Rjdc

[Freight Dog]

If regionals had their own union, they would still be subject to the same scope as they are now if they operate under the mainline code i.e. DL. Example, SkyWest, CHQ, etc. when flying under DL code.

Secondly, I do believe that ALPA did screw up royally when it allowed a non-grandfathered jet on a regional property regardless of the seats. As NYRANGERS says, there is absolutely NOTHING preventing the major airlines from employing unlimited small jets under their code - they'll just have to be flown by the mainline pilots. Anything other than the mainline pilots, it will and rightfully should fall under protections of a mainline scope clause.

 

[Palerider957]

OK, well semantics. Yes no limits on # of jets, just total flying--this IS a limit on aircraft from a practical point (a million jets each flying one hour a year, or one jet flying a million hours--silly example, but it gets the point across)

If we had our own union, we would still have to comply with scope, but we would be in a stronger bargaining position--and we would KNOW who the union really stands behind.

As for mainline pilots flying RJ's, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Mainline guys would NEVER fly for the wages we endure.

 

[General Lee]

I heard Friday at the ATL Chief Pilot office that Delta might need some help on scope issues, and MIGHT be willing to discuss it with DALPA---allowing our FURLOUGHED pilots to fly a bunch of 70 seat CRJ's (30 or 40) at a separate company certificate---like Song. Air Canada has mainline CRJs and CRJs at it's regional--Jazz. I think it would be great to get our furloughed pilots into some of those CRJ-70's---don't you?

Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Palerider957]

It would be great to get the furloughed guys off of the street, but it sounds like a fantasy to buy a bunch of RJ's and put mainline guys in them. Why would Delta do this when they have a ASA, Comair, ACA, etc., etc., I'm sure the mainline guys would want more than $19.02/hr to fly, so it would only costs Delta MORE money.

Your rumor sounds pretty far fetched.

 

[Freight Dog]

RJ's are flown at the regional subsidiaries and contractors. Mainline on the other hand wouldn't work for relatively pathetic pay/work rules in comparison. So it boils down to the lower bidder. Believe me, Delta could EASILY enhance their DCI portfolio by farming out the work to lowest bidder which would adversely affect CMR/ASA because they have no scope protecting DCI flying from being farmed out to non-WO's.

In other word... SCOPE IS GOOD! CMR/ASA need scope to protect themselves from the likes of CHQ, SkyWest, and any other non-WO regional.

 

[General Lee]

IF Delta wants to have more than 57 total 70 seaters, they have to come to Dalpa for scope relief. Guess who would fly them?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Palerider957]

The Tooth Ferry?? Easter Bunny?? I give up.....Look, I'd love to see Delta guys back flying again, really. I just think it's far fetched for main-line guys to have their "own" regional airline. You ask who will fly the additional 70's, I'll tell you right now it will be Comair/ASA....ASA has already begun to convert 50 orders into 70 orders as is Comair, that's a hard fact--not rumor.

I'm sure they'll put furloughed guys in the "Song" fleet--hell, that may be an excellent place to be in coming months/years. Maybe it will be a fun place that's well run, like Jet Blue...not the typical Delta with awful customer service, and labor management grind. I think Delta guys would much rather be at Song, then down in the regional trenches.

I'm done with this thread...............

 

[Caveman]

PCL,

I read the excerpt you posted regarding relief from scope a little differently. To me it reads that the RJDC wants to prevent one pilot group from negotiating limitations on another pilot group when both groups are owned and operated by the same company. In my interpretation it doesn't prevent a pilot group from scoping out non-company owned assets. Once again the ambiguities of legalese make it difficult to get the real point. I hope my take on it is correct. If not I may have to seriously rethink my position on the RJDC. I am in favor of scope when it applies to restricting my company from using outside assets. In fact I think it's essential to prevent the company from outsourcing to the lowest bidder. I am not in favor of scope when it is used to restrict pilots and a/c owned and operated by the same company. In other words I have no problem with DALPA imposing restrictions on the number of seats, blockhours or whatever flown by SkyWest or CHQ. I do have a problem when DALPA imposes restrictions on CMR or ASA. If the RJDC is really trying to eliminate scope in its' entirety then they are making a big mistake IMO.

 

[~~~^~~~]

PCL:

Caveman is getting it, I think.

Ideal scope would be:

All Delta flying performed by Delta pilots.

If ASA and Comair were bought to perform Delta flying, then by definition, they are Delta pilots. If the passenger has a Delta ticket, the airplane should be flown by Delta pilots.

