UAL Pilots take Skywest and Mesa jobs

[~~~^~~~]

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.

Like the boy in Orthopaedic shoes, "I stand corrected." I made a logical leap. But a one page letter and service are all that are required to third party Delta in. Nobody probably appreciates just how conservative the RJDC has been. Their legal strategy has been cautious and well thought out.

However, this debate ignores the point - That it is the best interests of Delta pilots to have their MEC work to resolve this rather than trust a Court. If the DMEC had not fought the C&BL of our union, none of their guys would even be furloughed. So how does continuing this war promote their interests, or ours?

And I am not entirely sure that injunctive relief could not be sought that would prohibit ALPA from executing a contract to further harm the Plaintiffs while C2K is still being evaluated. Would that not include a prohibition against negotiating against ASA and Comair pilots in favor of mainline pilots over aircraft allocations?

Regardless, the fact remains scope went from 105 seats when I was hired to 50 seats currently (with a few grandfathered 70 seaters), with my employer, without my representation. To throw a little gas on the fire, here is an interesting article.

P.S. Fly Delta Jets, it is nice to see you back with the Andrew Dice Clay persona...

Delta poised for battle to boost Connection fleet
August 5, 2003 10:16am




Delta Air Lines will decide by the end of the year on the need for additional regional jets for its Connection network to secure 2005 delivery positions. The carrier says it would like to add more 70-seat jets, but must renegotiate scope clause restrictions.

Delta's two wholly owned regional operators, Comair and Atlantic Southeast Airlines (ASA), recently took delivery of their 145th and 100th Bombardier CRJ jets, respectively, and have no more 50-seaters on order beyond the end of the year. They will also have taken delivery of all 58 CRJ700s on order by the end of 2004.

"We continue to make plans for 2005 and beyond and have lots of opportunities, whether [Embraer] ERJs or CRJs. By the end of this year we expect to have formulated a decision," says Fred Buttrell, Delta Connection chief executive. The airline has options on 362 CRJs, but because of a 13-month lead time, some positions in 2004 have already expired.

Delta will need additional jets to sustain growth in capacity, running at about 25% a year and now being outpaced by revenue expansion. It has particular interest in larger aircraft such as the CRJ700.

With rival carriers United Airlines and US Airways rolling back scope clauses and planning to add large numbers of 70-seaters, as well as low-cost competitor JetBlue ordering Embraer 190s, there is growing competitive pressure to expand the CRJ700 fleet. Delta's agreement limits the number of 70-seaters to 58 units unless the mainline carrier grows, which at the moment it is not.

For ASA, there is also the decision over the next 18 months to find a replacement for its 19 ATR 72-210s, the first of which comes off lease in 2005. The airline is evaluating whether to replace the aircraft with a more modern turboprop – the ATR 72-500 or Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 – or a large regional jet. The Atlanta-based carrier, in the meantime, will retire its remaining Embraer EMB-120 Brasilias in August.

Copyright © 2003 Reed Business Information. All Rights Reserved.

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

Originally posted by surplus1

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.

It seems to me that of you take my point at face value, as a given, and Comair has allowed it to happen, then how can they bring the point up now. Kind of like squatters rights. I don't know the law, but that seems like a reasonable assumption. Additionally, with an industry leading contract, and the growth demonstrated over the past 5 years, how can they prove damage, etc. Just thinking like a juror.

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.

This is a response to that squiggles guy, and should be treated as such. He/she thinks that because the Delta pilots allowed a soecific aircraft to be grandfathered, all aircraft of the same seating configuration are up for grabs. Not so.

You guys are easy

--a concerned regional pilot

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't know the law.

This is a response to that squiggles guy, and should be treated as such. He/she thinks that because the Delta pilots allowed a soecific aircraft to be grandfathered, all aircraft of the same seating configuration are up for grabs. Not so.

You guys are easy

--a concerned regional pilot

No kidding.

Nope, you don't understand my point. This is how I see it - your C2K was negotiated outside the rule of law. ALPA failed in its Duty of Fair Representation by allowing this to take place. To the extent that ALPA failed in its Duty to ASA and Comair pilots, those sections of C2K are not binding. The previous agreement, prior to the acquisition of my airline was the 96 contract. In the absence of C2K scope language, the 96 contract language stands. Under the 96 language the aircraft in debate would likely be operated by ASA, or Comair.

In effect, C2K risks being rolled back to C96 language because ALPA failed to have the right parties at the negotiating table. Now ALPA can resolve this by bringing the right parties to the table.

