Soft on ALPA

[NEWSOUTH]

IGNEOUSY2

Igneousy2, I liked your post. It is hard for me not to see it the way you describe it.

That is what happened. How could it be any different?

 

[surplus1]

Re: ?

By the way, you're right they're not suing me.. they're suing my union because a mainline pilot wants to protect his job.

Wrong!

First of all it's not your union, it is our union.

Second, it is not being sued because a mainline pilot wants to protect his job. That is about as false a statement as you could possibly make.

It is being sued because our union has an equal responsibility to protect the jobs of all its members not just the jobs of mainline pilots. Instead of doing that the union's administration is trying to "protect" (your word) mainline jobs at the expense of the jobs of its regional members.

Whether you like it or whether you don't, that is against the law.

You can protect your mainline job all you want, provided you don't do it by trying to take or impair my regional job or create super seniory for yourself on my list. As soon as our union stops doing those things it will not be sued any more.

 

[Freight Dog]

Re: Re: ?

Wrong!

First of all it's not your union, it is our union.

Second, it is not being sued because a mainline pilot wants to protect his job. That is about as false a statement as you could possibly make.

It is being sued because our union has an equal responsibility to protect the jobs of all its members not just the jobs of mainline pilots. Instead of doing that the union's administration is trying to "protect" (your word) mainline jobs at the expense of the jobs of its regional members.

Whether you like it or whether you don't, that is against the law.

You can protect your mainline job all you want, provided you don't do it by trying to take or impair my regional job or create super seniory for yourself on my list. As soon as our union stops doing those things it will not be sued any more.

Surplus, you and I have been hashing this over for years, do we have to make an annual argument?

So instead of going line by line arguing, let me ask you something. How do you feel about outsourcing American jobs to India? Why do you think the corporate America does that? Do you agree with it?

It's very relevant to this because I guarantee you if we didn't have laws against cabotage, your job would be in jeopardy right now as well, but since they can't bring in China Air to fly point-to-point DFW-ORD (an RJ route), they got the lowest bidder legally available - you.

As you know, I came from Island Air to Aloha, and low and behold, we are now locked in the big scope battle with our management over them doing the same thing - having Island Air now fly our routes in direct blatant violation of our scope. Am I wrong in trying to prevent it? We asked if the management would entertain the idea of putting Island Air pilots on our seniority list, and Zander (our CEO) laughed, and said no way. So now what are my options? If I seek to enforce our scope clause, according to you, I'm liable to get sued because I would be "harming the regional pilot." I mean seriously surplus, what would you do if you were on this side of the fence?

 

[744]

Re: Re: Freightdog

igneousy2 :

>>>Every major airline has had some opportunities where they were bargaining from a position of power, where they could have insisted regional pilots be incorporated into their seniority lists and stopped the madness right then and their. Every major airline group balked at the opportunity. Not even being bashful in saying that they didn't want to because major airline pilots were BETTER than regional airline pilots.<<<

Not every major airline pilot group. PanAm did do the right thing when PanAm bought Ransom. So it is possible.

Otherwise I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

 

[Freight Dog]

Re: Re: Freightdog

Igneousy,

Your post is a little naive. Mainline pilots are to blame?! Tell me something, what incentive would the management ever have to integrate seniority lists of a regional to its mainline pilot group? The management would lose all the leverage it has and it would create too powerful labor force. Most airline managements aren't quite THAT stupid. So it is pretty naive to think that it was the arrogant mainline pilots that invited this upon themselves.

You further go on to insult military pilots by saying it is beneath them to fly anything with a condition lever. I beg to differ. There are/were quite a few of them flying at regionals.

I can guarantee you this.. if you wouldn't whore yourself to fly an RJ or say DHC-8 or SF340 for povery-wages, you'd attract more quality people as well because quite simply... some people like that kind of flying and they want to stick with it if they can afford to live like that. Your average military pilot takes a good paycut to go through probation at a major airline, but he bounces back in the second year. At just about all your regionals, you don't bounce back until like year 6-7 captain, and I'm talking just getting back to the wage they were making in the military. The regionals were carrots for your flight instructors who already would sell their mother for flight time, so now it's TURBINE TIME, they'd sell you their sister for that one. $20/hr to fly a DHC-8 as an FO? SUUURE... with pleasure! Is it the arrogant "military-type" or is it simple economics i.e. can't afford it?


Mainline pilots never gave a rat's ass about the working conditions at their regionals. They could have insisted in their scopes some minimum standards, work rules, retirement, etc....nah, who cares.

This is just a ridiculous statement. So you would expect a mainline pilot to fight a regional pilot's battles? Sorry bud, but if you're not willing to fight for own battle, don't expect me to do it for you. However, if you walk out in order to force the management to improve your pay/work rules/retirement, I'll definitely be sending checks to your strike fund before any assessment comes my way, and even then, I'll send more than the assessment. You gotta take the first step.



Every major airline has had some opportunities where they were bargaining from a position of power, where they could have insisted regional pilots be incorporated into their seniority lists and stopped the madness right then and their. Every major airline group balked at the opportunity. Not even being bashful in saying that they didn't want to because major airline pilots were BETTER than regional airline pilots.

Another simpleton statement... give you an example, at Aloha, Zander laughed at the notion of us bring Island Air pilots to our seniority list. Why should he? He has cheap labor... he brings them to our side, and all of a sudden, it ain't cheap labor anymore. If we left the hourly wages alone, he'd STILL have to pay more in just retirement contributions like A-plan, B-plan and so forth. So what would you suggest? Mainline pilots strike over annexing regionals? Mind you, regionals weren't a threat to the mainline up until RJ when they started flying 3 hour legs in an RJ.

