The RJDC is a cancer on the industry

[FlyDeltasJets]

What I would worry about is the fact that while Rj's are being focused on, Delta keeps adding Sky Team partners. Those high paying international jobs are the ones to worry about. Does anyone else see this as a problem?

Yes, we do see this as a problem. We have negotiated scope and block hour limits on international codesharing as well.

Luckily, no Air France pilots have thought to bring a lawsuit against us yet!


P.S.
I don't think that the attacks on Comair and ASA were warranted. The employees of Comair and ASA work very hard to run good airlines. Sometimes they fall short, as do all of us. I have a very large problem with a few of their pilots, (rjdc) but know the vast majority of the guys there are great guys who are proud of their airlines.

 

[surplus1]

Luckily, no Air France pilots have thought to bring a lawsuit against us yet!

FDJ, what do you imagine the Air France pilots would do if your Scope Clause told them that the could not operate Concorde and they had to limit thier A340 Operations to 20 airframes and their 767s to not more than stage lengths of 1,500 miles?

Laughter in French is just as loud as laughter in English.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

FDJ, what do you imagine the Air France pilots would do if your Scope Clause told them that the could not operate Concorde and they had to limit thier A340 Operations to 20 airframes and their 767s to not more than stage lengths of 1,500 miles?

Laughter in French is just as loud as laughter in English.

Yeah, but they laugh at stupid things like jerry lewis!

Regarding your question, we couldn't do that to Air France because they have their own scope protection and change of control and successorship language. Comasa did not. It appears that your beef is with whichever MEC negotiated your contracts. Perhaps you could sue them.

 

[surplus1]

Due to its length, this post will be in two parts. This is Part 1.

Surplus,

You advise us to "get our facts straight", yet you take yours directly from the rjdc's spin page. If you want facts, I suggest that you read the actual lawsuit, and don't rely on what the rjdc wants people to believe.

FlyDeltaJets, et al,

Thanks for the reply. I enjoy debating with you. I think you are really a reasonable person who is simply not fully informed on the heart of the issues surrounding the RJDC litigation.

What I took from what you call the RJDC “spin page” could not have come from any other source. Braniff (or perhaps it was someone else) made a statement re the RJDC’s alleged desire to eliminate all scope. I simply refuted that by quoting the RJDC’s public views on scope. What better source than the horse’s mouth?

Once before I told you that I had read the lawsuit filed by the RJDC. I now repeat that. I am not relying on what they or anyone else wants me to believe. If you knew me personally you would understand that is completely out of character for me. I know who the principals are, I know what they believe and do not believe and I know what they are trying to do. Not because someone told me, but because I happen to know them all personally. I also consider myself to be fairly good at reading and understanding the English language. I know what the lawsuit says and I also understand what it means, legally as well as otherwise.

You wrote: “ "approving, or imposing those portions of the Scope Clause of the tentative agreement (now our PWA) that would impose restrictions on flying by Comair." Read that again closely. “

An accurate quote. I have read it closely more than once. Your interpretation of what a judge’s granting of that injunction might mean is your interpretation and nothing more. That doesn’t make it so. I know you are an educated person (based on how you write and what you have said). So am I. Yet I do not interpret the potential outcome in the way that you do. I’m not a judge or even an attorney but I do have considerable experience in the field of labor relations that includes dealing with litigation of this type and related judicial decisions. There is little in history that would indicate a judge allowing the extreme broad brush that you envision. In the final analysis, all I can say is this. Your opinion, sir, is not fact. Neither is mine.

While it is true that there are people on my property that paid large sums for a preferential interview, there are also people on your property (perhaps originally from mine or others) that have done the same. There are also people on your property that got their jobs because of who they knew, rather than what they knew. This is truly irrelevant to the debate. It proves nothing and gets us nowhere.

Yes, our inability to negotiate a Scope clause that prevents sub-contracting is a major problem. Your group has also failed to negotiate a Scope clause that prevents sub-contracting. Since your MEC has the unqualified support of the ALPA with respect to your Scope efforts and my MEC has had nothing but opposition from the ALPA on the same issue, why do you seem to imply that we are more responsible for the whipsaw than you are? If we have to blame someone for the current deficiencies in Scope Clauses, that blame rest squarely with the ALPA and the major airline MECs.