Again, it is my point that the Delta pilots have a lot at risk if their MEC does not work to resolve this issue.

 

[rightrudder]

Yet another thread hijacked by the Delta/RJDC/DCI usuals, spewing the same rhetoric over and over and over again.

Perhaps we should suggest to the moderator a separate category for you guys to engage in mental ma$turbation with one another.

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

No kidding.

Nope, you don't understand my point. This is how I see it - your C2K was negotiated outside the rule of law. ALPA failed in its Duty of Fair Representation by allowing this to take place. To the extent that ALPA failed in its Duty to ASA and Comair pilots, those sections of C2K are not binding. The previous agreement, prior to the acquisition of my airline was the 96 contract. In the absence of C2K scope language, the 96 contract language stands. Under the 96 language the aircraft in debate would likely be operated by ASA, or Comair.

In effect, C2K risks being rolled back to C96 language because ALPA failed to have the right parties at the negotiating table. Now ALPA can resolve this by bringing the right parties to the table.

Again, it is my point that the Delta pilots have a lot at risk if their MEC does not work to resolve this issue.

I get your point. And it's wrong. Even if the language is ruled illegal, you still only get the specific type which was allowed as a grandfathered exception to the 70 seat limit. Any other 71+ seater which Delta could order would not apply. You eluded otherwise. You are wrong. The Delta pilots have very little at risk. Even if ALPA national loses, it is very unlikely that Comair and ASA will gain anything anyway. More likely, a list merger will result, and the Comair and ASA pilots will lose. that's the position I would take as the Delta MEC, and apparently the one they are taking.

--a concerned regional pilot

 

[surplus1]

It seems to me that of you take my point at face value, as a given, and Comair has allowed it to happen, then how can they bring the point up now. Kind of like squatters rights. I don't know the law, but that seems like a reasonable assumption. Additionally, with an industry leading contract, and the growth demonstrated over the past 5 years, how can they prove damage, etc. Just thinking like a juror.

Pardon me, but it doesn't seem to me like you are "thinking like a juror" at all. It doesn't even seem to me that you're thinking like a pilot, most of whom have a pretty good idea of what "assumptions" do to us. Sounds to me like you are thinking like someone how has a "dog in the hunt" and isn't hearing what he wants to hear in support of your own biased views. You have not heard any evidence, you do not appear to know any facts, but yet you are ready to reach a "verdict". I suppose there are potential jurors like that, but good lawyers usually keep them off of juries.

As for Comair (the company) they did not "allow" anything to happen. There were no problems for Comair pilots with the Delta pilots' 1996 contract. These issues and this dispute grow out of the contract that the Delta pilots call "C2K". When that contract was signed, Comair was already owned by Delta, existed only as a corporate shell (alter ego) and had no say in the matter. No person from Comair management ever participated in any way in negotiations between Delta and the Delta pilots. Prior to its acquisition by Delta, Comair management did not agree to any provision of the Delta pilots' PWA and the same had no impact whatever on Comair's operations or future plans.

In contrast, many Delta officials definetly took part in the decision making procees related to the Comair pilots' negotiations for the contract signed in 2001, which they had a right to do. They in fact "called the shots".

The Air Line Pilots Association is the sole bargaining agent for both the Delta pilots and the Comair pilots. As such, ALPA is legally obligated to represent the interests of both groups. Unfortunately, the intentions of the Delta pilots conflict with the interests of the Comair and ASA pilots. Thus ALPA had to choose. It chose to favor the Delta pilots at the expense of the Comair and ASA pilots. It is not possible for the ALPA to represent the interests of Comair and ASA pilots, which the law mandates that it do while simultaneously representing the conflicting interests of the Delta pilots. ALPA was not unaware of that. Therefore, if ALPA chose to harm or to not represent the interests of the Comair and ASA pilots, because it chose to afford preference to the wishes of the Delta pilots, ALPA errs and violates its Duty of Fair Representation. That is what this lawsuit is all about.

Whether or not you think that the Delta pilots should be the preferred group is irrelevant and does not relieve ALPA of its obligations to the Comair/ASA pilots.

I'm not a lawyer, but it appears to me that the ALPA may very well be up the old familiar creek, without a paddle. We'll just have to see what the courts say. We all have our opinions. Be that as it may, we are neither judge nor jury.