Come on, be realistic...

So developed two classes of pilots, regional pilots, who were glad they were making more than the $5 a flight hour they were getting flight instructing, and major airline pilots making more in an hour than many regional pilots make on a 3 day trip.

This is an unfortunate reason WHY in the present situation you will never see integration of seniority lists between regionals and their mainline, and management likes it that way.

They all went to their regionals who's captains were all scraping by making $36 an hour...they said you can fly these nice shiny jets, go fast, stay cool on hot summer days...and we'll pay you $50 an hour. They didn't have to ask twice.

There you go again, you're not willing to fight for a fair wage, but expect a mainline pilot to fight your battle for ya. I wonder what would have happened if you flat out laughed at their $50/hr and say, naw, you gotta make that sweeter. I know, I know, you wouldn't be building jet time now for majors.



So now these mainline pilots go whining to management saying it's not fair, blah, blah, blah. Now they don't have nearly the negotiating leverage they had just 3-4 years prior, now the best they can hope for is to limit the RJ expansion. Now most major airlines wouldn't even consider seniority list merger plans where most probably would have 6 years ago. Many mainlines have offered to fly the RJ's (yet, not one has offered to fly turbo-props till this day)...but why SHOULD the airlines give it to them.

Once again, very simpleton statement. 6 years ago, regionals weren't replacing mainline flying. They were feeding the hubs from smaller communities. Now, they are replacing mainline on a lot of traditionally-mainline routes. Of course, a mainline pilot will try to restrict the use of an RJ.


The short answer as to "why?" is simply...pride!

Oh God... WRONG!! The answer is - the management won't go for it, and we can't afford it!


So do I feel "sorry" for mainline pilots...NO

Mainline pilots generally fight their own battles to insure that they can continue to make a good living, have good work rules and have a good retirement which is more than you can say for many regional groups out there, so whether or not you feel "sorry" for mainline pilots is irrelevant.

Do I sympathize with their cause....NO

Funny, you don't. The more scope you put on an RJ, the more likely a chance that you will get on at a mainline carrier. But, whatever floats your boat...

Mainline pilots don't have to look far for someone to blame in this "mess".

For years regionals have been BEGGING to get on the seniority list of their majors...if things keep going the way they have been, major airline pilots will start begging to be on their regionals lists.

Yeah, mainline pilots don't have to go far.. regional pilots smile and gladly work for insulting wages, under horrible work rules and no retirement except a 401(k). The management gladly takes advantage of smiling and happy regional pilots building jet time and replaces mainline labor.

If I'm ever at a regional where this happens I will suggest that we kindly offer, what APA said was their BEST offer to eagle pilots just a couple of years ago...STAPLED to the bottom.

Feel better now?


That was at least .04 cents worth

Later

Nice rant Igneousy...

 

[Pez D. Spencer]

Freightdog,
When I read your post vs. Surplus1's I see two different things -- I didn't read in this post that Surplus1 said scope was evil -- that's another topic.

However, if I read it correctly, what he said was that he wants fair and equitable representaion, which, he... and I... and the rest of the regional pilots represented by the very same union that locked us out of negotiating our own future --- the same union that represents mainline pilots --- deserve to have. If you are part of a union are you not party to negotiating your OWN future, even (and especially) when it is intertwined with another part of that union?

Forgive the simplicity, but it's like your wife telling you she can sleep with whoever she wants, but you can only have that same old same old everynight.

You made a good point about poverty wages at the regionals and keeping that from being a career for your military buds. But you don't seem to mean it... read your own post again. You don't seem to be in favor of higher pay at the regionals and you say to fight you're own fight -- guess what the RJDC is??? Or, a strike by Comair???

Ingeniousy didn't miss by much.

BTW, what did Alan Greenspan say about outsourcing of US jobs to India? Do you agree with him?

 

[igneousy2]

Re: Re: Re: Freightdog

Igneousy,

Your post is a little naive. Mainline pilots are to blame?! Tell me something, what incentive would the management ever have to integrate seniority lists of a regional to its mainline pilot group? The management would lose all the leverage it has and it would create too powerful labor force. Most airline managements aren't quite THAT stupid. So it is pretty naive to think that it was the arrogant mainline pilots that invited this upon themselves.



You further go on to insult military pilots by saying it is beneath them to fly anything with a condition lever. I beg to differ. There are/were quite a few of them flying at regionals.

Again you are speaking of the present situation, yes there are a lot of former/current military pilot's out there flying for the regionals, this was not the case 10-15 years ago...and how am I insulting them...even now, given the choice, I would rather fly a jet then a turbo-prop...the point was they could have negotiated a pay rate and had pilot's on THEIR seniority lists fly these turbo-props, but they chose not to. If my current airline said they were going to start acquiring Cessna 152's, I would make sure our union leadership negotiated a pay rate and insisted that any Cessna 152's were flown by pilot's on our seniority list....not that I would bid for it...

I can guarantee you this.. if you wouldn't whore yourself to fly an RJ or say DHC-8 or SF340 for povery-wages, you'd attract more quality people as well because quite simply... some people like that kind of flying and they want to stick with it if they can afford to live like that. Your average military pilot takes a good paycut to go through probation at a major airline, but he bounces back in the second year. At just about all your regionals, you don't bounce back until like year 6-7 captain, and I'm talking just getting back to the wage they were making in the military. The regionals were carrots for your flight instructors who already would sell their mother for flight time, so now it's TURBINE TIME, they'd sell you their sister for that one. $20/hr to fly a DHC-8 as an FO? SUUURE... with pleasure! Is it the arrogant "military-type" or is it simple economics i.e. can't afford it?