You were already experiencing whipsaw prior to your airline’s acquisition of my airline, both in your domestic and international operations. With your 10.000 plus members, the full support of the ALPA’s millions and the support of all other major airline MECs, you have been unable to prevent the code sharing of your international operations or the code sharing and sub-contracting of your domestic operations. Why is this? My friend, when your house is constructed of so much glass you should think twice about throwing stones. When this mess was originally conceived, there were NO regional or commuter pilots in all of the ALPA.

While you may not know it or may be unwilling to admit it, my group tried very hard to negotiate appropriate Scope. The truth is that we got more resistance to our efforts from the union that we pay to represent our interests than we did from the company. While you may find this statement less than credible, due to your lack of direct exposure and much second hand information, I nevertheless know that it is true.

The lawsuit goes on to seek to enjoin ALPA from "negotiating, facilitating or advocating the use of scope clauses in collective bargaining agreements in such a manner as to excercise control over the flying of pilots for a carrier other than the one for which the collective bargaining agreement is being negotiated."

Again you have quoted correctly from the litigation. However, your subsequent theorizing is once more a matter of your opinion as to the potential impact. Additionally, you choose to ignore the negative impact that your efforts to control the flying of pilots at separate carriers will cause. Yes, your contract prohibits Sky West from flying aircraft with more than 70 seats. However, not only does it prohibit SKYW (a sub-contractor) but it also prohibits Comair and ASA which are operating units of the same corporation that employs you. Your Scope is therefore directed against your own company’s assets. Further, your Scope attempts to limit the number of 70-seat aircraft that may be operated by Comair and ASA (as well as the sub-contractors), regardless of the negative economic impact that this may create in the lives of the affected pilots or your own company. Additionally, it does a lot more but there is little point in rehashing all that.

While it may very well be appropriate to restrict the sub-contracting of Delta flying to non-Delta airlines, I have to question the legitimacy of restricting Delta flying within Delta Air Lines. This obviously contradictive application of your Scope raises many questions that remain unanswered. Comair and ASA are not sub-contractors of Delta, Inc. flying. They are integral components of the corporation. One can easily argue that scoping out components of your own company does not make sense, even if it turns out to be legal. At this moment it is creating a negative impact on your own career.

Had you chosen to take the position that the acquired companies became a part of Delta as a result of the acquisition; a reasonable allocation of the pilot work within Delta might have evolved between us. Comair and ASA pilots could have joined forces with you and reached a consensus as to who would do what. Instead you assumed the unilateral right to determine what we could do, when we could do it and how we could do it. Your MEC and OUR (with a grimace) Union, excluded us from all input into these negotiations, thereby neutering our right to represent our own interests in favor of your interests. You and the Union both alleged that we had NO rights, and you and you alone could determine, without limit, what would happen to us. Your own DALPA officials even went so far as to tell us verbally, while carefully avoiding any written record, that you were entitled to this superior right due to the amount of money you pay to ALPA in dues.

Well, we acknowledge that you pay more money in dues than we do. However, we pay in full the dues that we are required to pay by the Constitution. We are therefore entitled to equal representation notwithstanding the fact that you pay more (only because there are more of you).

In so doing, we allege that the Union abrogated its Duty of Fair Representation towards the pilots of Comair and ASA. It further abrogated its fiduciary responsibility to us. It also violated its Constitution & By-Laws.

We sought redress within the Union. We petitioned for the creation of a PID in accordance with ALPA policy. Your MEC, using ALPA paid attorneys, argued against our petition. The Executive Council (on which your group has 2 voting members and we have none), voted it down after determining, in what we argue was an arbitrary and unreasonable manner that, in their opinion, there was “insufficient operational integration”. We filed grievances within the Union. The Union refused to hear our grievances. We did not lose the grievances, we were denied a hearing.

Due to these actions and others, all pilots that remain in the service of Comair and ASA, for as long as it is a part of Delta, Inc., will suffer economic loss, and be denied the benefits of career progression (within Comair and ASA, not on your list) that was planned, provided for and would have occurred, had we not been artificially restricted by the actions of our mutual bargaining agent, the ALPA.

