Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

The RJDC is a cancer on the industry

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Timebuilder said:
As a past member of several unions, I have to agree with Aeroboy. Why should a pilot pays dues to ALPA at Comair, and have the union he is funding then act against his interests? Compound this with the fact that the Comair ALPA membership has no seat at scope negotiations when bargaining with a company that owns BOTH airlines? HELLO?????

I'd be suing my union for failing to negotiate on my behalf. This could be a violation of the union's certification under federal law.

ALPA is being called on the carpet for being the servant of two masters: Mathew 6:24 ....No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

I'm certain that there are many nuances, policies and prejudices at work here that I am unfamiliar with. I'm speaking not as an airline pilot, manager, or other principal, but as a party with a long-term interest, and a background in union activity.

Clearly, this needs to be fixed. If there were not an RJDC, how would this fixing be accomplished?

You say you want to fly for an airline. Then you say you support the RJDC's efforts. These are incompatible. If the RJDC wins, it will greatly eliminate jobs at the mainline carriers. The regionals will quickly become growth limited by the economics of the RJ (high seat mile costs) and nobody will be hiring for a long time.

If this effort passes you will be on the outside looking in for a long, long time. Also, the Airline Pilots Association will no longer exist (will be bankrupted by the $100,000,000 lawsuit) and nobody will be there to fight for safety, benefits, and working conditions.

Is that the industry you want so badly to be a part of?
 
First scope...

Then cabotage...

Then the next thing you know, you have Air Nambibia flying a wet-leased American 757 from DFW to BNA with American passengers.

If RJDC wins, I'll probably just leave the profession. Primarily because why should I work my tail off and pay some disgruntled 58 year old RJ captain "...no less than..." $2,000,000 that never bothered to get a degree or freshen-up his resume?

Pshaw.

Braniff
 
Re: RJDC

AeroBoy said:
I think everyone is missing the point here. The RJDC is basically saying that it's not right that ALPA screwed the regional pilots in favor of the mainline pilots, even though they're supposed to be represented fairly and equally by the same union. It's a conflict of interest that ALPA is representing both pilot groups, and ALPA should have therefore told one of the groups (presumably the regional pilots) that it was unable to represent them fairly and they should join (or form) another union. ALPA should not be taking the regional pilot's hard-earned money (of what little they have) and then turning around and selling them down the river to the mainline pilots. It's just not right, and the RJDC is justified in blowing the whistle on ALPA on this one...whether IFF or anyone else likes it or not.

PS-I don't think the RJDC opposes scope overall, just the way this clause was rammed down their throats without any say. If ALPA takes the RJ pilots' money, should they have been represented in some way in this deal? Are the guys from Enron working at ALPA since ALPA has no ethics in this case?

Just my two cents.

Which airline do you fly for? Are you an ALPA member?

Have you thouroughly researched the issue at the RJDC and ALPA websites? Or are you basing your opinion on the hearsay and half truths that have been passed off as fact here by the 2 or 3 RJDC suppporters?

Are the guys from Enron working at ALPA since ALPA has no ethics in this case?


What are your qualifications in making a statement like this? Do you really intend to fly a Cessna or Decathalon for the rest of your career? ALPA pilots are on the hiring boards of nearly every airline. They also conduct the interviews.

I await your response.
 
Last edited:
Just me and my boxes.....Mon. through Thurs., sometimes Friday......they don't talk to me, I don't talk to them (well sometimes I do).........no flight attendants nagging or passengers griping, no ALPA, no RJDC......... headwinds and a clock are my biggest hassles. This whole issue kinda makes freight doggin' appealing, huh?
 
Let me preface this by saying that I am not an RJDC supporter, but neither am I a detractor. I am a supporter of ALPA and unions in general, up to a point. What most pilots fail to realize is that just because you can negotiate something, doesn't mean that it is good for the company or their careers in the long run (look at all the furloughed United and Delta pilots now - but hey, they got 'industry-leading contracts').

IFF: This is an interesting approach -
The scope states that anything above a certain percentage must be performed by Delta pilots.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the scope clause says that Delta Connection flying cannot exceed certain percentages of Delta Mainline block hours. This is a subtle, but important, difference. Your statement would lead one to believe that once the DCI limiting percentage is reached, Delta will then hire more mainline pilots to continue any projected growth. However, what it really means is that once the DCI limit is reached, without the required load factor to make money, all growth is stopped.
Why is it so hard to understand the economic reality of the airline business? (1) the airline exists to make money by moving people from A to B. (2) It does not exist to employ pilots at any cost. (3) If the smallest mainline aircraft is 150 seats, and only 50 people want to fly, they lose money. (4) If those 50 people are going to fly, with the airline making money, they need a 50-seat airplane. (5) Mainline didn't want RJ's.
Would you rather stop service to that 50-person community, rather than send in an airplane that can make money at that load factor?

If the RJDC wins, no labor contract's scope clause could stand and nothing would stop airline management from outsourcing all flying to the lowest bidder. Inagine Mesa flying Delta 777s with pilots paid $40 and hour.
My interpretation of the RJDC's suit is that they are not suing to eliminate scope, but rather to have a voice in the scope that directly effects their careers (as Delta employees). Mesa is not owned by Delta, and as such this argument does not apply to the RJDC argument. It seems that you're forgetting that the RJDC is not a random group of regional pilots from all over the country, but rather they are Delta employees (whether you want to realize that or not). Where exactly does the lawsuit say they want to fly 777's?

