RAH/F9 et al, Single Carrier Status Announced
04-08-2011, 07:46 AM
#41
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
I'm still not getting what has changed today vs. Monday; why would this be any more of a "slam-dunk" grievance today than it was previously when Republic was operating 99-seat E190s? Are those not considered "large aircraft" under the Delta scope clause?
Why would a STS ruling, that only considers employee union representation, strengthen such a case?
If it was as slam-dunk a grievance as some here believe it to be, why wouldn't ALPA have pursued it by now?
Why would a STS ruling, that only considers employee union representation, strengthen such a case?
If it was as slam-dunk a grievance as some here believe it to be, why wouldn't ALPA have pursued it by now?
You have made all the right points. Its not a slam dunk.
However, the STS ruling does strengthen the case for Republic being a single domestic air carrier and it will increase the pressure on ALPA to file this grievance and finally get a ruling one way or the other.
Being married to one, you are probably aware that lawyers can make a case and litigate all day long that up is down and black is white. However, the line pilots who want to see Delta's scope clause enforced have one very powerful argument -- bottom line common sense.
You know and I know that Bedford is running all those "airlines". Its one company. They are about as separate as Coke and Diet Coke.
Delta is not supposed to have domestic codesharing with a company that flies Airbuses. That's the plain intent of the contract. Its that simple. If the lawyers are able to defeat that simple truth with this "separate certificate" nonsense then it will be a victory for legal gamesmanship over justice.
We need to file the grievance.
I would like to read a ruling from the System Board explaining why up is down.
04-08-2011, 07:58 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: EMB-145 CA
Posts: 456
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Boiler-
You have made all the right points. Its not a slam dunk.
However, the STS ruling does strengthen the case for Republic being a single domestic air carrier and it will increase the pressure on ALPA to file this grievance and finally get a ruling one way or the other.
Being married to one, you are probably aware that lawyers can make a case and litigate all day long that up is down and black is white. However, the line pilots who want to see Delta's scope clause enforced have one very powerful argument -- bottom line common sense.
You know and I know that Bedford is running all those "airlines". Its one company. They are about as separate as Coke and Diet Coke.
Delta is not supposed to have domestic codesharing with a company that flies Airbuses. That's the plain intent of the contract. Its that simple. If the lawyers are able to defeat that simple truth with this "separate certificate" nonsense then it will be a victory for legal gamesmanship over justice.
We need to file the grievance.
I would like to read a ruling from the System Board explaining why up is down.
You have made all the right points. Its not a slam dunk.
However, the STS ruling does strengthen the case for Republic being a single domestic air carrier and it will increase the pressure on ALPA to file this grievance and finally get a ruling one way or the other.
Being married to one, you are probably aware that lawyers can make a case and litigate all day long that up is down and black is white. However, the line pilots who want to see Delta's scope clause enforced have one very powerful argument -- bottom line common sense.
You know and I know that Bedford is running all those "airlines". Its one company. They are about as separate as Coke and Diet Coke.
Delta is not supposed to have domestic codesharing with a company that flies Airbuses. That's the plain intent of the contract. Its that simple. If the lawyers are able to defeat that simple truth with this "separate certificate" nonsense then it will be a victory for legal gamesmanship over justice.
We need to file the grievance.
I would like to read a ruling from the System Board explaining why up is down.
that grievance would start the end of the regionals, I'm all for it. If this separate certificate non-sense work around they been using fails finally it will spell doom. Just make sure there's a job for us at the end of this.
However I don't see ALPA doing this because of exactly the point I made. ALPA's biggest downfall is that it represents both sides of the stick.
04-08-2011, 08:20 AM
#43
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
Well, if the posting of our relevant Section 1 paragraphs don't make you see it, then it's because you don't want to see it.
Just because I disagree with your conclusion doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.
That frequently happens between two parties who read the plain language on a written page. That's why there are courts and grievances to hear such disputes.
Hence the creation of "crewroom lawyers"...
ALPA will refuse to fight this because their hope is to win RAH away from IBT someday.
Even if you don't understand how this changes things based on the Section 1 language posted earlier, worst case scenario is that this is disputed by DALPA as a clear violation of "intent." I'm sure your wife will tell you that a judge places a HUGE value on intent. We have tons of negotiators' notes to show what the intent of our Section 1 language was. DAL management might think they're slick by finding a way to violate the intent of our Section 1, but judges take a dim view of people who try to do that.
There will have to be a compelling argument made of exactly what changed from the day before this ruling to the day after it, for this ruling to matter one hill of beans in the eyes of an Arbitrator.
Originally Posted by Check Essential
However, the line pilots who want to see Delta's scope clause enforced have one very powerful argument -- bottom line common sense.
Pilots read contracts differently than attorneys do.
What a pilot thinks is black and white, or "bottom line common sense", isn't always that way when you start discussing ACTUAL language in a legal manner. Which is one reason why, historically, pilots get their asses handed to them by Ford & Harrison professionals.