In that all efforts to resolve the issues within the ALPA have been denied or frustrated by the actions of ALPA officials, we have no choice other than to seek legal redress from the courts. It is unfortunate that offends you, but regardless of the outcome that is our right. It has been exercised and we intend to pursue it until the case is settled finally. No amount of rhetoric from any source will alter that reality. This will either be settled to our satisfaction outside of a court room or it will be settled in a court room.

Please go to Part 2.

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 - To FlyDeltaJets

The fact is, there is not a scope clause in the world that does not exercise some degree of "control" over another pilot group.

I’m sorry, but that statement is simply not true. Your Scope clause does not exercise any control over the pilots of United Airlines or SouthWest Airlines (as but two examples). Why should it exercise control over us? The overwhelming majority of Scope clauses do NOT exercise “control” over another pilot group. They exercise control of the flying within a particular pilot group. You simply cannot have more than one pilot group in the same airline and expect either one of the two or more will be able to simply dictate to the others with impunity whatever they may choose and whenever they choose. I don’t believe a jury or a judge will allow you to arbitrarily oppress and silence us. Not as long as we live in the United States.

The principle of no “taxation without representation” is among the foundations of the Republic. ALPA cannot long maintain a system of “dues without representation”. The Union has been offered many opportunities to address our grievances. It has refused to consider any. Therefore, we will have our day in court.

Finally, if management does indeed take advantage of the final decision, it will not be because we sued ALPA and won. It will be because ALPA, as a matter of policy, chose first to destroy the true meaning of scope by permitting sub-contracting. Chose second to perpetuate the error by permitting sub-contracting in jets, Chose third to exacerbate the problems it created by freely permitting management to create and operate multiple alter ego airlines. And finally, chose to deny equal representation to certain of its members.

In that the ALPA is totally controlled and dominated by pilots in the service of the “major airlines”, you have no one to blame for this debacle but yourselves. “We have found the enemy and he is us.” Was it Pogo that said that? It applies to you all. Maybe you think I haven’t been around long enough to understand these things. The actual scenario is that I’ve been around long enough to understand ALPA politics, to know most of the principals, and to be aware of all the skeletons and where they hide. Nothing special about that, it comes with maturity. It’s just unusual that we speak of it in public.

PS: If all of this doesn’t get your attention, go to www.Emerycrew.org and learn the plight of the EWA pilots. You will discover that most small airlines in the ALPA receive less that adequate representation. Regional pilots are not the exclusive victims of these misguided policies.

 

[Braniff]

Surplus-

You seem to forget that Delta runs the reservation lines, makes the ticket stock, TELLS you what routes to fly and then DICTATES how much of the profit that your division keeps.

DCI is NOT independant. In fact, if it WAS an independent carrier completely with your own code, reservations system and marketing, you'd be no better off than Midway is/was.

When the hiring restarts, apply for a global airline, if you qualify. If you don't, don't try to crap in my cereal.

Braniff

 

[RJFlyer]

Braniff: you chose a personal attack with this post:

If you want to stay at a regional, please by all means feel free. But the second that yo try to hamper my career expectations because you're too lazy to get off your butt and get a college degree and apply to global airlines like everyone else, you become the enemy.

so I will reply in kind -

Judging from the logic and content of your posts I would venture that I am significantly better educated, so you can leave the 'college degree' rhetoric in your own swollen head. And maybe I should start a poll, but has 'everyone else' already applied to a 'global airline?'

I asked about 5 clear questions and to date, they've been completely ignored.

I went back and re-read your posts - those questions are about as clear as mud, because I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Additionally, you seem to enjoy contradicting yourself:

The regionals are fun

Regional flying, no matter what you think absolutely SUCKS

Well, which is it?

And for the record, Skywest is a kick ass airline with kick ass employees

Try flying for a non-union airline and see where that gets you

Again, which is it?

This job is way too hard to work that much for little (relatively) money.

Is it really that hard? I don't think so.

By the way, which 'global airline' is it you work for again?

 

[RJFlyer]

IFF:

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.

