The RJDC is a cancer on the industry

[~~~^~~~]

I do know that ALPA is about to submit a "Notice for Summary Judgement" (I believe that is the term) asking that the case be thrown out.

How do you know this? What has taken ALPA so long? A MSJ is part of any defense, as much as a takeoff chacklist is part of what we do to go flying.

I just wonder why ALPA is waiting until after they are on approach to landing before calling for the before start checklist...

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Fins,

I know this because I have spoken with the attorny who wrote it. As to your question of timing, I don't have an answer. I guess the wheels of justice turn slowly!

Surplus,

Good post, lots of info for me to sift through. It is bedtime, so when I get time, I will post a response.

By the way, your apology is accepted. I probably misread your intentions with the last post. I normally don't have such thin skin, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Your posts are respectful, I hope mine are too. They are meant to be.

Talk to ya soon (as if you had any doubt!)

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ:

I believe we are going in circles...I think this argument is becoming redundant.

You are absolutely right, we are going in circles. I am sure I will never be able to change your mind about anything we've discussed regardless of any information I have/will post, and until you back up your statements with the facts/figures/language that I requested, you won't be too successful in changing my mind. I guess I will just have to respectfully agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

Good luck with your grievances, and I look forward to discussing the outcome of them and the RJDC suit with you in the future.

 

[RJFlyer]

73GDog:

Again I ask, who are we at war against? What country, what government.

Al Qaeda, for blowing up our buildings and citizens on our soil. The Taliban (until recently, the recognized andl legal government in Afghanistan) for knowingly and actively supporting Al Qaeda. And Afghanistan, because that is where Al Qaeda and the Taliban are/were.

Didn't you know this?

I'll have to do some research, but the last I heard, Taliban detainees were going to be reclassified to fall under the Geneva Convention, but Al Qaeda fighters were not.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Rj,

I cannot prove a negative. I stated that there is no language in our contract which prevents management from operating rjs. The rjdc says there is. I asked someone to show me such language. No one has.

In the meantime, we will agree to disagree.

 

[73GDog]

RJFlyer,
I enjoyed the debate. Unfortunately I have to actually go and work for a few days. Anyway, I was just trying to play devils advocate and post some questions to think about. Questions get people to think and sometimes asking tough questions rubs people the wrong way. My wife says I can be a real pain in the ass but, I am not sure. What do you think? I agree we are at war with the Taliban and Al Queda but not Afghanistan and I am not sure who recognized them as a legitimate government. Anyway fly straight and have a good weekend.

GDog

 

[MetroSheriff]

73GDog:
Al Qaeda, for blowing up our buildings and citizens on our soil. The Taliban (until recently, the recognized andl legal government in Afghanistan) for knowingly and actively supporting Al Qaeda.

Just for clarification, I don't think that the Taliban were recognized as a "legal" government except by Irag and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Pakistan. As for the western powers, the never recognized the Taliban as anything but a group of stone age thugs, and certainly not a legal government.

 

[InclusiveScope]

The title of this thread is incorrect in my opinion. I believe that multiple ALPA pilot groups working for the same parent corporation is the cancer - RJDC is only a symptom of the disease.

InclusiveScope

 

[9rj9]

Strike

I work for ASA/Comair and like a majority of our pilots could give two **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**s about the RJDC.
I think its time for Delta pilots to strike.

 

[FR8mastr]

Another solution to the scope problem could be for the mainline carriers to pull their wholly owned regionals into the same union. and when the next new hire at mega airlines is brought on board they would start in the RJ. Mainline jobs secure, scope language intact, and everyone is happy. I know their are alot of 777 type egos that can't handle that but in my opinion its win win for everyone. from the mainline point of view, you can control your feed and regulate the number and pay for the smaller aircraft. From the regional point of view, there is the possibility to move up in pay and type when seniority allows. There is a reason Delta purchased Comair and ASA, besides the profit it's about control, Those two airlines were getting quite large and were becoming a threat, not anymore(threat that is). just an option to tearing the unions apart which would be bad for all concerned.

 

[RJFlyer]

I enjoyed the debate. Unfortunately I have to actually go and work for a few days. Anyway, I was just trying to play devils advocate and post some questions to think about. Questions get people to think and sometimes asking tough questions rubs people the wrong way.

