The RJDC is a cancer on the industry

[skydiverdriver]

FDJ,
Boy, you have done a lot of research. I don't think I'm going to try to dispute your conclusions, as you sound like a lawyer, or you have the same knowledge as a lawyer does. However, I will take a stab at two points. One is that you say ALPA represents mainline pilots better, because of their numbers. Well, that is true, however, the number of small jet pilots is kept artificially low by scope clauses. If RJ airlines were not so restricted, our numbers may exceed yours. It's sort of like the arguement that ALPA spent more on the Comair strike than the Comair pilots paid in dues. Well, of course they did, as the dues are based on our low pay that ALPA helps to keep low.

Second point is the starting a new regional union. So, you are suggesting that we go from having a small voice in our futures, to having no voice. That doesn't make any sense, and I hope it never happens. That's like saying my captain won't listen to me, so to get more power, I'll just leave and let another FO fly the trip. Then I'll have no say. See what I mean?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

FDJ,
Boy, you have done a lot of research. I don't think I'm going to try to dispute your conclusions, as you sound like a lawyer, or you have the same knowledge as a lawyer does. However, I will take a stab at two points. One is that you say ALPA represents mainline pilots better, because of their numbers. Well, that is true, however, the number of small jet pilots is kept artificially low by scope clauses. If RJ airlines were not so restricted, our numbers may exceed yours. It's sort of like the arguement that ALPA spent more on the Comair strike than the Comair pilots paid in dues. Well, of course they did, as the dues are based on our low pay that ALPA helps to keep low.

Second point is the starting a new regional union. So, you are suggesting that we go from having a small voice in our futures, to having no voice. That doesn't make any sense, and I hope it never happens. That's like saying my captain won't listen to me, so to get more power, I'll just leave and let another FO fly the trip. Then I'll have no say. See what I mean?

A few points.

#1. Don't ever call me a lawyer again. I know we don't agree on some things, but there is no need for insults! Actually, I wish I were a lawyer right now, it would be very nice to have the extra income.

#2. I don't agree that ALPA is keeping your numbers or salary down. As a matter of fact, I believe that ALPA has helped achieve some significant improvements in regional contracts, but that is not the issue. The issue is, you are not satisfied with ALPA. You have stated that ALPA is harming your career. I do not think that you have any recourse right now. I think the lawsuit is doomed to failure, and onelist is a dubious proposition, at best. My suggestion is just that, a suggestion. I don't see any changes in ALPA in the forseeable future. If your are dissatisfied with the treatment you are recieving, and don't have the power to change things, then a logical solution would be to seek alternate representation. As I said, this is only a suggestion. I don't endorse either course of action, because it is not my decision.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

RJ,

#1. I hope that you are correct with regards to the MD-80 replacing rjs. Unfortunately, I have seen far more examples of the reverse occuring.

#2. Regarding our grievance, if you read our contract, you will see that the company is granted relief from our no furlough clause only in certain events. They are specifically prevented from furloughing for financial reasons. The contract goes on to list examples when they are allowed to furlough. Every one of them are times when the company is prevented from flying. There is nothing preventing the company from flying right now. As a matter of fact, they were only unable to fly for 3 days following the attack, and were given about $700 million dollars for that.

You asked me to look at the Feb traffic figures. Aside from the obvious comments regarding ASA growing while we are shrinking, I would like to make one more point. Traffic was down 8.2% in Feb. September 11'th, right? No brainer win for the company in the grievance win, right? Well, if you dig a little deeper you will find some interesting info. In June of 2001, our traffic was down 8.2%, exactly what it is down now. As a matter of fact, it was down 8.9% in May 2001. Seems to me that the company is using 9/11 as an excuse for a problem that existed before the attack. As a matter of fact, the traffic numbers look even better now because traffic is only off 8.2% despite a 10% reduction in capacity. It was off 8.9% in May with only a 1.7% capacity reduction.

I don't deny that 9/11 was devastating to the industry. It was. But the problems that Delta is facing now began long before 9/11.

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ:
#1: Yes, it has been mostly the opposite lately, but that doesn't mean the trend won't reverse. People are slowly coming back to flying, and larger planes will be required to fly them. If traffic warranted, I am sure that Delta mgmt would prefer to fly 7 MD-80's a day over 5 RJ's and 2 MD-80's. It will happen, in time.

It took some digging (I don't have ready access to your contract), but I found the language in your contract about force majeure:

B. 2. “Circumstance over which the Company does not have control,” for the purposes of this Section 1, means a circumstance that includes, but is not limited to, a natural disaster; labor dispute; grounding of a substantial number of the Company’s aircraft by a government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel supply or other critical materials due to either governmental action or commercial suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the Company’s operations; revocation of the Company’s operating certificate(s); war emergency; owner’s delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; manufacturer’s delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term “circumstance over which the Company does not have control” will not include the price of fuel or other supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company’s then-current operations.

When the President of the US says we are at war, the term 'war emergency' just might apply, particularly as it applied to the situation in the weeks and months immediately following 9/11. And I do seem to remember a grounding of more than a substantial number of aircraft for several days (and money received from the Taxpayers has no bearing on it - that is not mentioned anywhere in your contract). Unfortunately for you, you (DALPA) didn't specify how long that grounding would have to last, nor how long the 'war emergency' might apply, or what form that war emergency might take, in order for 'force majeure' to apply. You left the company a lot of rope to hang you with.

The question that then arises is how to determine when force majeure ends and a simple economic downturn begins? They are not mutually exclusive, in this instance. Just because the planes are no longer grounded, and the 'war emergency' has lessened, does not necessarily mean the company is again in a position to pick up where it left off.