Exactly my point. It would be impossible for mainline to fly the RJ at their 'industry-leading contract' rates. But to keep the routes and keep serving the customer without running the airline into the ground, Delta needs to put right-sized equipment on those lower-trafficked routes. Guess who can operate those routes profitably? That's right, DCI. So if DCI isn't flying those routes, and Delta mainline can't afford to, ALL growth stops.

The RJDC wants to fight this, and thus forever keep us in a "B Scale" of pay.

By your own argument, there is no other way to profitably operate an RJ. And I would venture a guess that if we ever did get a 'onelist,' that the RJ pay would never rise much higher than it is now anyway.

As for mainline 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.

I'll bet you would if they had to fly it at a rate that the economics of the RJ could support.

 

[Jetjr]

Scope Clauses

Regional airline pilots shouldn't get paid at all. No.....beter yet..... Regional pilots should pay mainline pilots a tarrif like a landing fee that should go directly into a mainline retirement account.......

Of course the previous remark is extreme. But so is the idea that RJs or any airline flying smaller aircraft should have a limit to their ability to negatiate on their own behalf. ALPA does show by track record that they do spend more money per capita AND even per dues on issues at the majors, which might be viewed as "At the expense of the commuter pilots".

Career decisions are business decisions. Some pilots might feel that staying with a commuter for their career will give them a better quality of life. ( Making $100K and being able to be home every night would put any other worker in the top 2% of wage and quality of life earners) Wanting to improve their positions in that job is reasonable and if ALPA is unwilling or unable to work at the same level of 110% performance for their best interest then it might be because ALPA can't serve two masters equally.

 

[Huck]

I'm sorry but I am forced to clear up a point I read about 20 posts up from here.

After Delta bought ASA outright, ASA's MEC refused to even go to the Delta MEC about a common strategy for getting one list. That's right, refused to even approach them. The words out of the MEC chair's mouth were "They want to talk, they can call us." Many of us wanted to get all the pilot groups together ASAP, to develop a common strategy and stop the miserable whipsawing I see here, but the leadership just manned the walls for battle.

I do not believe this isolationism was wanted by the majority of ASA pilots at the time. Back then the list was about 2/3 time-builders, and about 1/3 lifers. A vote for a "staple" would have passed, I think.

And the RJ is a fine machine - I got 1000 hours on it before moving on to bigger and better things. Full FMS, bulletproof engines, great handling, excellent air conditioning... I'd take it over alot of mainline narrowbodies!

 

[~~~^~~~]

Huck:

Good post. The conversation between Bob Arnold and Bill Buergey went "what would you think of a flow through" and Bob replied, "we don't think very much of it." Our MEC's were talking and these communications broke down over scope.

A flow through is not the answer. Reference Continental Express and Eagle. A flow through does not address the problem of having six different companies performing Delta domestic narrow body flying. The only solution is one list. However, the power players within the Delta MEC are more concerned about getting jobs for their old squadron buddies than they are fixing the alter ego airline problem. In other words, ALPA members flying Delta passengers at Delta Connection are below current military pilots on ALPA¡¦s list of concerns.

This union's first concern should be bringing pilots together.

Huck, an excellent example of what happens with complete cooperation from the feeder¡¦s MEC is US Air. As you can see, cooperating with the mainline MEC was a disaster. Their fleet replacement aircraft are going to other carriers and those pilots will lose their jobs as the Dash 8's are retired. Literally, ALPA is costing those pilots their careers, it is frightening.

ALPA got it wrong on the small jet issue. First, ALPA's biggest misperception is that small jets cost mainline jobs. A Canadair Regional Jet not any more of a threat to a 737, than a 737 is to a 777. The bigger airplane has twice the capacity, lower seat mile costs, and is used in a different market.

Second, ALPA does not want to acknowledge that Connection is just a smaller unit of capacity no different from any other narrow body domestic flying. We have many more similarities than the "trunk" and "feeder" airlines did. Some RJ's due replace older, less efficient mainline aircraft on routes that would be dropped completely as these airplanes disappear. ALPA's efforts to keep us on separate lists has PROMOTED a disparate cost structure which has aggravated mainline fleet replacement with small jets.