I know what you mean - I like to sometimes confront people (particularly when they make...er...not-so-well-thought-out...statements), even when I agree with the general idea of what they are saying. Some people on this board are particularly fun to play with. Have a great trip.

I agree we are at war with the Taliban and Al Queda but not Afghanistan and I am not sure who recognized them as a legitimate government.

Just for clarification, I don't think that the Taliban were recognized as a "legal" government except by Irag and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Pakistan. As for the western powers, the never recognized the Taliban as anything but a group of stone age thugs, and certainly not a legal government.

The Taliban may not have been officially 'recognized' by the US, but there is no denying that they were the true government in Afghanistan. They are no longer, but that doesn't make it any less true that they were. Saying that they weren't the govt in Afghanistan is like saying that the government in Taiwan isn't really the govt in Taiwan, just because the US (and most of the rest of the world) don't 'officially' recognize them. The Taiwanese certainly see them as their govt, and the Afghanis (with the exception of the Northern Alliance and other rebels) definitely saw the Taliban as theirs. It's pretty arrogant to say that just because WE (the 'Western powers') didn't recognize another govt as the recognized and legal govt, that they then by definition AREN'T. If they make and enforce the law, and their people recognize them, then they ARE the legal and recognized govt.

So, to keep this in line with the discussion - we are at war with the Taliban now; we were at war with Afghanistan when the Taliban was the govt of Afghanistan; they were actively supporting Al Qaeda, who blew up our people and buildings on our soil; therefore, it is my opinion that this qualifies the war in Afghanistan and on terrorism, in conjunction with the emergency grounding of all civil aircraft in the US, as a 'war emergency.' As such, I believe that DAL is justified in invoking the 'force majeure' clause of the pilots' contract. I do not think it's a good thing. I am not glad that Delta pilots are furloughed. I just believe DAL is justified in doing so.

"That's all I have to say 'bout that." - Forrest Gump

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Surplus,

I don't know it you noticed, but I have cut my posting down considerably. My wife has decided that I spend too much time on the computer, so that has hampered my board access a bit! However, you put a lot of thought into your post, and deserve a response, although it probably won't be as long as yours.

First of all, your post is factual and well written. You have obviously been involved in the national politics of ALPA, and I thank you for your volunteer efforts. I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage, because while I have done some volunteer work for ALPA, I have not done anything on the national level (yet!). You seem to know quite a bit about ALPA politics, so please forgive me if I get my facts wrong.

First of all, I don't disagree with you on the voting for MEC chairman. Perhaps it should be a membership vote, as should be the recall. The only problem with that is that far too many members have no clue what is going on with ALPA. For example, some of our pilots have been surprised when I told them of my upcoming furlough, because they "didn't think Delta was furloughing." Scary. However, your idea is worth exploring.

Regarding the representation on the national level. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the reason that only three of the members of the executive board can outvote all the others is a result of a roll-call vote, where each representative vote counts for each of his members. Is this something with which you disagree? Seems fair to me that a person who is representing 10,000 pilots should carry more weight than one who is representing 1,000.

The fact is, I do not disagree with you that mainline pilots control ALPA. You believe that this is wrong. I do not. Mainline pilots make up the majority of ALPA's members, and therefore get more votes. Just like Republicans and Democrats make up the majority of voters in America. Members of the Green party could claim that they don't recieve an equal voice, but they do. They get one vote, just like eveyone else. The only problem is that combined, they do not make up enough votes to matter. Therefore, they do not have the same power that R's and D's have. As an R, I am glad!

You mentioned that we do not have seperate bargaining agents. That may be splitting hairs. We have seperate negotiating committees. Each negotiating committee gets legal and financial help from ALPA, but is, for the most part, left to their own devices. For example, ALPA represented me when I was at TWA. They still represent me at Delta. My contract at DAL is far better than it was at TWA. The main reason for that is that DAL is in better financial shape. However, another reason is that it was negotiated by different people who asked for different things. Yet both parties were represented by the same union.

You asked how I would feel if I were part of a group who's flying was limited by another carrier. That is an easy answer for me, because I have already been there and done that. I can tell you in all honesty that I was all for it. I can remember when my airline got our first rj. Guys were excited about it, but I was not. I believed then, and I believe now that all jets should be flown by mainline pilots. Every jet we operated meant a jet not operated by mainline, and that upset me. I thought it was bad for the profession, and I still do. My position on a strong scope clause has not changed, even though I am now on the other side of the fence. I believe that what we have attempted to do with our scope clause benefits the profession as a whole. I know that you disagree. That's what makes this country great.

