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

And I thought I was ballsy for risking a buck! Not that I think I could lose.

I think that you are more likely to find a white house secretary who wasn't groped by clinton than a Delta pilot who supports the rjdc!
Braniff said:
Funny how your name is "Time Builder" and you don't see the danger in erasing scope.

Without scope, you'll be building time for notoriety because no one will be hiring for a very long time.

ALPA does not negotiate against you.

Now if your company owned 737's and 747's an ALPA said that you had to get RID of them, ok, perhaps that could be a problem.

But saying that your career is hampered because your company went from Navajos to Banderantes to Brasilias to a butt-load of Rj's, I really doubt if ANYONE is holding back your career.

Don't get deprogrammed by the "lifers" in RJDC. 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.

Don't let them destroy OUR (me, you and the guy training in the Tomahawk) profession.

Alright. This is a hot button issue, so let's see if cooler heads can prevail here.

First: I don't think I said anything about eliminating scope. I don't even know if that is a) an official position of the RJDC or b) a conclusion being made by those who oppose the RJDC, based on their own interpretation of the results of what RJDC actually is seeking.

Second: if scope WAS eliminated? We can only theorize what would happen. Perhaps having lunch with an experienced labor attorney can benefit me. Maybe I can call in a favor and learn more about what MIGHT happen. Maybe I'll call Walter Williams and ask him. He's an economist.

Third: ALPA does not negotiate against me because I am not a member. I used an editorial reference, placing myself in the position of being a dues paying member at Comair, and asking about what would be happening to me if I was paying dues to a union that WAS negotiating in a way that was counter to my interests, as I perceive them. If I were indeed such a person, I would indeed be asking that question.

Fourth: I don't understand why ALPA would ask a company to "get rid of" any type of equipment. That action would (and is) be(ing) determined by the marketplace. Are seniority and pay the issues? Why not send Delta crews to school for the size of jet which is brining home the bacon, and pay them a negotiated wage to do so. They'd like to fly instead of sit at home, right? Make them Delta jets, under the Delta contract. I have worked under merged seniority rosters. It can and does happen, and after the grumbling ends, people put aside their differences and go on.

Fifth: nothing in this current RJDC discussion will hold back my career until I am in a position to be affected. I admit that I am not, except for my many hours as a source of revenue for major airlines. As a passenger, I don't like the window position in the RJ. Only a six year old can get a good view looking out that window. Aside from that, the service was comparable to a 757. I didn't really miss the snack box, and I got the same little bag of carbohydrates on the RJ.

Sixth: I hope I'm not being programmed or de-programmed by anyone. "Lifers" seems like a term which implies negativity, as if these pilots are not as good because they aren't persuing the same hiring goal as yourself. I don't share that opinion, as I believe the market will ultimately place most flying in the most efficient equipment possible, and the window problems will be corrected along the way. If those "lifers" had taken those big-time jobs, the ones they couldn't figure out how to get, they would likely be on furlough instead of working for growing companies. The times they are a changin'. Remember, the business traveller is the lifeblood of aviation, and he is slowly leaving the 121 environment. He doesn't have time for the long lines and invasive searches. Fractionals, company flight departments, and personal ownership of the new small jets (Eclipse, etc) will make competition for the business traveller very intense. We may not like it, but I believe it is an economic reality.

Finally, I'm the last person to want to see anyone's profession destroyed. After the paranoia subsides following 9/11, and we streamline the boarding process, things can only get better. They have to.

ALPA will never pay a $100mil fine. What will probably happen is that some sort of settlement will take place that preserves scope and improves representation. At that point, we will find another hot button issue, and have another healthy debate about the ideas that are important to us.

On a personal note, my Navajo days are over for now. The boss has sold the last one, it ships out next week, and I am REALLY out of a job, small as it was. Insurance costs were over $17,000, and next year they are predicted to rise between 30 and 80 percent. It's another one of those economic realities I mentioned above. I'm just going to have to deal with it. The other pilot and I are sending out resumes today like you wouldn't believe.

So, we are all being affected in different ways. Solutions will be found. After all, we ARE some of the smartest and most resilient people on earth.
Last edited:
skydiverdriver said:
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.

To repost my response from another thread that I think is equally apporpriate here:

The effects of the RJDC will be numerous and devasting, namely, the abrogation of another ALPA pilot groups PWA, tremendous downward pressure on our collective income potential, and ferocious, legally sanctioned whipsawing of opposing pilot groups by management.

Not to mention, if you are really lucky, is what the RJDC really wants, a seniority integration windfall at the expense of pilots that got on Deltas list the hard way, hired not aquired.

If the RJDC really wanted to hit a grandslam, why not include the removal of restrictions to international cabotage in your "noble" effort to burn down the ALPA house???
FlyDeltasJets said:

And I thought I was ballsy for risking a buck! Not that I think I could lose.