If you look at the growth patterns of airlines, the airlines with tight restrictions on the use of small jets (US Air, United) have done worse than the airlines with looser restrictions, Delta. Another example is Delta¡¦s fleet plan before and after Contract 2000. The airline went from a growth position to a diminishing fleet. We can argue RJDC positions all day, but in the end you have to admit that every economic prediction made by the RJDC leadership has subsequently been verified by Delta and ALPA. Maybe ALPA's economic war on the small jets at Connection is simply wrong.

The RJDC feels that scope (a necessary part of any contract) should not be used as a weapon against ALPA members at the same airline. Onelist is a win / win / win for Delta pilots, Connection pilots and our employer. The Connection MECs do not have the political power within ALPA to make onelist happen, it can only come from the mainline MEC.

Regards,
~~~^~~~ <--- Fins to the Left, if you don't like Buffet you would not understand.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Surplus and Fly Delta Jets:

Air France and Delta are not the same employer. According to the US goverment Delta and Delta Connection are.

We have the same union and the same employer. Our union should not be negotiating with our employer to harm pilots at either airline. The only way for ALPA to avoid the conflict of interest is to fight to merge the groups together under one MEC, with one negotiating agenda, one list.

Regards,
~~~^~~~

 

[surplus1]

Surplus-

You seem to forget that Delta runs the reservation lines, makes the ticket stock, TELLS you what routes to fly and then DICTATES how much of the profit that your division keeps.

No Braniff, I don't forget that. How could I? My airline is a part of Delta Air Lines, therefore, I would hardly expect these items to be hadled by anyone else. I know you don't like to hear it but the truth is we are operationally intergrated with Delta. Totally and completely.

I expect Delta, Inc. to do ALL of the things you mention and I am quite happy with that. What I don't expect and will not accept is the idea that Delta pilots, the DMEC or the ALPA can dictate anything.

DCI is NOT independant. In fact, if it WAS an independent carrier completely with your own code, reservations system and marketing, you'd be no better off than Midway is/was.

I am well aware that we are not independent. I say again, we are fully operationally integrated with Delta.

Now, if we were not, your statement comparing us with Midway is absurd. Either you have no knowledge of the industry or you are trying to pull my chain. My airline (Comair) could have easily acquired a company like Midway with the chump change of one year's net profits. Your airline paid 1.8 billion dollars to buy the 80% of my airline that it did not already own and that after deliberately depressing the value of CMR stock prior to the purchase.

When the hiring restarts, apply for a global airline, if you qualify. If you don't, don't try to crap in my cereal.
Braniff

Don't get upset about my qualifications, Braniff. I'm convinced they exceed your own by a very wide margin. I have no desire to "crap in your cereal" or anyone elses'. I hope that the Company will soon recover from the problems our industry faces. I hope too that you and all airline pilots will benefit from that recovery. However, if you believe that this should equate to my feeling or being subserviant to you, you are missing the boat by miles. If that ruffles your pin feathers, well that's just too bad.

 

[Braniff]

DCI and Delta are not operationally connected. For example, have you compared a Delta flight plan and an ASA or CMR flight plan? Paying RJDC $30 should have imparted more information than that.

Do you use the same OCC we do? Where are your simulators? Do we attend the same "fleet common" training? Do we use the same bidding system? Nope x 4.

DCI doesn't even use DAL flights to deadhead on, in fact, if you have to dead head from FLL to MCO, they'll send you via ATL even though a CMR flight goes nonstop.

There is no operational integration between DCI and Delta mainline. I beg you to show me one shred of non-RJDC spittle as evidence.

I thought so.

Besides, if your qualifications were so godlike, why aren't you flying a UAL 747-400? THAT's the top of the world, airline-wise. But let me guess, you're going to save the world from the seat on a CL-65.

I've always been in favor of a flow through - not because of furlough protection, but to give those that are qualified a shot before we hire some bozo off the street.

However a 100% flow through wouldn't be that cool. I'll make this statement and even though I'll probably get a lot of hate mail for this, but the top-10% of ANY seniority list at any airline are where the real weirdoes are.

I don't think we have to take any person on the seniority list by default, but give the next guy in line that fully meets the minimum requirements a shot. If the minimum qualificaitons change, then put that pilot on the list then.

With all that being said, without a firewall stopping management from transferring narrowbody flying to the cheapest bidder and from divvying up widebody flying to codeshare, this career will continue eroding.

