That's pretty funny... check your PM Carl...

No, it's not a catch 22. It's just a fight that needs to be fought. We at the majors have got to demand stronger scope, and at the very minimum, have an agreement that as each contract expires, there will be no extensions or renewals. On the regional side, those pilots need to fight for better pay and work rules. If they ALL fight for it, then their management's won't have the leverage of saying they'll move the flying to someone else.

At the majors, our problem is ALPA. Because we'll have to fight them just as hard as management for any scope strengthening.

Carl

Ok, so we have established that the majors gave away scope (Carls fault) and that the resulting regionals put significant downward pressure on wages etc. Rather than continuing this circlejerk, how about WE look for solutions. I think that about covers the first 3 steps in OUR 12 step program. Management must love threads like this.

What Carl said in post 202. I know, I know.....I agreed with Carl;)

Carl,

Your Section 1 has been posted on this board multiple times, including this thread.

I know. I would have thought you would have read it before you made such wrong comments about it. Oh well.

Carl

It had to happen at some point. Hopefully it won't happen again. :D

Carl

It is not "key" at all. It is simply a fact that regionals prepare a large percentage of pilots to the majors. There are very few openings for military pilots, so the 30,000 regional pilots or so that exist would not be able to pursue their dreams if it weren't for regionals.

But the same economic force that you expect regional pilots to respect (i.e. falling on their sword for the greater good) should still apply, right. Every pilot should just no apply to Delta (or where ever) until the rate got fixed.

There are also many other ways pilots prepare for a job at the majors. The only way you can keep your "argument" afloat is by the patently false inference that regional airlines are the only way to get hired by a major. It's not only wrong, it's not even close.

Simply not true.

If their dream is to work for a regional, then you're correct. And I hope they're enjoying living the dream. But if their dream is to join a major some day, you must understand how your actions are all but killing your dream.

Carl

"Such wrong comments" in the eyes of Carl the 747 captain, despite the legal counsel for his MEC coming to the exact same conclusion I did.

How could we ever make such a foolish mistake? After all, the violation is sooooooooooo obvious!

Ya know what Carl, after reading the dozens of your [Mod Edit: delete flamebait/insults] posts in this thread, its blatantly clear that your mind is made up and absolutely nothing will change it.

As such, you've got rather limited options to achieve your objective of getting Shuttle America & Chautauqua out of DCI:

1. [Mod Edit: delete language] whining about regional pilots on APC
2. file a grievance on this issue and compel your Grievance Committee Chair/MEC to pursue it to its legal end, or
3. File a DFR Lawsuit against your MEC and ALPA National for failing to enforce your scope clause. After all, you're so sure of an ALPA conspiracy to win representation of RAH pilots away from IBT at the expense of their largest (and most financially-supporting) pilot group that such a lawsuit would be a slam dunk...right?

So let me appeal to the ego that you've shown us all is so strong.

I'm so certain after reading the DALPA scope clause that there is no violation here with RAH subsidiaries that I'll bet you $100, paid to the charity of your choice, that if this reaches an Arbitrator the ruling will come back in favor of the Company.

If I'm right, you contribute $100 to March of Dimes...if you're right, I'll contribute the C-note to whichever charity you want and publicly state that I was incorrect in my interpretation of DALPA's contract.

Deal?

Again, I've never said anyone should fall on their sword. I've only said that people like you with an incurable entitlement mentality need to realize the consequences of YOUR actions. I CHOOSE to stay on the 747 while fighting during each negotiations to raise the bar for all pilots at my airline. You CHOOSE to not fight for anything, and blame major pilots for you not realizing your dream. Then you CHOOSE to ridicule our efforts to raise the bar by stating that we've just taken the money from other pilots in the industry, and helped to destroy the industry by asking for too much.

That's not how you would fix the rates at Delta. That's up to Delta pilots to fight for it. What would fix YOUR rates is YOU fighting for it.

Carl

I've posted the reason for this. I posted that this would be their reason months BEFORE the NMB ruled one way or the other.

Yawn.

I'll leave that up to you.

Previous posts show how that mechanism cannot work.

That may well be exactly what happens. Or a major recall of LEC reps may pre-empt that action. It depends on how many pilots realize what ALPA is doing here. It has nothing to do with the scope language. It has everything to do with not making RAH pilots angry and getting them to join ALPA someday.

Stop being such a drama queen. This will never reach an arbitrator as I have previously posted. The ALPA side of the grievance will agree with the company. That makes the vote 0 - YES, 2 - NO. Grievance lost, thus no need for an arbitrator to break the tie.

