Soft on ALPA

[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.