UAL Pilots take Skywest and Mesa jobs

[scopeCMRandASA]

From squiggles>

(1) ASA is not growing, we are shrinking because we have no scope and ALPA will not allow us to negotiate with the party that controls scope (therefore we could not sell it, we don't have it and can't get it). It is looking like I will loose my 4th stripe this fall due to displacements at ASA.

Untrue. You just have to look over at Comair. No scope either and growing by leaps and bounds.

(2) US Labor law prohibits a company from operating an alter ego subsidiary for the purpose of undermining collective bargaining efforts. This is how the "Single Carrier Petitions" are brought before the NLRB. I posted some on the law, but don't have my research handy. You can probably find it archived on this board if you are genuinely interested.

True, but not in your context. This law applies to section 6 negotiations, not every day operations. If it were true, it would be done. If it were true, why have CMR and ASA not filed a single carrier petition?

(3) US Air furloughees do not get half the airplanes, they get half the pilot slots. In other words, they get the left seat unless they can not qualify. This has not been a problem at US Air, but American and United hired some very low time pilots who don't have the time to hold an ATP. One Harrier pilot I know comes to mind. He got hired at AA with less than 700 TT. He is now furloughed, but can not qual for the left seat of an RJ at Eagle. Besides, how many 1,500 hour Captains should be flying around?

They should get half the seats, IMO, because it is their scope which is at play. Any other view is just plain selfish and greedy. This goes for the other carriers J4J as well. If I were in a J4J situation, I would do it only as a way to keep current while I find a different job. Not having time enough to hold an ATP? How many can this possibly apply to? 1 or 2 at each carrier? Even 10 at each carrier, who cares? Pay protect them and move on. How many have CMR and ASA hired in the past who cannot hold an ATP?

My MEC is not even allowed in the negotiations over my wages and working conditions and I do not have the opportunity to vote on contracts with the Delta pilots that control my career. In effect my union representation has been hijacked. The RJDC will hopefully get the ship back under control and restore our union.

You'd better start the reacll if you MEC is not negotiating for your wages and working conditions. I guess CMRs contract is also a farse as well, since they can't either. You have all the power to negotiate anything you want to except which flying the Delta pilots must do. That is the reason for our existence in the first place, IMO. Flying which the mainline pilots did not "win" in that particular contract year.

--a concerned regional pilot

 

[surplus1]

Surplus, do you think J4J is radically different from staple?

In a word YES, I do. J4J is a labor union stealing from its less favorved members to give to its more favored members. It's wrotten to the core and it violates the union's DFR.

You've said a lot about the victims "voting for it". A "vote" is something you cast voluntarily and implies consent. I submit that there are no victims of rape who feel they consented (voted for it) while the rapist was holding a gun to their head. A contract entered into as a consequence of duress or coercion is not a valid contract. Sorry, but your perspective is flawed and your logic is warped.

A "staple" or any other form of seniority integration is the result of an agreement (or arbitration award) between two pilot groups brought together as the result of a merger of the corporate entities. Yes, that's radically different from J4J.

I was under the impression that the majority of CMR/ASA pilots would go for the staple...

I don't mean to be "personal" but based on your series of posts, you are obviously under a great many impressions, most of them without substance.

Would it be possible to merge the Comair and Delta lists using a staple? Yes, it would be. The devil is in the details. Any "staple" would have to include a great many provisos that protect the interests of both parties. Without those explicit and agreed details, a "pure staple" between Delta/Comair would simply result in the furlough of 1310 Comair pilots; approximately 2/3 of the seniority list and the displacement of the remainder. If you have the impression that Comair pilots "would go for" that, I say again, your impressions are without substance.

Those pilots at Comair who drool at the prospect of a "Delta number" are the very ones that would be unemployed tomorrow, and for the foreseable future, if a staple were implemented today. The rest of us (old farts like me and a great number of my juniors) have no interest in a number at the bottom of the Delta list. Before you say it, we also have no interest in DOH integrations which would decidely harm the Delta pilots. We do have an interest in ending the dispute and we would like to see that happen. Candidly, if it can be done without a merger of lists, that would probably be best for all concerned.

