The RJDC is a cancer on the industry

[RJFlyer]

FDJ:

However, according to our contract, they must be flown by mainline pilots once exceeding the contractual limits.

If this is true, great. Can you post the language that states this? I think that your cap is meant to halt DCI growth, if anything, not have mainline fly RJs over the cap. You've spoken of 'intent' in the past. If the 'intent' was to have Delta fly RJ's over the limit, then why didn't you negotiate an RJ rate when negotiating the rest of your contract?

By the way, I could understand you not supporting our block hour grievance. But I find it pretty objectionable that you would not support our no furlough grievance.

It's not whether I support a particular grievance - to me they are one and the same, in that management has used your 'force majeure' clause to void both sections. I believe they are justified in using the force majeure clause, whatever effect it has. I've already said that it's not a good thing (I would prefer nobody was furloughed) but necessary for the recovery of the company. I would rather Delta still exist with 600+ furloughed pilots (who have a seniority # to go back to) than not exist with 10000 unemployed pilots (who don't). I am surprised your 'common sense' doesn't make you feel the same.

However, the contract specifically prevents them from furloughing for financial reasons.

We jump on this merry-go-round again. You say it was for financial reasons. I say it was a result of 2 specifically mentioned conditions in your contract - a grounding of the fleet by a govt agency and a war emergency. Of course, there were financial hardships created or multiplied by these events. That does not mitigate the primary cause of that hardship.

73GDog - I try to post questions, information, and opinions on the issue under discussion, and you choose to respond with a personal attack. If you want to get personal, I can do that. I choose not to. Please keep your comments on the subject at hand, and not whether you think I am a professional or not, or whether you think I'm a management's wet dream or not. Thank you.

To answer your question with a question, how many Americans died in the Bosnian mission? It is completely unrelated. You probably haven't noticed, but we stopped declaring war about the same time the UN was created. In case you've been hiding in your cave the last 6 months, we are involved in 'a new kind of war.' The Delta contract specifically mentions a 'war emergency.' It does not state 'declaration of war.' There is a difference between the two. Did 9/11 cause a 'war emergency?' Did the grounding of ALL non-military aircraft in the US result from a 'war emergency?' Did we not send troops and aircraft into battle as a result of a 'war emergency?' If the President is out and about, isn't Dick Cheney kept in an 'undisclosed location?' Did that happen during Bosnia or Somalia? If not for a 'war emergency,' then why did all those things happen? This is what the arbitrator will decide. Again, I am not glad that any Delta pilots are furloughed. I simply agree that there is reason behind it.

 

[~~~^~~~]

This whole "the mainline can operate RJ's" line is supposed proof that the RJDC is a bunch of liars. People, just use your common sense.

Ok, does anyone here believe that mainline pilots want to take a pay cut to fly a small jet? Where are your small jet rates in C2K? Why did not your MEC even propose operating the aircraft, or pay rates, in your "negotiator's notepad." Where has the Delta MEC ever notified its membership of a proposal to operate RJ's? Any proof at all to show the Delta MEC wants to do anything but restrict this aircraft? I thought so...

Ive heard - Oh' the pay rate would be settled by the same process that derailed the introduction of the 777. The pilots wanted the 777. They don't want a small jet with the commensurate pay structure. It is blatantly obvious that the mainline MEC has no interest in alllowing the company to operate small jets with a profitable cost structure. Even the US Air MEC, faced with the possible demise of their airline, can not reach an agreement. Since the airplane does not benefit the Delta MEC, they want to treat it as a threat - basically create artifical barriers to keep it out of the market to the extent they can.

The RJDC is not "lying" about this, it is simple common sense. Apply ocum's razor - "the simplest explanation that includes all the known facts is likely the truth."

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

All,

Whether the Delta pilots "want" to fly the rj is irrelevant. That is up to management. All that we have the power to do is to ensure that only they can only farm out a percentage of our flying. Once they exceed that percentage, the future growth airplanes must be flown by mainline. Rj asked me to post the language proving this. I would like to, but i don't have time...You see, it is the entire scope clause of our contract.


The argument that we don't want the rjs because we didn't negotiate a rate is bogus. We did not negotiate a 747 rate, either, but that does not mean we don't want them. As far as the comment made that we would negotiate a rate the same way we did for the 777, it must have been made by someone who does not have much knowledge of our contract. The 777 was negotiated under section 3 B 6 of our old contract. That does not exist any more. The new PWA calls for binding arbitration in the event a new rate cannot be negotiated for a new airplane.

The fact is, all this talk is academic. Arguing whether or not we "want" the rj now, or did in the past is pointless. It simply doesn't matter. What does matter is that we have negotiated a contract. Delta is violating it, claiming "circumstances beyond their control." I think that I have proven that they do have the control to comply with our restrictions. I also think that I have proven that the rjdc's claim that ALPA even has the power to limit rjs is bogus.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

RJ,

If our fleet was still grounded, I would agree with you. It is not. Delta can operate as many flights as they want.

During the grievance hearing, the arbitrator asked one of ALPA's lawyers "So what you are saying is, Delta is not 'prevented' from flying airplanes, it is just more expensive for them to do so?"

That sums up the grievance in a nutshell.

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ:

If our fleet was still grounded, I would agree with you. It is not. Delta can operate as many flights as they want.

So then your contract states that the furloughs can only last as long as the grounding? That must be right next to the language that states war must be declared, that's why I missed it.

During the grievance hearing, the arbitrator asked one of ALPA's lawyers "So what you are saying is, Delta is not 'prevented' from flying airplanes, it is just more expensive for them to do so?"

Why wasn't this asked to the DAL lawyers? The question - and answer - would be much more telling.

