The RJDC is a cancer on the industry

[gearup]

to flydeltasjets,
i agree with your points. i also think that since all of delta's flying in technically dalpa's and that we are only using 35% or so, that the dalpa mec should negotiate an RJ payrate for mainline pilots in the event that we exceed the % your contract calls for. this would do two things, it would put management on notice that the delta pilots are prepared to fight for their scope and give the regional pilots a future number to aspire to. between the combined effects of both, the economic value of the RJ would be reduced. this would close the gap between regional and mainline and put both on their appropiate levels for the size of equipment and the number of seats without the RJDC and without one-list. just a thought.

 

[atpcliff]

to RJFlyer:

Hi!

Apparently, you didn't know that Bombardier and Embraer are working on RJs that seat 90, 100 and 100+ people. The two larger ERJs look just like the Airbus 300 family (one engine under each wing). I think that Bombardier's biggest is a CRJ 900 (90 seater). Therefore, you could fly 90-110 passengers in a future RJ.

Interesting...

Cliff
GB,WI

 

[surplus1]

Personally, I would like to see it (greivance) resolved in such away that the % that DALPA negotiated is enforced hard and fast, and take some wind out of the RJDC complaint by stipulating that the % which IS allowed is to performed ONLY by W/O carriers. This would maintain the integrity of the DALPA PWA, as it was negotiated, with reference to the %s, and with the contract carriers out of the picture, provide security and HUGE growth potential to the W/O carriers while staying under the %s established by the DALPA PWA. At that point, I think the RJDC would be essentially neutered. It would be hard for the RJDC to maintain their claims of foul play when DALPA had done something like that to provide job security and career enhancement to the DCI W/O in the terms of the PWA.

It's a nice thought anyway....

Your idea includes some creative thinking. While it would not cure everything, it would provide interim relief that might allow us to find a permanent solution that is mutually agreed. Naturally, it would have to be refined. Congratulations.

My only regret is that you seem more interesting in neutering the legitimate claims of the RJDC than solving the problem. Nevertheless, all is not lost.

 

[surplus1]

FlyDeltaJets, Part I

Thanks for your reply. Sorry I can't always get back to you right away. While I enjoy the debate, believe it or not there are other demands in life with higher priorities. Never mind the quotes, I can follow. Besides, in long posts they take up too much space. You're right when you say I have given the matter some thought. Far more than you could possibly imagine.

#1. We do agree on many points. I take what you say seriously because much of the time your arguments are logical and devoid of the normal emotional rhetoric. It pleases me that you recognize the error that ALPA made. I disagree slightly with when you think it happened. In my opinion, the original error occurred at the time that exemptions to Scope were allowed to create domestic sub-contracting. That preceded the advent of the regional jets by nearly a decade. Subsequently, by refusing to attempt a recovery of the jet flying (by scoping it in) the opportunity to stem the tide was lost and the problem exacerbated. Lack of vision (a belief that Comair’s venture into small jets would fail) by ALPA leaders, i.e., the MEC Chairmen of the big 4 airlines, in combination with their inflated egos of themselves, created an inward focus on the self that allowed this to happen. Additionally, they created and hung their hats on more scope and the flow-through concept. Unfortunately, they did not actually adopt that concept of actively pursuing flow-through. What they did was try to hoodwink the regional pilots into believing that if they remained silent with regard to predatory scope then one day they, the great stewards of airline flying, would magnanimously bestow this perceived blessing on regional pilots. They bought subservience with this false promise and sometimes even votes. In fact it was a political ruse that they really didn't have the power to bestow. Unfortunately, many regional pilots both inexperienced in ALPA politics and the industry itself, fell for the ruse. Those that didn’t were subjected to a well orchestrated variety of political pressures. Some regional MECs are enamored of this flow-through farce to this very day. They have not even recognized that they don't need mainline pilots' consent to negotiate a flow through. They need management's consent. This naiveté on the part of some regional MECs is fostered at every opportunity by the ALPA. Flow-through is ALPA’s agenda; a placebo for avoiding protests about fair representation.

I agree that the options for correcting the error are now more limited than ever. I also believe that the methodology chosen by ALPA exacerbates the problem and does not contribute to a meaningful solution. There is however a theoretical axiom that counters mainliner's defeatist attitude, i.e., "The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer." I'm not holding my breath. There is no "will" on the part of the leadership of mainline pilots to correct the error. Generally, they do not even acknowledge it. On the contrary they continue to bury their mistake in ever increasing rhetoric and indoctrination of their members about the need for ever more Scope.