This is how the union's Constitution and the laws of our Nation treat a common transportation system.

Scope is absolutely necessary because scope is what binds the Company to the contract with its employees.

The RJDC is not trying to destroy scope, but they realize scope needs to be fixed. ALPA has used scope to try to limit the number of pilots fly airplanes that the union feels is undesireable. ALPA believes that by limiting RJ's they are promoting Boeings and other larger jets.

The problem is that by trying to separate the "haves" and the "have nots" ALPA has generated a scope policy which is not only unfair - ALPA's scope policy has so many holes that it is ineffective. The number of furloughs and the amount of subcontracted flying clearly illustrate the flaws in ALPA's approach. Even ALPA's President joked that the RJDC litigation was irrelevant because ALPA was so incompetent at limiting the proliferation of the RJ.

Because ALPA is a political body, it does not always take action that makes sense. Clearly the solution is to fix scope by requiring one list - all Delta flying performed by Delta pilots. But, there is a lot of bigotry (some call it pride) on the Delta property and list integration is universally hated at any airline that has had to undergo a merger - so - the Delta MEC has used its amazing political power within ALPA to stop the merger process from ever taking place.

ALPA needs a force bigger than the Delta MEC to compel it to do the right thing for all the parties involved. 600 million or so is powerful motivation for the union to cease its improper behavior and fix the problem - and that is what we want, we want ALPA to fix the problem by representing pilots fairly, regardless of what airplane they fly.

