Am. Airlines Scope forces Eagle Furlough

[FlyinBrian]

a contract is a contract...

IFF, I'm not sure I can go along with that. I think almost any reasonable person understands that sometimes extraordinary, unforseeable events occur that require some relief and accomodation. Suppose you were supposed to show up for a trip tomorrow, but you lost your legs in a car accident, and you were out of sick and vacation time. The crew scheduler would not tell you "that's some tough tough luck bud, but you still have to fly the trip tomorrow" (I know everyone is thinking "at my airline... I wouldn't put it past 'em")

I think If I applied your logic to my own life, I would never commit to anything. I'm not saying that your Union should just cave... but I can't accept that a contract is a contract, they signed it, and no matter what happens, they have to honor it. There are circumstances in which extraordinary circumstances dictate that some relief is in order.

 

[~~~^~~~]

IFF:

ALPA has filed a grievance, the effect of this will be to park Delta Connection airplanes. The fact that they probably will not win has nothing to do with the fact that ALPA has taken legal action to cause ASA and Comair pilots immediate harm.

This is becoming more serious. No longer are the scope ratios numbers off in the future - we are 2% over the limit as of January according to Delta. By the end of the year we will be 60 airplanes over the limit. At 5.5 crews per airplane, that is 660 pilots. Now where Delta chooses to furlough is up to them, but furloughing a large number of ASA pilots sure takes away our threat of a strike during contract talks doesn't it?

Now you know why Delta would have folded Comair. It is just like I've been telling you, under the scope ratios Comair could have disappeared without any significant change to Delta's ability to "grow" Connection due to the restrictive limit.

Here is a copy of the initial grievance:

January 31, 2002

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECIEPT REQUESTED

Captain Joseph Kolshak
Vice President-Flight Operations
Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Hartsfield International Airport
Atlanta, Georgia 30320

Re: ALPA and Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Grievance of Captain William C. Buergey, ATL 02-11

Dear Captain Kolshak:

On behalf of the pilots in the service of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”), as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (“ALPA”), the undersigned submits this grievance in accordance with Section 1 N. and Section 18 B. of the Delta Pilot Working Agreement (“PWA”).

On January 29, 2002, Delta Air Lines, Inc. notified ALPA that (a) Delta plans to schedule fewer block hors in 2002 than the number of block hours provided in PWA Section 1 E. and (b) that Delta plans to schedule Delta Connection block hours in 2002 as a higher percentage of the sum of the scheduled block hours of Company flying and Delta Connection flying than the percentage provided by PWA Section 1 E. Delta’s 2002 block hour plan and 2002 planned percentage of Delta Connection Flying constitute violations of PWA Section 1 E.

The Association demands that Delta cease and desist the aforementioned contractual violations, and make all pilots whole for losses incurred due to its violations of the PWA as described above.

In accordance with the PWA Section 1 N., the Association requests that this grievance be processed on an expedited basis, directly before the Five Member System Board of Adjustment. It is further requested that the Company send a copy of all hearing notices and decisions rendered in this case to the undersigned and the Air Line Pilots Association, 100 Hartsfield Centre Parkway, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30354, Attention: Contract Administrator.

The Association maintains that a meeting with the System Manger of Contract Administration under PWA Section 18 B. 2. Is futile and unnecessary because the decisions that are the subject of this grievance were made at the highest levels of the corporation and because the requirement for such a meeting is inconsistent with the expedited arbitration procedure set for the in PWA Section 1 N. If, however, the Company believes that such a meeting is necessary, please advise me immediately.

Very Truly Yours,

/s/

Captain William C. Buergey
Chairman, Delta MEC

cc: Delta MEC
Senior Contract Administrator
MEC Contract Administration Chairman
DAL General Manager-Labor Relations

Now, part two. I had advised FL000 and you that I was optimistic that talks between our three MECs might result in a mutually beneficial resolution of the problem. Unfortunately ALPA again refused to allow either Connection MEC to participate in negotiations with Delta. Further the Delta MEC advised that they would engage in negotiations w/ Delta before the participation of Connection MECs.