Carl

Now, I'm a little new to the 90's politics and actions that place within the industry during that time. Comair went on strike, because they wanted to raise the bar(which they did). This action in turn hurt Delta mainline and Comair pilots are now a black sheep in the eyes of many Delta pilots. How could you expect me to fight for the cause, when the respect and recognition of my peers(Delta mainline)is not assured. I agree 100% that fighting for benefits and compensation at the regional level is mandatory in order to stop the erosion of scope. My question is; are mainline guys going to stand behind us in the event a strike occurs, which will in turn hurt mainlines bottom line and expose you and your family to financial risk.

Carl, I do believe we need more support from guys like yourself. This started with the senior pilot group throwing the junior folks under the bus. With the senior pilots involved in this fight, we have the support needed to turn this thing around. Thank you

Carl, despite you responding to my posts, its quite clear you didn't actually read anything I wrote...and if you did, you certainly didn't comprehend it.

Best of luck with your DFR suit and/or recall effort...

There are others here far more qualified to speak on this subject than I since I was a Northwest guy. But Comair pilots did some inexcusably cruel and downright dumb things to Delta pilots in their relationship with Delta.

Abso-freakin-lutely!! I would tell any chief pilot to go pound sand from any request to fly struck work. Period!

If you don't remember anything else, please understand this: It started because the VAST MAJORITY of major pilots bought in to lies and scare tactics about scope. We were all told that our companies couldn't survivie without the ability to have what American had with American Eagle. We were then told that it would help grow the majors because of all the hub traffic. We were then told that even if it didn't, we'd be getting an "iron-clad" no furlough clause to ensure that our junior pilots didn't take the hit. These arguments won the day (I'm ashamed to say) and senior pilots, middle pilots, and junior pilots ALL voted YES. Nobody through anybody under the bus. Can I be any clearer on that?

Just senior pilots couldn't accomplish a darn thing. All seniority levels of pilots are involved in this fight now, but none of us thought we'd be fighting ALPA as hard as management. Interesting times.

Carl

Boiler-
Just for the sake of argument let's say I accept ALPA's bizarre "certificate" definition of an air carrier. So ---

Chautauqua flies "doing business as" Frontier. Says so on their certificate.
Frontier flies aircraft that violate scope.

Therefore Chautauqua is in violation of section 1.D.2.
You can't be "doing business as" Frontier and still claim to be separate from Frontier. Not even an ALPA lawyer would stand up in court and say that.

The animosity between Delta mainline and Comair pilots has nothing to do with the strike. The mainline pilots supported the strike by auditing flights to stop struck flying, walked the picket line, and let Comair use our SPC.

It has everything to do with the seniority grab PID, RJDC, and Lawson's furlough letter.

Excellent point check, but even more important is this: Clearly there's a shell game going on. Clearly this is being done to get around the intent of our scope and that of other carriers. Judges take a very dim view of people who so blatantly try to work around what is clear intent.

If ALPA grieved this, we would win. Period. The problem is, that would alienate the current RAH pilots, and ALPA does not want that. Thus, no grievance.

Carl

like this ?--->The route will be operated on Frontier’s 37-seat Embraer 135 aircraft and feature continuing service to Ironwood Gogebic-Iron County Airport in Michigan’s upper peninsula.
“Our new service reflects Frontier’s ongoing commitment to providing the people of Wisconsin with convenient and affordable air travel,” said Daniel Shurz, vice president of strategy and planning for Frontier.
Also on April 18, Frontier will begin nonstop service between Mitchell and Manistee County Blacker Airport in Michigan.


TEN

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

How can Frontier be using "Frontier's 37 seat Embraer 135 aircraft"?

There's no such jets on their certificate.

Federal Aviation Administration - Airline Certificate Information - Detail View

Further proof that Republic et al. are one big air carrier.

Republic, Shuttle, and Chautauqua have been operating as a single carrier transportation system for several years. Republic has been operating 86 seat 175's for Airways for many years. Delta pilots never saw a problem with their scope with that situation. Chautauqua has been DBA US Airways well before we ever had a Delta contract. US Airways flies heavy jets. Is this a violation of your scope too? But now because it's Frontier all of a sudden everyone's up in arms. If I were an arbitrator the first thing I would ask would be "how come after all these years you never said anything until now? How has anything really changed?" I agree that if you think it's a scope violation then you should fight to get it changed or fixed to your liking but just as American pilots found out when the 170's were originally on the Chautauqua certificate they will just move more stuff around or put all their 145s operating for Frontier on the Republic or Frontier certificate. I hate to say it but Bedford isn't going to close up Frontier because of your scope, whether you win a grievance or not... The arbitrator at best is just going to tell Republic how they need to move some planes around to certificates that don't affect Delta. But if it's really a fight that your pilot group is fired up about then it's a fight worth fighting. Good luck...

nevermind. It is a long arduous struggle.

