Rjdc

[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The problem is that the scope model being used is outdated.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 DALPA stubbornly held on to the outdated scope model based on only the number of seats.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.