If the case goes to trial, and If a jury decides in favor of the plaintifs, there is no doubt in my mind that the ALPA will appeal the verdict. If it does and the court agrees to hear the appeal, it will be heard before a panel of judges, without any jury. Juries sometimes decide cases on the basis of emotion (as evidenced by your remarks). Judges decide cases on the basis of law. I don't know what they may or may not do. I just know that I would not want to be on ALPA's side of this dispute in an appeals court. Like I said, we all have our opinions.

This is a response to that squiggles guy, and should be treated as such. He/she thinks that because the Delta pilots allowed a soecific aircraft to be grandfathered, all aircraft of the same seating configuration are up for grabs. Not so.

I think you misinterpreted Fins comments. What was grandfathered in the past or what may be grandfathered in the future is not the issue in dispute and is irrelevant. The only issue is whether or not the ALPA honored its DFR.

If the court finds that ALPA did not honor its DFR, then the relevant provisions of the contract generating the dispute (negotiated by ALPA and behalf of the Delta pilots) would be stayed from implementation. In other words, the Delta pilots would not be able to restrict the flying of Comair and ASA, nor to limit the number of 70-seat aircraft that they may operate.

While no one on the defendant's side of this dispute is willing to acknowledge that the Delta PWA has or will harm Comair and ASA pilots, the facts (not the opinions) appear to indicate otherwise. That is precisely what the court found in its denial of ALPA's Motion to Dismiss. ALPA also stated and argued that the complaint was moot, because circumstance had lifted the restrictions it imposed on CMR/ASA pilots (and others), yet ALPA itself turned around an renegotiated new restrictions, thus repeating the breach. Therefore, the judge found that the complaint was NOT moot.

Aside from the legalese, if you believe that limiting the operation of 70-seat jets at Comair and ASA does NOT harm the careers of CMR/ASA pilots, especially given the orders and fleet plans that existed before the Delta PWA was signed, then your prejudices have gained control of your reasoning.

Should ALPA lose, Delta Air Lines will still be free to allocate its flying as the corporation may see fit --- a right that has never been challenged by either the Comair or ASA pilots. The only group that thinks it has the "God given right" to tell Delta Air Lines what aircraft may be flown by its other subsidiaries or its subcontractors is the Delta pilots, through ALPA.

If ALPA loses the case they will no longer be able to unilaterally make those decisions and will be enjoined from trying, so long as the three airlines are represented by the same labor union. In that event it is highly probable that the Delta PWA would return to the applicable terms (Scope limits) of the 1996 agreement, as Fins later pointed out. Since those 1996 terms were never challenged by either Comair or ASA pilots, they could not now be challenged after the fact with any promise of success. What would that do? It would remove the ratios in the Delta PWA. It would also make the number of 70-seat jets operated by Delta Connection brand carriers, unlimited. That was the status quo between 1996 and C2K.

In terms of the impact on Comair/ASA pilots, it would simply restore the career expectations and plans that existed prior to the purchase of those carriers by Delta Air Lines. It would also make it possible for Delta Air Lines to negotiate the operation of larger aircraft, not presently operated/flown by the Delta pilots, with its two other subsidiaries. Comair and ASA pilots would gain the right to negotiate directly with the entity that truly controls their destiny, i.e., Delta Air Lines, and not its layered surrogates.

The only way that the Delta pilots could prevent that would be to sit down as equals with CMR/ASA pilots and reach a mutual agreement as to where the "lines" that devide our operations should be drawn. The Delta pilots would lose the ability to arbitrarily draw that line wherever they may choose from time-to-time. It won't give Comair or ASA 737s, DC-9's or Airbus 319/320s which, IMO, rightfully belong to Delta pilots, but it might give us CRJ-900s or the EMB-190.

You may not understand that, but the intelligent Delta pilots do. That is why they frequently threaten to leave ALPA in the event that ALPA does not prevail. What's wrong with that is twofold. 1) The ALPA cannot survive (financially) as we know it, if the Delta pilots leave. 2)Their departure will not reverse the verdict. While it would leave them free to try to negotiate the same contract again, on their own, Comair and ASA pilots would be equally free to negotiate directly with Delta for the same thing. The likelihood that the Company will ever agree to again hamstring itself in the current way is, IMO, remote. Therefore, Fins has a point. It behooves both the Delta pilots and the ALPA to attempt to settle this dispute, long before it gets to that point. Perhaps I am wrong, but if they did so, I believe they would find that the ASA/CMR pilots are not nearly as unreasonable as they themselves appear to be.

