Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
09-16-2010, 02:59 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
The only place where a judge has ordered more RJ flying to a regional is AMR and AMR Eagle which are two separate Associations. One under ALPA and one not. In fact, I am not even sure you would have see this or the flow fight or RJ case if AMR was ALPA. ALPA National probably would have never allowed a regional unit to go after these sort of issues if both groups were ALPA.
It further illustrates my statement that it is important to keep and not fracture the Regional and Mainline flying represented by the a larger association at the national level.
The problem with IBT or a third Union representing regional interests is that it allows an all out war with the mainline bargaining unit. My point is that splitting off Regionals from Mainline at National may have effects that many did not even envision. The regional would be free to flight with all their might for any and all flying, going after the mainline bargaining unit as well as the mainline carriers.
As you say mainline pilot groups will always have to allow the flying before a regional airline can be awarded it. Being awarded this flying is a lot different than having it protected or won in a section six cycle. It would require a regional pilot group to actually reach though a holding company to the parent company and then it to the mainline carriers structure to force the issue. That cannot happen due to the exclusivity that all mainline carriers pilot groups' enjoy with their carriers. Start dorking with associations that represent a given group and you could quite easily see this dynamic and relationship change. Exclusivity may be lost. That is a true Danger.
It further illustrates my statement that it is important to keep and not fracture the Regional and Mainline flying represented by the a larger association at the national level.
The problem with IBT or a third Union representing regional interests is that it allows an all out war with the mainline bargaining unit. My point is that splitting off Regionals from Mainline at National may have effects that many did not even envision. The regional would be free to flight with all their might for any and all flying, going after the mainline bargaining unit as well as the mainline carriers.
As you say mainline pilot groups will always have to allow the flying before a regional airline can be awarded it. Being awarded this flying is a lot different than having it protected or won in a section six cycle. It would require a regional pilot group to actually reach though a holding company to the parent company and then it to the mainline carriers structure to force the issue. That cannot happen due to the exclusivity that all mainline carriers pilot groups' enjoy with their carriers. Start dorking with associations that represent a given group and you could quite easily see this dynamic and relationship change. Exclusivity may be lost. That is a true Danger.
) what flying did a judge mandate be outsourced? AMR wasn't in BK, so I assume you are talking about the inherited TWA/TSA contract flying. That was a unique situation since one way or the other a contract was going to get stepped on somewhere and it was limited to 50 seat RJ's anyway. Unless you were talking about something else, but that was all I could think of.As for a separate regional union, first fo all we already have that (namely IBT for RAH and others, and non-union for SKYW and others) but even the ALPA ones have to participate in the exact same predatory bargaining or they themselves will starve. As for the all out war, the ONLY thing stopping all regional groups, regardless of union affiliation, from successfully bidding on 777 flying for DL, UAL, etc is the DL, UAL, etc's respective pilot scope clauses and nothing else. Plenty of ALPA regionals would catapult off the deck in full afterburner to make a bid for 777 flying on behalf of a major/legacy if said legacy gave permission to management to go shopping around.
As far as exclusivity being lost, I've noticed that concern voiced in a number of threads, usually involving RAH (but not always) but I'm not sure where people are getting the active ingredient for such concern. There is nothing RAH is doing that is any threat via outsourcing, codesharing or anything else over and above what is allowed within the DL/UAL/APA/etc PWA's, and I don't think there is a legacy/major PWA that would permit such schenanegans in any form, regardless of a given regional union's affiliation.
As for the role of ALPA in terms of cross-contract "quality control" for lack of a better term, I am all for that. Yet it is almost impossible to enforce. All ALPA can do is to withhold signature, yet all that does is either allow decertification to get around it and/or permits shopping to a non-ALPA provider. The Alpha and Omega of outsourcing is mainline pilot scope. ALPA has a huge role to play, but so does the APA and SWAPA, etc.
Again, I'm not suggesting that we disagree on this issue. I'm just emphasising what is obvious to many (including you and me) but not necessarilly to some. On the eve of a very significant number of retirements for a while, there will be massive pressure to further gut scope in exchange for a cookie even if times are good for us collectively. If times are bad we will face the same pressure but with double the excuse making.
There IS a role for ALPA to play WRT scope and contractual quality control. The "how to" is the kicker. Either way it has got to be A#1 on the list of priorities, far far far above the mythical "taking it back" rhetoric of "a monthly check buys a fully loaded Caddilac" hyperbole. I'm sure management would buy us a fleet of Caddilacs for any pilot group stupid enough to further gut narrowbody flying.
09-16-2010, 03:43 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
At that point people will understand how hard it is to keep everyone moving in the right direction, they will appreciate the seeming machine like smoothness with which our operation runs today, they will yearn for future looking engagement rather than reactive back biting. That is when people will appreciate what Lee has done over the last 5 years, the most difficult 5 years this pilot group has ever faced. You don't always know what you've got till it's gone.
Carl
09-16-2010, 04:14 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
I concur with the broader agreement. As for AMR/APA/AE, (not to be confused with the separate DL AE-APA debate ) what flying did a judge mandate be outsourced? AMR wasn't in BK, so I assume you are talking about the inherited TWA/TSA contract flying. That was a unique situation since one way or the other a contract was going to get stepped on somewhere and it was limited to 50 seat RJ's anyway. Unless you were talking about something else, but that was all I could think of.