I will add that if I were in your shoes, I might also be angry, although I have yet to see evidence of your career being harmed. However, I would hope that my anger was well-placed. I do not think the blame rests with ALPA or DALPA, as they are truly trying to foster the growth of high-paying jobs, even though you might disagree with their methods. I believe that your anger should lie with whomever was on the MEC during your last contract negotiations and failed to secure adequate scope and change of control language. The fact is, your scenario could not happen to us because we have strong language in our contract, for which we faught and negotiated.

All that being said, I do not disagree that there is a conflict of interest within ALPA. I cannot deny that when there is a disagreement between mainline and regional pilots, the mainline will win. I believe that mainline scope benefits all pilots who want to fly for the majors, but I respect the fact that you feel it is harming your career. I believe that ALPA is currently set up to benefit the majority of its members. Mainline pilots make up the majority. I don't think we should change the current structure of the union, because the majority's voice should be the loudest. However, you are paying dues too. If you honestly believe that your voice is not being heard, and, as you said in your post, you believe that the changes you desire will never happen, you do have one other recourse. One other vote, if you will. The vote to leave ALPA.

I respect and support your right to change ALPA from within, but I think that you are ignoring the fact that most members do not want ALPA changed. Perhaps your cause would be further advanced as a member of a new, regional pilot union. I say this not because I want you to leave ALPA, but because I want you to feel more fairly represented. I honestly believe that you are fighting an unpopular and untimately losing battle within ALPA. You have a right to continue doing so, but I fear the conflict of interest that you lament will always exist.

P.S.
There has been some allegations floating around, even in your previous post, that my MEC is telling the members that you wanted DOH. For the record, I have not heard that from a single MEC member. Perhaps I missed it. If so, could you please provide the documentation?

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

P.S.
There has been some allegations floating around, even in your previous post, that my MEC is telling the members that you wanted DOH. For the record, I have not heard that from a single MEC member. Perhaps I missed it. If so, could you please provide the documentation?

FlyDeltaJets,

Thank you for you excellent reply. I truly appreciate this type of dialogue. It may surprise you to know that I agree with many of the things you said. I will reply in detail but it will take some time. Hopefully, the moderator will not be too upset about the continuing dialogue.

Meanwhile, I want to adress your P.S. There is no documentation, of which I am aware, that could support the allegation. Perhaps it did not happen. I concede that possibility. However, I have to point out that such things are never documented by smart people. Giving credit where due, the folks on your MEC are smart people. Particularly the Officers.

The evidence is circumstantial. Almost immediately after the filing of the now infamous PID, there arose a hue and cry among Delta pilots, in large numbers, on multiple forums, alleging that the so called Comasa group was demanding DOH integration with Delta pilots. Your MEC principals were not among the writers. They never are, just as my own MEC principals never write on forums, including the so-called "private" ALPA forums.

The timing of the DOH allegation was suspect. It's intensity grew and after awhile there was not, in my awarness, a single Delta pilot who denied it. You MEC did not say it was so in public. Your MEC also did not say it wasn't so. (Not that I blame them. The timing and the allegation were both advantageous to your MEC's position). While they may not have directly and publicly stated it, they did nothing to quell it and everything to foster its growth.

Many, many wirters from your side, claimed that they had been
"told this" by unnamed members of your MEC. Many writers made a lot of statements regarding what had allegedly taken place at meetings between the Delta MEC and the "regional" MEC's, also alleging they had been "told by sitting members of their MEC' (again never named). The MEC remained silent, thus lending credence (among Delta pilots) to the reports, which were less than accurate.

I believe that this silence deliberately fostered the allegations, served to create unity among the Delta pilots (which was somewhat lacking at the time) by having them rush to the defense of the one thing that EVERY airline pilot will defend to the death, i.e., his seniority. It was a stroke of political genius. The only problem was the fact that the DOH idea was totally false. We were not able to counter the political ill will that this generated. It continues to linger to this very day. Score one for your side.

You'll have to trust me when I tell you that noone directly involved with the PID filing at Comair was or is naive enough to believe that an assault of the Delta pilots' seniority (whether real or perceived) would not be resisted with vigor. There is no up side to attacking anothe pilots' seniority and they didn't try to do that. Where they failed, was in their ability to counter the "spin doctors".

