Rjdc

[NYRANGERS]

NYRANGERS


We hear a lot of talk about scope, but it seems it's an artificial method of stopping a fundamental trend driven by economics--more RJ's and fewer mainline aircraft. We can contract, legislate, negotiate, forever; but the trend is slow and steadily marching toward RJ's. I don't say this to anger anyone, it just seems the business is heading this way.


Just my .02 worth.

Wrong again, Delta may operate as many rj's as they wish. The only thing limited is who flys them. Your 50 seaters are not limited as per numbers. They are limited in block hour restrictions, and %49 is hardly a restriction.

 

[NYRANGERS]

"that amount of money would bankrupt ALPA and destroy our great union."


I know very little about RJDC. But this one statment is worth arguing. Is this this the same Union that cooked up Jets for Jobs? Lets give Mainline pilots other Alpa jobs because they are so much more deserving.

ALPA = Fair Representation Only For Mainline Pilots

Would you loose your job over jfj's? Or are you in the long line of unhappy U commuter pilots who take enjoyment in seeing pilots loose their jobs?

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. After all you allready have a job and you seem to want to keep others out.

YMNTGFY

 

[PCL_128]

Surplus:

It seems that all you can say is "false." How about actually saying WHY my statements are false? Just to speed the process along here, I'll post excerpts from the lawsuit that you support so strongly. Explain to me why these parts of the lawsuit aren't what they seem to be:

Elimination of scope (from Relief, Section a.5 & 6):

A permanent injunction enjoining defendant AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION from

5) Negotiating, facilitating, or advocating, or
assisting others in negotiating, facilitating, or advocating, the use of scope clauses in collective bargaining agreements in such manner as to exercise control over the flying of pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the collective bargaining agreement is being negotiated.
6) Approving, or implementing, those portions of the
Scope Clause of the Tentative Agreement that would impose restrictions on flying by Comair.

It seems to me that this part of the lawsuit seeks the complete elimination of scope as we know it. How was I false in my first statement? How about the cash reward:

(Taken from Relief, Section J)

j. as to the claims set forth in Count X,
such sum as may be determined at trial, but in no event less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) Dollars each, plus the cumulative sum of One Hundred Million ($100,000,000.00) as exemplary and punitive damages.

How was I false earlier in my statements about the cash reward?

It seems to me that you don't even understand the lawsuit that YOU support! You keep saying "false," but the lawsuit speaks for itself.

 

[Palerider957]

NY RANGERS:

OK, so we're not limited in 50 seaters, there is still a lot of talk of limiting 70 and 90 seat RJ's. So we're limited to %49 of total block, and granted this is a lot of total flying time--which goes to my point that the industry (management and CEO's) is turning toward RJ's, that's all I'm saying.

On the ALPA website they have the study done for CoEx. Accodring to their numbers overall load factors go up with increased frequency of service to any given city. The idea being you give passengers more choice and they will fly more often. RJ's are MUCH more cost effective (partly becauce of size, partly because of technology) to operate with increased frequency.

Am I wrong? I'm not challenging, just asking. Do you see a different future? Tell me what you see for the next 10-20 years.

If I misquoted you earlier, I apologize, I may have read the posts too quickly.

 

[Palerider957]

NYRANGERS:

Another question I haven't been able to get a straight answer to. I heard that before the Delta furloughs, management approached the DAL pilot group and asked for concessions. If the pilots agreed they would have kept all of the pilots working. I heard (granted 3rd. hand) the senior guys said no way to pay cuts.

Can you confirm or kill this?

 

[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.