Scope Confession?

[braveheart]

The RJ Defense Coalition (RJDC) is reporting that ALPA is now saying, under oath, that it never conducted any study that shows that its small-jet restrictions would compel management to purchase more large mainline-type jets.

The RJDC goes on to point out the apparent disparity between what ALPA has told its members in the past versus what they're now saying under oath.

Thoughts anyone?

PS: I'll append the referenced text below and the entire publication can be downloaded from http://www.rjdefense.com/news.html

_____________

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Written Interrogatories Demonstrate the Value of Legal Action [/font]​

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Another phase of the legal process is the exchange of written interrogatories, or “essay” questions submitted under oath. The apparent divergence between what ALPA has long told its members concerning the purported “benefits” of small jet restrictions and what it states under oath illustrates the inherent value of the litigation: [/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Question: “State whether ALPA’s Economic and Financial Analysis department, or without limitation, any other ALPA department or committee has sever studied or determined how restricting the number of small jets could compel management to acquire more large jets, and provide the factual details thereof.” [/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Answer: “Defendants are not aware of ALPA having made any such study or determination.” [/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]The significance of the statement should not be underestimated. For years, even after 9/11, ALPA told its members that small-jet restrictions, such as fleet or flying ratios, would compel management to acquire more large jets. Yet, when forced to say so under penalty of perjury, ALPA stated that it never studied or determined how such restrictions could compel management to acquire larger jets. [/font]

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Not only does such an answer raise questions about the true purpose of ALPA’s small-jet restrictions, but it strongly suggests that ALPA’s leadership has misled the union’s “mainline” members as well. Perhaps now many will ask ALPA’s leadership why millions were spent in pursuit of a bargaining agenda that apparently lacked a factual basis and how much ALPA is now spending to defend it. More importantly, had it not been for the litigation, this pertinent detail may never have been revealed to ALPA’s members. [/font]

 

[FDJ2]

Standard answer to a fishing expedition question. The RJDC is going nowhere with their litigation that's why they feel compelled to leak out tidbits of nothing in the public and then mischaracterize it. Does the RJDC have any evidence to support an acquisition couched in the form of a question? No. A year and a half after barely surviving a summary motion to dismis, where a stunning 9 out of 10 trumped up claims by the RJDC were tossed out, the RJDC can't seem to bring a case to trial.

 

[braveheart]

FDJ2,

Thank you for your opinion, but don't you think you're side-stepping the issue?

I don't think the RJDC has ever said that fleet and/or flying ratios would give management an incentive to purchase more large jets, but I do believe ALPA has.

Given that fleet and/or flying ratios constitute a significant portion of ALPA's mainline scope clauses, you would think they conducted some sort of analysis in order to validate the basic principle. Now apparently ALPA is saying that it has not.

Perhaps someone on this forum could explain how a fleet ratio works and how restricting the number of smaller jets would encourage management to purchase larger ones?

 

[FDJ2]

Perhaps someone on this forum could explain how a fleet ratio works and how restricting the number of smaller jets would encourage management to purchase larger ones?

There are only restrictions on the number of RJs that can be flown by other than Delta pilots and the ratio of RJ block hours that can be flown by other than Delta pilots. There is no limitation on the number of RJs Delta can buy or operate. As far as the DAL PWA is concerned, Delta could buy or operate 10,000 E-170s if they wanted to.

Furthermore, ALPA has not stated that they ever concucted a study into how restricting RJ would force an airline to purchase more larger aircraft. That scenario is only postulated by the RJDC in the form of a question.

The RJDC question makes no sense and proves nothing as it pertains to the DAL PWA, since there are no limitations on the number of small jets DAL can purchase, only on the amount that can be outsourced to cheaper labor. You don't need a study to determine that if you allow unlimited outsourcing to cheaper labor, you'll get just that.

 

[GogglesPisano]

When DAL spins off CMR, the RJDJ will disband. The rest will be history.

 

[Tim47SIP]

It's Bagdad Bob!

Standard answer to a fishing expedition question. The RJDC is going nowhere with their litigation that's why they feel compelled to leak out tidbits of nothing in the public and then mischaracterize it. Does the RJDC have any evidence to support an acquisition couched in the form of a question? No. A year and a half after barely surviving a summary motion to dismis, where a stunning 9 out of 10 trumped up claims by the RJDC were tossed out, the RJDC can't seem to bring a case to trial.

Normally, I agree with 90% of everything you have to say.
NO! I AM NOT AN RJDC SUPPORTER!
But I have to agree (with other posters) that you are out in left field here. You sound like Bagdad Bob! I am sorry, but I think that they are going to be more of a pain in the arse than you give them credit.

 

[FDJ2]

I am sorry, but I think that they are going to be more of a pain in the arse than you give them credit.

