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!