TEN

A. No one is stealing from you. You gave it all away.

B. There is no such thing as a regional pilot. That term was created to separate yourselves in the hopes of being superior and worth more.

C. The erosion was caused by you. What did you think was going to happen when you allowed a separate company (with those regional pilots worth less than you, as you claim) to fly your companies passengers?

D. You want to recapture it? Great. In your next contract, force DAL to take back all the scope.

With that kind of attitude, good luck. There are such people as "regional pilots" and you seem destined to be one for the rest of you life. Hope it works out for ya.

Attitude? Nothing I said had any "attitude" to it. What "attitude" should I have? Gemme an example, I'm curious. Oh, and what ever you think my attitude is, its been successful inside and outside aviation for me. ;)

Nice try, but --
1) US Airways and Chautauqua aren't owned by the same parent company.
That's the difference. When Delta codeshares with Chautauqua and makes them profitable it does not subsidize the growth of USAir.

2) The remedy we will be seeking in the grievance is spelled out in our contract. Codesharing with Republic Holdings must be terminated. Bedford can do whatever he wants. Just not with Delta money.

While his delivery may leave something to be desired, he does have a point. What is a"regional pilot"? He/she is a Part 121 ATP certificate holder who flies for a carrier that operates aircraft limited to 76 seats (in our case). The term has become a derisive pejorative describing poorly trained, inexperienced, ipod and backpack wearing, buffoon who pulls up during a stall recovery. In certain cases the description fits.

But I think his point is before the creation of subcontracted flying, they were us. Delta flew Convairs did they not? AA flew Fokkers, weren't they regional planes? .

His points, however distasteful, are true. Regional pilots did not steal our flying. Our companies subcontracted it with our blessing or at least acquiescence. His final point is also correct. If we want it back, it will have to be during the course of section 6.

You're right I'm not a lawyer like you mainline guys so forgive me. But let me get something straight with you. I do hope that the Majors take back or hold the line on scope in their new contracts. I'm not some iPod wearing maverick who gets excited when the regional I fly for signs a new contract for additional flying. The only thing I get excited for are my days off or when one of my peers starts class at a Major. My goal is to end up at a Major at some point and I realize that with every new airplane flown at a regional it's several mainline jobs that won't be available to me. My whole argument started with the fact that if the Major airlines keep putting out capacity agreements to bid on there will be companies out there willing to take the work. In turn there will be pilots who are going to take those jobs. Nothing you can really say to stop that at the regional/bottom level. I think most pilots these days know what they are getting themselves into when they sign on with a regional. In my humble opinion the path of least resistance to bringing the flying back is by voting no on any contract that allows any more of it or even better shrinking the amount that is currently out there. And if you want the latter you better be willing to spend some serious negotiating capital to get it back. You're high if you don't think that management isn't going to fight very aggressively to at least keep the flying where it is and most likely dangle some short term QOL or financial gains to relax it a bit more. All of us at the "regionals" know the situation, we don't need some guy flying a 747 to tell us "how it is." We live it and deal with the BS everyday... And if I one day decide to be a martyr of the industry, quit, and take some garbage job flying urine samples at night in a 172 there's just going to be some punk ready and willing to do my job for even less than I'm making now. Preaching to a bunch of burnt out regional pilots does nothing but drive a larger wedge between the "regional" and "mainline" pilots.

You didn't have to use all those words to say that CheckEssential was correct. Did you think we would look at all those words of yours and not recall that they didn't respond at all to CheckEssential's point? Your telling us that we don't understand our contract as well as some "expert" lawyer was...well, silly.

Fair enough. I'll stop preaching the actual facts, if the "burnt out regional pilots" stop hurling epithets such as:

- Major pilots threw the junior pilots under the bus
- Senior major pilots sold scope to pad their own paychecks and retirements
- Etc, etc.

Carl

Actually we have been paying attention.

However, 86 seat Midwest E175s are not a scope violation for Delta. 98 seat E190s and larger are. The way I read our contract and given when the first E190s were acquired from UsAir you're looking at mid 2010 as being the start of the violation.

Also, ALPA has argued this in front of the NMB:
RAH and UsAir are different airlines and ownership.

It's not Frontier that is the problem, it's CHQ and Shuttle. Frontier and RAH can do all they want, they just can't operate CHQ and Shuttle or any other of their carriers for Delta.

Again, not years.

RAH could have CHQ, Shuttle and RA flying and never be in violation of the scope clause at Delta. Their aircraft size up until the E190s was in compliance.