Additionally, the most recent moves by the ALPA in allowing the creation of multiple alter ego airlines by intentionally neutering ALPA's alter ego policy and once again altering merger policy to further mainline political power, has created such division within the union that management now has a clear upper hand. They (management) will not give that up. The losses that Delta management decided to take in the Comair strike to avoid a fair compensation package make it quite clear to me that they will never be forced into a merger of DAL/DCI. If it ever happens it will be because management wants it to happen.

Since both ALPA and all mainline MECs that I know of are opposed to integration, they are essentially holding hands with management on that issue. None seem to realize that there well may be as many downsides for mainline pilots (such as the one you are currently experiencing) as there are for the regionals. It is highly probable that not a single Delta pilot would be furloughed today had you taken a different position.

Unfortunately, it is not at all unusual in the ALPA for senior pilots (who generally control the MECs) to ignore junior pilots when there's a crunch. It happens all the time. Comair is one of the few properties I've witnessed where the seniors don't shaft the juniors at every opportunity. It was not easy to create that philosophy at Comair. It took a decade of work.

It may well shock you to hear that I personally do not favor one list. That is because the conditions that your group has indicated it would demand before supporting such a move would totally destroy our pilots in an economic downturn such as we are having today. Based on what might be available in the form of mainline support, I’m not sure the potential reward warrants the sacrifice. As an example, your company has expressed the intent to furlough as many as 1700 pilots. That is more than my entire seniority list. If we were on the bottom of your list today, it would simply mean we would all go home while you fly our airplanes. That is hardly beneficial to any of us. I don't argue if you are unwilling to give up your job for me, but to think that I should be willing to give up mine for you is ludicrous.

Hold on! That statement does NOT mean that I would want or support DOH integration! The idea of a DOH merger is absurd. It could never happen and, even if it could, it would be wrong. I agree completely with the concept that no one should gain a windfall at the expense of another pilot (in a merger). That is one of the very few components of ALPA Merger Policy that has survived the test of politics and I personally believe it is very appropriate (even though it has not always been followed in mergers); your property being among the prime examples. I think an overwhelming majority of CMR pilots share that basic view.

Just like you say you would never support one list without a prenuptial agreement guaranteeing a staple, I would never support one list without an agreement that provides for my job security either. I do believe there are ways to do this without compromising either position. They would require some non-traditional and out-of-the-box thinking. At this point in time, I don't believe there is a single soul among those who run the ALPA that is guilty of creative thinking on this issue.

The ALPA pursues a policy of obstruction when it comes to resolving this issue. Since they created the problem, it is no surprise that they don't want to solve it. That would require someone to admit having made an error. I've never heard of a mainline MEC Chairman that would admit an error with respect to a regional pilot. Most regard us as kids, not as airline pilots. Their actions speak much louder than their words.

I don't agree that the only other means of protection is the type of Scope you have today. Do not construe that to mean there should be NO Scope. I too believe that every contract must contain a Scope clause. What that scope clause says and does is a separate issue. To date however, the highly touted Scope of mainline carriers has not solved the problem nor has it reduced the alleged threat to your "profession". We would not be debating if it had.

#2. You say that the language of the lawsuit is clear and unambiguous, yet we differ significantly as to what it means. We continue to disagree on this. Your claim that the language of the litigation supports your position is based on your own interpretation of that language. My interpretation is different. That is not a guess, it is simply an opinion.

Whenever there is a dispute (of this type) that must be settled in a court of law, the reason is difference of opinion re the meaning of language. Your present grievance against Delta supports that fact. They see force majure as applicable; you see it as a violation of your contract. Your interests (and theirs) are in conflict. Agreeing to disagree is not enough in either party’s opinion and therefore you must arbitrate. If you were not unionized and obliged to arbitrate, you would be suing Delta.

The same applies re the lawsuit against ALPA. We have an opinion that is different from ALPA's. Unless our opinions can be melded into consensus, the solution will have to come from a court. The RJDC filed grievances against the ALPA. ALPA refused to hear them. We have no means of forcing arbitration. If we cannot settle internally, litigation is the only remaining option.

Please go to Part II

 

[surplus1]

Fly DeltaJets Part II

#3. The Constitution & Bylaws were indeed written to ensure fair treatment. So was the Constitution & Bill of Rights of these United States. We have been litigating the latter’s interpretation for more than two centuries. In view of what has occurred, the writing in the ALPA C&BL is either inadequate or it is being violated. Equal and fair treatment has not happened. There has to be a reason.