) what flying did a judge mandate be outsourced? AMR wasn't in BK, so I assume you are talking about the inherited TWA/TSA contract flying. That was a unique situation since one way or the other a contract was going to get stepped on somewhere and it was limited to 50 seat RJ's anyway. Unless you were talking about something else, but that was all I could think of.As ALPA is set up, each group can go after whatever they want, but in the end mainline strength serves all pilots well.
As for a separate regional union, first fo all we already have that (namely IBT for RAH and others, and non-union for SKYW and others) but even the ALPA ones have to participate in the exact same predatory bargaining or they themselves will starve. As for the all out war, the ONLY thing stopping all regional groups, regardless of union affiliation, from successfully bidding on 777 flying for DL, UAL, etc is the DL, UAL, etc's respective pilot scope clauses and nothing else. Plenty of ALPA regionals would catapult off the deck in full afterburner to make a bid for 777 flying on behalf of a major/legacy if said legacy gave permission to management to go shopping around.
As far as exclusivity being lost, I've noticed that concern voiced in a number of threads, usually involving RAH (but not always) but I'm not sure where people are getting the active ingredient for such concern. There is nothing RAH is doing that is any threat via outsourcing, codesharing or anything else over and above what is allowed within the DL/UAL/APA/etc PWA's, and I don't think there is a legacy/major PWA that would permit such schenanegans in any form, regardless of a given regional union's affiliation.
As for the role of ALPA in terms of cross-contract "quality control" for lack of a better term, I am all for that. Yet it is almost impossible to enforce. All ALPA can do is to withhold signature, yet all that does is either allow decertification to get around it and/or permits shopping to a non-ALPA provider. The Alpha and Omega of outsourcing is mainline pilot scope. ALPA has a huge role to play, but so does the APA and SWAPA, etc.
Mainline pilot groups have exclusivity with their airlines whereas regional operators have a contract for said flying. RJET will try to change a lot of this with a cutout with the Star Alliance. That is where unity within ALPA will help us all and keep us all honest.
Again, I'm not suggesting that we disagree on this issue. I'm just emphasizing what is obvious to many (including you and me) but not necessarily to some. On the eve of a very significant number of retirements for a while, there will be massive pressure to further gut scope in exchange for a cookie even if times are good for us collectively. If times are bad we will face the same pressure but with double the excuse making.
There IS a role for ALPA to play WRT scope and contractual quality control. The "how to" is the kicker. Either way it has got to be A#1 on the list of priorities, far far far above the mythical "taking it back" rhetoric of "a monthly check buys a fully loaded Caddilac" hyperbole. I'm sure management would buy us a fleet of Caddilacs for any pilot group stupid enough to further gut narrowbody flying.
There IS a role for ALPA to play WRT scope and contractual quality control. The "how to" is the kicker. Either way it has got to be A#1 on the list of priorities, far far far above the mythical "taking it back" rhetoric of "a monthly check buys a fully loaded Caddilac" hyperbole. I'm sure management would buy us a fleet of Caddilacs for any pilot group stupid enough to further gut narrowbody flying.
09-16-2010, 04:30 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
.......
.......
Our machine is not running smoothly man. We're currently first among customer complaints. Hopefully that will get better soon, but I don't know how you can say that given the data. Future looking engagement is fine and Lee is not the first one to approach the job that way. Some of us feel that he lost perspective and went beyond future engagement, all the way to being too spring loaded to the management vision. The truth is that no MEC Chairman can ever be management...although most CEO's will be glad to let you think you are. Mostly they are glad to let you think you're "plugged in", as long as you keep giving more than you should. Like SCOPE!!!
Carl
.......
Our machine is not running smoothly man. We're currently first among customer complaints. Hopefully that will get better soon, but I don't know how you can say that given the data. Future looking engagement is fine and Lee is not the first one to approach the job that way. Some of us feel that he lost perspective and went beyond future engagement, all the way to being too spring loaded to the management vision. The truth is that no MEC Chairman can ever be management...although most CEO's will be glad to let you think you are. Mostly they are glad to let you think you're "plugged in", as long as you keep giving more than you should. Like SCOPE!!!
Carl
I can hardly contain.... I can't! It's too beautiful!
09-16-2010, 05:13 PM
ATL A320 B
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: No longer MEM or 9, but still a guy.
Posts: 238
Thanks to all who answered about the Golden X day bidding. I managed to find it with your help...
09-16-2010, 05:17 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Of course, if LM does go to National and Carl takes over then I hope I get to be a czar! Don't know what though... maybe I should be the Delta DC-7 czar.
Man how cool would that be! 18 cylinders per engine! Whats that, 144 spark plugs?? ha ha, "do you have auto ignition?" "oh yeah!"
09-16-2010, 05:19 PM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
but Slow, if you're willing to make me the DC-7 czar.....
09-16-2010, 05:24 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,539
09-16-2010, 05:25 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
NewK walks his... dog?
09-16-2010, 05:32 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
There is nothing RAH is doing that is any threat via outsourcing, codesharing or anything else over and above what is allowed within the DL/UAL/APA/etc PWA's, and I don't think there is a legacy/major PWA that would permit such schenanegans in any form, regardless of a given regional union's affiliation.
They aren't supposed to be flying any airplanes over 76 seats whether those flights carry the Delta code or not.
Lee Moak (and the ALPA National lawyers) have refused to file a grievance on that issue. They say its not prohibited flying because Republic is not an "air carrier". It is a "holding company" and the divisions have separate operating certificates.
I say bull****.
The letter, spirit and intent of the Delta scope clause is being violated but the boys in Herndon do not want to go there.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