It is not right for them to try to take from us. It would be equally wrong for us to try to take from them. There are better ways to end the conflict.

The real problem we have is that many (too many) people employed by "major airlines" appear to believe that they have been endowed with the unalienable right, to step on fellow pilots employed at regional carriers. I and others are here to tell them and you, that we do not share their idea and do not recognize their perceived "rights".

Whatever the method they choose in the attempt to take from us, be it predatory scope, Jets for Jobs, manipulation of the union or any other ruse, is going to be resisted by all available and legal means. It's that simple.

You don't have to agree with any of it, but you do have to understand that's the way it is. It's not pretty, it's not nice, it's not desirable. It's a civil war. War is never pleasant and each of the protagonists believes that his is the most holy grail.

Sooner or later (probably the latter) a victor will emerge. At that point "to the victor go the spoils". That won't make it right, but that's how life is. Deja vue.

PS: The idea that the ALPA is a "democracy" is a farce. ALPA is an oligarchy.

 

[aroundtheblock]

Alot of you are missing a couple main points.

1. United is attempting to take care of their own as much as they financially can, trying to relieve as much of the burden on those families as possible. They should be commended not trashed.

2. Skywest and Mesa, if the deal is like US Airways, are only getting these planes because the J4J commuters guarenteed furloughed pilot employment. To imply they are taking away jobs if wrong.

3. If Mesa and Skywest are growing, due to the mainline shrinking, then they should be lucky to get the quality and experience of a furloughed pilot, to help out alot of these new upgrades. I'm furloughed US Airways, pushing 11,000 hours, and feel I could help one of these commuters during expansion times. I personally met a Mesa copilot in PHL who was hired and on the line at 275 hours total time. Since he would be senior to me and thus upgrade before me, who do you think he'd like as his copilot.... an experienced pilot, grateful to be there instead of on the street like so many others, or another 275 hour copilot.

4. Don't lose sight of what you got into this profession for in the 1st place. Though many of us love what we do, I doubt many of us would have taken the Mesa route if we thought that is where our careers would top out. Your goal for most of you should not be worrying about if this furloughed guy is having his salary suplimented but rather to make contacts and relationships with these pilots. They are the future of United or US Airways (if there is a future there). Instead of being a hinderance for a year, they could be you ticket out of the commuters for years to come.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Hey,
Scope this, grow this, mainline shrinking, jobs being stolen, lots of crap to keep us at each others throats.
Wake up and smell the bottom of your shoe we have all stepped in it.
Mainline pilots for not supporting the regional pilots in their quest for a decent paycheck and working conditions, and the regional pilots willing to sell themselves cheaply for some quality 121 time.
Mainline guys have skrewed the pooch and now can look foreward to flying the right seat at a regional for 1/3rd the pay and bennies, Regional pilots are standing in line for sloppy seconds and no hope of getting to the big game, ever.

I will make it simple, the enemy is managment, the good guys wear stripes on their shoulders. There it is simple, litmus test? Has managment ever came to your(any) pilot group and said you guys are doing a great job, here is a truckload of spare cash for you?
Nope, didn't think so, put the crosshairs where they belong, not on the guy sitting in the foxhole next to you. Someone has to watch your 6 while you sleep.
While we fight, they(MGMT) laughs and issue themselves stock and fat bonuses.
WAKE UP!
PBR

 

[PBRstreetgang]

P.S.
Econ 101, mgmt will not rest until left seat 777 guy and rt seat 1900 guys wages are the same. do you think they will go up or down?
PBR

 

[~~~^~~~]

Tell me something fins... why should your MEC be around Delta pilot negotiations?

