

Very good post, mr Surplus. I'm not sure why we need to expend so much energy just on the name, but you have explained some other items while on this discussion. I would like to offer one thing though, about the rjdc name. You see, a rj pilot may not be an rj pilot forever, since many do move on to larger equipment. However, an RJ will always be an RJ. Of course it's the pilots who's rights are being violated, but that is a changing group of people.

If that, and surplus's arguements aren't enough, perhaps it's a lost cause. I would like to ask this gentleman if he refuses to support anything with a name not to his liking. I wonder if he would keep a Lamborghini Countach, which is difficult to pronounce, or a beautiful woman named Iris, after her grandmother, or something else just because of the name. Just a question.

One other question, for Enigma. Since you say it is our fault for working for low wages, and making things bad for everyone, what would your solution be? What do you think would happen if we all refused to work for low wages? I personally think they would train foriegners to do the job, since many would be happy just to be in the US. I don't think it would force them to make things better. The only thing that will, is the current union structure, and the RJDC. I firmly belive that their lawsuit will make things better for everyone. But, don't take it from me, we shall soon see.

 

[skydiverdriver]

I have one question for all the anti-rjdc guys. Why are you trying so hard to convince us? I mean, the suit will continue, and perhaps you might get a few people who read this to not send any money, but most of the people on this board agree with you anyway. So, why bother? The people who are strongly in support of the rjdc probably won't change, unless you come up with a good alternative, and nobody has suggested any. The thought about leaving the union is out of the question, since who would want to go from having a little say to having no say in anything.

So, again I ask, what is the point to arguing? Now, I'm not asking you to stop, as I have learned much from this debate, and I am much stronger in my knowledge and support of the rjdc after hearing all of your arguements. I just wonder what your motivation is. Thanks in advance for your thought provoking answer.

 

[enigma]

I'm thinking

Surplus 1. You've given me a lot to consider and I'm thinking about it.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen if DAL bought out a carrier flying mainline sized aircraft (say DC9's), flown by pilots who make just barely above regional wages, and merged said airline with Comair, or ASA?
Would the DALMEC fight to include the new aircraft in the mainline, or would they fight to limit the number of DC9's that Comair could operate?

Maybe I should choose sides in this fight; it's been quite a long time since I heard the rumor the DAL was trying to buy Spirit, that rumor may eventually end up having some validity.

regards
8N

BTW, we heard that DAL made another offer for Spirit in early October of 2001, but they were hoping to buy us for firesale prices and our owners didn't see any upside to the deal.

 

[skydiverdriver]

That's a good question Enigma. Actually, a few years ago there was a rumor that Comair was going to purchase America West. This was before Delta owned Comair. Then, if we had a mixture of Airbus's, 737's and CRJ's, would Delta have merged us?

 

[Slim]

Let's take that question a little farther...

Assume, for the moment, that CMR/ASA has reached the contractual limit of 57/75 CL-65-700s, as set forth in the DALPA/DAL PWA. As I understand it, the next airplane of this type has to be flown by a DAL pilot.

If that is correct, would the seniority lists be merged because of a common fleet type (the CL-65-700) or would a merger be prohibited because the CL-65-700 is not a permitted type for a prospective merger partner?

Fly safe!

 

[enigma]

One other question, for Enigma. Since you say it is our fault for working for low wages, and making things bad for everyone, what would your solution be? What do you think would happen if we all refused to work for low wages? I personally think they would train foriegners to do the job, since many would be happy just to be in the US. I don't think it would force them to make things better. The only thing that will, is the current union structure, and the RJDC. I firmly belive that their lawsuit will make things better for everyone. But, don't take it from me, we shall soon see.