I doubt it, but you are entitled to your own opinion, but none of us are entitled to our own facts. the facts are that 9 out of 10 RJDC claims were summarily dismissed before discovery. Not good for the RJDC. As for their last claim, the Judge only ruled that he had subject matter jurisdiction over the RJDC claim and that he would hear arguments on the merits of that claim. That was over a year and a half ago. To date the RJDC has not yet brought their claim forward. Kind of surprising for a group that acts as if this were a clear cut and obvious violation of DFR. But perhaps it is not so surprising when one understands how weak the RJDC claim really is.

"Plaintiffs (RJDC) allege that these equal rights are violated because ALPA excludes them from participating in deliberations regarding the Delta CBA that directly effect the Comair pilots. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants (ALPA)argue that plaintiffs fail to allege that they are treated differently from other union members who are similarly situated. Plaintiffs offer no argument opposing dismissal of the LMRDA claim. Defendants are correct that the LMRDA does not requires a union to extend to members of one bargaining unit the right to participate in the deliberations and vote on the matters before another bargaining unit, even when the second unit’s actions might affect the rights of members in the first unit. See Marshall v. Local Union"

Judge Glasser

We'll probably be here months from now with the RJDC still hesitant to bring their feable claims forward.

 

[braveheart]

FDJ2,



Thank you again for your reply. However, it still avoids the question concerning the effectiveness of the fleet/flying ratios which are, to this day, a major element in ALPA's "mainline" scope clauses. For example, here's a quote from a recent ALPA publication at Northwest:

"If narrowbody fleet falls below specified threshold, the number of RJs allowed under the above provisions is reduced on a 1 for 1 basis."


​

If the small-jet's pay scales were the reason for the small-jet restrictions, then why would a decrease in mainline narrowbody aircraft require a reduction in the number of previously permitted small-jets?


Any thoughts?

 

[FDJ2]

FDJ2,





Thank you again for your reply. However, it still avoids the question concerning the effectiveness of the fleet/flying ratios which are, to this day, a major element in ALPA's "mainline" scope clauses.

Well, I wasn't attempting to avoid your question, and I won't comment on the mainline scope provisions of other carriers, but as it pertains to DAL scope, the only ratios are those which allow a certain level of outsourcing. It is a legitimate goal of all collective bargaining agreements to limit outsourcing, don't you agree? Again, there is no fleet restriction limiting the number of RJs Delta can operate, only the number that can be operated by other than Delta pilots, so as it pertains to Delta, the question is moot.

 

[Lear70]

I believe that most unionized labor groups would agree that a main concern in any CBA is job protection. I also believe that most unionized pilot labor groups would agree that protecting themselves from outsourcing jobs through Scope protection is important; if you don't believe that, ask yourself why so many 'regional' groups such as Mesaba, XJet, and others fought so hard for Scope protection for their own flying in their most recent contracts (as in, signed in the last year).

For the record, I am not a member of the RJDC. For the record, I also don't believe that ALPA can ETHICALLY pretend to support both regional and major airline pilots since many of their goals are conflicting.

That said, I don't believe there are many legal arguments that can be made to support the RJDC as ALPA wasn't FORCED on any one group; it was voted in and there exists a process for it to be voted out if a group thought its interests were not being addressed in a fair and consistent manner. Additionally, I don't recal anywhere in the ALPA bylaws where they promise to uphold the values of EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER, only the wishes of each local's majority constituency.

The argument, although having a strong foundation in an ethical truth, is legally on very weak ground. Additionally, there are few options, unless EVERY SINGLE REGIONAL AIRLINE PILOT GROUP agreed to leave ALPA AT THE SAME TIME and formed a new union. There are enough of us that we could be self-supportive in our own right, but unfortunately there's just not enough p*ssed off regional pilots to organize that kind of campaign.

Other than that, what are the options the RJDC suggests? I've still never heard them even though I've asked before...

 

[BeCareful!]

>>>>>>> For years, even after 9/11, ALPA told its members that small-jet restrictions, such as fleet or flying ratios, would compel management to acquire more large jets.<<<<<<


I've been an ALPA member for over 10 years, and resided on both sides of the SCOPE equation. I don't ever recall ALPA informing me that a study had been done, nor that it believed that restricting small jets would force management to buy more large jets. Had they told me that, I would have certainly raised the bull$hit flag.

Face it: management is going to buy and/or operate whatever it deems proper for the route. WHO FLYS THEM has always been the question.

I personally believe in ONE UNION, ONE LEVEL OF SAFETY, and ONE LEVEL OF SERVICE to the customers. All this RJDIC crap just serves to keep the dreaded Divide and Conqure strategy alive for management, and they don't even have to try.....you boys are doing it for them!