If they're found to be an STS then they can move aircraft all around and will still be in violation.

Bedford can do whatever he wants, but as an STS, none of his aircraft can fly for Delta. And again, not knowing APA's contract but taking a guess, not for AMR either.

I don't know if Check Essential is correct or not. I don't know what your scope language looks like. All I care about is that you guys do something when the time comes to reign it in or stop the bleeding. I was just stating earlier that I didn't see how what is going on now is different than what has been going on for years with all of the Republic Holding certificates. He gave a vague answer saying that it's not ok now because they are subsidizing a competitor. If you have wording in your scope language that states that no contract flying can be accomplished by a holding company that is also a competitor then yes I'm wrong.

Either way I agree with you that regional is bad and it's lessening my chances at a mainline career. I also never said any of the stuff you quoted above and all I've been saying is that it's gonna take the collective force of mainline pilots to reign in scope. If the flying is there then there will be regionals. If the flying isn't there then there won't be regionals. Its simple economics. If you want to let off some steam and talk down to some pilots your time may be better suited at aviation colleges and flight schools. Like I said we get it, we live it everyday...

Thanks for clearing that up a bit. I do appreciate the logical response that wasn't full of emotion.

Now what's stopping ALPA from going for the jugular?
If you think it's because of a conflict of interest can't you file some kind of DFR suit?
Are you, Carl, and the few on here the majority or are you the few who actually get it and want to do something about it?
When can we expect to see the legal proceedings begin?

Mainline pilots who have been around a long time, say 2 or 3 decades, have a lot of opinions just the same as a 10 year RJ pilot would in comparison to a new hire RJ pilot.

So let me just turn this around slightly, not every major pilot voted yes to scope erosion for pay nor is every regional pilot an ipod loving, no-hat wearing, 300-hour wonderkid from Embry Riddle Daytona Beach who thinks the world owes him a jet. Not every contract with scope erosion was signed with the promise of pay raises either btw, some were but if you remember the famous line "we have to pass the law to find out what's in the law." Fog of war, apathy, not knowing the implications and I'm sure a lot of other stuff goes into a contract. Seems to happen every time at every airline... imho.

What is going on, whether you look at the Delta Pilots Association thread or Latest and Greatest about Delta is you will see guys from up and down the seniority list at Delta fighting the organization that continues to negotiate TA's and promote contracts as "sign this because this is the best we can get and if you say no I'm really scared what might happen but I can guarantee it won't be better." Guys say they heard that in 1996 and to an extent in 2008, but I also heard it during Coex's negotiations. Ironic eh? Same exact "this is the best, doom and gloom if you don't sign" thing.

The one organization that represents both the airline pilots and outsourced airline pilots is supposed to protect the interests of all. So before pilots are blamed, take a look at D.C. where the former President of ALPA was making $503,000 a year to put an end to lithium batteries in the cockpit or something.

Now I know this differs from what I wrote above about even ALPA saying RAH was STS. I think that's profound, but it's because they were looking out for the interests of Midwest pilots. But we'll take that plus the other evidence and expect those who are in elected power to run with it.

For more info: http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2011/38n039.pdf

Answers above.

Mind you, Delta's contract allows for 255 70+ seat regional jets of which 120+/- depending on the situation 76 seaters. If you're airline, say RAH, flies a jet larger than 76 seats then it's what we consider not permitted but it's permitted as long as it's not flown for Delta, doesn't compete with Delta on a given route and isn't certified for more than 106 seats and actually configured for 98 seats or more.

If RAH was ousted from DCI those jets and flying go to another DCI. But if the contract is in violation that has to be addressed otherwise you're giving the green light for every contract carrier to do this very same thing.

Also - most imho of the pilots who bother to come to an anonymous internet forum and discuss topics, whether they're pro-ALPA or not, would not take pay to erode scope. Just a hunch. But remember that's never how a contract is presented in TA form as it may be hidden in a 16,000 word section 1 or come through a surprise LOA or it might actually be written but never enforced.


.

All very true and It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Yeah, until it pans out...

http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-conte...o-the-fire.jpg

They weren't stupid to try it. Management and ALPA didn't object.
Its the ordinary line pilots who are insisting that the contract be enforced.
We may or may not succeed in forcing ALPA to act.
Moak doesn't want this battle. So far, he's been able to just ignore the rank and file. Some of us have been yelling about this since the day RAH bought Frontier and Midwest out of bankruptcy. Its hard to generate enough pressure with limited communication tools and the general level of apathy out there.

This time might be different though.
ALPA's been insisting RAH is "not a single carrier" for a long time but this NMB ruling saying that they are has a lot of people taking a second look.