The lack of fair and equal treatment is unfortunately not limited to the PID. I wish it were. That and your new scope are the straws that broke the camel’s back.

ALPA's current governors seem to equate their agendas, desires and opinions with fact. There are others who do not see it that way. When crossed politically, ALPA's executives have the power to disband entire MECs and have often done so in furtherance of thier agendas. Fortunately, they have no means of artificially or otherwise removing the rights of individual members under the law. That is why they get sued.

What you say you would like to see as the objective of the litigation is very altruistic. That's nice and I don't fault you. However, the legal system under which we live does not allow me to sue you because we disagree or interpret things differently. If I have not been injured by virtue of our differences or your actions, then I have no claim against you. The law, simplistically viewed, entitles you to your opinion. However, when you act on that opinion and I am irreparably injured as a consequence, I may sue you to remedy the damage. That is precisely what has happened.

There may be more than one way to cure the damages that Comair pilots will suffer if ALPA's policies are carried forward. The extent of the injury may ultimately prove to be more, less or equal to what the RJDC is asking for. They think that the numbers used reflect the potential economic damage resulting from ALPA’s actions. Perhaps they are wrong, perhaps not. That is what the jury and the judge will ultimately determine. You can't be sued for an idea. Loss of money is how we measure injury in this society. Payment of money is how we rectify the loss. If you view the numbers as excessive it is probably because you have not taken the time to calculate the monetary impact of ALPA's behavior on the pocketbooks of Comair pilots. The RJDC has and I think they are reasonably accurate.

By the way, everyone does not have equal access to ALPA's "benefits". It may appear that way on the surface but you should not judge that book by its cover.

I agree that the union does not have the ability to represent everyone in the same way. That is not at issue. Equal representation is not equivalent to "the same" representation. In addition to being equal, representation must also be fair. The union is not, under Federal law, allowed to favor the interest of one member or group of members, at the expense of another member or group. Equity is therefore required. This is particularly true when there is a clear conflict of interest between the contending parties. As someone else said earlier, the union cannot serve two masters equally. I see efforts to further your career at the expense of mine as less than fair or equal representation. Our "professions" are synonymous, although our chosen career path may be different.

It is true that in a large organization everyone's agenda cannot be supported. I understand that very well. I also agree that the union should advance and improve the profession. Now, can the union advance your agenda when that advancement clearly destroys or could destroy my career? Is there any defined difference between your profession and my profession? I think the answer to both questions is NO. If I am right, the union cannot advance the "profession" by helping you while hurting me. I also think that is precisely what the union has done. A conflict of interest exists. The union has arbitrarily chosen to decide that your interests are superior to mine. It has further decided to advance your agenda at my expense. I think that is illegal and violates the union's DFR. That is why we have litigation. Someone has to decide.

Now, if the union's governing body was in fact a democracy, perhaps the union could make a fair decision. However, the union is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy. I would argue that if the government of these United States was structured in the way that the ALPA is structured, we would have another civil war. That's exactly what is happening within ALPA. The fact is that 4 (or less) men have the absolute power to determine what happens in the ALPA. I am not talking about the 4 National Officers. I am talking about the 4 MEC Chairmen from UAL, DAL, NWA and AAA. The recent addition of CAL has made a slight modification. However, there are perhaps 50 airlines in ALPA. That 4 men (airlines) can in fact decide without limit what the other 46 airlines must do is, in my view, an absurdity.

There are NO checks and balances in the ALPA structure. There is no "judicial" branch. The same people are policemen, jury and judge. It doesn't work when there are serious differences. I think it was B. Shaw who said: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

There's much more FDJ, but space is limited here. You have good thinking. I believe that much of your position has been reached because you don't have all the information available to you. Unless you're a member of the MEC you have to believe what they tell you. Naturally, you will accept that before you believe the RJDC.

I suspect this one isn't going to be resolved until the Fat Lady Sings. I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but I know that the RJDC has a strong case. I saw you post elsewhere that you have not seen ALPA make any offer to settle. That is true, but it doesn't mean that ALPA has no interest in settling. The difference is the RJDC is operating in public. The ALPA is operating silently and secretly behind the scenes. You should note too that the ALPA has not filed a motion to dismiss the case. Unless you are in the "inner circle" of your MEC, you really have no idea of what they or ALPA are thinking or doing. That's just the way it is. The rank and file membership is seldom even remotely aware of the internal politics of ALPA. At the upper levels of the ALPA, membership is much like being a Mason.