We should not be involved in all negotiations, but we do have the right to participate in negotiations involving our pay and working conditions. ALPA National calls it a "system scope solution." Unfortunately those at National are unwilling to bring the Delta MEC to the table. The Delta MEC has refused to participate unless they are guaranteed everything they want, up front. (That is not negotiation)

Once again fins... I challenge you to give me a solution to this problem. I asked you this a few months ago, and never got an answer. Address your plight as you see it, address mainline plight to keep their jobs, address the thousands of furloughees from mainline, come up with a REALISTIC solution. Also, tell me how is RJDC going to protect you against Mesa offering to fly your RJ's for a fraction of your cost?

I'll be waiting..

Maybe you can solve this for everyone...

Best regards!

An easy question, answered many times before.

ALPA has a long history of resolving merger battles. Lessons learned have been codified in the Constitution and Bylaws of our union. This document provides for a merger when airlines are operationally integrated. A petition for an implementation date was properly filed by the ASA MEC during the 2000 Board of Director's meeting. I continue to believe the answer to the problem is found in the Constitution and Bylaws of the union, either through merger, or by applying the representational rights afforded the ASA and Comair pilots under US labor law.

So plan A is a merger (in my book, not the RJDC's).

Plan B would be dilligent representation of ASA and Comair pilots.
The Union's Constitution holds that members should not be able to use the union to harm other members. In effect, Delta pilots should not be able to harm me while my MEC is not present to defend my interests. By shutting out my representatives, the union had failed in its duty of fair representation. (A lousy version of plan B is in place at CO, they have one MEC with COEX but no common seniority list.)

This brings us to plan C. If the union will not obey its rules and the law of the land and they refuse to negotiate, then you have no choice but to go to Court to get the union to obey the rules. Plan C is difficult and expensive, but so far, it is working. The Court has ruled that it will hear the case, discovery is going forward, then we will prepare for trial. Hopefully ALPA, already knowing full well where this is going, will tire of defending an lawsuit where they are arguing against collective bargaining (strange arguement for a union, eh?) and force a solution. Either way the outcome is the same - we will get to represent our pilots in matters involving their pay and working conditions.

End of story

Moral of story - If Delta wants effective scope and we want any scope we have to work together. Despite our different interests the purpose of a union is to bring employees together to bargain collectively with their employer.

P.S.

It would be preferable for the Delta MEC if they were to work with ALPA to settle the litigation before the next aircraft order, if the airplane is anywhere around 100 seats. Remember the lawsuit was filed when scope was set at 105 seats. If the airline orders an aircraft, even CRJ700's, the RJDC is in a position to seek injunctive relief that would basically put the Court in charge of where the airplanes go. (Now I could be way, way, off in my yeoman's read of the law, but I do know for sure that it was C2K scope that triggered the lawsuit.) ALPA would be much better off negotiating fairly rather than leaving it to the Court because candidly, the facts of the case are clearly in the ASA / Comair pilots' favor. ALPA kept breaking the rules and now has a nasty history of conduct that can not be hidden. We are used to ALPA's political actions, but the Court is not. A jury would be surprised by ALPA shenannigans and your typical jurist does not have much sympathy for "fat cat" airline pilots to begin with.

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

It would be preferable for the Delta MEC if they were to work with ALPA to settle the litigation before the next aircraft order, if the airplane is anywhere around 100 seats. Remember the lawsuit was filed when scope was set at 105 seats. If the airline orders an aircraft, even CRJ700's, the RJDC is in a position to seek injunctive relief that would basically put the Court in charge of where the airplanes go. (Now I could be way, way, off in my yeoman's read of the law, but I do know for sure that it was C2K scope that triggered the lawsuit.) ALPA would be much better off negotiating fairly rather than leaving it to the Court because candidly, the facts of the case are clearly in the ASA / Comair pilots' favor. ALPA kept breaking the rules and now has a nasty history of conduct that can not be hidden. We are used to ALPA's political actions, but the Court is not. A jury would be surprised by ALPA shenannigans and your typical jurist does not have much sympathy for "fat cat" airline pilots to begin with.