Do you really intend to fly a Cessna or Decathalon for the rest of your career? ALPA pilots are on the hiring boards of nearly every airline. They also conduct the interviews.
What does this have to do with AeroBoy's questioning the ethics of the ALPA higher-ups? Granted, his comparison to Enron was rather ill-conceived, but the ethics question was not.
You say you want to fly for an airline. Then you say you support the RJDC's efforts. These are incompatible.
Why? Last time I checked, ASA and Comair were airlines. Do you know something the rest of us don't?

Braniff: you sir, need to look into the facts before spouting off.
Those are the same guys that couldn't figure out how to get hired by a global carrier when UAL, DAL, CAL, NWA and AMR had their hottest hiring cycles in our generation
How do you know who they are? How do you know whether they chose to apply elsewhere or not? I know a lot of pilots who will be very happy to finish their careers where they are, without starting over from the bottom with crappy schedules (granted, more money, but less QOL).
Try flying for a non-union airline and see where that gets you.
Well, it seems flying for Skywest (non-union) gets you pretty far these days, what with all the DFW flying they're getting in place of ASA and DL. And I haven't heard any Skywest pilots complaining about their work rules, pay, etc.
Why should you pay dues at ALPA? Because of the strike assessment that all of us at ALPA paid while Comair was on strike.
So, the only reason I should pay dues is for the handouts you are so gracious to give should my pilot group strike? Give me a break. I thought we paid dues so that we could be fairly represented.
The only thing that SUCKS is the fact that RJDC wants to give airlines the ability to give the flying to the lowest bidder and abrogate scope.
What are the facts which support this opinion? The RJDC is suing because when a clause was negotiated which directly affects their members, they should have had representation at the table. They were denied due representation, so they are suing.
 
RJFlyer said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the scope clause says that Delta Connection flying cannot exceed certain percentages of Delta Mainline block hours. This is a subtle, but important, difference. Your statement would lead one to believe that once the DCI limiting percentage is reached, Delta will then hire more mainline pilots to continue any projected growth. However, what it really means is that once the DCI limit is reached, without the required load factor to make money, all growth is stopped.
Why is it so hard to understand the economic reality of the airline business? (1) the airline exists to make money by moving people from A to B. (2) It does not exist to employ pilots at any cost. (3) If the smallest mainline aircraft is 150 seats, and only 50 people want to fly, they lose money. (4) If those 50 people are going to fly, with the airline making money, they need a 50-seat airplane. (5) Mainline didn't want RJ's.
Would you rather stop service to that 50-person community, rather than send in an airplane that can make money at that load factor?


What it really means is that once the limit is reached all growth is stopped at DCI. There is no prohibition against flying 50 or 70 seat RJs on the mainline with mainline pilots. Air Canada does it. Delta wouldn't be losing money except for the fact that they are exploiting our low labor costs to offset the high CASM cost of the RJ. Having mainline pilots fly the RJ would kill its ecomomic feasibility.
The RJDC wants to fight this, and thus forever keep us in a "B Scale" of pay.
As for mainiline not wanting RJs, let's ask the mainline Delta pilots on furlough if they would be willing to come back and fly an RJ for Delta mainline. I doubt you'd get too many that would say no

My interpretation of the RJDC's suit is that they are not suing to eliminate scope, but rather to have a voice in the scope that directly effects their careers (as Delta employees). Mesa is not owned by Delta, and as such this argument does not apply to the RJDC argument. It seems that you're forgetting that the RJDC is not a random group of regional pilots from all over the country, but rather they are Delta employees (whether you want to realize that or not). Where exactly does the lawsuit say they want to fly 777's?


They are "suing for representation". The representation they want is in scope negotiation. The only way scope can be renegotiated is throw out the old scope agreement and start over. Thusly, they are suing to remove the present scope clause.
1+2=3 , not 4 or 5.
"Representation" is an aphorism for scope.
 
I think the problem is that you guys have been listening to two Delta pilots on this board, who do not represent the majority of airline pilots, or even Delta pilots. The resolution of the rjdc lawsuit will stop whipsaw, and make more jobs, and better careers for ALL airline pilots. I'm sure you don't believe this, but I will be waiting for your response after it's all over.

Thanks for helping me keep this board alive with the lively debates.
 
skydiverdriver said:
I think the problem is that you guys have been listening to two Delta pilots on this board, who do not represent the majority of airline pilots, or even Delta pilots. The resolution of the rjdc lawsuit will stop whipsaw, and make more jobs, and better careers for ALL airline pilots. I'm sure you don't believe this, but I will be waiting for your response after it's all over.

Thanks for helping me keep this board alive with the lively debates.

Actually, I've been over on the ALPA message boards, listening to debates from pilots at every company in the industry, on both sides of the fence. I don't base my opinion on the arguments of two Delta pilots.

It seems to me that the RJDC supporters lost the debate, big time, over there (even ASA and CMR pilots spoke out against you) so you came over here where you didn't think you'd find much opposition.
 
You have a very accusing tone, but it's misplaced. I havnt spoken up on the alpa boards. It's true that there are some comair and asa pilots who are against the rjdc, but there are also Delta and other mainline pilots who are for it. But don't worry, I know I'm not going to convince you, and a few others who are against the rjdc, but some people may still wish to hear both sides. Good luck to you.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top