Scope, RJ's and unions

[csmith]

All this talk about mainline jets returning to routes when the loads justify bigger equipment is true - management is telling us straight about that.

I absolutely agree with you.

What ALPA needs to figure out is that there is no practical difference between a revenue seat mile produced by me in a CRJ700, or produced by mainline in a Boeing jet. We are operationally identical as far as the company and the consumer are concerned. If ALPA wants to promote disparities in our profession, management is only too happy to exploit ALPA's flawed thinking.

I absolutely disagree with you. What you conveniently leave out is that the very existence of your job was because of this disparity. Or more precisely, the explosive growth of your company was due to this disparity.

I think ALPA realizes that there is no difference in the seat mile, where there is a difference is the mission. Your company grew and prospered due to this disparity, much like SWA grows and prospers due to its disparity. You leave that niche, you've lost your edge. To top it off, you are trying to do it at the expense of another group.

 

[Director]

Go To AviationCareer.net

A lot of good info is on AviationCareer.net

 

[goldentrout]

Csmith

I'd be intersted to know what you know or have heard about the whole scope, RJDC, Delta MEC propositions, etc.

I'm all for more mainline, jobs, cause I'd like to maybe have one too someday. At worst, they cause more movement at the regionals.

It's difficult to discuss the issue without facts...or at least the most reliable rumors.

As someone stated above, most of us are just going on what we see in the media.

You bring up may good points about airline overhead. What I find interestingis your comment about "going through this a couple of times."

That's the whole point of my cmments..to get the industry to a point where we don't have to go through this every 5-10 years. I'd just rather see 100% of all airline employees keep their job than have 20-30% on the furlough bubble everytime there is an economic downturn.

I taked to a senoir United Capt today. We were talking about whether the current business model is broken or not. his exact comment "it's broken for the guys towards the bottom of the list, but for us it's not broken."

Difficult to swallow for those who can't pay their mortgagges, car payments, etc.

Some reliable insight into what you have heard from the senior ALPA folks would be helpful in furthering the discussion.

 

[Draginass]

It's a cyclical business and if they don't need you to fly an airplane, you can bet that you'll be furloughed . . . . and it doesn't matter whether you make 20K or 200k a year.

 

[~~~^~~~]

What you conveniently leave out is that the very existence of your job was because of this disparity. Or more precisely, the explosive growth of your company was due to this disparity.

I think ALPA realizes that there is no difference in the seat mile, where there is a difference is the mission. Your company grew and prospered due to this disparity, much like SWA grows and prospers due to its disparity. You leave that niche, you've lost your edge. To top it off, you are trying to do it at the expense of another group.

A history lesson is in order. My niche, as you call it, was created when your MEC negotiated codeshare in order to preserve a pay structure in the face of deregulation. Your MEC sold that niche and it now belongs to someone else.

If ALPA does realize that there is no difference in the seat mile - would you care to explain the determination reached at the last BOD meeting when ALPA declared there was no operational integration? If you were sincere in what you wrote, then the RJDC is correct regarding ALPA's malfeasance at the 2000 BOD meeting.

 

[MetroSheriff]

A history lesson is in order. My niche, as you call it, was created when your MEC negotiated codeshare in order to preserve a pay structure in the face of deregulation. Your MEC sold that niche and it now belongs to someone else.

Fins,

A reality check is in order. None of the DCI carriers have scope clauses that give us contractual "ownership" over any DAL flying.

The flying "belongs" to the company. We are doing the flying because the Delta PWA allows it to be outsourced. Nothing more.

It is our "niche" because we are cheaper.

The Delta pilots didn't sell it. It wasn't theirs to sell. The negotiated for something they wanted more by giving mgt the right to outsorce a % of the block hours. If they saw fit to negotiate payrates acceptable to management, they have the power (read negotiating muscle) to take it all back.

Which is more than can be said for our bargaining position.

They didn't sell that flying, the leased it for lack of a better word. Regardless, it doesn't belong to us. Don't get me wrong, I wish we had some scope over the outsourced block hours, it would provide growth for ASA/Comair rather than the fee for departure carriers (ACA/Skywest/Chautaqua) but the sad fact is, we don't.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Metro Sheriff:

I did not say that we have an ownership interest in the flying. All flying is Delta flying and should be flown by Delta pilots. Your arguement illustrates my point.

The reason why we do not have negotiating muscle is because ALPA denies ASA and Comair pilots the right to negotiate with Delta, our employer. If we were provided appropriate representation and lost, that would be one thing. But what is happening right now is that our wages and working conditions are being negotiated in our absence.

Time after time this union has had its butt kicked when they allow alter ego airlines to spring up and dilute mainline's bargaining power. The policy to deal with this is to merge the seniority lists and bring the pilots together. This is nothing new.

What is new is that an MEC has been given the power to thwart the union's Consitution. Ultimately that will be our union's undoing, but a lot of people are going to be harmed first.

I would rather avoid the harm and will keep preaching on this board to anyone who might listen and finally get it.