I hear lots of talk about making $100,000 flying an RJ. But that's after 18 years and what's so hot about that when a 2nd year 737-800 FO can almost make that sitting reserve with a "Low Yellow Slip" in.

Since we're "operationally integrated", I'm sure you know what a "low yellow slip" is, right?

Braniff

 

[MetroSheriff]

DCI doesn't even use DAL flights to deadhead on, in fact, if you have to dead head from FLL to MCO, they'll send you via ATL even though a CMR flight goes nonstop.


Braniff

Braniff,

You are correct on the rest of your post, I have to step in on the DH. I have DH, not commuted, but DH for company business and have ALWAYS ridden Delta. All of our positive space travel to/from DFW to ATL in on the mainline. We were wx cnx out of HSV a few weeks ago and rode back to DFW thru MOB on mainline. Not to nitpick, but just wanted to clear that up. On your other points you are 100% correct. Unless you want to talk about the napkins and bottled water that the RJDC is so quick to point out. LOL.

 

[RJFlyer]

Braniff,

It frightens me that when I am deadheading from DFW to ATL on Delta, that someone as immature as you might be in the cockpit.

 

[Draginass]

If operationally integrated, you should apply for single carrier status with the NMB.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Surplus,

Good post. I'm glad to see that you have given the matter some thought. I suck at the quote function, as has been proven in a previous post, so I will just address your points without quoting them. Please let me know if I miss any.

#1. I would like it to be said first that you and I agree on many points. I support onelist (only with a staple). I believe that ALPA, with the help of the Delta MEC, made a huge mistake in the early 90's when they allowed ANY jet to be flown by a connection carrier. If they had refused to allow jets to feed mainline, instead mandating that all jets be flown BY mainline, you and I might not be having this conversation. They (I wasn't at DAL yet!) made a huge mistake, and now we are trying to correct it. You are correct regarding Pogo's (actually, Walt Kelly's...I like trivia too!) quote. We screwed up.

Unfortunately, we have limited means to correct this mistake. The best is onelist. Unfortunately, I don't think that we will ever achieve it. Management is committed to exploiting the cost difference between our lists. I think that the fact that they accepted an 89 day strike proves their resolve. We have no legal authority to force a merger, even if the PID had been approved. It is my opinion that even if all three groups were committed enough to strike for the cause, management would sell ASA and CMR before they would merge the lists. However, I am not opposed to trying, on one condition...A staple must be agreed on in advance. Right or wrong, that is a political reality. By necessity, the Delta pilots would have to make the most sacrifice to merge the lists. That is not objectionable to me. I am not selfish, and I believe that this is a good cause. However, I will not sacrifice a single number of my seniority. Nor will anyone I have ever asked. I do not know if that caveat is acceptable to the ASA and CMR pilots. If it is not, they can still attempt to merge our lists. I just wouldn't expect any help from the Delta pilots. It will be interesting to see what the ASA and CMR MECs do. I find it very interesting that they have already proposed what the merged seniority list of ASA and CMR would look like, but have not included Delta in their fictional merger. To me, that gives the appearance that they are hoping for more than a staple.

The only other means of protection left is scope. I think that the ASA pilots are learning now the pitfalls of not having a strong scope clause. It is exactly for this reason that we are committed to protecting ours.

#2. I posted language from the lawsuit. I believe that the language is clear and unambiguous. I posted what I feel that the results of a rjdc win would be. You correctly stated that my points were only my opinion. Your opinion differs.

However, I feel that I backed up my opinion with the suit's actual language. Your opinion is backed up only with conjecture. Without meaning any disrespect to you, your guesses about what a judge might or might not do does not alleviate my fears. For the record, I hope that you are right. I fear that you are not.

#3. Much of your post deals with your perception of fair treatment for all members of ALPA. The constitution and bylaws were written to ensure that fair treatment. If they were not followed during the PID, then I fully support your right to sue. I find nothing wrong with a lawsuit designed to force a neutral to examine our c and bl's and ensure that they are followed. However, the rjdc's lawsuit goes far beyond that. They lost my support when they included punitive damages of $100,000,000 and "no less than $2,000,000" per comair pilot. They angered me greatly when they attacked a negotiated and hard-won section of our contract. By including these things, they have gone from altrustic seekers of fairness to selfish malcontents out only for their own gain.