Originally Posted by Check Essential
Delta is not supposed to have domestic codesharing with a company that flies Airbuses. That's the plain intent of the contract. Its that simple. If the lawyers are able to defeat that simple truth with this "separate certificate" nonsense then it will be a victory for legal gamesmanship over justice.
Don't mistake my posts as meaning that I *want* Delta's scope clause to be weakened, because I don't. I'd love nothing more than for every mainline carrier to slowly recapture the scope they gave away over the last two decades.
But the fact remains that legal professionals with decades of experience have repeatedly told your reps that such a scope grievance is a loser. Its one's right to disagree with their analysis, but the opinion of your paid legal professionals on matters of contract law shouldn't be dismissed offhand simply because you don't like what they tell you.
04-08-2011, 08:26 AM
#44
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
Incorrect. I understand fully why you and others would think its a clear violation of your scope language...I also happen to see the legal argument of why its actually not a violation.
Just because I disagree with your conclusion doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.
Correct - the problem is that laypeople (you and me) can read something language on paper and think its black-and-white, while people to practicea living can see a multitude of holes, end-runs and workarounds....often on the meaning of a single word or phrase.
Hence the creation of "crewroom lawyers"...
So are you ready to fire up that DFR lawsuit?
Intent is considered...but so is past practice. The fact that a grievance wasn't pursued prior to this STS ruling, when RAH subsidiary Republic Airlines was already operating aircraft larger than DAL scope allows, *will* be considered.
There will have to be a compelling argument made of exactly what changed from the day before this ruling to the day after it, for this ruling to matter one hill of beans in the eyes of an Arbitrator.
This, to me, is the crux of the issue...one that my wife and I butted heads on MANY times during my tenure as an ALPA committe volunteer.
Pilots read contracts differently than attorneys do.
What a pilot thinks is black and white, or "bottom line common sense", isn't always that way when you start discussing ACTUAL language in a legal manner. Which is one reason why, historically, pilots get their asses handed to them by Ford & Harrison professionals.
But Delta doesn't have domestic codesharing with Frontier - that's the point.
Don't mistake my posts as meaning that I *want* Delta's scope clause to be weakened, because I don't. I'd love nothing more than for every mainline carrier to slowly recapture the scope they gave away over the last two decades.
But the fact remains that legal professionals with decades of experience have repeatedly told your reps that such a scope grievance is a loser. Its one's right to disagree with their analysis, but the opinion of your paid legal professionals on matters of contract law shouldn't be dismissed offhand simply because you don't like what they tell you.
Just because I disagree with your conclusion doesn't mean I don't understand the issue.
Correct - the problem is that laypeople (you and me) can read something language on paper and think its black-and-white, while people to practicea living can see a multitude of holes, end-runs and workarounds....often on the meaning of a single word or phrase.
Hence the creation of "crewroom lawyers"...
So are you ready to fire up that DFR lawsuit?
Intent is considered...but so is past practice. The fact that a grievance wasn't pursued prior to this STS ruling, when RAH subsidiary Republic Airlines was already operating aircraft larger than DAL scope allows, *will* be considered.
There will have to be a compelling argument made of exactly what changed from the day before this ruling to the day after it, for this ruling to matter one hill of beans in the eyes of an Arbitrator.
This, to me, is the crux of the issue...one that my wife and I butted heads on MANY times during my tenure as an ALPA committe volunteer.
Pilots read contracts differently than attorneys do.
What a pilot thinks is black and white, or "bottom line common sense", isn't always that way when you start discussing ACTUAL language in a legal manner. Which is one reason why, historically, pilots get their asses handed to them by Ford & Harrison professionals.
But Delta doesn't have domestic codesharing with Frontier - that's the point.
Don't mistake my posts as meaning that I *want* Delta's scope clause to be weakened, because I don't. I'd love nothing more than for every mainline carrier to slowly recapture the scope they gave away over the last two decades.
But the fact remains that legal professionals with decades of experience have repeatedly told your reps that such a scope grievance is a loser. Its one's right to disagree with their analysis, but the opinion of your paid legal professionals on matters of contract law shouldn't be dismissed offhand simply because you don't like what they tell you.
Unfortunately, our own union agrees because they don't want to alienate you when it comes time to winning you away from the IBT.
Carl
04-08-2011, 08:42 AM
#45
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,512
Carl,
I don't work for RAH or any of its subsidiaries...I'm a corporate pilot.
I'm absolutely not saying DALPA shouldn't grieve scope violations, I just don't think a grievance on this particular issue has any chance of winning given the facts (specifically for this thread, why a STS ruling that applies only to labor representation for RAH employees changes anything with regards to Delta's contracts with CHQ and S5 since, well, nothing operationally in RAH's airlines changed).
But hey, maybe DALPA *should* go forward with such a grievance, if only to placate a pilot group who thinks their leadership & legal team isn't willing to fight for them. At least that way, when an Arbitrator comes back in favor of the company the MEC can deflect "blame" toward him/her.
I don't work for RAH or any of its subsidiaries...I'm a corporate pilot.