You guys are easy

I guess that means that you believe you are not. Think again. In my opinion, you're mistaken about that too.

 

[scopeCMRandASA]

Surplus,

Thank you for verifying what brought me out of lurk mode. You guys want more than what you had. More than you allowed. You can type your speeches if you want, but it is obvious that you want to compete with Delta pilots for their flying as well. Worse, you are using the union as your excuse. Law or no law, chalk one up for somebody who used to support the RJDC and now does NOT. Some obviously will do anything to advance, I am not one of them. Here's to hoping this suit loses BIG time.

--a concerned regional pilot

 

[Freight Dog]

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) An easy question, answered many times before.

Once again... Delta MEC cannot negotiate your pay and work rules. What they CAN do is say - We won't take pay cuts unless everyone else takes paycuts and that includes the WO's. That's hardly considered negotiating your pay and work rules outside of your MEC. I've covered this 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.

You know, last time I went through ATL, I saw quite a few CMR airplanes. That used to be almost exclusively ASA's playground. Personally, I see other DCI carriers being way more of a threat to you, but turn a blind eye towards them. I think that will be your biggest downfall. Yet, somehow I think you'll blame Delta ALPA and their MEC for it. In other words, why not file single carrier petition for CMR and ASA first?

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

OK, I'd be all for a merger. DOH won't work for obvious reasons. Gotta cover the furloughees too... how would you make it work?

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.)

Personally, I think you're getting dilligent and fair representation. The lawsuit claims harm done to you, and you'll have to prove harm. It's going to be a lot tougher than you think especially given the fact that you've grown and expanded, all on account of Delta furloughees. I think ultimately they're the ones that have been harmed.

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

Fins... what are you talking about?? Who is precluding your MEC from negotiating your pay and work rules?? You can negotiate whatever you want. You just can't expand the wannabe Delta Airlines on account of the *ORIGINAL* Delta Airlines. Do you not believe that Delta pilots have the same rights as you - job protection, and yes that may very well be directed at you - at least until you achieve parity with payscales, work rules, and retirement.

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.

It starts with you getting together with CMR, merging, and negotiate scope that keeps DCI flying in-house. But this is what I agree with. However, RJDC is barking up the wrong tree.

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.

This is where you and I truly have a difference of opinion. The core of RJDC suit is harm to Comair (and ASA) pilots by Delta pilots. You weren't forced to give up your Fokkers, you just couldn't get a DC-9 to replace it, or B737. Once again, obvious reasons. I'll tell you this much - if you guys were getting mass-furloughed as a result of this, I'd definitely be on your side. Instead, you appear to be the kind that's out for more and more on account of misery of others, all under false pretenses that you've been harmed.

 

[Freight Dog]

Surplus,

What were the terms of the original agreement when you were purchases with regards to jets? It had to have been addressed.

Personally, I doubt you'll see CRJ-900's and ERJ-190's even if you win the lawsuit. That privilege would most likely go to Mesa who will gladly fly them at your 50 seat rates, and you will have effectively destroyed your option to prevent them from stealing your flying... gotta love the case law.

So out of curiosity... where would you draw the line? Right now, you say A319/320, B737, however if you win this case... who's to say that you wouldn't try to take away ALL of Delta narrowbody flying a chunk at the time. Should one take your word and the goodness of your heart, or is that no longer the way things work? Something has to be in writing, and it is right now, and you're suing because you've been harmed. Right....


Aloha!

 

[~~~^~~~]

Frieght Dog - First, thanks for actually reading my post and considering the content. Second, Surplus 1 can give you a better answer, but our airlines were acquired under the 96 scope agreement. I think by going forward with the lawsuit, ALPA risks putting the clock back to 1996 for the DMEC and the Delta pilots, at least as far as Section 1 of the contract goes.

There is a lot of confusion over "harm." The article quoted from Reed's Business outlines the difference between what could be and, what is, due to scope. You may be right that the market is responsible for some of this, but, by breaking the rules ALPA has removed the market from the equation. We will never know, because ALPA has arbitrarily capped us.

There are many more responsible ways ALPA could have handled this. They could have allowed the Comair and ASA MEC's to represent their pilots to Delta to achieve a system scope solution, or they could have merged us. These options are still available to ALPA, but they are unacceptable to the Delta MEC.

Take another look at Surplus' post. Don't you agree it is time for a change in the Delta MEC's ALPA apartied strategy?