I actually agree with most of your posts (except for the selling of mothers...probably sister's though) but won't get involved in another BS civilian vs. military argument. Both ways has it's challenges. As far as is it whoring?...that's a little "naive" to use your word. The reality for any single pilot is that you are stuck with whatever the pilots before you negotiated for at whatever company you are applying to and every airline flying something burning kerosene has no shortage of applicants.


Mainline pilots never gave a rat's ass about the working conditions at their regionals. They could have insisted in their scopes some minimum standards, work rules, retirement, etc....nah, who cares.

This is just a ridiculous statement. So you would expect a mainline pilot to fight a regional pilot's battles? Sorry bud, but if you're not willing to fight for own battle, don't expect me to do it for you. However, if you walk out in order to force the management to improve your pay/work rules/retirement, I'll definitely be sending checks to your strike fund before any assessment comes my way, and even then, I'll send more than the assessment. You gotta take the first step.

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you...the problem at the regional level is that most pilots just keep their head low and are just marking-time, trying to get onto a major. I admire the COMAIR group for having the balls to walk...I sent my check in to. Major airline pilot's should however, take interest in what their regionals are getting paid/benefits because it does effect how much flying gets transfered to the regional. If the major used it's leverage to ensure pay rates were at least a certain percentage of the mainline rate or maybe insist they get retirement it would have prevented this wide a gap from happening in the first place.



Every major airline has had some opportunities where they were bargaining from a position of power, where they could have insisted regional pilots be incorporated into their seniority lists and stopped the madness right then and their. Every major airline group balked at the opportunity. Not even being bashful in saying that they didn't want to because major airline pilots were BETTER than regional airline pilots.

Another simpleton statement... give you an example, at Aloha, Zander laughed at the notion of us bring Island Air pilots to our seniority list. Why should he? He has cheap labor... he brings them to our side, and all of a sudden, it ain't cheap labor anymore. If we left the hourly wages alone, he'd STILL have to pay more in just retirement contributions like A-plan, B-plan and so forth. So what would you suggest? Mainline pilots strike over annexing regionals? Mind you, regionals weren't a threat to the mainline up until RJ when they started flying 3 hour legs in an RJ.

Come on, be realistic...

Again, your statements are true today but it wasn't 15 years ago which was my main point.

So developed two classes of pilots, regional pilots, who were glad they were making more than the $5 a flight hour they were getting flight instructing, and major airline pilots making more in an hour than many regional pilots make on a 3 day trip.

This is an unfortunate reason WHY in the present situation you will never see integration of seniority lists between regionals and their mainline, and management likes it that way.

Absolutely

They all went to their regionals who's captains were all scraping by making $36 an hour...they said you can fly these nice shiny jets, go fast, stay cool on hot summer days...and we'll pay you $50 an hour. They didn't have to ask twice.

There you go again, you're not willing to fight for a fair wage, but expect a mainline pilot to fight your battle for ya. I wonder what would have happened if you flat out laughed at their $50/hr and say, naw, you gotta make that sweeter. I know, I know, you wouldn't be building jet time now for majors.

You don't know me personaly so i'm not offended, but if you did, you would know that I have always been very active in making my present working conditions, better, I would walk, I have picketed, I do go to union meetings, I was Grievance Chairman, I have been on System Boards...I am not a typical Regional Pilot. Luckily, Regional pilots as a whole are getting more and more active...finally realizing that major airline pay rates/benefits have little to do with them if they never get there.

So now these mainline pilots go whining to management saying it's not fair, blah, blah, blah. Now they don't have nearly the negotiating leverage they had just 3-4 years prior, now the best they can hope for is to limit the RJ expansion. Now most major airlines wouldn't even consider seniority list merger plans where most probably would have 6 years ago. Many mainlines have offered to fly the RJ's (yet, not one has offered to fly turbo-props till this day)...but why SHOULD the airlines give it to them.

Once again, very simpleton statement. 6 years ago, regionals weren't replacing mainline flying. They were feeding the hubs from smaller communities. Now, they are replacing mainline on a lot of traditionally-mainline routes. Of course, a mainline pilot will try to restrict the use of an RJ.

I think your view is a "simpleton" one, and again only 6 years ago...I have never said they shouldn't try.


The short answer as to "why?" is simply...pride!

Oh God... WRONG!! The answer is - the management won't go for it, and we can't afford it!

Maybe I should rephrase, the reason major airline pilots are in the current mess is pride and lack of foresight. The hard lesson learned is that a pilot group should ALWAYS insist to perform ALL of the flying in ANY aircraft their company operates or contracts. Decisions made 10-15 years ago are being paid for now.

Didn't mean to offend anyone, I apologize if i've offended you.

Later

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: Re: ?

Surplus, you and I have been hashing this over for years, do we have to make an annual argument?

Whenever you make a statement that is not true, which you did in the remarks to which I replied, we will have a disagreement.

So instead of going line by line arguing, let me ask you something. How do you feel about outsourcing American jobs to India? Why do you think the corporate America does that? Do you agree with it?

You have misidentified the problem. Until you come to understand the reasons for the lawsuit you brought up, you and I will continue to disagree.

I am on record, in this forum and others, as being opposed to outsourcing. However, whether or not I favor or oppose outsourcing is irrelevant. Additionally, what you call outsourcing has nothing to do with the litigation you referenced.

The litigation is about ALPA's Duty of Fair Representation, a requirement of Federal law, not about my opinions on outsourcing or your fears about your job security.

If you wish to understand this "problem" fully you must differentiate between subcontracting, which is synonymous with outsourcing, and alter ego which is not. You must also take your emotions out of the equation and consider the facts.

In either case neither subcontractors nor alter egos would exist unless both were permitted by the same union and mainline pilot groups that are now objecting to their own creations. You (mainline) "made the bed" and you will now have to sleep in it.