I only offer to you what I practice myself. I take the chance of looking obstinate/stupid/ignorant/beligerant/etc, in a public attempt to convince others that they are hurting themselves by working for nothing.
Help convince others that the work done by a regional airline pilot is deserving of professional compensation.
Because you're right,,,,, your jobs are not safe as long as there are people willing to work for less. You can beat management over the head until the cows come home, but it won't changed anything. Start beating the PFT'rs and their ilk over the head so as to convince them of the error of their ways and we will be on our way to enhancing our profession.
If memory serves, you waited until PFT was over before you accepted your position with Comair, that's what it will take. When everyone recognizes that the regional jobs are not just a stepping stone to a major, and stops treating them like they are just a means to an end; then things will be better.
Since people are selfish by nature, I doubt that we can accomplish that many changed minds; so in the mean time. We need to push for the rank and file of the second tier airlines, mine included, to demand better money and treatment. And the next time ya'll strike, don't give in.

regards 8N

 

[skydiverdriver]

Yes, you are correct that Comair offered me an interview, and I turned it down until they dropped PFT. I refused to come here with that policy. With the situation at the time, I hoped they would drop the policy, as they were not getting many pilots that could be captain qualified in a reasonable amount of time. I hope that my decision may have helped them to change the program, but I will never know. Perhaps if several other pilots did the same thing, it may have helped. However, if they planned well enough ahead of time, they could have trained forigners or lowered their 3000 hour minimum for captains.

I think the best way for us to raise the bar at the regionals is to fight for it. I was part of an 89 day strike at this airline, and I feel we did about all we could to get the job done. I'm not sure what more we could have done without the support of ALPA and some other folks that I've previously written about. We tried to raise the bar, and most of the conversation on this board was about making our definition of struck work less difficult for management and non-union airlines. I also heard a lot of talk about us going the way of Eastern Airlines. Well, thanks for the support. That is a general statement, and not for anyone in particular. Thanks for listening.

 

[surplus1]

Re: I'm thinking

Surplus 1. You've given me a lot to consider and I'm thinking about it.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen if DAL bought out a carrier flying mainline sized aircraft (say DC9's), flown by pilots who make just barely above regional wages, and merged said airline with Comair, or ASA?
Would the DALMEC fight to include the new aircraft in the mainline, or would they fight to limit the number of DC9's that Comair could operate?

Excellent question. I see you're catching on. Here's the answer. If DAL bougt an airline operating even one (1) airplane with 71 or more seats, the Delta pilot contract requires the Company to merge the acquired carrier with Delta. What the pilots are paid is irrelevant.

In other words, the Delta pilot contract discriminates against airplanes with 70 or less seats and, it follows, the pilots of those airplanes.

If the acquired airline is represented by ALPA, the DAL contract specifies that ALPA merger policy will be used to integrate the seniority lists.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Company, citing ALPA's recent merger decision re Comair, were to elect to operate the acquisition as a "separate (not operationally integrated) carrier"? I'd bet a dollar to a dougnut the ALPA would go ballistic, shout Alter Ego to the heavens and the Delta pilots would instantly file a greivance demanding merger or else!

Nevertheless, as everyone knows, the same Delta pilot group hired a lawyer to prevent the application of ALPA merger policy, when Delta purchased a 1400 pilot airline, operating 100 jets, with net profits in the 100s of millions per annum, flying in Delta livery and fully integrated operationallywith Delta, whose pilots had been members of ALPA for 17 years. And guess what? ALPA decided (by a vote of 10 mainline pilots against 1 regional pilot and one freighter pilot) that those CMR pilots were not worthy of its merger policy and further, that ALPA would ignore its long standing anti Alter Ego policy. Why? Because their airplanes were RJs, with less than 71 seats.

However, ALPA insists that the decision was not made in bad faith, was not arbitrary, was not discriminatory and did not violate any of its policies or its duty to fairly represent ALL of its members. You do know the moon is made of green cheese, right?

Maybe I should choose sides in this fight; it's been quite a long time since I heard the rumor the DAL was trying to buy Spirit, that rumor may eventually end up having some validity.

Have no fear, if Delta should buy Spirit you will be integrated onto the Delta seniority list. That is because your DC-9's are "real airplanes" and you of course are "real airline pilots", not regional children.

Now, you will undoubted be stapled to the Delta list, somewhere below future new hires who do not now work for Delta. (Like they did to the junior Pan Am pilots.) Don't worry though, it would be a nice ratio of let's guess 10:1., i.e., the 1st 10 numbers below the most junior DAL pilot (currently on the list) will be reserved for future Delta new hires, then comes your most senior pilot, then 10 more Delta new hires, and 1 Spirit pilot, etc., etc.

