Re: RAH
#61
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Nobody's berating the pilots who take the work. Most of us are just trying to get you to see that it only makes sense for you to do so if the regionals are your final dream job. If your final dream job is a major, then you have to understand that you're working to undermine your own dream. It's not berating...it's just explaining reality.
I only have this job because of all the great men that created ALPA in the 1930's and fought managements at great expense. These men were looking out for the pilots of the future at the expense of what might have been best for their own short term interests. They were not fools. They were heroes and people of great integrity. I owe them a ton. When I turned down the American B scale interview in 1982, I did so with a similar sense of wanting to do the right thing...and I hoped it would somehow work out for me someday.
Carl
![](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/clear.gif)
#62
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Carl
#63
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
But how are all of us supposed to get all of those thousands of hours of TPIC time needed to be worthy enough to get someone to call us back for an interview. Sure you can say go get a job flying corporate or some other form of turbine flying but the reality is those jobs are so scarce that it's next to impossible to find something without the same experience it takes to get on with a major to begin with...
Carl
#64
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Why is this RAH stuff in the majors section? there is one airline (Frontier) that qualifies as a national, and then a bunch of seperate regionals all owned by a parent holding company.
If that's the guidelines, then they need to include the Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgans and Virgin America's of the world...
doesn't it belong in the regionals section....
just sayin.
If that's the guidelines, then they need to include the Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgans and Virgin America's of the world...
doesn't it belong in the regionals section....
just sayin.
To get around the lawsuit brought by the APA back in 05, RAH began gaming the system. ALPA lawyers signed off on it but they’re now getting called on it in other areas. It is our view these jets must leave the system and anyone else who wants to play this game must also leave the system.
As to getting the flying back, that’s up to contract 2012 and that is to come. We won’t get the jets on mainline property nor will we prevent any other DCI from flying them in their place, but they won’t be here. And as to those ALPA lawyers, they're lawyers? What was it that the John Adams character said in the play 1776: I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, two men are called a law firm, and three or more become a Congress.
The Board finds a single transportation system only when there is substantial integration of operations, financial control, and labor and personnel functions. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 32 NMB 163 (2005); Huron and Eastern Ry. Co., Inc., 31 NMB 450 (2004); Portland & Western R. R., Inc., 31 NMB 71 (2003); American Airlines and Reno Air, 26 NMB 467 (1999). Further, the Board has noted that a substantial degree of overlapping ownership, senior management, and Boards of Directors is critical to finding a single transportation system. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., d/b/a Precision Airlines and Valley Flying Serv., Inc., d/b/a Northeast Express Reg’l Airlines, 20 NMB 619 (1993). The Board’s criteria for substantial integration of operations do not require total integration of operations. US Airways/America West Airlines, 33 NMB 49 (2006).
I don't know all this legal stuff. I think its just hard for the average line pilot to believe that Republic is not an air carrier. What the heck is Republic Air Holdings if its not a company providing air transportation? They are tricking the system through a legal subterfuge.
Right is right. Our contract prevents codesharing with a company that has Airbuses and E-190s. At least we thought it did.
At this point, ALPA may have to file this grievance just to maintain any sort of credibility with the membership. We've been giving away pieces of our scope clause for so long that its kinda like the sun rising in the morning. A little scope erosion pops up -- ALPA lets it slide or agrees to "settle". Drip, drip, drip.
I'm just tired of it.
I don't know all this legal stuff. I think its just hard for the average line pilot to believe that Republic is not an air carrier. What the heck is Republic Air Holdings if its not a company providing air transportation? They are tricking the system through a legal subterfuge.
Right is right. Our contract prevents codesharing with a company that has Airbuses and E-190s. At least we thought it did.
At this point, ALPA may have to file this grievance just to maintain any sort of credibility with the membership. We've been giving away pieces of our scope clause for so long that its kinda like the sun rising in the morning. A little scope erosion pops up -- ALPA lets it slide or agrees to "settle". Drip, drip, drip.
I'm just tired of it.
#65
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Carl
#66
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
If ALPA is really the one who keeps pulling the football away from Charlie Mainline pilot then ALPA needs to be replaced, but before that is a viable option we have to self educate to the point where a significant majority of the membership is loud and clear about scope being the number one issue. We are not there yet, but it appears we are finally making progress.
-----
Boiler, I agree with gloopy, scope is solely our responsibility. I believe you believe that as well…
Seems to me you're telling mainline pilots it's their fault scope erosion has happened and at the same time you believe they should not pursue this obvious violation in our scope. How is it that you don't believe that RAH is a single entity and why not question ALPA's conflicted lawyers?
Incorrect. I understand fully why you and others would think its a clear violation of your scope language...I also happen to see the legal argument of why its actually not a violation.
Just because I disagree with your conclusion doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.
Correct - the problem is that laypeople (you and me) can read something language on paper and think its black-and-white, while people to practicea living can see a multitude of holes, end-runs and workarounds....often on the meaning of a single word or phrase.
Hence the creation of "crewroom lawyers"...
So are you ready to fire up that DFR lawsuit?