Even so the union (ALPA), which fully sanctioned the outsourcing originally, cannot legally act against its own members and deprive them of their jobs as a remedy for its error. Having first created the "outsourcing" and then admitting the "outsourced" pilots to membership in the union, the union is now obliged by Federal law to represent the interests of the "outsourced" members with the same vigor that it uses to represent the interests of the "mainline" members. It is not doing so and that is against the law.

One of the vehicles the union uses in its attempt to favor the mainline pilot over the regional pilot is the ever-changing "scope caluse". Scope is legitimate and necessary when it determines who will fly aircraft operated by your airline. It becomes completely illigitimate and disfunctional when it attempts to control my work or the aircraft operated by my airline.

The alter ego scenario is slightly different but embodies the same principle. When originally faced with the first alter ego, created by Lorenzo under the name of New York Air, the union recognized the inherent danger of one corporation owning more than one airline. The union then established policy designed to preclude the repetition of such events. Out of that policy there emerged the Merger clauses in most collective bargaining contracts. [Notice I did not say "scope clause", I said merger clause].

However, once more, the union (ALPA) and the mainline pilots deliberately modified the merger clauses of their contracts so as to intentionally omit or exempt "regional" aircraft from the provisions of the "merger clause", and the union intentionally neutered its own alter ego policy. Thus the union and the mainline pilots sanctioned and fully endorsed the establishment of "regional" alter ego airlines on their own properties.

The pilots of these alter ego regional airlines are equal members of the union. Therefore, the union is obliged by Federal law to provide them with fair representation. As such the union may not legally discriminate against them, artificially restrict their growth or endanger their job security by acting against the interests of the regional alter ego pilots and, in preference, supporting the interests of mainline pilots, who now seek to reverse their previous error at the expense of the regional pilots employed by the alter ego. That is against the law.

The union has overtely attempted to reverse the negative impact of its own and the mainline pilots' past errors by acting against the interests of its regional members in the effort to protect its mainline members from the consequence of their previous mistakes. The union has also directly acted against the interest of its regional members by coercing them into abdication of their seniority and contracts in favor of mainline members. That is also against the law.

As long as the union continues these practices it makes itself both subject and vulnerable to multiple instances of litigation.

As you know, I came from Island Air to Aloha, and low and behold, we are now locked in the big scope battle with our management over them doing the same thing - having Island Air now fly our routes in direct blatant violation of our scope.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Aloha pilots' CBA so I can't speak to whether or not your management may be violating it with respect to Island Air.

However, I do know that Aloha could not have acquired or created Island Air as a separate entity if your contract with Aloha had not permitted it or been silent on the issue. Now that (I think) Aloha has sold Island Air, it could not be subcontracting with it unless your contract was silent on that issue or permitted it.

If Alhoa pilots failed to address or permitted alter egos and subcontracting in the first instance, its too late for you to be complaining about the consequences after the fact. Since Island Air pilots also belong to ALPA, the union may not legally represent your interests at Aloha in a manner detrimental to the Island Air pilots.

Yes, I know that you were at Island Air originally. I must now ask you .... if Island Air was so detrimental to Alhoa and you felt that was wrong, how come you didn't have that feeling before you got hired by Aloha? Would you have been "happy" if the Aloha pilots had caused you to lose your job at Island Air before you got on with Aloha? Why didn't you just quit Island Air so that you wouldn't hurt the Aloha pilots?

Am I wrong in trying to prevent it? We asked if the management would entertain the idea of putting Island Air pilots on our seniority list, and Zander (our CEO) laughed, and said no way. So now what are my options?

If your company is in fact violating your scope clause, you have a right to defend it and enforce it. If your scope clause permitted the creation of Island Air or the subcontracting of Island Air, then your option is to live with it. You can't take away the jobs of the Island Air pilots because you now have belated regrets about the Aloha pilots' decision to permit that in the first instance. More importantly, you can personally do whatever you please but the union may not help you to harm the Island Air pilots because you fly 737's and they don't. If the union does that it will probably get sued again, as it should.

I mean seriously surplus, what would you do if you were on this side of the fence?

Seriously Freight Dog, I would accept the consequences of my predecessor's actions or lack thereof. I would seek accomodation with the Island Air pilots based upon our mutual interests. I would NOT expect to impose my will upon them because we fly a different aircraft, because I make more money or just because I can. I would try to take down the "fence" instead of making it higher.

Just so you don't forget, I've already been on the mainline side of the equation and I've flown a lot more "heavy metal" than regional type aircraft. In my book, right and wrong are not dependent on the length of the fuselage, the size of the pay check or the logo on the tail. I not only expect our union to be fair, I demand it.

You didn't ask for advice but here is some anyway. Stop being a mainline pilot or a regional pilot and settle for being an airline pilot. Like it or not we're in this stew together and the bubbling (quarelling) doesn't improve the taste.

Aloha

 

[Tim47SIP]

Freightdood

Funny you should mention LCC's, and don't mention the most successful LCC in the country - SWA. Did you know that SWA has some of the highest pay in the industry? Yet, they're the ones who started this whole LCC craze. Blows your pay and work rules argument right out of the water.

You know, I didn't mention them but there is really no difference. I didn't mention a whole lot of others as well. But since you brought them up, could you tell me how much money SW places each year in their pilots pension plan? Not a 401K, I am talking a real mainline pension plan. A fund, B fund, lump sum retirement payment and/or monthly payment retirement plan. Also, med payments for health ins, working QOL benifits, etc.. There happens to be a very large disparity in the "total compensation" paid to a large major and a new LCC or SW. As posted on this board a few times, the average cost per hour with all compensation included is quite different. Over $2500 per hour for Delta and $380 for the LCC's. Yes SW pilots are paid well "per hour" but are in no way compensated to the tune of some mainlines. If I am completely wrong, let me know as I haven't kept up with this side of the issue.