This sounds like something the RJDC would put out, and I suppose you got it there. How else are they going to get contributions unless they "promise"something in return. THe burden of proof is enormous here, and IMO the RJDC doesn't have it. ALPA has been negotiating the same way for years. Their liability is no different on a wholy owned than a non-wholly owned.

It looks to me as if your 105 seat limit applied to a specific aircraft --not a general 105 seater, and 105 wasn't even in the language.

A jury can say whatever they want, but they cannot tell Delta where to operate a "105 seater". But keep dreaming, and keep sending those checks. And keep trying to ruin the industry for those of us who are moving up legitimately.

--a concerned regional pilot

 

[~~~^~~~]

This sounds like something the RJDC would put out, and I suppose you got it there. How else are they going to get contributions unless they "promise"something in return.

No the RJDC did not put that out. You could look on their web site, beause they publish their opinions and the factual basis relied on.

That is "my read" based on the differences between scope before and after C2K. Yes, the scope limit was over 100 seats and the aircraft was the BAE146.

The RJDC effort is the right thing to do, collectively, as a union. Look at what has happened to airlines like Allegehny and CC Air, who trusted ALPA and the mainline pilots to do what was best for them.

Candidly, you are a frustrated mainline pilot, not a "concerned regional pilot." Please explain what the difference is. The only difference I see has to do with ALPA politics. Why don't you start another thread to explain why regional pilots do not deserve union representation.

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

No the RJDC did not put that out. You could look on their web site, beause they publish their opinions and the factual basis relied on.

That is "my read" based on the differences between scope before and after C2K. Yes, the scope limit was over 100 seats and the aircraft was the BAE146.

The RJDC effort is the right thing to do, collectively, as a union. Look at what has happened to airlines like Allegehny and CC Air, who trusted ALPA and the mainline pilots to do what was best for them.

Candidly, you are a frustrated mainline pilot, not a "concerned regional pilot." Please explain what the difference is. The only difference I see has to do with ALPA politics. Why don't you start another thread to explain why regional pilots do not deserve union representation.

Your frustration is showing. You took a stab in the dark, and somebody called you on it. I looked up the language in Delta's contract back in 96. The limit was 70 seats. An exception was made for a type specific plane, which won't likely be flown on the Delta property again. To even use this argument shows what the RJDC types are really after. They want the bigger planes. All this time they have been saying they want fair representation, which would mean unlimited 70 seaters, but this guy just expanded his thoughts to actually larger airplanes. With this mentality running around out there, I might just start that thread. You don't deserve union representation by ALPA, with that mentality. You want more than your fair share, 70 seats in this case. That assumes your complaint is even valid, a big assumption.

I always find it funny when people edit their posts as soon as they are posted. I notice you neglected to comment on the fact, since you're so proper about facts, that no jury can tell Delta where to place a 100 seater. Delta has publically said it will be at mainline. Do you thiunk the Delta pilkots might have a lawsuit if they go anywhere else?

--a concerned regional pilot

 

[surplus1]

THe burden of proof is enormous here, and IMO the RJDC doesn't have it.

The burden of proof in DFR litigation is indeed high. IMO the plaintiffs do have it this time. Well have to see, won't we?

ALPA has been negotiating the same way for years.

Please keep in mind that the fact that one has been violating the law for a long time, does not equate to the right to do so. The longevity of the alleged malfeasance simply provides the plaintiff with greater opportunity to prove it. Additionally, repeated violations of the statue do not establish precedent that permits those violations to continue.

Their liability is no different on a wholy owned than a non-wholly owned.

That's an interesting point. Even the judge that refused to grant ALPA its motion to dismiss the case, raised that point. If ALPA doesn't win, a lot of apple carts will be overturned. Your point is hardly favorable to the ALPA.

A jury can say whatever they want, but they cannot tell Delta where to operate a "105 seater".

You are correct. Please note however that the plaintiffs have not asked a judge or a jury to tell Delta where it may operate any aircraft or for that matter, anything else. The courts are being asked to prevent ALPA from violating its duty of fair representation. ALPA, not Delta.