Regards,
~~~^~~~
Disclaimer - Not official RJDC, but based on their writings.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL:

Caveman is getting it, I think.

Ideal scope would be:

All Delta flying performed by Delta pilots.

If ASA and Comair were bought to perform Delta flying, then by definition, they are Delta pilots. If the passenger has a Delta ticket, the airplane should be flown by Delta pilots.

I hate to tell you this, but you are not a Delta pilot and I am not a Northwest pilot. The companies we work for a merely owned by Delta and Northwest respectively. Just because you are WO'd does not make you a Delta pilot. The only Delta pilots are the ones that work at mainline DAL and are covered by the DAL PWA. That does not include CMR and ASA pilots.

This is how the union's Constitution and the laws of our Nation treat a common transportation system.

The union C & BLs are not relevant to the acquisiton of CMR and ASA by Delta because the DAL PWA states that only acquired companies that have aircraft larger than 70 seats need be merged. The C & BLs do NOT require all acquired companies to be merged. It just lays out rules to be followed when the union and company determine that a merger is necessary. ALPA national has not broken any part of the C & BLs.

The RJDC is not trying to destroy scope, but they realize scope needs to be fixed. ALPA has used scope to try to limit the number of pilots fly airplanes that the union feels is undesireable. ALPA believes that by limiting RJ's they are promoting Boeings and other larger jets.

I think you are a little paranoid. ALPA has nothing against the RJ. The problem isn't with the aircraft, the problem is with who is flying it. Every month that goes by, more flying that used to be going to NW mainline DC-9s is being given to us on the RJs at Pinnacle. The same thing is happening at DAL and CMR/ASA. Mainline pilots are being furloughed while the regional airline continues to take mainline routes. Why can you not see why DAL pilots are worried about their jobs?

Because ALPA is a political body, it does not always take action that makes sense. Clearly the solution is to fix scope by requiring one list - all Delta flying performed by Delta pilots. But, there is a lot of bigotry (some call it pride) on the Delta property and list integration is universally hated at any airline that has had to undergo a merger - so - the Delta MEC has used its amazing political power within ALPA to stop the merger process from ever taking place.

I agree that onelist is the best solution to all the problems, but there are many barriers to making onelist a reality. I was flying with a captain a couple of weeks ago that said he would accept nothing less than a DOH merger. That is ridiculous! The first thing we need to do is show mainline pilots that we are not trying to take their seats. We need to agree that a staple is the only fair way, and then we may start making some progress. As long as the senior regional pilots fight for DOH, we will not get anywhere.

 

[Caveman]

Posted by PCL_128:

"The union C & BLs are not relevant to the acquisiton of CMR and ASA by Delta because the DAL PWA states that only acquired companies that have aircraft larger than 70 seats need be merged. The C & BLs do NOT require all acquired companies to be merged. It just lays out rules to be followed when the union and company determine that a merger is necessary. ALPA national has not broken any part of the C & BLs."

The problem is that the scope model being used is outdated. It was designed to protect flying done by mainline jet aircraft from being outsourced to non-WO pilots flying t-props. We are now in a scenario where WO pilots are flying equal, albeit smaller, equipment. It would be no different than if DAL bought JB. Other than the # of seats involved what is the difference between that and owning CMR? DAL flys Boeings. JB flies Airbus. CMR flies Bombardier. They all have different numbers of seats but that is the only difference. DALPA stubbornly held on to the outdated scope model based on only the number of seats. If it had been more forward thinking it would have realized that the industry is changing and their definition and application of scope needed to change too. I will grant you that hanging on to old ideas may not have violated any C&BL's, but that doesn't automatically make it a smart decision either.

 

[PCL_128]

I agree that DALPA made a mistake years ago by sticking with the old scope. What DALPA should have done was prohibit all jet flying completely by pilots not on the DAL seniority list. If DAL wanted to use RJs, they would have had to put them on mainline.

Unfortunately, DALPA did not have the forsight for that, so we have to deal with the problem today. Saying that DALPA f*cked up 10 years ago is not helping the situation today. The RJDC and the lawsuit are certainly not helping the problem. The scope clauses as they are designed today are merely a temporary solution to the problem while ALPA looks for a more permanent solution. The RJDC is only serving to make the relationship between mainline and regional pilots more bitter as time goes on. That is going to make working together for a solution very difficult.

 

[surplus1]

I am not that impressed with Jfj's. I think the majors need to secure the rj exclusivley for themselves. Insted of jfj's U should start another portfolio carrier to be staffed exclusivley by furloughed U pilots. YMNTGFY

Apparently you missed the substance of J4J. That is exactly what ALPA did, i.e., started another alter ego carrier staffed exclusively by furloughed U pilots (in addition to the other travesties of J4J). They called it Mid Atlantic Airways.

In the process, they also redefined RJs. They are now called small, small jets, medium small jets and large small jets. They also set up a system that more than quadruples the outsourcing of U flying in exchange for 50% of the jobs, with "super seniority" and higher pay (later abandoned) for furloughed U pilots, thereby forcibly abrogating the seniority and contracts of any and every "ALPA represented" regional pilot group associated with USAirways. All the while touting the alleged merits of their predatory and misdirected Scope policy, the most direct and recent off-shoot of which will be yet another substandard contract at Mesa, placing more downward pressure on all regional contracts and encouraging "lowest bidder" scenarios.