I think that you are more likely to find a white house secretary who wasn't groped by clinton than a Delta pilot who supports the rjdc!

Senator, could you define "grope" please....LOL
typhoonpilot said:

As I have said before, scope clauses are put in place to protect the piloting profession as a whole not to disadvantage Regional pilots.

Really? You may have said it before but surely you know that isn't true. Scope clauses in fact have nothing to do with protecting "the profession as a whole". They have everything to do with protecting the interests of the particular pilot group that writes the particular Scope section.

Here's an interesting quote for you:

"Myth: The ASA and Comair pilots are opposed to scope.

Truth: All contracts need good scope.

The ASA and Comair pilots have informed ALPA in person and in writing that, "Scope is the glue that binds management to your labor agreement. No scope, no contract."

Now guess where that came from? Yup, the RJDC. It doesn't sound to me like they are opposed to scope. Guess I'm just confused because I agree with what they're doing. Or maybe I'm upset because I want a job with a major and can't get one. Or maybe I'm not smart enough to understand that your "profession" is different (since you're with a "major") from my "profession" (because I'm not at a major).

It's OK for all or any of you to disagree with RJDC, but keep your facts aligned. That helps the debate.
FlyDeltasJets said:

I think that you are more likely to find a white house secretary who wasn't groped by clinton than a Delta pilot who supports the rjdc!

That's witty and probably true too.

I can't help but ask you: Why is it that you and some other major airline pilots that write on this issue seem eager to make this litigation a war between Delta pilots and Comair or ASA pilot's?

The real fight is between the litigants and the ALPA.

Sometimes it seems to me that we are trying to emulate the the crisis between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I have trouble imagining how either one of them will emerge victorious. Neither will we.

For example, if the RJDC wins its lawsuit, I think the end result will be little more than the majors leaving ALPA to prevent the outcome, just as the AC pilots left CALPA. And if the RJDC should lose, you'll just say "we told you so" and then ask them to leave.

One other thing will happen if they win. ALPA will no longer be able to violate its DFR. That would be a sweet victory.

Why are we considering it WAR?

Look at the first line of the "RJDC financial pledge form" and this is quoted VERBATIM:

"Yes, I want to help the RJ Defense Coalition protect the ASA and Comair pilots from the attempts of the Delta MEC and ALPA National to restrict the RJs and harm our careers."


Now tell me, how isn't that war? RJDC is amassing money to sue my ass, but I'm supposed to come out because they just want to "talk about it"?

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.

The relief section asks for a permanent injunction preventing ALPA from "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. If a judge approves that request, then there is nothing that could prevent management from giving our 777's to comair. A wage war would start, and we as a "profession" would find ourselves flying widebodies for peanuts. As I have said before, there are people on your property who have paid $10,000 to fly a turboprop. What do you think they would pay for a 777. Don't believe this could happen? Look at what management is doing right now with DCI flying. Your failure to negotiate a meaningful scope clause for the 35% of Delta flying that you are allocated has resulted in a whipsaw situation that has had the president of DCI bragging that "whomever is cheaper gets the flying." If it's all the same to the rjdc, I'd just as soon not come to that party.

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." Because we codeshare with skywest, Section 1.D.2(c) of our contract forbids them from flying anything over 70 seats. Can that be construed as "exercising control" over the skywest pilots. Of course. But every major airline has similar language in their contracts. If this lawsuit wins, than it is not a stretch to imagine 737's in mesa colors. They have threatened it already, but the U PWA forbids it. We thought we had a tough time competing with LUV's downward pressure on our pay scales (which have led to "b" scales like Delta Express, Shuttle by UAL and Metrojet)? Wait until mesa and tsa start flying similar size equipment. We'll be screwed.

The fact is, there is not a scope clause in the world that does not exercise some degree of "control" over another pilot group. It is a necessary evil in our fight to keep this profession one of which we can be proud. If you think that you can eliminate only the scope which you find distasteful and leave the others, than you have been misinformed. Management will use this case as a precendent to get courts to eliminate every scope clause. If you don't think that they will do this, than you have either not been in this industry very long, or you choosing to ignore the lessons of our past.
Braniff said:
And for the record, I've always supported a flow thru agreement for the pilots that meet the minimum requirements of the mainline carrier.

Well Braniff, that's very nice of you. If I were a mainline pilot I would also support flow-through. It is free furlough protection for you and comes only at the expense of most pilots on the regional list. What logical reason remains to oppose it?

The thing that galls me most about flow through rhetoric is the idea that most mainline pilots seem to have, i.e., that it is yours to grant or deny.

The fact is none of you have the power to grant it and none of you have the power or the right to deny it. That perogative rests exclusively with management. If a regional pilot group wants flow through, then they should negotiate it for themselves. Whether you apporove or not is totally irrelevant.

Latest resources