I know for a fact that your MEC Chairman was informed of the PID filing before it took place. (Granted it was not much lead time, but he was informed before the fact). I also know that he made a public statement saying that he was "blindsided" by the whole thing. Everyone on your side believed him. Just the same, it was not true.

The famous (or infamous) metting of the affected MEC's (long before the PID) did take place. What happened at that meeting was not accurately represented by your MEC (if one believes what Delta pilots claimed they were told). Again there is nothing in writing from the MEC. Such things, FDJ, are never put in writing.

Sorry for all that rhetoric. I guess the bottom line is this. The evidence is circumstantial and I can't document it.

Talk to you later and thanks again for your post. I will respond as soon as I can.

P.S. If you would prefer to converse privately, I will tell you how to contact me. I have no objection to keeping it public.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

P.S.
There has been some allegations floating around, even in your previous post, that my MEC is telling the members that you wanted DOH. For the record, I have not heard that from a single MEC member. Perhaps I missed it. If so, could you please provide the documentation?

FlyDeltaJets,

Thank you for you excellent reply. I truly appreciate this type of dialogue. It may surprise you to know that I agree with many of the things you said. I will reply in detail but it will take some time. Hopefully, the moderator will not be too upset about the continuing dialogue.

Meanwhile, I want to adress your P.S. There is no documentation, of which I am aware, that could support the allegation. Perhaps it did not happen. I concede that possibility. However, I have to point out that such things are never documented by smart people. Giving credit where due, the folks on your MEC are smart people. Particularly the Officers.

The evidence is circumstantial. Almost immediately after the filing of the now infamous PID, there arose a hue and cry among Delta pilots, in large numbers, on multiple forums, alleging that the so called Comasa group was demanding DOH integration with Delta pilots. Your MEC principals were not among the writers. They never are, just as my own MEC principals never write on forums, including the so-called "private" ALPA forums.

The timing of the DOH allegation was suspect. It's intensity grew and after awhile there was not, in my awarness, a single Delta pilot who denied it. You MEC did not say it was so in public. Your MEC also did not say it wasn't so. (Not that I blame them. The timing and the allegation were both advantageous to your MEC's position). While they may not have directly and publicly stated it, they did nothing to quell it and everything to foster its growth.

Many, many wirters from your side, claimed that they had been
"told this" by unnamed members of your MEC. Many writers made a lot of statements regarding what had allegedly taken place at meetings between the Delta MEC and the "regional" MEC's, also alleging they had been "told by sitting members of their MEC' (again never named). The MEC remained silent, thus lending credence (among Delta pilots) to the reports, which were less than accurate.

I believe that this silence deliberately fostered the allegations, served to create unity among the Delta pilots (which was somewhat lacking at the time) by having them rush to the defense of the one thing that EVERY airline pilot will defend to the death, i.e., his seniority. It was a stroke of political genius. The only problem was the fact that the DOH idea was totally false. We were not able to counter the political ill will that this generated. It continues to linger to this very day. Score one for your side.

You'll have to trust me when I tell you that noone directly involved with the PID filing at Comair was or is naive enough to believe that an assault of the Delta pilots' seniority (whether real or perceived) would not be resisted with vigor. There is no up side to attacking anothe pilots' seniority and they didn't try to do that. Where they failed, was in their ability to counter the "spin doctors".

I know for a fact that your MEC Chairman was informed of the PID filing before it took place. (Granted it was not much lead time, but he was informed before the fact). I also know that he made a public statement saying that he was "blindsided" by the whole thing. Everyone on your side believed him. Just the same, it was not true.

The famous (or infamous) metting of the affected MEC's (long before the PID) did take place. What happened at that meeting was not accurately represented by your MEC (if one believes what Delta pilots claimed they were told). Again there is nothing in writing from the MEC. Such things, FDJ, are never put in writing.

Sorry for all that rhetoric. I guess the bottom line is this. The evidence is circumstantial and I can't document it.

Talk to you later and thanks again for your post. I will respond as soon as I can.

P.S. Yes, I noticed you weren't writing as much and missed your insight. I understand the wife thing completely. If I put what my people tell me on this board, I'd be booted off. <G>

BTW, If you would prefer to converse privately, I will tell you how to contact me. I have no objection to keeping it public.