P.S. No, I am NOT an RJDC supporter, but sometimes a little common sense must prevail.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

He's right, MAINLINE pilots are to blame

Freight Dog,


The MAINLINE pilots are the ones that made the decisions years ago that they did not want to fly the bug-smashers. They wanted higher pay and better benefits and because of their short-sightedness are suffering.

Correct me if I am factually challenged, but didn't the Eagle drivers used to be represented by the American Airlines pilots APA? If I am remembering correctly, they were until they realized that the APA did not care about them and their careers. After all, the regionals are just a stepping stone, right? APA's attitude was that the goals of the two pilot groups were incompatible!?! HUH?!?

Let's see here:
want fly airplane
want get paid fly airplane
want get paid well fly airplane
want get treated humanely and fly airplane
want get paid well when too old fly airplane

did I miss anything?

This is only one example.

I would agree with you that a lot of blame can be laid on management's shoulders at various airlines, but not all. And much less blame should be placed on the regional pilots - we are not the ones that opened this Pandora's Box.

I personally think that your pilot group SHOULD stand up to management for wanting to give flying away. In your next contract your first priority should be rock solid - zero tolerance scope. Obviously you will have to give up something to get that, but without airtight scope your jobs will be in jeopardy sooner or later.

As for Southwest pilots - it was not too many years ago (Ten years ago or less) that they were derided for their low pay and for getting worked to hard.

 

[Freight Dog]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

Just got back from a trip.. wow lots of replies. OK, here goes.


Even so the union (ALPA), which fully sanctioned the outsourcing originally, cannot legally act against its own members and deprive them of their jobs as a remedy for its error.

Hi Surplus! You're absolutely right here. I see where you are going with this, and I will address it.



Scope is legitimate and necessary when it determines who will fly aircraft operated by your airline. It becomes completely illigitimate and disfunctional when it attempts to control my work or the aircraft operated by my airline.

Well wait a minute here. In your case... you are a wholly-owned carrier, but you are not on Delta's seniority list. MY PERSONAL opinion is that you should be, and that would solve a lot of problems. As it is right now, you are flying work under DL code subcontracted to you by Delta. If it goes out of control, and it has.. you are replacing mainline flying. At what point does a mainline pilot protect himself from that without getting exposed to litigation? Also, how do you get management to agree to merge the lists into one in order for mainline to protect itself?


However, once more, the union (ALPA) and the mainline pilots deliberately modified the merger clauses of their contracts so as to intentionally omit or exempt "regional" aircraft from the provisions of the "merger clause", and the union intentionally neutered its own alter ego policy. Thus the union and the mainline pilots sanctioned and fully endorsed the establishment of "regional" alter ego airlines on their own properties.

In the timeframe you were referring to, regional market was rather limited, and it did not pose a threat to traditional mainline flying and thus mainline jobs. Back in the 80's, how many regional airlines flew DFW-OAK or DFW-ORD? None.. Regional carriers flew Piper Chieftains, Metros, Jetstreams, Bandits, etc. Your own airline was started by flying Chieftains. Fast-forward to today.. big difference. Once again, a two-fold question: how does a mainline pilot protect himself from management outsourcing his job, and how do you get management to accept merger of WO regional groups and mainline?

The pilots of these alter ego regional airlines are equal members of the union. Therefore, the union is obliged by Federal law to provide them with fair representation. As such the union may not legally discriminate against them, artificially restrict their growth or endanger their job security by acting against the interests of the regional alter ego pilots and, in preference, supporting the interests of mainline pilots, who now seek to reverse their previous error at the expense of the regional pilots employed by the alter ego. That is against the law.

The first part of your paragraph is absolutely correct. Your third sentence is where you lose it. Once again, you misinterpret the steps... mainline pilots protect themselves against MANAGEMENT outsourcing THEIR jobs to whoever, regional groups or anyone else for that matter. You take that as a threat to YOUR job. All I am saying is, what about the mainline job?



I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Aloha pilots' CBA so I can't speak to whether or not your management may be violating it with respect to Island Air.

However, I do know that Aloha could not have acquired or created Island Air as a separate entity if your contract with Aloha had not permitted it or been silent on the issue. Now that (I think) Aloha has sold Island Air, it could not be subcontracting with it unless your contract was silent on that issue or permitted it.

If Alhoa pilots failed to address or permitted alter egos and subcontracting in the first instance, its too late for you to be complaining about the consequences after the fact. Since Island Air pilots also belong to ALPA, the union may not legally represent your interests at Aloha in a manner detrimental to the Island Air pilots.

Our CBA at Aloha prohibits the Company from using anyone other than Aloha pilots on interisland flights between principal airports in the State. Island Air was free to fly to secondary airports from principal airports. Island Air was sold, and now they are starting to fly the "protected" routes under AQ code. So they went from a wholly-owned to a contractor. Are we wrong by trying to protect our jobs by fighting for our scope?

Yes, I know that you were at Island Air originally. I must now ask you .... if Island Air was so detrimental to Aloha and you felt that was wrong, how come you didn't have that feeling before you got hired by Aloha? Would you have been "happy" if the Aloha pilots had caused you to lose your job at Island Air before you got on with Aloha? Why didn't you just quit Island Air so that you wouldn't hurt the Aloha pilots?