 

[~~~^~~~]

Other than that, what are the options the RJDC suggests?

The RJDC, which is suing to have ALPA's own rules and the laws of our nation enforced, wants to protect those rules. The RJDC has tried to resolve ALPA's scope problem within ALPA and within the framework of these rules.

This whole thing started with the presentation at the 2000 ALPA Board of Directors meeting when the ASA and Comair MEC's asked ALPA to provide a Policy Implementation Date under ALPA's long standing Merger and Fragmentation Policy. ALPA denied this request.

Then grievances were filed on the basis that ASA & Comair pilots wages and working conditions were negotiated without our representation, or ratification. ALPA refused to follow up on these grievances.

Requests were made to have all three MEC's meet to conduct joint scope negotiations and requests were made by the ASA and Comair MEC's to represent their pilots to Delta on the matter of scope. Delta said they would negotiate, ALPA prohibited any communications between the ASA and Comair MEC's and Delta.

ALPA then adopted some of the RJDC's ideas, under the banner of "brand scope." However, while changing the political rhetoric, ALPA continued the same old predatory scope at Northwest and US Air. We will learn of the scope battles in LOA 46 at Delta, but that news has not been published yet.

You can see what the RJDC wants by researching the history of this issue. The RJDC has been fighting the use of alter ego air carriers and this "race for the bottom." Codeshare and outsourcing are the invention of the mainline MEC's - sort of a super "B Scale" for unwanted flying. Scope used to be a mechanism to bind a company to its pilots, now scope is a mechanism for controlling flying that the mainline pilots do not feel is worthy of their position.

The RJDC's desire is to see that all pilots have equal representation. Today we ASA and Comair pilots are locked out of negotiations with the entity that has operational control of our airline. This is wrong and ALPA knows it.

Unfortunately rather than follow the rules and make decisions that would improve the state of the profession, ALPA has been ruled by the political whim of a couple renegade MECs. The way ALPA has used scope has harmed mainline pilots as much, if not more, than regional pilots. That is the point of this thread. ALPA is claiming it never looked at the objective data in deciding how to outsource jobs ( because the data would have told ALPA they were going the wrong direction ) at the same time ALPA confirmed the divisive political prejudice felt by mainline pilots to further the goals of its own individual politicians.

To say that this battle is over "representation" does not sound sexy, but it is the bottom line. All ALPA members deserve an equal opportunity to negotiate with their employers. The fact that airline management and ALPA conspire to keep the regional pilots' voices from being heard is wrong and the effect has been an explosion of alter ego air carriers. "Representation" is what will end the race for the bottom and that is what the RJDC wants.

~~~^~~~

 

[Tomct]

Nicely said fins....

 

[Lear70]

Scope used to be a mechanism to bind a company to its pilots, now scope is a mechanism for controlling flying that the mainline pilots do not feel is worthy of their position.

I don't think you'd find too many furloughed mainline pilots who would agree that a CMR CRJ CA position isn't "worthy of their position"... Similar thoughts at other furloughing carriers, I'm sure (I hear it often from NWA DC-9 crews - Pinnacle is the "furlough generator" and those jobs should belong to their furloughed brethren). The "not worthy of their position" thinking might have been the case years ago with turboprop flying, but I think that thought is a dinosaur in this day and age of predominantly RJ flying.

The RJDC's desire is to see that all pilots have equal representation. Today we ASA and Comair pilots are locked out of negotiations with the entity that has operational control of our airline. This is wrong and ALPA knows it.

Agreed.

The way ALPA has used scope has harmed mainline pilots as much, if not more, than regional pilots.

Also agreed.

To say that this battle is over "representation" does not sound sexy, but it is the bottom line. All ALPA members deserve an equal opportunity to negotiate with their employers. The fact that airline management and ALPA conspire to keep the regional pilots' voices from being heard is wrong and the effect has been an explosion of alter ego air carriers. "Representation" is what will end the race for the bottom and that is what the RJDC wants.

I'm not sure that "representation" will end the race for the bottom. I believe a fundamental change in ALPA's long-term strategy is what's needed (which would ALSO include more equal representation from the codeshare affiliated regionals); however, that change is unlikely with DW at the helm... He seems pretty locked in to his agenda and has the support of enough like-minded MEC's to continue his agenda (unfortunately).

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't think you'd find too many furloughed mainline pilots who would agree that a CMR CRJ CA position isn't "worthy of their position"... Similar thoughts at other furloughing carriers, I'm sure (I hear it often from NWA DC-9 crews - Pinnacle is the "furlough generator" and those jobs should belong to their furloughed brethren). The "not worthy of their position" thinking might have been the case years ago with turboprop flying, but I think that thought is a dinosaur in this day and age of predominantly RJ flying.

You are correct, but scope should not change, year by year, based on the political whim of mainline pilots. Also consider that the pilots calling the shots at mainline negotiating committees are not junior FO's, or furloughees. That is why ALPA must live by its core values, by fighting alter ego air carriers and by insisting that all flying be done by pilots on the company's seniority list.

When I hired on, ASA operated and had the allowance to operate 105 seat jets. My airline was purchased by Delta. Our managers were systematically replaced by Delta Managers and as of last Friday I learned that ASA does not have the authority to cancel and ASA flight in an ice storm. This authority is held by Delta. Sounds to me like Delta has operational control of my airplane.

ALPA, under its Merger and Fragmentation policy should have requested a Single Carrier Petition among Delta, Comair and ASA in 1999. However, the RJ flying was undesireable and to most Delta pilots both the flying and the pilots at ASA are undersireable. It is more than a little ironic that some of the pilots at Delta were former Ransome ATR pilots who were brought on to the Pan Am list and who eventually ended up as senior Captains at Delta - thanks to the same merger and fragmentation policy that their MEC quashed.

Without my representation, my potential fleet choices were reduced to airplanes with less than 51 seats, with a grandfathered number of 70 seat jets. This has evolved to allow more airplanes, but now the 70 seat jets are being placed at "preferred" non ALPA jets for jobs carriers. Anyone can see that sending jobs outside ALPA at less than ASA and Comair pilots' pay is not a good strategy for ALPA's continued health. It is only a political solution for one small minority of ALPA's membership.

ALPA can represent all pilots effectively if it represents pilots equally. The National Union must impose the rules on individual MEC's for the good of all ALPA members.

Eventually even the bigots will see that a union which brings pilots together is a good thing.