In summation, our MECs would have only been invited to participate to the extent of having a pre-arranged deal stuffed down their throat.

ALPA has again refused all of the offers to resolve this problem. There is nothing the ASA pilots can do to protect themselves from this immediate threat to our employment than to file our own litigation against ALPA.

P.S. Before you reply that this is just the Delta pilots trying to enforce their contract, consider that scope that affected our pay and working conditions without our representation was illegal to begin with. Denying us the ability to negotiate with Delta, is illegal. (According to the IRS we are the same employer) No, I do not support ALPA's effort to enforce a contract that I never ratified, that was negotiated with my employer without my consent.

 

[TWA Dude]

~~~^~~~:

I know how you feel. Right now we have a situation whereby the APA wants the National Mediation Board to quickly declare that TWA and AA are indeed a "Single Carrier" for union representation purposes. When they do so (it's a matter of when, not if) immediately the AA/APA integration list is imposed and 209 furloughed AA pilots become senior to the majority of TWA pilots. Those 209 must be recalled within 60 days thereof. Since the bottom 1200 or so TWA guys are stapled any additional furloughs come exclusively come from us. I currently sit about 96 from the bottom.

So, one could say the APA is trying to "swap" their furloughees for ours. But they're not. They're trying to get theirs recalled. Their action might result in me being furloughed, and I am not pleased. Yet I understand what they're doing and from an unemotional point of view I agree with it.

DALPA is trying to protect their jobs by keeping management in line with the contract. Call it unfortunate, infuriating, depressing, saddening, or whatever emotion you choose to apply, but they are not out to screw Connection pilots! It's an unintended consequence, though I realize this comes as no comfort. DALPA isn't tasked with protecting ASA/Comair jobs no matter who owns who. National ALPA is another story. We know who they favor.

Good luck

ps. You were editing while I was typing.
I'm afraid I don't agree with your assertion that scope is illegal due to a common employer. AMR owns two major airlines: AA, and Eagle. AA owns another airline, TWA LLC. Each have separate contracts, scope, and of course there are two unions. The IRS might or might not say otherwise, but I don't work for the same company as Eagle pilots. My employer is owned by the same corporation as theirs.

 

[~~~^~~~]

TWA:

ALPA just got the single carrier petition filed by the AFA at the US Air wholly owneds killed. The NMB's Chief-of-Staff Stephen Crable recently accepted a job at ALPA.

Why don't you expect ALPA to represent you. If it worth killing a single carrier petition at US Air's WO units so that they can negotiate the employment rights of US Air pilots on top of pilots flying at the WO's, why would ALPA not help you? Why will you not demand the union that you pay money to uphold their legal obligation to you?

I know, you have been there two years and just feel fortunate to have a job. That is all fine and dandy, but other people are out fighting for fifteen year careers at the US Air WO's and you can not expect them to be dispassionate about being thrown out in the street at 55 years old in this job market.

 

[TWA Dude]

~~~^~~~ :

You misunderstand me. I am being dispassionate here because if I don't an AA guy who feels differently about the integration will jump down my throat. There is no doubt that National ALPA has quit representing our interests and an independant organization of TWA pilots called thw Aviation Workers Rights Foundation (www.myawrf.org) has petitioned the NMB and has retained the law firm of David Boies (remember the Gore campaign?). We are fighting ALPA, but since ALPA still represents us it remains a purely internal fight. After Single-Carrier we can go public against ALPA. It's really ironic how ALPA woos the APA but in the process creates 2300 ALPA haters.

 

[surplus1]

TWA:

ALPA just got the single carrier petition filed by the AFA at the US Air wholly owneds killed. The NMB's Chief-of-Staff Stephen Crable recently accepted a job at ALPA.

AFA single carrier petiotion? Is that a typo? Why would ALPA be involved or how could ALPA kill a petition filed by the Association of Flight Attendants? I'm lost.