It's a masterpiece of hegemony, an egregious violation of their Duty of Fair Representation and just about everything else a labor union is supposed to do, involuntarily imposed on a select group of the membership by coercion. Disgustingly shameful and totally unethical.

I can appreciate your desire to enhance your own group and yourself, even at the expense of others. Afterall, that's human nature. However notwithstanding we should all have the personal integrity to recognize a pig sty when we see one, and not call it an upscale Jacuzzi. Jets for Jobs is a pig sty, no matter what you choose to pretend.

The tragic thing is that its author is the Air Line Pilots Association whose name has become the oxymoron de jure. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

 

[Freight Dog]

I'm glad that this debate hasn't turned into name-calling and pissing contest like on ALPA boards. Let's hope it doesn't.

But if I may chime in, I think the first order of fixing the scope problem would be for the WO carriers like CMR and ASA to obtain scope protection themselves that would preclude Delta from using contract carriers like CHQ, SkyWest, etc. Let's face it... can you imagine the growth of Comair and ASA, if all flying performed by DCI was performed by Delta WO's? You would have one year upgrades, if that... you would have all kinds of routes, and honestly you would be in a lot better position to negotiate with mainline. But right now, you represent a chunk of DCI flying, not the whole enchilada by a long shot. If CMR/ASA were one company, performing ALL of DCI flying, being all-jet, you would be in a lot better position to get the attention of DALPA.

As it stands right now, if RJDC wins and scope gets abolished, I think you would see a big boom in flying done by CHQ and SkyWest because CMR leads the industry with their contract or is darn close to the top, ASA is not too far behind. I wouldn't be surprised if Mesa joins in the portfolio with their embarrassing new contract making them the super cheap alternative.

As for Jets4Jobs, while I am not familiar with the whole thing, doesn't it also say that the carriers participating will not have to interview for future USAirways mainline openings? I highly doubt that regional MEC's would fold and give up their seniority if they weren't getting something back in return. But like I said, I am not familiar with the details of it.

 

[surplus1]

PCL,

I read the excerpt you posted regarding relief from scope a little differently. To me it reads that the RJDC wants to prevent one pilot group from negotiating limitations on another pilot group when both groups are owned and operated by the same company. In my interpretation it doesn't prevent a pilot group from scoping out non-company owned assets.

You are quite correct. I am not a spokesperson for the RJDC or the litigants, but I do support their effort fully. I also know that none of the leaders in the RJDC are attempting to eliminate Scope nor do they believe that it is unecessary. The exact opposite is true. They believe that (legitimate) Scope is essential to any collective bargaining agreement.

The "union" should not be in the business of advocating, promoting or otherwise attempting to transfer the work of one pilot group to another pilot group that it chooses to favor.

While it is possible to argue legally that the Delta pilots Scope clause did not limit the activities of Comair, prior to its acquisition by Delta, Inc., that really isn't the issue.

The Delta Scope clause, established in 1996, permitted unlimited outsourcing of flying/jobs in aircraft with less than 71 seats. Comair's buisness plan, aircraft orders and the progression of Comair pilot's careers, were within the limitations proscribed by Delta's Scope clause. Additionally, Comair was totally free to operate any aircraft, of any size, to any point, as long as that aircraft was not operated under the DL code.

The conflict of interest is a direct result of attempts by the ALPA and the DMEC to transfer all of the 70-seat equipment ordered by Comair pre acquisition, the Delta pilot group. They failed in that effort, thanks only to Delta management. The next assault was the imposed restriction, spread between ALL Delta Connection carriers, limiting the total number of 70-seat jets to 57. That limitation effectively reduced the orders/options, at Comair alone, from 90 (pre acquisition) to an unknown but much smaller number. This action directly impairs and limits the career expectations of every Comair pilot, bar none. Additionally, the ALPA and the DMEC contractually imposed new artifical limitations on Comair's (and all other DCI carriers) 50-seat jets that restrict their scope of operation and could limit their number. A "number" that was previously, like the 70-seat jets, unlimited. This action further imperils the career and future of every Comair pilot.

If these predatory actions by ALPA/DMEC are held to be "legal", what we will have de facto is a group of Delta pilots, unilaterally negotiating the careers and future of Comair pilots, without their input and without their consent. That is NOT the purpose of legitimate Scope. It is instead an egregious political manuever, fully supported by ALPA, to negate the bargaining power of Comair (an other DCI) pilots and place it under the exclusive control of Delta pilots.

In that Comair pilots are members of the ALPA and that organization is charged by Federal law with the fair representation of their interests, ALPA's unilateral transfer of Comair pilot's bargaining rights to Delta pilots, contravenes its Duty of Fair Representation.

ALPA's responsibility to Delta pilots and the protection of their interests is not questioned. Delta pilots need Scope as do all airline pilots. However, ALPA's attempts to take from Comair pilots and give to Delta pilots, under the quise of Scope is not only unfair, it is arguably illegal. That is what the litigation attempts to prove and what the RJDC supports. They do not support the elimination of all Scope.

ALPA has misused its authority in and effort to prevent or forestall the proliferation of a particular aircraft type, flown by thousands of its members (regional pilots) that another group of its members (mainline pilots), at a point in time, did not wish to fly themselves and intentionally excluded from their contracts.