Once they exceed that percentage, the future growth airplanes must be flown by mainline... You see, it is the entire scope clause of our contract.

Come on, you're just looking for an easy way out of answering the question. It states nothing about RJ's, other than when we can't fly them, and how large they can be. Please post the scope clause. I really would like to see it. Could the reason the Delta pilots didn't include any allowances for mainline RJ's be that it would put you waaaay to close to 'operational integration?' Nah.

I found this on Brittanica.com, from an Air Transport World May 2001 article:
"A big challenge to the prospects for any large-RJ program remains the scope clauses in place at most US Majors (see chart, p. 71). Because of these, 70/90-seat RJs may face a tough sell in the US, by far the largest market for such aircraft. 'It will have to be resolved,' says Tulinda Larson of BACK Aviation. 'It will most likely be Delta or American that will set industry standards. It will eventually lead to an integrated fleet and workforce.'"

We can only hope.

 

[73GDog]

RJFlyer,
You say we stopped declaring war about the same time the UN was created. Can you provide a reference source to back this up. I searched many resources, free republic website, several legal libraries relating to war and a UN source and cannot confirm nor deny your statement. As to the personal statement I made about you, all I can say is I call them like I see them. You never did answer my questions, what country are we at war with, what government and why are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay not POWs but rather, Detainees? I too had rather be furloughed and have a healthy Delta to come back to but, from your previous posts I sensed that you, unlike myself, derived some sort of pleasure out of seeing Delta pilots hit the street. If I am wrong about that then I apologize for any mischaracterization of you.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

RJ,

You'll have to aks the arbitrator why he didn't ask the company the same question. I was just glad he asked it...So were our lawyers. It proves that he at least understands our arguments, even if he doesn't agree with them.

Regarding our PWA. I am sorry, but I am not about to type out the entire scope clause of our contract. It is several pages long. However, I will tell you that it mentions nothing about airplane size on mainline. All that it does is give size and percentage limits of connection flying. It never states a minimum size of airplane to be operated by mainline.

Regarding your operational integration statement. You will have to look for an argument from someone else on this one. I support onelist (with a staple) and have never said that the two groups are not operationally integrated.

The simple fact remains that there is nothing in our contract preventing management from operating rjs on mainline. I cannot prove a negative, so if someone would like to take up the rjdc's postition that we are attempting to limit rjs, would you please post the language in our contract that gives us such power. I am confident that it does not exist.

 

[av8instyle]

by Boeingman:

I spent 25 months honoring an ALPA picket line. I do not need some hothead like you (who sounds like he was in grade school at the time) to tell me what opinions I should form about anyone.

Are you sure it was "honoring" the line, because you seem like the type that was crossing the line.
BTW, you're not gonna beat me up like you said you were gonna beat up the last guy are you? (since we're on the hothead/gradeschool theme)

I don't think I'll reply to you anymore since all you know how to do is insult, criticize, SCAB, not admit your mistakes, and not take constructive criticism.

Good day, sir.

 

[DaveGriffin]

RJFlyer,
You say we stopped declaring war about the same time the UN was created. Can you provide a reference source to back this up. I searched many resources, free republic website, several legal libraries relating to war and a UN source and cannot confirm nor deny your statement...............what country are we at war with, what government and why are the detainees at Guantanamo Bay not POWs but rather, Detainees

73GDOG:
Only Congress can declare war. The last time the US Congress declared war was December 9th - two days after Pearl Harbor - 60 years ago, against Italy. We never declared war against Japan. We just went to war; and the vast majority of reasonable citizens recognized that we needed to be at war. Since the attacks of 9/11 took more life (mostly civilian) than the attack on Peal Harbor and occurred on the mainland and in our business and political capitols, the vast majority of US citizens also recognize the fact we are at war and fighting for our national security and survival.

After reading your pathetic and self-serving arguments on this board, trying to spin the war as nonexistent or less than consequential, I guess you and a few others here fall into the small group that feels we are not at war or shouldn’t be at war because it violates your PWA. You need to be whining to ObL and al Qaeda.

The detainees are classified as "unlawful combatants," a designation that exempts them from requirements under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The detainees are considered members of a criminal organization, not a recognized army, and are therefore not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Classifying them as POW’s could be interpreted as entitling them to the protections of the Geneva Conventions even though al Qaeda and the Taliban are not parties to the Geneva Conventions.

 

[RJFlyer]

FDJ: I am very surprised you do not have your contract available to you in electronic form. Mine is available on my MEC's portion of the ALPA website. If yours is available electronically, I'm sure it wouldn't take more than a few seconds to cut and paste.

It proves that he at least understands our arguments, even if he doesn't agree with them.

I understand your argument, too. I just don't agree with it.

Regarding the operational integration statement - it wasn't specifically directed at you. It was a generalization of what I perceive to be the Delta pilots' attitude toward the wholly-owned subsidiaries.

if someone would like to take up the rjdc's postition that we are attempting to limit rjs, would you please post the language in our contract that gives us such power.

On behalf of myself, I believe your scope clause does not mention anywhere that once the RJ limit for DCI is reached, mainline will then begin flying RJ's. I ask again, if that was the intent, why was it not specifically addressed in the contract? The language that limits RJ's is specifically language that limits RJ's (actually, all flying) at DCI. This is specifically where I believe RJDC is right on the money. ALPA, as your - and my - sole bargaining agent, has entered into negotiations which specifically limits my career growth and opportunities, by limiting the block hours we can fly (whether RJ or turboprop), without the consent of the pilots affected by that agreement. I acknowledge that if I were at ACA or Skywest, I would not have a leg to stand on. But ASA and Comair are a part of Delta. For this reason, we should have had a voice in that part of the negotiation process. This is the primary issue on which I agree wholeheartedly with the RJDC.