On a side note there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about what a single carrier petition actually does. Short version: It simply asssures that all members of the same craft (in this case pilots) are represented by the same union.

In he case of AA/TWA there would be a purpose in this as TWA Dude has stated. Same would apply in the case of AA/AE. With regard to the WO at USAirways, there is no purpose to a single carrier petition in that ALL 4 airlines are already represented by the ALPA.

 

[surplus1]

~~~^~~~ :

You misunderstand me. I am being dispassionate here because if I don't an AA guy who feels differently about the integration will jump down my throat. There is no doubt that National ALPA has quit representing our interests and an independant organization of TWA pilots called thw Aviation Workers Rights Foundation (www.myawrf.org) has petitioned the NMB and has retained the law firm of David Boies (remember the Gore campaign?). We are fighting ALPA, but since ALPA still represents us it remains a purely internal fight. After Single-Carrier we can go public against ALPA. It's really ironic how ALPA woos the APA but in the process creates 2300 ALPA haters.

I enjoy your posts and serious perspective. Congrats on not letting your emotions rule the day.

Good to see that TWA pilots are going to at least attempt a defense of their rights re ALPA. I wish you luck.

Although I haven't seen much about it in forums, there is yet another group of the little people in ALPA that are also in distress, i.e., the pilots of Evergreen. From what I read, ALPA appears to be ignoring their rights too and seems unwilling to defend their interests. Politically, ALPA has disbanded their MEC and appointed a "custodian" of their affairs, an idividual that Evergreen pilots don't want and who was defeated in the election process by a 9-1 margin.

Hopefully the Evergreen pilots will remember that while ALPA has the power to legally remove their MEC and thereby their elected representatives, ALPA does NOT have the right or the power to remove the rights of individual members by any political means (TG). I hope the EWA pilots will see that and afford themselves of legal counsel that works on their behalf. Just because they carry boxes does not mean they should be ignored and not represented.

Regional pilots aren't the only one's that ALPA fails to represent. ALL the small carriers are essentially ignored in favor of the agenda of the Big Four (UAL, DAL, NWA, AAA) and now maybe the new CAL, the latter at the expense of COEX.

Good luck to you at TWA, particularly the senior 1/2.

 

[publisher]

Ifly4

Ifly4 is certainly in a complementary mood these days. After all, a contract is a contract.

I would like to know what the alternatives at United were. Frankly, I think that the day of the WO may be over... Comair probably killed that as much as Bin laden.

What I want to point out is what if there had not been a bailout of the carriers at all after the 11th. What would have been the senario. I think we need a new thread on that.

You think that I am pro management, I think that I am pro business. I think that if we judged the airline business the way we judge any other business, they are not very attractive.

Obviously we could lay this at the feet of a militant labor force, but that is only part of the story. It is an industry highly suseptible to fuel cost changes and regulatory imposition. Add terrorism to that list and it becomes fairly unattractive to investors, bankers, and insurance companies.

We can live in the past, a contract is a contract, or we can forge a new future. Frankly, the merits of a full serivce airline with worldwide influence and service may not be a big deal anymore.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Surplus wrote: "Hopefully the Evergreen pilots will remember that while ALPA has the power to legally remove their MEC and thereby their elected representatives, ALPA does NOT have the right or the power to remove the rights of individual members by any political means (TG). I hope the EWA pilots will see that and afford themselves of legal counsel that works on their behalf. Just because they carry boxes does not mean they should be ignored and not represented."

I guess the reall question here is how many lawsuits can ALPA take on at any given time. I know of of at least four major ones RJDC, Evergreen, TWA, and the WO's of US as well as a few others. I sure hope that not one penny of ALPA PAC is going into any of these to defent ALPA. For you TWA guys, I hope for your sake old David isn't going to open his mouth, because as soon as he does, your hosed. He would make a good ALPA lawyer though with his dishonest tacticts. All kidding aside, I wish you guys luck as it is time ALPA is exposed for what it's true intent really is.