Regards.

 

[Boeingman]

The RJDC is offensive at best! As are SCABS. In fact the RJDC motives are what is questionable. If you didn't want opinions, you're in the wrong country.

Here is an opinion for you. Grow up and get a life.

By the time you retire you'd probably have a hundred lists of different people who piss you off.

They are still union members even though many don't agree with them. They are also entitled to their own opinions in this country.

 

[RJFlyer]

ATPCliff: Yes, I do know that Bombardier and Embraer are developing larger RJs. Delta Connection carriers are not the only RJ customers, and as such they are not designed specifically for DCI. And I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any plans for DCI to purchase larger than 70-seat RJs.

73GDog: Is there really a difference between DALPA and ALPA? ALPA is merely an amalgamation of all the airline MECs and members, of which DALPA is an inordinately and disproportionately powerful entity (reference surplus1's post above).

FDJ: #1 - I didn't say ALPA made a settlement offer, I posted a quote which says they requested one from the RJDC. #2 - ok, but I think the point is moot anyway, it will never come to that. #3 - 2 MD-80 flights out of 5 is VERY different than 0 out of 7, which does change your point. You are absolutely warranted in wanting Delta to honor the contract you signed. Your grievance with Delta is separate from (albeit related to) the RJDC suit. Delta is claiming force majeure to enable the furloughs and to void the scope clause. The RJDC has nothing to do with this. Again, I am not an RJDC supporter - I have sent no money nor donated time to it. I am merely an interested party who thinks their suit has some merit.

I think that many (most?) union members (in all unionized industries) have lost sight of the fact that their company does not exist solely to provide them with a job. The company must do what it must to survive. If that means furloughing people (in other industries, you would simply be 'downsized,' with no job to come back to), then that is what it will take. There are very few industries in which the employees dictate to the employer whether or not they can be laid-off or whether or not they can use more efficient equipment in an economic downturn (let alone a 'war'). How exactly is a company supposed to survive with artificial pressures such as this? Why should a company have to continue to operate at a loss, merely to continue employment of people and equipment that it doesn't currently need?

Let's say I am a widget-maker, and I have 2 machines to make widgets. Machine A makes 150 widgets a day, and machine B makes 50 widgets a day. Each machine has an operator, and the operator of machine A earns 5x what machine B operator makes (by virtue of the number of widgets produced? No, but this is an example). Machine A needs to make 90 widgets to be profitable. Machine B needs to make 15 widgets to be profitable. In good times, I am using both machines to capacity, and am making money. Now, the economy takes a dump. I now only need to make 80 widgets a day. If I had a union contract, I would need to continue operating both machines, and paying both operators, or only machine A (because of scope) and its higher associated costs. I would be losing money hand-over-fist. If these conditions continue, I will go out of business and everyone loses their jobs. However, if I could idle machine A and buy another machine B, I could still make a tidy profit. Then, when the economy rebounds, and I need 200 widgets a day again, all 3 machines could be employed to make widgets, and I still make money - and have extra capacity for growth. This is the way the law of supply and demand is supposed to affect industry. The unions have decided that they are outside of the law of supply and demand. Don't get me wrong, I believe that unions have done great things in improving safety and worker pay and quality-of-life issues. But they go overboard when they try to restrict a company's ability to make necessary adjustments to remain profitable. If the company goes under, nobody benefits.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

RJ,

It is 2 out of 7. Delta has announced they are adding two more rj from atlanta to toronto.

Also, I agree that not furloughing pilots may cost the company more. That is not my concern. The company signed the contract that prevented them from furloughing for economic reasons.

If we were in danger of going out of business, ALPA would agree to concessions. We have done so in the past, and may again. However, while we are hurting, we are in no immediate danger of bankruptcy. Now is not the time to concede the jobs of 1400 of our fellow pilots.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Surplus,

Another good post. I will concede a few things, then get to the meat of the discussion. Some things, like the seniority issue and the amount of money sought, we will never agree on, so we will have to agree to disagree.

Before I get started, however, I would like to make a small point. I know that you do not mean to insult, but some of your post made it sound like you have done more research than I, and I am being mislead by my MEC. I don't think either is the case. I pride myself on learning issues before forming my opinions, and I believe I have done so in this case as well. My beliefs are shaped by hours of debate and discussion, conversations with people on both sides of the issue, my mec, the rjdc website and supporters, and discussions with lawers and research of labor law. The fact that we disagree on some issues does not mean that you are privy to better information, or that you have done more homework than I. Perhaps you did not mean to imply anything, but that is the impression I got. If I misread it, I apologize.