I'm absolutely not saying DALPA shouldn't grieve scope violations, I just don't think a grievance on this particular issue has any chance of winning given the facts (specifically for this thread, why a STS ruling that applies only to labor representation for RAH employees changes anything with regards to Delta's contracts with CHQ and S5 since, well, nothing operationally in RAH's airlines changed).
But hey, maybe DALPA *should* go forward with such a grievance, if only to placate a pilot group who thinks their leadership & legal team isn't willing to fight for them. At least that way, when an Arbitrator comes back in favor of the company the MEC can deflect "blame" toward him/her.
04-08-2011, 09:11 AM
#47
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
Carl,
I don't work for RAH or any of its subsidiaries...I'm a corporate pilot.
I'm absolutely not saying DALPA shouldn't grieve scope violations, I just don't think a grievance on this particular issue has any chance of winning given the facts (specifically for this thread, why a STS ruling that applies only to labor representation for RAH employees changes anything with regards to Delta's contracts with CHQ and S5 since, well, nothing operationally in RAH's airlines changed).
But hey, maybe DALPA *should* go forward with such a grievance, if only to placate a pilot group who thinks their leadership & legal team isn't willing to fight for them. At least that way, when an Arbitrator comes back in favor of the company the MEC can deflect "blame" toward him/her.
I don't work for RAH or any of its subsidiaries...I'm a corporate pilot.
I'm absolutely not saying DALPA shouldn't grieve scope violations, I just don't think a grievance on this particular issue has any chance of winning given the facts (specifically for this thread, why a STS ruling that applies only to labor representation for RAH employees changes anything with regards to Delta's contracts with CHQ and S5 since, well, nothing operationally in RAH's airlines changed).
But hey, maybe DALPA *should* go forward with such a grievance, if only to placate a pilot group who thinks their leadership & legal team isn't willing to fight for them. At least that way, when an Arbitrator comes back in favor of the company the MEC can deflect "blame" toward him/her.
Carl
04-08-2011, 09:33 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Position: Left
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
I'm glad you've finally just stated your opinion of what our chances are. But you know what they say about opinions.
Carl
Carl
With the exception of the pre-merger top 200 pilots at RAH, the vast majority of us would love to see DALPA grieve the snot out of these events!!! Take back the outsourcing of your and our future jobs. Unfortunately, as has been stated at length, the horses are well out of the barn and the STS has effectively changed nothing with the reality of the RAH system.
This is the system that BB has made his ridiculous growth and profits on all along. It's funny what we've all known for many years, the general pop is just now realizing. CHQ, S5 and RW has always been one list funneling profits straight to RAH! I don't know how many times I've explained that to JS'ers and others who've asked.
This is where BB shows everyone the rabbit in his hat and takes a bow knowing that its too late for the magic show to be canceled.
DAH!
04-08-2011, 10:08 AM
#49
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Originally Posted by 5ontheglide
With the exception of the pre-merger top 200 pilots at RAH, the vast majority of us would love to see DALPA grieve the snot out of these events!!! Take back the outsourcing of your and our future jobs. Unfortunately, as has been stated at length, the horses are well out of the barn and the STS has effectively changed nothing with the reality of the RAH system.
This is the system that BB has made his ridiculous growth and profits on all along. It's funny what we've all known for many years, the general pop is just now realizing. CHQ, S5 and RW has always been one list funneling profits straight to RAH! I don't know how many times I've explained that to JS'ers and others who've asked.
This is where BB shows everyone the rabbit in his hat and takes a bow knowing that its too late for the magic show to be canceled.
DAH!
This is the system that BB has made his ridiculous growth and profits on all along. It's funny what we've all known for many years, the general pop is just now realizing. CHQ, S5 and RW has always been one list funneling profits straight to RAH! I don't know how many times I've explained that to JS'ers and others who've asked.
This is where BB shows everyone the rabbit in his hat and takes a bow knowing that its too late for the magic show to be canceled.
DAH!
Carl
04-08-2011, 10:29 AM
#50
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
RAH cheated APA after they lost to APA. Thats how this got started. So a judge just called them out on it when it comes to a question put in front of them.
Why in the world would we not think that another question put in front of them won't end in the same result? It's a single carrier and always has been and therefore they are in violation of DALPA's scope contract. Judges are only going to rule on the question asked, they just need to be asked again with the precedent now set that it's a single carrier.
As I said elsewhere, all roads lead to Rome no matter whether Bedford has a sign in front of one entrance that claims it's Albuquerque. It's Rome. It was proven once it can be proven again.
Why in the world would we not think that another question put in front of them won't end in the same result? It's a single carrier and always has been and therefore they are in violation of DALPA's scope contract. Judges are only going to rule on the question asked, they just need to be asked again with the precedent now set that it's a single carrier.
As I said elsewhere, all roads lead to Rome no matter whether Bedford has a sign in front of one entrance that claims it's Albuquerque. It's Rome. It was proven once it can be proven again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