Now that circumstance has changed, exclusionary tactics have failed, and the number of RJs has continued to increase, the ALPA attempts to correct the errors of its mainline groups, by transferring work from its regional groups and artificially preventing their growth. That is not Scope. It is perhaps more appropriately described as hegemony or more unkindly described as theft.

Once again the ambiguities of legalese make it difficult to get the real point. I hope my take on it is correct.

I agree that legalese is sometimes difficult but I think those who pick on this point are not really confused by the legalese. They disagree because it is politically convenient to do so. You really can't expect them to admit that the points are valid and the language accurate. That would amount to an admission of guilt.

Your read is on target. Don't let them sway you with gobbledegook.

If not I may have to seriously rethink my position on the RJDC. I am in favor of scope when it applies to restricting my company from using outside assets. In fact I think it's essential to prevent the company from outsourcing to the lowest bidder. I am not in favor of scope when it is used to restrict pilots and a/c owned and operated by the same company. In other words I have no problem with DALPA imposing restrictions on the number of seats, blockhours or whatever flown by SkyWest or CHQ. I do have a problem when DALPA imposes restrictions on CMR or ASA. If the RJDC is really trying to eliminate scope in its' entirety then they are making a big mistake IMO.

I too support Scope against outsourcing. Like you, I did not object to Delta's Scope when Comair was a subcontractor. They have a right to prevent subcontracting if they can.

What they don't have a right to do is rewrite their Scope so that it takes away what we already have, after the fact. If we accept the idea that they can do that, then tomorrow they could just as easily say that we can only have 57 50-seaters as they said we can only have that many 70-seaters. They could say that we can't have anything larger than 35 seats or any other arbitrary number. They could change the ratios to 10% or any other number that they happen to choose at any time.

The Comair contract contains Scope against subcontracting. However, it is essentially meaningless. That is because Comair doesn't subcontract anything. The subcontracting is being done by Delta, not Comair. Delta is not bound by the Comair contract. ALPA prevents us from negotiating our Scope with Delta. Why do you suppose they do that? Could it be because they favor the Delta pilot group?

I don't want to see Delta pilots furloughed. I don't want to see any pilots furloughed, but I also don't think that Comair pilots should place their jobs and their career potential in the unlimited hands of another pilot group.

If anyone at Comair was attempting to negotiate for the Delta pilot's 737s or MD 80s, they would have every right to object and I would support them. Nothing that they already have should be negotiable by us and nothing that we have should be negotiable by them. The Company should be free to select the aircraft it wishes to operate and to deploy them in whatever quantity it chooses. As I see it, that is a management right, not a union right.

If I felt we were actually replacing them, I would be inclined to support their efforts to prevent that but it's not happening. Just like they don't feel they are "replacing" us when a 737 takes a route that was once initiated and flown by an RJ, I see the opposite in the same way.

When the Company has the business to warrant replacing an RJ with a 737, the Company should be able to do that unfettered by artificial restraints as to the number of 737s it can operate. Any equipment that is in the seat range that they operate should be theirs and vice versa.

Admittedly there is a gap between the 70-seater and the 100+ seater. Who fills that gap is negotiatable, but I would not support any attempt to take from the Delta pilots just as I do not support their attempts to take from us.

Hope it will all come out in the wash.

 

[Freight Dog]

You are quite correct. I am not a spokesperson for the RJDC or the litigants, but I do support their effort fully. I also know that none of the leaders in the RJDC are attempting to eliminate Scope nor do they believe that it is unecessary. The exact opposite is true. They believe that (legitimate) Scope is essential to any collective bargaining agreement.

Perhaps the RJDC lawyer needs to re-do the relief section sought because it clearly seeks to negate any scope clause that adversely affects another pilot group. The same could be said with other DCI carriers if you are ever successful in getting scope protection against outsourcing of DCI flying. Then you'd have SkyWest using RJDC lawsuit as precedence since you are limiting their careers, just like Delta mainline pilots are supposedly limiting your career.

The "union" should not be in the business of advocating, promoting or otherwise attempting to transfer the work of one pilot group to another pilot group that it chooses to favor.

Strength in numbers. 10,000 Delta pilots placing scope clause protection about how much work can be outsourced to its regional wholly-owned carriers with inferior contracts whose pilot population numbers 2,000 at most. How is that wrong?

While I can see your point that Comair was free to pursue their growth when they were a contract carrier, the fact is that you were bought out by Delta, and there is nothing you can do about that. They can run you now in any way they want, and if it's limiting what you could have possibly had if they hadn't bought you, it is irrelevant at this point.

While it is possible to argue legally that the Delta pilots Scope clause did not limit the activities of Comair, prior to its acquisition by Delta, Inc., that really isn't the issue.

The Delta Scope clause, established in 1996, permitted unlimited outsourcing of flying/jobs in aircraft with less than 71 seats. Comair's buisness plan, aircraft orders and the progression of Comair pilot's careers, were within the limitations proscribed by Delta's Scope clause. Additionally, Comair was totally free to operate any aircraft, of any size, to any point, as long as that aircraft was not operated under the DL code.