This is a small quote from a story located here: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yho...o&guid={4DF6FA95-86F2-46C4-95C7-0DAC36DB9E33}

Indeed, the FAA said it sees "several uncertainties" facing the industry in the next two years that could undermine these projections (of passenger traffic recovery). They include:
Exactly how soon and to what extent will passenger traffic come back from the terrorist attacks?
When will airline finances recover, given the huge losses, lower consumer demand and rising price tags on security and insurance?
When will those high-fare business travelers return?

These questions are all a result of 9/11 - and these concerns are from the FAA. The fact is, 9/11 was beyond the airlines' control and resulted in a hefty impact on their ability to do business.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Rj,

There is also a "war on drugs" going on, does that mean Delta can furlough?

The fact remains that every example given in our contract are instances when the company is prevented from flying. That was clearly the intent of our contract. Hopefully the arbitrator will see things our way.

I also know that the traffic figures I quoted above will be part of our case.

 

[RJFlyer]

Force Majeure continued

FDJ:

I tried to get more monthly traffic reports, but the links are all dead. Regarding DAL financials, check out this link: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/020131/atth007_1.html

"Delta Air Lines reported a net loss of $486 million and a loss per share of $3.97 for the December 2001 quarter, excluding unusual items, as described below. This compares to net income of $79 million and diluted earnings per share of $0.60 for the December 2000 quarter."

What was different about 4th Q 2001 and 4th Q 2000? The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In 4th Q 2000, the economy was already weak, so that is not the answer.

"after adjusting for reduced flying by some Delta pilots in December 2000, mainline capacity was down 15.0 percent for the quarter. Load factor for the quarter was 63.6 percent compared to 68.9 percent for the same period a year ago."

So capacity was down, and on that reduced capacity, load factor was down. But Delta should continue to operate empty jets so you have a job.

"For the full year 2001, Delta reported a net loss of $1.0 billion" and "a net loss of $486 million and a loss per share of $3.97 for the December 2001 quarter." You can't tell me that 1/2 of the yearly loss in one quarter was not due primarily to the 9/11 attacks.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

RJ,

I do not deny that 9/11 had a devastating effect on the industry. I do deny that it conforms to the requirements specified in our contract which would allow furloughs.

As far as the block hour grievance, I don't think that anyone would argue that it is "beyond the company's control" to put rjs on mainline to conform with the contract they signed.

I know that you are rooting for your fellow pilots to win the furlough grievance so we can get back to work, and we appreciate your support.

 

[73GDog]

RJFlyer,
I do not think a formal declaration of war has been stated. If so, why are the detainees in Guantanamo Bay not prisoners of war? Over the past ten years we have been involved in numerous conflicts like the one we are involved with today. Somalia and Bosnia ring a bell. As I have stated before, I could be wrong however; I do not recall a formal declaration of war being issued by the United States Government but rather the catch phrase, "War on Terrorism". We will see how the arbitrator interprets this soon enough. I think the arbitrator will find middle ground meaning, Delta will get a percentage of the furloughs it desires but not all due to the fact the economy was headed toward a recession prior to 9-11. Then again, what do I know? Stranger things have happened.

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ:

I do deny that it conforms to the requirements specified in our contract which would allow furloughs.

That is what the arbitrator will decide. I believe you are wrong.

As far as the block hour grievance, I don't think that anyone would argue that it is "beyond the company's control" to put rjs on mainline to conform with the contract they signed.

If that is what DALPA believes, then why haven't they put a proposal to the company to start flying those RJs? I think its because mainline pilots don't really want to fly RJs - and certainly not at a payrate that is lower than their pre-9/11 level. Why must it be up to the company to propose this? I'm pretty sure DALPA has put proposals to the company before on other issues. Why not now?

I know that you are rooting for your fellow pilots to win the furlough grievance so we can get back to work, and we appreciate your support.

Oooh, ouch. Yes, I am rooting for you to win your grievance so you can get back to work and I can be furloughed.

73GDog: The Vietnam War was never officially declared a 'war' either ('police action,' I think it was?), but are you really going to tell me that it wasn't? The Korean War was likewise never declared a 'war.' I defy you to tell that to a Korean War vet. Bosnia and Somalia are nothing like what we have going on now. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Bosnians/Serbs/Somalis never blew up 2500 civilians on our soil by commandeering 4 airliners and using them as guided weapons of mass destruction. That takes 9/11 to another level entirely.

I think you are absolutely right about what the arbitrator will decide. But the end result will be that there will still be Delta pilots furloughed, and the company's actions will have been found to be in line with the 'force majeure' clause in the contract. Do I think that's a good thing? No I do not. But sometimes real life gets in the way of the utopia the unions would like to create.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

FDJ:
That is what the arbitrator will decide. I believe you are wrong.
If that is what DALPA believes, then why haven't they put a proposal to the company to start flying those RJs? I think its because mainline pilots don't really want to fly RJs - and certainly not at a payrate that is lower than their pre-9/11 level. Why must it be up to the company to propose this? I'm pretty sure DALPA has put proposals to the company before on other issues. Why not now?

Oooh, ouch. Yes, I am rooting for you to win your grievance so you can get back to work and I can be furloughed.

First of all, we already have made such a proposal. It is called the PWA. If the company wants to fly rjs over the negotiated block hour limit, they must be flown by mainline. That will be the crux of our block hour grievance.

Secondly, our furlough grievance has nothing at all to do with a DCI furlough. Nor does our block hour grievance. A win in either case will not force the furlough of a single DCI pilot. A block hour win might slow your growth a bit, but will not prompt a single furlough. Don't believe the lies of the rjdc.