That being said, I don't think that any union of our size has the ability to represent everyone in the same way. Everyone should have equal access to union benefits, and I feel that they do, despite the fact that certain groups pay more (not only as a result of sheer numbers, as you assert, but on a per pilot basis as well). However, due to the amout of members and the variety of views, not everyone's agenda can possibly be advanced. It is the job of the union to protect the interests of the majority of its members when there is a conflict. It is also the job of the union to advance the profession. I believe that what they are attempting to do with strong scope clauses. I will give you an example. I flew for Mesa airlines. We were represented by ALPA. Yet we codeshared for U. Their scope clause (negotiated by ALPA) prevented us from flying anything over 50 seats. Therefore, it can be argued that ALPA negotiated a contract that harmed my career. I chose to, and still do, look at it differently. By preventing us from flying larger airplanes, if forced mainline to operate them instead. That helped, not hindered my career as I and the vast majority of commuter pilots wanted to fly for a mainline carrier. Therefore, I believe that ALPA helped my career in the long run. It may have hurt a few senior guys like the leadership of the rjdc. However, it helped the majority of the members. As far as I am concerned, that is all that you can ask of any union.

 

[Braniff]

I may sound immature, but I'm simply sick and tired of RJDC's distortions. Whenever ANYONE puts a little heat on the debate, they either disappear, talk about how DAL pilots are a bunch of arrogant ex-fighter jocks, talk about how we thumbed our nose at them when management purchased them, etc.

They're like the Taliban. Instead of putting up a forum on rjdefense.com, you guys are spreading into cells around the internet and we've got to constantly hunt you guys down and counter your arguments.

If rjdefense.com had any balls, they'd put a forum at THEIR website and stop jumping around cyberspace playing peek-a-boo.

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ - good post. I have a few questions, though.

It will be interesting to see what the ASA and CMR MECs do. I find it very interesting that they have already proposed what the merged seniority list of ASA and CMR would look like, but have not included Delta in their fictional merger. To me, that gives the appearance that they are hoping for more than a staple.

How does the proposed merged seniority list of ASA/CMR give the appearance of anything in regard to a DL/ASA/CMR onelist? It would seem to me to be the easiest route to merge the two smaller lists, then deal with the larger later (since it seems the DALPA MEC is reluctant to even consider it).

Re: point #3 - I agree that the monetary figures the RJDC is including are rather preposterous, but ask your MEC negotiators whether they walk into negotiations asking only for the minimum they are willing to accept. I think not. I believe this is the RJDC's 'starting point,' from which some meaningful settlement can arise.

certain groups pay more (not only as a result of sheer numbers, as you assert, but on a per pilot basis as well)

This is true, but we all pay the same percentage of our income. If you deserve 'more' representation than I do simply because you are paid more, then does the 777 DL captain deserve 'more' representation than the 737 DL FO? I don't think so.

Their scope clause (negotiated by ALPA) prevented us from flying anything over 50 seats. Therefore, it can be argued that ALPA negotiated a contract that harmed my career. I chose to, and still do, look at it differently. By preventing us from flying larger airplanes, if forced mainline to operate them instead. That helped, not hindered my career as I and the vast majority of commuter pilots wanted to fly for a mainline carrier.

True again, but the economic realities (both as a result of the recession and the public's altered view of flying) have dramatically changed. Where there used to be enough people on the DFW-MLU (as an example) flights to justify a larger aircraft, there no longer are. So rather than give up flights to/from MLU altogether, they have been 'downgraded' to the RJ, which can still operate the route profitably. This applies to the 70-seater as well. The smallest aircraft DL operates is a 107-seat configuration 737-200. The CR7 can still carry 45-50 passengers profitably, where the 737 can't. But instead of allowing the company to operate profitably, your DALPA would rather have nobody flying to MLU, or have the company continue to operate at a loss so no DL pilots are furloughed.

Don't get me wrong, I think the fact that DL pilots are on the street sucks. But the fact remains that the sooner the load factors improve on the DCI routes, the sooner DL mainline can come in and take over those routes once again, and my RJ can be re-deployed elsewhere.