Our disagreements started while I was at Island Air because even then, I have ALWAYS been against regionals taking away flying from mainline carriers, so I've had the same attitude. Would I have been happy if I had lost my job at Island Air before getting here? Of course not... but I would understand the job protection agreement by mainline, and I did. You can research my posts if you want from as far as you can go, and I've always sung the same tune - protect the mainline.


If your company is in fact violating your scope clause, you have a right to defend it and enforce it. If your scope clause permitted the creation of Island Air or the subcontracting of Island Air, then your option is to live with it. You can't take away the jobs of the Island Air pilots because you now have belated regrets about the Aloha pilots' decision to permit that in the first instance. More importantly, you can personally do whatever you please but the union may not help you to harm the Island Air pilots because you fly 737's and they don't. If the union does that it will probably get sued again, as it should.

No, it has nothing to do with the size of aircraft in our case, it has to do with outsourcing the job that should have been done by a pilot on Aloha Airlines seniority list. Just an FYI... Island Air was an independent outfit that was purchased.

Aloha pilots tried to get Island Air integrated into our seniority list on several occasions, and the management rejected the notion every time. Once again, how do you get the management to agree to merge the wholly-owned and mainline into one?


I would NOT expect to impose my will upon them because we fly a different aircraft, because I make more money or just because I can. I would try to take down the "fence" instead of making it higher.

Nor are we... However, we ARE trying to "impose" our scope clause that our company signed upon our COMPANY. If it "harms" another group, in this case, Island Air, they are harmed by management, NOT BY ALPA because it was management that got them there in the first case.

Just so you don't forget, I've already been on the mainline side of the equation and I've flown a lot more "heavy metal" than regional type aircraft. In my book, right and wrong are not dependent on the length of the fuselage, the size of the pay check or the logo on the tail. I not only expect our union to be fair, I demand it.

I know you have, and I agree with this statment. However, I think you are blaming the wrong party for your alleged harm.

You didn't ask for advice but here is some anyway. Stop being a mainline pilot or a regional pilot and settle for being an airline pilot. Like it or not we're in this stew together and the bubbling (quarelling) doesn't improve the taste.


Aloha

I am just that... a pilot, and I fully agree with you, we're in this stew together, and fighting amonst ourselves while management pits us against each other is getting us nowhere.

Here is a scenario in our case..

Island Air is now an independent carrier. They are gonna be hiring like crazy to staff new airplanes that they will fly on Aloha's "protected" routes in violation of Aloha's contract. Island Air pilots are represented by ALPA.

Aloha pilots file a grievance to force the company to stop outsourcing what is mutually-agreed flying to be done solely by pilots on Aloha Airlines seniority list. In other words, Aloha pilots seek to enforce their scope clause. Aloha pilots are also represented by ALPA.

Should Aloha pilots win and Island Air jobs are lost, whose fault is it?

A) The Company for allowing Island Air to fly our routes in violation of our scope?

or

B) ALPA for representing Aloha pilots in enforcing their scope with a potential side result being Island Air pilots getting furloughed.

We agree on a lot of things, but we diverge when it comes who's to blame here. You blame ALPA, I blame the management, and to a smaller extent regional groups willing to sell themselves and our profession short.

Looking forward to your response. Aloha!

 

[PHXFLYR]

Freightdog;

Who do you blame,you ask ? I suggest your Negotiating Comittee. While you had pretty good scope protection with regards to how the flying was allocated between Aloha and wholly-owned Island Air (ie prinicpal airports vs secondary airports) , there was no mention of this protection being applied
to non-wholly owned regional airlines that Aloha management
might contract with. I think the company lawyers may have recognized this and used it to their advantage in spinning off Island Air on you guys. Best wishes in your ensuing scope battles.


PHXFLYR

 

[Freight Dog]

We'll see what happens. They actually tightened up scope in ATSB agreement... and now the company is breaking that agreement. This will be an interesting fight.

 

[English]

The key is that Aloha is "codesharing" with Island Air. All flying done for Aloha is supposed to be accomplished by pilots on the Aloha seniority list. That's the wording in the contract. Island Air pilots are not on the Aloha seniority list. Now, if Island Air wanted to fly those routes without Aloha selling the tickets as an Aloha flight number, there wouldn't be an issue. That's not the case. Aloha is selling the tickets and advertising them as an Aloha flight number.

While that one sentence in the contract is clear, unfortunately most of the wording in the contract is crying out "loophole here". Of course, I have an untrusting eye to contract wording after seeing first-hand what happened to Eagle with their contract.

 

[Freight Dog]

Now, if Island Air wanted to fly those routes without Aloha selling the tickets as an Aloha flight number, there wouldn't be an issue.

I think this would still constitute the scope violation. As long as they carry an AQ code on our routes, it's a violation. That's my understanding... Doesn't matter who sells the tickets...

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

Well wait a minute here. In your case... you are a wholly-owned carrier, but you are not on Delta's seniority list. MY PERSONAL opinion is that you should be, and that would solve a lot of problems. As it is right now, you are flying work under DL code subcontracted to you by Delta. If it goes out of control, and it has.. you are replacing mainline flying. At what point does a mainline pilot protect himself from that without getting exposed to litigation? Also, how do you get management to agree to merge the lists into one in order for mainline to protect itself?

Try, if you can, to look at the problem objectively. It is a complex series of events and can't be understood in "sound bites" so this is going to be long and in two parts.

Yes, we are a wholly owned carrier and yes, we have separate seniority lists. However, nothing that we do is being subcontracted to us. It's one company (Delta, Inc.) operating four (4) airlines [DAL, Song, CMR, ASA] with 3 contracts and 3 seniority lists, plus 3 subcontractors. We (ASA & CMR) are subsidiaries and alter egos. Song is also a subsidiary but presents no problem at present since it has a common contract and "list" with DAL.

