TrojanCMH

Fishfreighter what was you background when you got hired at your Major carrier?

Carl Spackler

Here was the "whatever": Management came to us stating that they would go broke under the competitive pressure if they weren't allowed to fly RJ's to small cities that feed our hubs. Further, management stated that RJ's feeding the hubs would grow flying at the majors due to the increased hub traffic. To seal the deal, management offered up no-furlough clauses to ensure that our junior people would never pay the price. Obviously, that was all BS...but that is the history. It's not that we did it to increase our pay, or protect pensions, or any of the things many RJ pilots talk about.

Look how great it would have been if you didn't take those jobs. Airline management's most desired bargaining chip would have had no value at all. Thus airline managements would have had no choice but to buy RJ's and have mainline pilots fly them. You would have had a far greater chance of being one of those mainline pilots. It would have been great, and very smart. But management counted on pilots being self-interested.

You and I are only here because of the centuries of sacrifice by others. I truly hope you're not indicative of youth, because being a Captain means being the LAST one off the airplane. Even if it's on fire, you're expected to sacrifice in order to save the passengers that count on you.

It's exceedingly disappointing to hear your posts. You have a lot to learn.

Carl

NERD

Then why are y'all working for such crappy pay and work rules? Man up and get your share of Bedford's billion.

NERD

Actually it was a trade, not sale of scope. We got better pay, workrules and pensions at the time. That has all been taken/given away during ch 11. All of your flying done for major partners is still covered by section 1 of the mainlines contract. Now, in ch 11 we paid dearly. We don't have to give up anything to get the flying back. We already gave. Now, do we have the stones to say no this time? I think yes. No pension tied to the company, working for anywhere from 25-40% less (basically 1992 wages), some of the workrules worse than a regional, etc. Don't underestimate the anger of the pilot group, especially the bottom half. The next few years will be interesting. My personal opinion is we will see a correction of our profession for the better.

forgot to bid

^^^ What he said ^^^

gloopy

I realize that. However the theory goes that ALPA tells (scares) pilot groups into "you better vote for this or else the NC will quit and your 4-5+ year wait will start all over, blah blah blah. That is the issue. Of course if the pilot group was well unified in the first place, they would either not tolerate such blatant BS and/or would decertify ASAMFP once such tomfoolery was tried.

Scope can be improved upon with or without ALPA, but in either case the pilot group has to place it as a very high priority. We are being told pay is the main topic of concern when in fact pay is depressed because of prior scope sales in the first place and failing to recapture significant scope errors will continue to depress pay one way or the other.

BoilerUP

No, they're not.

BoilerUP

Call it a potato or a potatoe, the end result is your scope was exchanged for higher compensation.

Sounds like a sale to me, but characterize it however you would like.

You can't possibly be so naive as to believe Mother Delta is just going to give DALPA back 70/76 seat flying without making them expend negotiating capital to gain it.

BoilerUP

You go through the trouble to post all those quotes, yet leave this one out?

I'm sure you just missed it, and didn't conveniently leave it out to support your position.

Anyway, to reiterate, I do think DALPA should vigorously defend their scope.

However...given DALPA's Section 1 language that has been posted on this site, RAH's operational structure, the fact that no RAH airline operating 76+ seat aircraft does business as Delta Connection, and the fact that Republic Airlines has been operating 99-seat E190s for over a year with no grievance filed, I don't think this is a violation of your Section 1 and think a grievance on this particular issue would be a loser.

I continue to not see how a STS ruling that deals only with employee representation remotely supports the viewpoint of a violation, or how Frontier's involvement in this ruling this is any more a smoking gun than the E190s that were already flying the day before the ruling.

Just my opinion, based upon what I know about contract/labor law.

As I said in the other thread, maybe DALPA should pursue a grievance on this, if only to placate those in the pilot group who think they understand contract language better than the experienced legal professionals whose salaries are paid with the pilot group's dues.

And after tens of thousands more in dues have been spent taking this to arbitration, and the arbitrator rules in favor of the Company on this matter, your reps can claim that the good fight was fought to defend your contract while your legal team mutters under their breath "We told you so".

AGAIN...I'm not advocating further scope erosion, I just think given the facts, the language, and the circumstances, DALPA cannot win this case. Your attorneys seem to agree with my conclusion, and while you and many in your group may not like that conclusion, not liking it doesn't make it wrong.

BoilerUP

This <right here> seems to be the biggest point of issue for this topic.

Republic Airways Holdings is not an airline, it is a holding company. As such, it does not fly for Delta Connection - its subsidiaries Chautauqua & Shuttle America fly for Delta Connection.

RAH does not operate a fleet of Airbusses, RAH subsidiary Frontier operates a fleet of Airbusses. Besides, RAH subsidiary Republic Airlines has been flying 99-seat E190s for over a year - are those permitted?

The key point is that RAH owns the airlines, it doesn't operate the airlines.

What you are claiming is along the lines of saying AMR Corp. flies the S80. No, AMR does not, their subsidary American Airlines does. It may seem like splitting hairs, but its an important distinction for Delta pilots as AA subsidiary American Eagle is a codeshare partner for Delta and, per the argument you are making, would also a violation of your Section 1 as Delta's codeshare with Eagle provides financial support to competitor American.

I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, but trying to help folks understand that what is black and white to YOU in your CBA, both in meaning and intent, ain't quite so black and white in the eyes of lawyers, judges, and arbitrators.