Then you were bought out, got new owners, and they did what they saw fit with your airline. It is irrelevant at this point, although I can understand your frustration.

The conflict of interest is a direct result of attempts by the ALPA and the DMEC to transfer all of the 70-seat equipment ordered by Comair pre acquisition, the Delta pilot group. They failed in that effort, thanks only to Delta management. The next assault was the imposed restriction, spread between ALL Delta Connection carriers, limiting the total number of 70-seat jets to 57. That limitation effectively reduced the orders/options, at Comair alone, from 90 (pre acquisition) to an unknown but much smaller number. This action directly impairs and limits the career expectations of every Comair pilot, bar none. Additionally, the ALPA and the DMEC contractually imposed new artifical limitations on Comair's (and all other DCI carriers) 50-seat jets that restrict their scope of operation and could limit their number. A "number" that was previously, like the 70-seat jets, unlimited. This action further imperils the career and future of every Comair pilot.

Actually, it is most unfortunate that they didn't transfer the 70-seaters into Delta mainline. But perhaps then you would have a lot better case for onelist - same type of airplane (CL-65) flown at mainline and regional. But as I said before, you were the acquired carrier, and your new boss screwed you. Unfortunate, but irrelevant.

If these predatory actions by ALPA/DMEC are held to be "legal", what we will have de facto is a group of Delta pilots, unilaterally negotiating the careers and future of Comair pilots, without their input and without their consent. That is NOT the purpose of legitimate Scope. It is instead an egregious political manuever, fully supported by ALPA, to negate the bargaining power of Comair (an other DCI) pilots and place it under the exclusive control of Delta pilots.

The purpose of scope is to protect the people that the contract covers. In Delta's case, the scope is in effect to protect their mainline pilots from outsourcing work to the likes of other airlines that their Company acquires and contracts with. CMR falls in that category. Secondly, ALPA's strength is in numbers. You simply do not have the numbers to counter Delta ALPA.

In that Comair pilots are members of the ALPA and that organization is charged by Federal law with the fair representation of their interests, ALPA's unilateral transfer of Comair pilot's bargaining rights to Delta pilots, contravenes its Duty of Fair Representation.

ALPA's responsibility to Delta pilots and the protection of their interests is not questioned. Delta pilots need Scope as do all airline pilots. However, ALPA's attempts to take from Comair pilots and give to Delta pilots, under the quise of Scope is not only unfair, it is arguably illegal. That is what the litigation attempts to prove and what the RJDC supports. They do not support the elimination of all Scope.

We've debated this a few months ago, and I am still waiting for an answer. Delta owns Comair as a wholly-owned regional airline. Delta negotiates a contract with their pilots as represented by ALPA. Delta ALPA secures a scope clause that both, Delta ALPA AND the Delta Air Lines sign. Now, you are suing Delta ALPA only because they are damaging your career by protecting theirs. I would really like a response to this.

ALPA has misused its authority in and effort to prevent or forestall the proliferation of a particular aircraft type, flown by thousands of its members (regional pilots) that another group of its members (mainline pilots), at a point in time, did not wish to fly themselves and intentionally excluded from their contracts.

Now that circumstance has changed, exclusionary tactics have failed, and the number of RJs has continued to increase, the ALPA attempts to correct the errors of its mainline groups, by transferring work from its regional groups and artificially preventing their growth. That is not Scope. It is perhaps more appropriately described as hegemony or more unkindly described as theft.

I agree with you to the point here. ALPA screwed up by saying that any non-grandfathered jets have to be flown by the mainline pilots regardless of weight/seat capacity. However, mainline pilots STILL outnumber you, and as such, they dictate how things are done. Strength in numbers.


I agree that legalese is sometimes difficult but I think those who pick on this point are not really confused by the legalese. They disagree because it is politically convenient to do so. You really can't expect them to admit that the points are valid and the language accurate. That would amount to an admission of guilt.

Surplus, I was a regional pilot for a wholly-owned regional subject to an even more restrictive scope than you have. Now I'm at our mainline carrier that owns my old WO regional. I supported the scope then, I support the scope now, and it's not because it's politically convenient, but because it is right. What is not right is when the outnumbered pilots who have a good contract but not quite up to the mainline standards are suing their way because they didn't get theirs, and now are pissed because allegedly ALPA failed in fairly representing them.

Personally, I think you've pissed off enough people in this industry with the lawsuit when there are many different steps that should have been taken before taking this drastic step.
Right now, the management is laughing their collective a$$es off due to this disunity and discord. What would have been better is to stick together, and back in the day enlist the help of Delta MEC to help CMR/ASA secure being the only DCI carriers - in other words, keep it in-house since Delta ALPA negotiates with Delta. Think of the growth then. Think of the relations between Delta and DCI MEC, and think of the message it would send to the management altogether. Instead, there's bickering over hiring of the furloughees, there are threats going left and right, you have all kinds of bad messages being sent to the management as a result of this bickering. It wouldn't have been easy, but I'm sure the end result would have been a whole lot better than what's currently happening.


Looking forward to the reply Surplus.