Before we (Comair) were acquired by Delta we were indeed a subcontractor and we operated within the limits of the Delta pilots scope clause. That scope clause imposed no restrictions or limits to the code share agreement between independent Comair and Delta Air Lines. There was no limit to the number or type of aircraft that we could operate under the Delta "code", there were no restrictions as to where those aircraft could fly, and there was no limit to the number or size aircraft that we could operate in our own right or under contract with third parties. What's more, our company (Comair) never signed any agreement with Delta Air Lines recognizing any component of the Delta pilots' working agreement, including its scope clause. We were therefore bound by that scope clause only to the extent that we wished to be and legally, not at all.

The contract that my company signed with Delta Air Lines did NOT include any limitation whatsoever on the type, size, or number of aircraft that we could fly for Delta nor where they could fly. At the time the code share contract was signed between Delta and Comair, the 70-seat limitation was not in the Delta PWA.

In fact, when ALPA negotiated the Delta Scope clause imposing a 70-seat limit on our equipment (1996) we had already been members of the ALPA for more than ten years and had been flying the Delta code for nearly as long. Our union (ALPA)negotiated on behalf of another airline (Delta) an agreement that imposed, without our consent, a limitation on our operation that was contrary to the best interest of Comair pilots. We were not consulted and our objections, which were voiced, were ignored. That was ALPA's first violation of its duty to represent us fairly.

In the timeframe you were referring to, regional market was rather limited, and it did not pose a threat to traditional mainline flying and thus mainline jobs. Once again, a two-fold question: how does a mainline pilot protect himself from management outsourcing his job, and how do you get management to accept merger of WO regional groups and mainline?

I'm sorry but your lack of familiarity with the chronology is evident in that response. You wrote the statement in reply to my remarks about the neutering of ALPA's alter ego policy. The alter ego policy was altered in late 1998. By then Comair had been operating jets for 5 years and had nearly 100 in service.

So two years prior a major change was made in the Delta scope clause, which negatively affected us. At the same time the Delta PWA was modified to deliberately "exempt" carriers like CMR from the provisions of the merger clause. They wanted to control us, but at the same time they wanted to make darn sure that they would never have to "merge" with us.

Subsequently, again in 1998, ALPA modified and redefined its Merger Policy (and its Alter Ego policy). Incidentally both the canges to the merger policy and the alter ego policy were sponsored by the Delta MEC and endorsed by all of the major airlines in ALPA at the time.

The acquisition of Comair (early 2000) and Delta's decision to make us a subsidiary changed our status from that of subcontractor to that of alter ego, a "separate" airline owned by the same company.

That was only possible because the Delta pilots' contract specifically exempted airlines operating aircraft with less than 70-seats from the provisions of its "merger clause". Had Delta purchased Alaska (similar # of pilots to Comair) it would have been forced to merge. Due to the "exemption" it was not required to do so.

That exemption was intentionally placed in the contract for the specific purpose of preventing a merger. We didn't do that, ALPA and the Delta MEC did it. In other words, the merger provisions of the ALPA contract at Delta permitted the company to establish an alter ego airline on the Delta property, in fact two alter ego airlines (ASA & CMR). It was no accident or oversight, it was intentional.

Nevertheless, both Comair and ASA requested the implementation of ALPA's existing Merger Policy due to the operational integration created by Delta's acquisition of both carriers. As you know, the request met with all out opposition on the part of the Delta MEC and the Executive Council denied the request.

Subsequently, the ALPA covertly and overtly supported changes to the Delta PWA that severely limited the number of 70-seat aircraft that could be operated by both subsidiaries and subcontractors and imposed additional limits on the operation of the 50-seat equipment. As it stands today, only 57 70-seat jets may be opperated in the aggregate by ALL DCI carriers, whereas Comiar alone had ordered 90 of those aircraft before it was acquired by Delta.

This action on the part of ALPA is injurious to the well being and careers of Comiar pilots. It has cost us hundreds of promotions and many millions of dollars in earning capacity. ALPA. while serving the interests of the Delta pilots, has not only deliberately ignored the interests of ASA and Comair pilots, but has overtly acted against them.

ALPA has therefore again violated its Duty of Fair Representation with respect to Comair and ASA in order to promote the interests of Delta pilots. That is arbitrary,discriminatory and in bad faith, all of which is forbidden by Federal labor law. All of this happened before 9/11, before the slump in the industry and before some mainline routes were changed to regional routes.

The first part of your paragraph is absolutely correct. Your third sentence is where you lose it. Once again, you misinterpret the steps... mainline pilots protect themselves against MANAGEMENT outsourcing THEIR jobs to whoever, regional groups or anyone else for that matter. You take that as a threat to YOUR job. All I am saying is, what about the mainline job?

Your argument is much like ALPA's, specious. That is why the judge denied ALPA's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and declared that the case must be heard on the merits. If I were to follow your logic you are really saying that mainline jobs should have preference and it is OK for ALPA to give that preference even if it comes at the expense of the careers and job security of regional pilots. This falls right in line with the concept that regional jobs are not suitable as careers, are merely stepping stones to the mainline and are therfore not important. I don't mind you thinking that way as long as the job security that you're threatening doesn't happen to be mine. When my own union begins to threaten that security or directly take it away, it's time for me to stand up and say not no, bu he!! no.

Note that we did not sue the Delta MEC. Although the DMEC is fully complicit in these actions, the Delta MEC (contrary to the opinion of Delta pilots) is not a legal entity and cannot be sued. The bargaining agent is the ALPA and it is responsible for the actions of the Delta MEC as well as its own. That is why the litigation is against the ALPA.

