Freight Dog,
I didn't reply previously for two reasons: 1) I thought you and I had agreed to disagree and 2) I really didn't want to get into a debate about Comair and create personal controversy. Since you really want an answer, I'll give it a try.
Freight Dog said:
Surplus,
We've had a couple of discussions before, and I am curious... what exactly is wrong with AWA pilots blocking 90 seat RJ's flown under *THEIR* code in *THEIR* colors at CONTRACT carriers?
I have previously gone on record saying that no contract flying should be allowed. However, like everything else, there are two sides to that. 1) If you start with scope that allows no contract flying I can support that. 2) If you did not do that and then you suddenly try to
change your scope in a way that hurts another pilot group, I have a problem with that. Why? Because the same union represents both pilot groups.
ALPA's right hand is negotiating to benefit AWA pilots at the expense of Mesa pilots. ALPA's left hand is allegedly negotiating to benefit Mesa pilots at the expense of AWA pilots. This obvious conflict of interest is what I can't live with.
If AWA pilots and Mesa pilots can sit down together and
jointly agree to where they would like to draw a mutually beneficial line allocating the work, I would have no problem with that. However, I see no effort in that direction and I do not accept the concept that either pilot group has some God given "right" to simply impose its will on the other.
I don't buy the mainline concept that they
own all the flying and can do whatever they choose. IMO, "ownership" of the flying was relinquished when the AWA pilots failed to negotiate control of the flying originally. Now, after the fact, they can't simply go back in time and draw arbitrary lines of division, wherever they choose, and cost Mesa pilots their jobs. ALPA is basically trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
If you accept the idea that they can do that, then why couldn't they draw the line at 19-seats and force Mesa pilots out of everything bigger than a Beech 1900? Maybe they won't do that (because management will not allow it) but the principle remains the same. Once you accept the principle, you accept the idea that AWA pilots can negotiate for the jobs of Mesa pilots, without the knowledge or consent of Mesa pilots. Basically, that is exactly what ALPA is trying to do, i.e., transfer as much of the flying of regional pilots to mainline pilots as it possibly can. Perhaps some regional pilots are willing to accept that idea due to illusions of potential mainline jobs. I don't happen to be one of those.
Regional pilots, just like mainline pilots, pay ALPA to represent their interests. Therefore, whenever ALPA chooses sides between major and regional, ALPA has to violate its responsibility to one or the other. There are only three ways, that I can think of, to legitimately eliminate this conflict of interest: 1) Combine the pilots and create one seniority list (virtually impossible - especially with a contract carrier), 2) Divide the work based on agreement between the two pilot groups; 3) Remove its representation from one of the two conflicting groups.
ALPA has chosen to avoid/evade all three of these options and promotes and exacerbates the conflict of interest by choosing sides and favoring one group over the other. I believe that this violates ALPA's duty of fair representation. Since ALPA 's decisions in this matter have consistently favored major airline pilot groups, at the expense of regional airline pilot groups, it doesn't take rocket science to determine ALPA's position.
ALPA's behavior is similar to a prosecutor in a criminal case serving as the defense lawyer for the accused. It can't work, hasn't worked and never will work. Change is necessary. If we do not make change, the conflicts will grow wider with every decision until there is outright war between different pilot groups. That level of conflict could eventually destroy the Association. I would not like to see that happen.
I hear you Comair boys aren't too happy about Chautauqua taking your MCO base and doing DCI flying.
That is correct, i.e., I am not happy about the addition of Chautauqua. Now let's look at why that happened. 1) The Delta pilots are busily fighting the ASA/Comair pilots with misguided Scope directed against airlines owned by a single Company. 2) The Comair/ASA pilots are busily fighting the Delta pilots to prevent what they see as misapplication of Scope and attempts to take from them and limit their careers.
Meanwhile back at the farm, the Delta pilots have no contractual provision that controls the sub-contracting of Delta System flying to outside entities and the Comair/ASA pilots have prohibitions against sub-contracting negotiated with Companies that are paper shell corporations, neither of which control anything. As a result, the Company (Delta Air Lines) is free to create havoc for all three of the airlines it owns and play them against each other as well as against an unlimited number of outside entities.
This goes right back to the problems of conflict outlined in my opening paragraphs. The ALPA generated and unresolved conflict of interest between the DAL/CMR/ASA groups operates to create new and additional conflicts of interest vis a vis, Chautauqua, SkyWest, ACA and whomever comes next. Essentially, ALPA has its head firmly embedded where the sun don't shine.
Predatory Scope has demonstrably failed at every airline where it is used. Yet we (ALPA) make no serious effort to correct the problem. Recently, Duane Woerth touched on what he called "brand" scope. I think Woerth may have a handle on the "big picture". but I also know that Woerth's abilities are severely limited by what I see as a total lack of reality on the part of the mainline MEC's.
All of those big MEC's, (DAL, UAL, AAA, NWA, CAL) as well as the APA continue to live in yesterday's world. They remind me of Don Quijote, jousting at windmills. Until they come to the realization that they must deal with the world the way it is now and not the way it was yesterday or how they might like it to be, Woerth can do little and ALPA flounders. Their policies border on brinkmanship and, ironically, they are the one's that will be the major losers if they don't stop living in dream world's.
You will claim that Comair is still expanding... GREAT.
You will also claim that you went on strike to get parity in pay.. GREAT, I applaud you for that.
Wrong, I won't claim that at all. Yes, Comair is still expanding but that has nothing to do with the problems we face. Secondly, we did NOT go on strike to get parity in pay rates. If you believe that, then you have no understanding of why Comair pilots struck.
My question is... when your flying slowly starts getting chipped away by *contract* carriers flying your old routes at slave-labor cost, are you not gonna try to prevent it especially given the fact that you've walked the line for 89 days trying to get rid of the slave labor wages at your airline?
Looking forward to your response...
Again, we did not strike to get rid of "slave labor wages" at our airline. With the exception of 1st year new hire pilots, we did not have slave labor wages.
Yes, we had wages that were lower than we thought they should be but pay rates were not the major objective of our negotiations. If that had been the case, we would never have had a strike.
You are correct it saying that we do not want Delta System flying to be farmed out to subcontractors. Unfortunately, for us, we were not able to achieve a means of preventing that. Why? Once more the same reasons, i.e., the internal conflicts of interest within the ALPA and therefor within the Delta System pilot groups, have operated to prevent effective control of system flying. Until the internal conflicts are resolved, that will continue and management will retain its current advantage.
This entire situation is highly complex and will never be resolved by debates in online forums. It can't even be adequately discussed in these venues. Most line pilots are much too busy defending what they see as their private "turf" to fully comprehend the complexity of what is happening, let alone resolve it.
Political rangling with each other will not resolve anything. There is no real statesmanship at the helm of our union. This is a classic case of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
After reading all that, maybe you understand why I didn't respond to your questions. I doubt it gets us any closer to meaningful solutions.
Best regards.