~~~^~~~

 

[Lear70]

ALPA can represent all pilots effectively if it represents pilots equally. The National Union must impose the rules on individual MEC's for the good of all ALPA members.

Eventually even the bigots will see that a union which brings pilots together is a good thing. ~~~^~~~

One can only hope...

Thanks for the information; glad I finally got the official "bottom line" (without having to spend four hours of my afternoon reading the RJDC website to get it).

 

[DAL737FO]

That is why ALPA must live by its core values, by fighting alter ego air carriers and by insisting that all flying be done by pilots on the company's seniority list.~~~^~~~

Well I see that we agree on one thing, however where would this put the pilots at ASA and Comair? You keep bringing up the PID and the denial of your rights. Isn't it Comair that has a provision in it's contract that says it's pilots fly anything over 19 seats? So if, pre Delta buyout, Comair had bought an airline that solely flew B1900's then those pilots would not have been integrated into the seniority list. Me personally I hope you guys get your chance and get sold out from under the wholly owned umbrella. Then this becomes a non issue.

Former B-727 Freight Dawg
Now MD88 FO recallee

 

[~~~^~~~]

Well I see that we agree on one thing, however where would this put the pilots at ASA and Comair?

Me personally I hope you guys get your chance and get sold out from under the wholly owned umbrella. Then this becomes a non issue.

Former B-727 Freight Dawg
Now MD88 FO recallee

Mergers are never popular. However in 1999, or 2000, this would have been pretty painless. ALPA mergers have always been based on equipment, pay & position. It is not up to me, or the RJDC, or even my MEC to say, but everything suggests that it would have been a staple. You would have never been furloughed. At worst, you would be an CRJ700 Captain - but your MEC denied you that opportunity by encouraging the bigotry that ASA was not up to your standards.

Today the fate of furloughees would be in question, as well as the fate of 1/2 the seniority lists at ASA & Comair. IMHO they would have to work out a complex solution involving seat locks. The Delta MEC floated a proposal that involved a staple with the ability to cross bid and one LEC suggested a system wide re-bid if that were to take place. So who the heck knows....

A good first step would be to stop the amount of flying going outside the Delta operation & put pilots Delta already has a relationship with in those seats.

I am not sure that ASA and Comair can be sold in a manner that would net anything for Delta. ASA and Comair were used to secure financing for Delta with GE Capital Services Corp. No one has the cash to pay back GE and that cash is being used to fund Delta's losses this year. Hopefully things will get turned around, or this is all a moot discussion.

 

[Tomct]

Right you are fins....Unfortunately, with DW at the helm, I don't see anything like that happening! He is too side-tracked with his HUGE salary from the union! The really sad part is that all three airlines Delta, ASA and Comair are on the same team and yet mainline treats us like "redheaded" step children. Funny how that happens when we are generating such huge amounts of CASH!!

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Former B-727 Freight Dawg
Now MD88 FO recallee

Congrats on the recall!!!! **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** glad things are working in you guy's favor!
Welcome back to Atlanta 'Hartsfield' zoo!!