Intent is considered...but so is past practice. The fact that a grievance wasn't pursued prior to this STS ruling, when RAH subsidiary Republic Airlines was already operating aircraft larger than DAL scope allows, *will* be considered.
There will have to be a compelling argument made of exactly what changed from the day before this ruling to the day after it, for this ruling to matter one hill of beans in the eyes of an Arbitrator.
This, to me, is the crux of the issue...one that my wife and I butted heads on MANY times during my tenure as an ALPA committe volunteer.
Pilots read contracts differently than attorneys do.
What a pilot thinks is black and white, or "bottom line common sense", isn't always that way when you start discussing ACTUAL language in a legal manner. Which is one reason why, historically, pilots get their asses handed to them by Ford & Harrison professionals.
But Delta doesn't have domestic codesharing with Frontier - that's the point.
Don't mistake my posts as meaning that I *want* Delta's scope clause to be weakened, because I don't. I'd love nothing more than for every mainline carrier to slowly recapture the scope they gave away over the last two decades.
But the fact remains that legal professionals with decades of experience have repeatedly told your reps that such a scope grievance is a loser. Its one's right to disagree with their analysis, but the opinion of your paid legal professionals on matters of contract law shouldn't be dismissed offhand simply because you don't like what they tell you.
Just because I disagree with your conclusion doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.
Correct - the problem is that laypeople (you and me) can read something language on paper and think its black-and-white, while people to practicea living can see a multitude of holes, end-runs and workarounds....often on the meaning of a single word or phrase.
Hence the creation of "crewroom lawyers"...
So are you ready to fire up that DFR lawsuit?
Intent is considered...but so is past practice. The fact that a grievance wasn't pursued prior to this STS ruling, when RAH subsidiary Republic Airlines was already operating aircraft larger than DAL scope allows, *will* be considered.
There will have to be a compelling argument made of exactly what changed from the day before this ruling to the day after it, for this ruling to matter one hill of beans in the eyes of an Arbitrator.
This, to me, is the crux of the issue...one that my wife and I butted heads on MANY times during my tenure as an ALPA committe volunteer.
Pilots read contracts differently than attorneys do.
What a pilot thinks is black and white, or "bottom line common sense", isn't always that way when you start discussing ACTUAL language in a legal manner. Which is one reason why, historically, pilots get their asses handed to them by Ford & Harrison professionals.
But Delta doesn't have domestic codesharing with Frontier - that's the point.
Don't mistake my posts as meaning that I *want* Delta's scope clause to be weakened, because I don't. I'd love nothing more than for every mainline carrier to slowly recapture the scope they gave away over the last two decades.
But the fact remains that legal professionals with decades of experience have repeatedly told your reps that such a scope grievance is a loser. Its one's right to disagree with their analysis, but the opinion of your paid legal professionals on matters of contract law shouldn't be dismissed offhand simply because you don't like what they tell you.
Serious question...how does a ruling of a Single Transportation System for Republic Airways Holdings change a thing with regards to Delta scope? After all, STS rulings are for union representation purposes, not operations.
Shuttle America and Chautauqua certificates are still flying DAL code, not Frontier and Republic certificates that operate the aircraft larger than DAL scope allows. This ruling will not change that.
I guess I fail to see the smoking gun here that would allow DALPA a successful grievance on Section 1 issues that they somehow didn't have before...am I missing something?
Shuttle America and Chautauqua certificates are still flying DAL code, not Frontier and Republic certificates that operate the aircraft larger than DAL scope allows. This ruling will not change that.
I guess I fail to see the smoking gun here that would allow DALPA a successful grievance on Section 1 issues that they somehow didn't have before...am I missing something?
I'm still not getting what has changed today vs. Monday; why would this be any more of a "slam-dunk" grievance today than it was previously when Republic was operating 99-seat E190s? Are those not considered "large aircraft" under the Delta scope clause?
Why would a STS ruling, that only considers employee union representation, strengthen such a case?
Why would a STS ruling, that only considers employee union representation, strengthen such a case?
If it was as slam-dunk a grievance as some here believe it to be, why wouldn't ALPA have pursued it by now? If they didn't pursue such a grievance due to politics (which Moak & needing "RJ pilot support" is moot in this case since RAH is represented by the IBT), then they'd be setting themselves up for a rather strong DFR case.
If they didn't pursue such a grievance because lawyers who actually practice contract/labor law (unlike internet & crewroom lawyers all around the industry) are telling them the fight would be a loser, that's all together different.
Besides, a competent (and highly-paid) contract attorney would make the argument that Republic Airways Holdings is simply a holding company for a portfolio of airlines and does not itself undertake, either directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
Best of luck if this goes forward, but in my opinion, if the VERY experienced and VERY highly paid ALPA lawyers in Herndon think this is a loser...it probably is.
Besides, a competent (and highly-paid) contract attorney would make the argument that Republic Airways Holdings is simply a holding company for a portfolio of airlines and does not itself undertake, either directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.
Best of luck if this goes forward, but in my opinion, if the VERY experienced and VERY highly paid ALPA lawyers in Herndon think this is a loser...it probably is.
Last edited by forgot to bid; 04-09-2011 at 06:12 PM.