For that I'm sure you will be greatful and happy due to the windfall of enhanced career expectations that you will receive at DAL (not to mention permission to call DAL pilots by their first names (followed by Sir). Consider yourselvs "lucky"!

Oh, I almost forgot. You also get to wear brand new jackets with two sets of buttons. Now that's special, bud. Nobody else gets to do that!

BTW, we heard that DAL made another offer for Spirit in early October of 2001, but they were hoping to buy us for firesale prices and our owners didn't see any upside to the deal.

I'm in the dark on that one. I did not even know that Delta had ever made ANY offer to buy Spirit (or even considered such an offer). You learn something every day.

I do know that Comair made and offer to buy Spirit some years back and, it was accepted by your management. The deal was subject only to "due dilligence". When Value Jet lost the 9 in Florida your loads plummeted and Comair backed out of the deal.

I think it was a good decision by CMR to buy and a bad decision by CMR management to back out of the deal. But I guess that's why I'm a pilot and not a manager.

BTW, at the time Comair was more than 10 times the size of Spirit and it was a "cash" offer (in an amount that our CEO privately described as "chump change"). If I remember you had 10 or 12 airframes at the time (mostly -40 & -41s). They wanted to operate Spirit separately from Comair and keep a "low fare" operation (as you are today). If I remember you had 80 or 90 pilots at the time and only a handful of the most senior had 6 years at Spirit. Spirit was non-union at the time (you applied to join ALPA as soon as the sale became public).

The Comair MEC would not accept 2 separate pilot lists and worked out a deal that would allow 2 companies, buy ONE seniority list. Your (unofficial) leadership was very concerned about what would happen to Spirit pilots if the deal closed. When the Comair MEC informed him of the seniority integration plan and the protections in it for Spirit pilots, he was so surprised by its fairness that his mouth opened. (Lets just say it was a little different from what he was offered in MSP after the Midway collapse). The CMR MEC's seniority merger plan protected ALL Spirit pilots fully, including their seats and even their schedule bidding rights. It also did not place any fences as obstacles to Spirit pilots.

I'll tell you candidly (no offense intended) that CMR pilots did not see Spirit as having anything that we wanted as pilots. But we did see the danger of an Alter Ego. If the deal had closed, we could easily have screwed you out of everything. Instead, we proposed to include you in everything we had, while protecting for you everything that you had. That's the kind of people Comair leaders are. We don't take from our brothers, even if they aren't in ALPA.

Regards,

PS. Let me know when you get done "thinking" and which "side" you choose to come down on.

 

[surplus1]

Here's a WAG Answer

Let's take that question a little farther...

Assume, for the moment, that CMR/ASA has reached the contractual limit of 57/75 CL-65-700s, as set forth in the DALPA/DAL PWA. As I understand it, the next airplane of this type has to be flown by a DAL pilot.

If that is correct, would the seniority lists be merged because of a common fleet type (the CL-65-700) or would a merger be prohibited because the CL-65-700 is not a permitted type for a prospective merger partner?

Fly safe!

My best guess is there would be NO merger. The Delta pilots do not want it. It's not because it's not a "permitted" type. They do not wish to integrate with ASA/CMR types and have made that very clear.

I'd be willing to bet the "common fleet type" would dissapear just as soon as they could force the Company to transfer the -700 from ASA/CMR to DAL. Don't forget they have already tried to do that and the ONLY reason they did not succeed is because the Company said no.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Surplus,

You accuse us of discriminating based on the size of your aircraft. You hurl thinly veiled insults at Delta pilots because our contract sets a certain seat number, above which lists must be merged.

Please correct me if I am wrong (seriously), but I believe the first section of your new contract specifies that management must only merge into your operation only airplanes that have 19 seats or more. Perhaps I am mistaken, your new contract might not include this clause. I am pretty sure that your old one did, however. It appears that you are criticizing us for doing the same thing you have done. The only thing we differ on is the amount of seats we "discriminate" against.

Seems to me like this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Please let me know if I have been misinformed regarding your contract.