 

[publisher]

Over

I really think this battle is over, just the deceased has not been notified of his passing.

The majors have learned their lessons as regards scope, having wholly owned subs, and fixed costs feeders.

The train has left the station, no more letting the feeder dictate to the main carriers. Pinnacle, Freedom, COEX, these are the beginning not the end.

As there is no incentive for the major carrier, no incentive for the major airline pilots, and no incentive for regional management, why would anyone think that this will be resolved as a labor issue.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Not over until we say it is over!

As there is no incentive for the major carrier, no incentive for the major airline pilots, and no incentive for regional management, why would anyone think that this will be resolved as a labor issue.

Because our Nation's laws protect the ability of a union to create and maintain a monopoly on labor. Other laws exist to force mergers when multiple carriers are operating as a single carrier to subvert collective bargaining agreements.

Just because ALPA does not seek to enforce the laws, or use their PAC resources to get the laws enforced, does not mean they don't exist.

 

[goldentrout]

Draginass

It may be a cyclical business, but that doesn't mean we can't set up our benefit and wages so that a bunch of pilots don't get furloughed every 5-10 years.

They didn't furlough at Southwesst after 9/11, nor at Jet Blue. Frontier and Air Tran, by a vote of the pilots I might add, took a pay cut to ensure no one would be on the street...that's a brotherhood.

At Frontier, after the crisis passed, management not only restored full pay and benefits, but gave them full back pay for what they had given up.

It can be done...secure jobs with decent pay and benefits that don't put 20-30% of the workforce on the street during every economic downturn.

It will just take a leader with vision of the future of the airline business, and pilot groups that are more concerned about their fellow pilots than just getting "max pay to the last day."

 

[csmith]

I'd be intersted to know what you know or have heard about the whole scope, RJDC, Delta MEC propositions, etc.

I'd love to provide some for you. As is the case with lawsuits and such, there is pretty much a gag order with talking about it. When I stated that people are shooting from the hip, it was just that--a statement.

Management WILL have their low cost structure one way or the other. I am in favor of a 1:1 flow through, or something similar. I think it would have to be the something similar. This is still a military club to some extent, and the military take care of their own--and justifiably so. It would probably be more like a 1:2 flow--1 off the street, 1 from DCI. That is the only plausible solution I can see to avoiding lawsuit. The Delta pilots were prepared to utilize a good bit of their negotiating capital in C2K to arrange some type of "career advancement opportunity"--possibly such as I described above.

That's the whole point of my cmments..to get the industry to a point where we don't have to go through this every 5-10 years. I'd just rather see 100% of all airline employees keep their job than have 20-30% on the furlough bubble everytime there is an economic downturn.

The Delta pilots secured just such language in their contract. I doubt we will let it go in future negotiations. Unfortunately, somebody decided to fly 3 airplanes into buildings as we were entering a recession. The industry has always been cyclical. When times are good, people fly. When times are bad, corporations slash the travel budgets. It's the nature of the business. This force majeure WILL end, G. When it does, Delta will have to find new ways of laying off Delta pilots. Perhaps, our war happy president will send the troops to once again stick our nose in the ME and we will have to go defend what is sure to be called a WAR EMERGENCY by the company. Nonetheless, the loopholes are being closed, albeit slowly.

C

 

[csmith]

From fins:

I did not say that we have an ownership interest in the flying. All flying is Delta flying and should be flown by Delta pilots. Your arguement illustrates my point.

I would even go as far to say that your company CANNOT give you any ownership over your flying, because it does not belong to you. Metro is correct. It is hard to find the correct word. The Delta pilots in one sentence allowed the code sharing, but reserved the right to negotiate changes in that code share via the right of sole bargaining rights with Delta. IOW, the code share pie is handed out and divided up as DCI sees fit. The size of that pie depends on what is negotiated between the Delta pilots and Delta.

The reason why we do not have negotiating muscle is because ALPA denies ASA and Comair pilots the right to negotiate with Delta, our employer. If we were provided appropriate representation and lost, that would be one thing. But what is happening right now is that our wages and working conditions are being negotiated in our absence.

ALPA denies it because your employer is not Delta. It is Comair, or ASA, etc. Like it or not, the companies are seperate. Why don't ASA and Comair petition the NMB? Why don't Comair and ASA petition ALPA for a PID? Regardless, the Delta pilots have sole bargaining rights with Delta. Hence, the phrase that they "own" the flying. What is code shared is not given up, but always negotiable with every contract.

I would rather avoid the harm and will keep preaching on this board to anyone who might listen and finally get it.

You can keep preaching, but has it occured to you that you don't get it? I've asked myself the question, and answered it. How many pilots are on the lawsuit? Out of how many?

 

[surplus1]

I have to hand it to you. You always make interesting points but don't you think they're just a tad slanted in favor of your own positions?

From fins:
I would even go as far to say that your company CANNOT give you any ownership over your flying, because it does not belong to you. Metro is correct. It is hard to find the correct word. The Delta pilots in one sentence allowed the code sharing, but reserved the right to negotiate changes in that code share via the right of sole bargaining rights with Delta. IOW, the code share pie is handed out and divided up as DCI sees fit. The size of that pie depends on what is negotiated between the Delta pilots and Delta.