#67
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Nobody's berating the pilots who take the work. Most of us are just trying to get you to see that it only makes sense for you to do so if the regionals are your final dream job. If your final dream job is a major, then you have to understand that you're working to undermine your own dream. It's not berating...it's just explaining reality.
I only have this job because of all the great men that created ALPA in the 1930's and fought managements at great expense. These men were looking out for the pilots of the future at the expense of what might have been best for their own short term interests. They were not fools. They were heroes and people of great integrity. I owe them a ton.
It's always a choice. I'm sure there were a ton of pilots who wanted to fly an A320 for Spirit when their guys struck. That would have been great turbine time. Only 2 pilots actually did that. Why did so many other pilots not do it? Answer: They made a CHOICE not to.
Your work at the regionals for the pay you are willing to accept is lessening the chance that major opportunity will ever come your way. It's like buying lottery tickets in a contest that promises your odds will get worse with the more tickets you buy. Why would anyone buy lots of tickets if your odds get worse?
That is absolutely untrue. Many 91 and 135 corporate operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many non-sched freight operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many foreign airlines are looking and will even type rate you to come and fly a contract...and the pay is better than a regional.
Do you think they'll listen. Doubtful. But truth is truth even if some will not hear it.
#68
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I read what you wrote... and all I will say is this: That is easy for you or me to say.... now. Just like guys talking about retiring early. Easy to blather on about until you are actually faced with the decision. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you did in fact turn down another job for that philosophical reason. good for you. I think times are much different now also.
The much ballyhooed pilot shortage we have been hearing about for tha last 20 years STILL hasn't materialized, so there aren't any more jobs to be had.. and guess what.. SOMEBODY's gonna take those jobs. Kind of like GS with guys on furlough. I admire your philosophical stance as I said, but from a practical standpoint, you are whizzin in the wind. It is not an easy problem with a simple solution.
As you know, we didn't cave on scope for personal pay increases as is stated so often by the RJ pilots here. We did it through the fear tactics of our airlines going broke without it, and the carrot tactics stating that RJ growth would also mean mainline growth. We were wrong in ever giving in on Scope. RJ pilots are wrong to continue to work for shamefully low wages given their responsibilities.
Carl
#69
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
With all due respect there's more than enough blame to go around, at the end of the day folks are going to do what's best for them. Even if it means selling the junior guys down the river, taking a job which they know isn't the "ethical" think to do, so on and so on.
I'm already seeing it. I frequently speak to groups of young pilot candidates. I always ask the audience for a quick show of hands regarding who wants to join the military, who wants to fly corporate, who wants to fly for a regional, and who wants to fly for a major. The vast majority of hands go up for a corporate flight job. Next is the military. Next is a major airline. Dead last is a regional airline. Many times, there are no hands for regional airlines at all.
Carl
#70
![Default](https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I agree.
This is the part that is so puzzling. Your work at the regionals for the pay you are willing to accept is lessening the chance that major opportunity will ever come your way. It's like buying lottery tickets in a contest that promises your odds will get worse with the more tickets you buy. Why would anyone buy lots of tickets if your odds get worse?
I understand and appreciate how much you would like that opportunity. But your work lessens those opportunities. You are getting qualified to take a job that you may never get due to your work to get qualified.
That is absolutely untrue. Many 91 and 135 corporate operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many non-sched freight operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many foreign airlines are looking and will even type rate you to come and fly a contract...and the pay is better than a regional.
Carl
This is the part that is so puzzling. Your work at the regionals for the pay you are willing to accept is lessening the chance that major opportunity will ever come your way. It's like buying lottery tickets in a contest that promises your odds will get worse with the more tickets you buy. Why would anyone buy lots of tickets if your odds get worse?
I understand and appreciate how much you would like that opportunity. But your work lessens those opportunities. You are getting qualified to take a job that you may never get due to your work to get qualified.
That is absolutely untrue. Many 91 and 135 corporate operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many non-sched freight operators are looking and the pay is better than a regional. Many foreign airlines are looking and will even type rate you to come and fly a contract...and the pay is better than a regional.
Carl
And I have looked for other jobs, foreign is out as I have a wife that has a stable corporate job making better than livable wages and I don't think she would be too keen on me packing it up and moving over seas for several years. If I were single and didn't have other responsibilities I would have looked into the foreign stuff and I agree for some that's a great option but for most moving to some country on the other side of the world just to be a martyr for the industry is out of the question. As for the part 91 and 135 jobs, everything I've found the pay is garbage and you are on call for 25 days a month and I'd still only be getting SIC time while everyone else is still at a regional upgrading and moving on. If you guys reign in scope and I get furloughed you won't hear a peep from me. I think it would be great for the industry. But at this point it is, for most anyways, the path of least resistance.
But besides all of that, none of your ideas would fix the fundamental problem with the industry. You still have 10's of thousands of regional pilots out there and there are many more new pilots who are looking for work. You have a lot of come to jesus speeches to give if you plan on educating every regional and every commercial pilot out there who is throwing their applications into any and every regional whose times they meet.
Remember you gotta treat the illness not the symptoms...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post