Caveman said:
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.