Thats good, but it means a whole lot of nothing. The Delta pilots didn't allowanything. That is just your own high minded opinion of yourselves. I'm glad you think well of you, we all should but please recognize that the "Delta Pilots" are not Delta Air Lines. There are several other employee groups in the corporate sturcture, among them ASA and Comair.

The Company is the one that did the "allowing". They allowed the Delta pilots to control some of their flying and retained control of the remainder. Metro is indeed correct when he says that "WE" don't own the flying. What you seem to miss is that your group is included in the we. ALL of the flying is owned and conrolled by the Company. You negotiate for as much of it as you can get. Management gives you as much as it wants to and that's it. The giving and the taking are both done by management, not by you.

ALPA denies it because your employer is not Delta. It is Comair, or ASA, etc. Like it or not, the companies are seperate. Why don't ASA and Comair petition the NMB? Why don't Comair and ASA petition ALPA for a PID? Regardless, the Delta pilots have sole bargaining rights with Delta. Hence, the phrase that they "own" the flying. What is code shared is not given up, but always negotiable with every contract.

In reality ALPA has no right to deny anything and the pending litigation will take care of that. The corporation, regardless of how it may be structured for convenience, has the right to negotiate wiith whomever it chooses for whatever it chooses. ALPA doesn't control that and neither do the Delta pilots. You may think that you do, but you think lots of things. That doesn't make it so. ALPA is simply the bargaining agent for the Delta pilots. In case it slipped your mind, ALPA is also the bargaining agent for the Comair and ASA pilots.

What would you have us petition the NMB for? I'm curious to learn. I thought ALPA was already petitioned for a PID and denied it? Did I miss something?

The Delta pilots did have sole bargaining rights with Delta at one point in time. That is no longer the case. Delta now owns two other airlines and whether you like it or not those airlines also have bargaining rights with Delta. Your group does not have the right to remove that authority and neither does the ALPA.

I hate to frustrate you but I assure you that your opinions have no more validity than mine.

You can keep preaching, but has it occured to you that you don't get it? I've asked myself the question, and answered it. How many pilots are on the lawsuit? Out of how many?

It appears that when you asked yourself the question you gave yourself the wrong answer. Try again please.

Could you explain the relavance of your questions with relation to how many pilots are on the lawsuit? I'm simple and it was lost on me.

 

[csmith]

From Surplus1:

I have to hand it to you. You always make interesting points but don't you think they're just a tad slanted in favor of your own positions?

I suppose your points aren't slanted to your positions. I have told you before that I will not entertain your posts. Wrong as it is, your mind is made up. My posts are to represent factual information for those in search. I also provide opinions where I feel, and say that they are opinions--unlike some who represent their opinions as fact.

While you wrap yourself up in the ownership argument, I say again that it is a figure of speech. It represents the words "sole bargaining rights". This is the property of Delta pilots as represented by ALPA. Section C 1 spells it out clearly in black in white. "All flying by or for the company or any affiliate will be performed by pilots in accordance with the terms and conditions of this PWA." Clear as a bell. IOW the size of the code share pie is at the discretion of Delta and the Delta pilots represented by ALPA--a loving term I refer to as DALPA--whilst in Section 6 negotiations. Folks, that's as simple as it gets. Everything else such as our:

own high minded opinion of yourselves

may make some people feel better with their vent, but is really nothing more than interesting reading. Nobody else has the right to bargain with Delta. They may bargain with Comair or ASA--viable entities--, but until Delta decided to merge companies, the rest is just misdirection. This is the reason why Comair was unable to get ownership over any of their flying in recent negotiations. They can't put their name to any flying which is doled their way. Period.

Golden,

You may want to ask why Comair and ASA together did not attempt the PID between themselves, as they fly the same mission, aircraft, cities, approx pay, work rules, medical benefits, etc. You may further wish to ask why only 25% of the Comair pilots are active in the lawsuit. You may want to ask him about 3 resolutions which have fairly recently come to light regarding such matters, but I doubt his omnipotence knows about them. He is too busy trying to further divide the groups.

I'm afraid I am done with this thread,

C

 

[jppt2000]

Passenger loads are down a bit and revenue is definitely down. Do you know the market share of Frontier and Jet blue? Minimal.

Another furloughed mainline guy's well informed opinion.

Uh, I hate to inform you though, your Company President and Delta CEO "Dr. Evil"went on record stating in the near future low cost carriers are going have 40 percent of the market share.
Is that minimal?

You should have been working to get "one list" at Delta.

Another quote, "keep the laborer down",

Oh yeah, I'm sure a mainline Delta pilot is considered in the same context as a blue collar worker, Its evident you feel very sorry for yourself too.

You won't find much pity at the regional carriers

Take a look at USAir's CEO Siegel's (sp?) speech to the Washington Aero Club.
He stated his (I'm paraphrasing) position was either work with management or face the company's liquidation.