Now that that's out of the way....

I will concede that ALPA made a mistake long before the rj's, by allowing management to farm out any flying at all. While the problem has grown worse with the RJ, it began long ago. You are correct, and I should have been more exact.

I will concede that mainline pilots are more powerful in ALPA, but I will not concede that this is unjust. We make up the majority of pilots in the union, and thus are entitled to more votes. It is akin to the system used in the House of Representatives, where the more populous states get more votes. Perhaps the executive board should have more regional members, but only if we (mainline) get enough members to appropriately represent our numbers. If that were to occur, we would still control the vote. As we represent the majority of the members, I do not feel that this would be inappropriate.

All that being said, I will attempt to address your (and the rjdc's)assertion that ALPA is breaking the law and not "fairly and equally" representing you. After all, that seems to be the crux of the issue.

I do not feel that the rjdc has a case. I know that you disagree, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. 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. I recently spoke with the lawyer who wrote it, and he seemed quite confident. I know that he is paid to sound confident, but he did assure me that ALPA has no intention of offering any meaningful settlements, because they are convinced the suit has no merit.

The fact is, there is conlict of interest within every union. That is not illegal, and the union does not have any obligation to represent every member's wishes. Even within a single bargaining unit, there is unequal representation of parties, and the courts have found time and time again that this is legal. For example, it can be argued that every dollar in pension funds won in our new contract mean a dollar less in money for me now. I will not reach retirement age for 30 more years, and the "A" plan does not benefit me at all right now (I know, it will someday). The point is, I could allege that the union is not representing the interests of junior pilots fairly. The Supreme court has denied claims like that multiple times, and that was within the same bargaining unit. You are a seperate unit, and would therefore have even less of a case. In fact, it could be argued that if ALPA did not negotiate a scope clause for us, they would be denying us fair representation in order to advance your career. Neither claim is correct. Each bargaining unit within ALPA represents only their respective airlines. Which, in my, and I hope the court's, opinion is entirely legal and proper.

I believe that your case will be very difficult to prove. The supreme court has even stated that in union matters, "The complete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be expected" (Ford v. Huffman). Also, in order for your allegations to be accepted, you must prove that ALPA acted "in arbitrary or discriminatory manner" (Vaca v. Sipes). I don't think that the rjdc will be able to prove either. Finally, in ALPA v. O'Neill, the Court's opinion include the words "We hold that a union's actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a wide range of reasonableness as to be irrational." As you can see, the burden of proof that the rjdc must satisfy is daunting. I'm glad that I am on ALPA's side and not their's.

The legal b.s. aside, I do think that the pilots of the regional airlines feel that they do not get an equal voice in ALPA. I don't disagree. However, I don't think that this is illegal. If I were still with a commuter, I might consider starting a seperate union for regional airlines. I believe that is your best chance at achieving the changes you desire, as I believe the lawsuit will fail. I guess it remains to be seen who is correct.

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ - I just went back and looked up the DAL press release. You are correct, 2 more RJ flights will begin April 17. And I'm willing to bet that as traffic picks up on all those flights (they're nearly always full or nearly full, hence adding 2 more), they will eventually be transitioned to MD-80's. As others have said, there is only so much concrete, and eventually the only way to carry more passnegers will be with larger planes. Airbus is betting on that fact (A380).

The company signed the contract that prevented them from furloughing for economic reasons.

Yes, and you signed a contract that has a 'force majeure' clause in it that allows the company to do what it needs to do to survive in conditions resulting from events beyond its control. That is what your grievance is about - I know you don't believe that the 'war on terrorism' is beyond Delta's control - I guess the arbitrator will decide.

...while we are hurting, we are in no immediate danger of bankruptcy

But if that hurting continues, you will be in immediate danger of bankruptcy. Is there something wrong with proactivity in heading off bankruptcy?
We're really discussing 2 separate issues here. The first is your contract, and the difference between DALPA's and DAL's interpretation of the 'force majeure' clause. The second is my own opinions of the appropriateness of any employee group dictating business decisions (outside of pay, benefits, and working conditions) to an employer.

On a slightly separate subject, you might also want to reference this document: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020305/attu022_1.html
I'd be interested to read some input/thoughts about those figures.