Bucking Bar

Rhino:

We are of the same mind, but some of us have been working on this for ten plus years and have learned what is legally possible and what isn't. It is more effective to make achievable goals and even those involve tough battles for insignificant hills.

The major war is convincing ALPA that scope is job security, NOT bargaining capital.

History:

During concessionary bargaining management came to ALPA with an offer of "bargaining credits" for scope concessions. As our MEC negotiated from management's offer, it legitimized the concept that scope could be used for bargaining credit. Today, both management and ALPA have forgotten that scope's purpose is job security. Management thinks they can violate scope and barter an agreement later (as we saw with the 76 seat scope settlement) and ALPA legitimizes this position.

Worse - many senior pilots, who are desperate to make up their loss of earnings and retirement are CONVINCED that scope sales put more money in their pocket. This is wrong.

Some pilots go so far as to write "we do not want flying we do not own" because we would have to compete with RJ pilots on pay.

TRUTH:

Outsourcing reduces our union's bargaining power. As our bargaining power is reduced we will experience a long term negative trend of lower highs and lower lows in our pay and working conditions.

TRUTH:

We compete with RJ pilots now. The lack of a mainline replacement jet in the 90 to 130 seat class is direct evidence of that competition. We are losing!

Issues to consider:

• All "RJ's" are not created equal. A CRJ900 has costs only 11% higher than a CRJ100, but carries 60% more revenue. The result is costs per average seat mile that is BETTER than a MD88 and EQUAL to a A319.
• ALPA tends to treat all RJ's the same in their political speak. It is not true.
• All Delta code is Delta's code.
• ALPA has a representational duty to some RJ pilots. This results in a conflict of interest that prevents efforts to unilaterally "take it back." Legally, ALPA can't just take flying from one group and give it to another. If the Delta MEC negotiated this, ALPA could not sign it. A contract is not a contract without the President of ALPA's signature.

If you want to "fix scope," as we all do, you have to be realistic about what can be achieved. Compass can be done.

dragon

Bar,


If I'm understanding you correctly, since ALPA represents Airline Pilots, it essentially treats all pilots equally regardless of level. That is, they don't care if you're an RJ pilot or a 777 pilot. Therefore, continuing to have them represent both sides creates a conflict of interest which won't allow us to take back scope.

After all, ALPA is basically a business and needs income (dues) to function it is loathe to tick off either side in this debate. Since they don't really represent our desires maybe it is time for an in-house union. ALPA is going to have to make a choice about who to represent.

Bucking Bar

Dragon,

you are correct, but it a much higher standard than a business relationship, it is a fiduciary obligation.

The relationship is similar to that between an attorney and their client. ALPA represents its pilots and has the duty to put its pilots' interests ahead of its own.

American Airlines own Allied Pilots Association, avoids this conflict since American Eagle is represented by ALPA. By the same token, we don't have to worry about SkyWest who has no union representation, or Republic, who is represented by Teamsters.

The way the process is supposed to work within ALPA is that one MEC (we will use the Delta MEC for this example) has a position on scope. The ALPA Collective Bargaining Committee meets and this position is communicated to the other ALPA MECs. Then they try to reach a consensus on a common policy. If they fail to do so, each MEC submits position papers (might be the wrong term but that's how it works) to the ALPA President. Ultimately ALPA's President can refuse to sign a contract which harms another ALPA group.

This WOULD work if our MEC's were even slightly serious about fixing scope by bringing our working groups together. Unfortunately scope is something that is bartered and the result is very convoluted language written around management, or other pilots' objections. Management then easily runs around our scope blockade.

I support ALPA and would rather fix our union than try to decertify. After all, even with a new union we have the same problems and probably would have a more radical version of our status quo.

capncrunch

I second that! 12,500 pilots is plenty to start an in-house union.

Bucking Bar

True - but we will leave our Major Contingency Fund war chest on some island in the Caribbean, literally.

If there was a credible alternative to ALPA that actually was interested in unionism, I'd support it. The problem is that the APA is not really in different in their handling of Eagle and Teamsters is actually worse than ALPA with their support of GoJets. Teamsters also represents Republic / Shuttle America, so they have the same conflict ALPA does.

An effective in house union is a tall order. Continental, FedEx and AirTran all recently joined ALPA.

My first choice is to try to fix what we have.

satchip

So if we wrote a contract that said every flight that was sold as a Delta code has to be flown by Delta employees and every flight sold as a _______* (fill in with your favorite DCI subcontractor) had to be flown by ________ employees, that would harm them?

What you are really saying is that scope change can only go one way? We can only negotiate it away and can't take any back because that would harm a subcontractor? Sounds like a hose job to me. If that is true maybe it is time for a new union. What happens if ALPA is voted in at the new UAL/Aer Lingus entitiy? Will United's MEC be prohibited from taking that flying back?

Bucking Bar

Satchip - I've been describing it as a "one way check valve." Yes, it makes "taking it back" by negotiation very difficult. That is a big reason why I do not want to divest Compass. Once it is gone, it is not likely to come back.

It makes "taking it back" by merger completely feasible. That's why I want Compass on board. It is how we grow our flying.

(and please don't think I like this arrangement... understanding it is not the same as agreement.)

capncrunch

I still have not seen a good argument for why we should not start our own union. Look at American and SWA.

capncrunch

There is no way ALPA can represent the regionals and majors at the same time. Catch 22. ALPA lost its way a long time ago and is now a dues monster that lives off of steaks and bottles of wine that we pay for.

If we go on our own we will always have our interests represented.

satchip

Bar, this one way check valve you describe practically ensures a never ending degradation of the amount of work done at the mainline carriers. How does ALPA profit from this? The loss of high paying jobs at mainlines would mean a lower national dues amount, would it not? Or are they going for the volume theory.

Furthermore, why can't we sue national on the grounds that they are not representing us? Why is it that the subcontractors get to sue?