Comair President "Moves On"

[FDJ2]

FlyComAirJets-The next time you are in SLC, look for a SkyWest CRJ with a Winter Olympics paint scheme, it has a SkyWest registration number but is a former Comair aircraft that along with some others were sold during our strike. I suppose they could have sold some aircraft to Mesa so, sure, they could be fllying Comair aircraft.

You don't see your own contradictions? If it is a Skywest registered aircraft, how is it that you can then state that it is a CMR aircraft?


I do not know if I can make this any simpler for you to understand but I will try one last time: Our scope does not limit the flying of other pilots, it only says when pilots fly similar aircraft they will be on our list and at the same payrate.


Unless they fly aircraft smaller than 20 seats (an arbitrary number). Also, you prevent pilots from other seniority lists from flying your aircraft, as does the DAL PWA, with certain size exemptions just like you.

What few temporary exemptions exists still specify that they would receive identical rates of pay and work rules so there is no economic incentive for the company to do so. Our scope is not similar to the predatory nature of your scope.

Yes it it is, it places limits on other pilots not covered by your PWA. It's just that simple. Nothing you have written contradicts that one undeniable fact.

What you fail repeatedly to grasp is that our scope seeks to be "inclusive," that is, to define what our flying is (the original meaning of scope) rather than mainline scope which has evolved into something that is "exclusive," which seeks to limit the numbers and missions of aircraft that they chose not to fly.

We chose not to fly? Nothing in our PWA states that DAL pilots chose not to fly RJs. Produce one centilla of a document that states that the DAL pilots chose not to fly RJs. I would state that we reached the limit of what we could negotiate. I guess I could state that you chose not to fly any DL code since you chose not to negotiate for any DL scope at DCI. What you repeatedly fail to grasp is that all scope is exclusive, it all excludes the opportunity for management to use pilots other than those for which the PWA is negotiated.

It's as if the DAL MEC position is that 'we don't want to fly these aircraft, but we don't want the DCI carriers to fly them either.' And when your MEC figuratively hoisted his middle finger at the ASA/CMR pilots at the PID, he did just that.

Was that during the same time period that the CMR MEC refused to sign a mutual support document and thrust a PID up the chain to ALPA national involving the Delta pilots without first consulting with the Delta MEC, let alone your own membership. You again overstate. Show me a single document that states that the DAL pilots don't want to fly these aircaft. Just more urban myth.

As for Chautauqua/Republic, since they are not ALPA-represented but rather Teamsters, there should be no reason for a conflict of interests here, right? I expect my union to conduct themselves in our best interest and hold them accountable for such. The courts understand the union's fudiciary (that means they take my money, I have a twenty year ALPA pin to prove it) responsibility is to us, not to them.

Indeed they do, and they also understand that the fiduciary duty does not alway cross bargaining unit lines, that is probably why judge Glasser quoted the following:

"Defendants (ALPA) are correct that the LMRDA does not requires a union to extend to members of one bargaining unit the right to participate in the deliberations and vote on the matters before another bargaining unit, even when the second unit’s actions might affect the rights of members in the first unit. See Marshall v. Local Union"

 

[surplus1]

Hey Surplus,

I retract it all, he is trying to circumvent our elected leaders. He is despicable and dangerous too!

I hope you're not being facetious or sarcastic. I don't think I'd go as far as to call him despicable. However, his first move does not engender trust; he is untested and therefore very dangerous.

I still think Oz scabbed at Continental or Eastern though.

And I still think you are making a mistake. Don't take my word for it, check the record. He did not work for EAL. Yes, he did work for CAL; in a management position. He's an old Frontier pilot and former Vice Chairman of the Frontier MEC. As you may know, Frontier was in trouble (financially). They were virtually put out of business by a flawed ALPA policy that tried to force them to put a third man in the cockpits of the 737. ALPA's reaction to the Frontier pilots' objections is a matter of record that you may research for yourself. Parts of Frontier were "acquired" and Oz was hired into a management job at CAL. My information says he did not cross a picket line. He came to CMR after CAL (with a break inbetween).

I'm not running a "be kind to Oz" society but calling someone a scab is an accusation that should not be made unless you can substantiate it. Additionally, whether you like him or not, the job that he has done and is doing at CMR is literally leagues ahead of anyone that ever attempted it before. With respect to the other two you mentioned, one of whom crossed our picket line, I would not argue with your wishes.

 

[FlyComAirJets]

FDJ2, you said that Mesa pilots are prevented from flying Comair aircraft by our present scope. I gave you an example of another pilot group (SkyWest) that did and are just doing that. Our scope clause does not prevent that nor does it restrict in any way Chautauqua from operating 50 seat jets or ASA to operate Bomardier jets for that matter, the DAL PWA, in marked contrast, does. Some of those aircraft have returned to the company but I fail to see what changing the registration number has, they were originally leased by Comair. I would think the average Mesa pilot would love to fly under our contract since it would be a marked raise from their current rates. How are they limited?

You seem unable to distinguish that the scope clauses of our respective companies have drastically different intents, since our scope only covers flying within a similar range of flying that we do (sorry, no choppers) versus yours which covers flying outside of your range which you so fervently seek to restrict. Please read Chairman Giambusso's response to the PID for an exacting account of his opinions of the differences between mainline and ASA/CMR flying.

Interesting quote that might be at the heart of our argument but I think you are misinterpreting it. The court certainly recognizes that a national union is sometimes faced with the conflicting interests of its various local units but to say he meant that a national union can favor a non member unit over its own member group is the very definition of one's duty of fair representation.

The DAL mainline contract draws the line of distinction at a certain seat range and places further restrictions on the mission and numbers of "permitted" types. They know that if they were to operate identical aircraft it would, within ALPA at least, trigger an attempt to merge the respective seniority lists. They do not want that which is one reason why they don't want to fly RJs.

And that is their choice.