We (Comair and ASA) are members of ALPA and the union is obliged to represent our interests in the same way and to the same extent that it represents mainline pilots. We pay for that representation and ALPA has a fiduciary responsibility to us.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

It is you sir that misinterprets the steps. The Delta pilots have no responsibility to consider the interests of Comair pilots. However, ALPA has every responsibility to do so. Mainline jobs are important and ALPA must protect them. Regional jobs are equally important under the law and ALPA must protect them too. Differences of opinion among pilots as to which job is most important are irrelevant. ALPA has an equal responsibility to both. It may not favor one at the expense of the other. We allege that it has.

IF mainline pilots and the union had never permitted any subcontracting by strictly guarding their "Scope", they would be within their rights to do so. IF mainline pilots and the union had maintained their policy against alter ego airlines by not making exemptions to their merger clauses and by not permiting their companies to own more than one airline, they would be within their rights. Unfortunately they did neither of those things.

Now they have belatedly decided that they feel "threatened" and are trying to remove that threat by reversing their previous omissive or erroneous decisions. That cannot work because the effect of such a reversal is detremental to the affected regional pilots. We are both represented by the same union. That union is precluded by law from taking any action that willfully harms its own members. It's the classic Catch 22.

Our CBA at Aloha prohibits the Company from using anyone other than Aloha pilots on interisland flights between principal airports in the State. Island Air was free to fly to secondary airports from principal airports. Island Air was sold, and now they are starting to fly the "protected" routes under AQ code. So they went from a wholly-owned to a contractor. Are we wrong by trying to protect our jobs by fighting for our scope?

I can't argue for or against Aloha's Scope for I don't know enough about it. I have not read your contract.

However, from what you say it appears you may have fallen into the same trap. This is how it sounds to me: First, you made the same mistake of permiting a subcontractor (Island Air). Second, you made mistake # 2, when your CBA did not require your company to merge any airline that it acquired or, in the alternative, have only one (1) seniority list (that would have prevented Aloha from buying Island Air without merging the lists). Had you done those things, you would not now have the problem you describe.

Now that Island Air has been sold and is once more an independent, it appears to be operating under a code share arrangement. The Company (Aloha) seems to think it has found a loophole in your contract that allows Island Air to code share on the same routes that you fly.

I do NOT think it is wrong for you to protect your flying. IF your contract does do that, I fully agree that you should enforce it and ALPA should defend it for you. It doesn't matter in that circumstance if Island Air is ALPA also. That however is a big IF.

If your contract does NOT protect your flying, then ALPA cannot help you to change the contract so that is does, while at the same time harming Island Air. In other words, once you take the cork off the bottle and let the Genie out, ALPA can't put it back for you. The horse always has to come before the cart.

The bottom line is pretty simple. How we feel about various things doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the letter of the law. ALPA may not violate the law to close a loophole in your contract or in mine. If ALPA has violated the law in writing your contract, that part of the contract will be rendered void.

Our disagreements started while I was at Island Air because even then, I have ALWAYS been against regionals taking away flying from mainline carriers, so I've had the same attitude.

That's an honest statement. It is also true that, in my opinion, you have the same error now that you had then. Regionals can't "take flying" from mainline carriers and I argue that no regional ever has.

Mainline pilot groups have voluntarily given away the rights to parts of their flying (that they did not want at the time). Once you give it away it is no longer yours. Many would now like to recover the rights they gave away. As long as the mainline and the regional are both represented by ALPA, that is not legally possible unless both the mainline and the regional pilot groups choose to agree. That there have been no such agreements is not a furprise, given that the mainline pilots think they have "rights" that in fact they do not. When you lay claim to that which is not yours, you can expect resistance from the legitimate owner.

Once again, how do you get the management to agree to merge the wholly-owned and mainline into one?

To my knowledge there is only one way. The merger clause of your CBA must require the Company to create a single seniority list with the pilots of any company that it buys. You must do this before the purchase. If you failed to do that it is virtually impossible to do it after the fact, unless you have something that management really wants and you're willing to give it up for the seniority integration.

Here is a scenario in our case..

Island Air is now an independent carrier. They are gonna be hiring like crazy to staff new airplanes that they will fly on Aloha's "protected" routes in violation of Aloha's contract. Island Air pilots are represented by ALPA.

Aloha pilots file a grievance to force the company to stop outsourcing what is mutually-agreed flying to be done solely by pilots on Aloha Airlines seniority list. In other words, Aloha pilots seek to enforce their scope clause. Aloha pilots are also represented by ALPA.

Should Aloha pilots win and Island Air jobs are lost, whose fault is it?

A) The Company for allowing Island Air to fly our routes in violation of our scope?

or

B) ALPA for representing Aloha pilots in enforcing their scope with a potential side result being Island Air pilots getting furloughed.

We agree on a lot of things, but we diverge when it comes who's to blame here.

Actually we do not diverge. In the scenario you use (provided that's all there is to it), ALPA would not be to blame and in fact would be required to enforce your contract.

Keep in mind that the devil is always in the details. If it was really as simple as you make it out to be, I doubt the Company would be trying to violate it. I'm sure you believe you're telling me the whole story, but I suspect there is more to it than you imply.

Keep me posted on how you're doing. I know a couple of really nice people that have been with Aloha for a long time. I wish you all well.

Aloha.

 

[English]

I think this would still constitute the scope violation. As long as they carry an AQ code on our routes, it's a violation. That's my understanding... Doesn't matter who sells the tickets...

That's what I meant, sorry if I was unclear. We agree completely.

If Island Air wanted to fly those routes without Aloha selling the tickets as an Aloha flight number, (meaning, Aloha doesn't sell the tickets and the flgihts are not marketed as AQ flights) there wouldn't be an issue.