P.S.
Due to our pathetically weak contract, it appears that we no longer have much of a scope clause. All that happens now is that DALPA and mgt. must "meet and confer". Doesn't sound too promising. Guess there is not much need for the rjdc any more. If your careers were ever limited (not that there is any evidence of this), they won't be now.

 

[cmrflyer]

Lets just imagine for a second that Delta bought UPS.
What does your contract say about that?
They have less than 71 seats(like Comair).
They are very profitable (like Comair).
I wonder how DALPA would look at them (scum, different mission, rookies, just like Comair)
I think not.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

You accuse us of discriminating based on the size of your aircraft. You hurl thinly veiled insults at Delta pilots because our contract sets a certain seat number, above which lists must be merged.

Yes, I beleive your contract discriminates based on aircraft size. Any thinly veiled insults are not directed at all Delta pilots. The opinion that I have of the Delta line pilot, is substantially different from the opinion I have about the Delta union leaders. I'm trying to keep myself believing that the average Delta line pilot is a victim of union propaganda. Unless you're on the MEC don't take it personally.

Please correct me if I am wrong (seriously), but I believe the first section of your new contract specifies that management must only merge into your operation only airplanes that have 19 seats or more. Perhaps I am mistaken, your new contract might not include this clause. I am pretty sure that your old one did, however. It appears that you are criticizing us for doing the same thing you have done. The only thing we differ on is the amount of seats we "discriminate" against.

You are not wrong. Our current contact does contain exactly what you say (the old one did not). You should know that I disagree as strongly with that as I disagree with the provision in your contract. My opinions are not hypocritical, the Comair contract should NOT contain that provision.

I happen to know how it got there. It was a component of a two part proposal (we give you this if you give us that), a quid pro quo if you will. The other part is not in the contract, yet this undesirable part somehow survived. I don't know why or how.

Essentially our previous contract had (for practical purposes) very limited Scope. Our current contract (for practical purposes) has no Scope at all. We could tear out Section 1 and not lose much of anything.

Since I don't have the power to decide what goes in the Comair contract, I can tell you that there are LOTS of things in it whith which I disagree. Yours truly is not a happy camper when it comes to that.

If there is a difference between us on this it is that I believe you support the content of your contract with respect to the exemption. I openly and vigorously oppose the content of mine.

P.S.
Due to our pathetically weak contract, it appears that we no longer have much of a scope clause. All that happens now is that DALPA and mgt. must "meet and confer". Doesn't sound too promising. Guess there is not much need for the rjdc any more. If your careers were ever limited (not that there is any evidence of this), they won't be now.

I did not realize that you scope grievance had been decided. I knew about the furlough grievance (see my message to you in the other thread).

You know that I oppose that component of your scope clause so I do hope you are not successful in that arbitration. I wish it wasn't based (the grievance or the company's argument) on force majeure. The Company will win on that score, but force majeure will go away and then your scope will come back. I want to permanently return your anti RJ scope to the 1996 level at a minimum.

 

[enigma]

Re: Re: I'm thinking

Surplus 1, I'm convinced about the name relevance issue, even though I still think that you would be more effective if the name was't aircraft specific, I conceed that point and I won't even pull skydiverdrivers chain on that one anymore

I wasn't at Spirit when the Comair deal was on the table, but your recounting parallels the acounts I have heard. I also heard that Spirit received a substantial sum after Comair backed out of the deal.

As for choosing sides on the current situation, I'll have to take a pass. I'm too simple and the issue is too complex. I have my own positions that just don't agree with either side, and like I posted to SDD, the best chance that the RJ side had to gain stature was in last years Comair strike. It is my contention that as long as there is a ready supply of labor who is willing to work for less and put up with poor treatment, management will do whatever is necessary to utilize them.

regards
8N

BTW, I haven't done any scientific polling, but I don't think that we have a majority of pilots who would want to be merged into a majors list. We unionized in an attempt to be able to preserve jobs in the case of a merger, but I think that most of us recognize the reality of mergers between large and small. We just didn't want to go the way of the ChallengeAirCargo pilots.


(

Excellent question. I see you're catching on. .....In other words, the Delta pilot contract discriminates against airplanes with 70 or less seats and, it follows, the pilots of those airplanes.