RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
Update
April 22, 2004
ALPA Forgoes Court Fight and Agrees to Produce Requested Documents
One day before the April 8th Court Conference, ALPA entered into a written agreement with plaintiffs requiring the union to turn over the remaining documents by May 15th. The agreement marks a significant departure from ALPA's previous arguments in which they claimed they were not bound by any specific deadlines and even one attorney's insinuation that ALPA's document production was nearly complete.
The three-page agreement, approved by the Court, also addresses other administrative issues including a three-month extension of all other deadlines. The extension was requested by plaintiffs in order to assure we were not disadvantaged by ALPA's delays. The next regular conference with the Court remains scheduled for May 6th.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/040804_stipulation.pdf
ALPA's President Responds to February 26, 2004 Letter
On February 26th, ASA Captain Ken Cooksey and Comair Captain Dan Ford sent ALPA's President a lengthy letter detailing numerous issues of concern as ALPA's situation at Delta continues to worsen. Specifically, ALPA's leadership was warned that the union’s duties to the ASA and Comair pilots prohibit the Delta pilot leadership from using the rights and interests of the ASA and Comair pilots as bargaining capital in any sort of negotiations. Furthermore, it was clearly stated that ALPA's obligation to correct the harmful mainline scope clause cannot be made contingent upon the appeasement of other pilot groups.
More than a month later, ALPA's President responded by stating that these issues have been under “discussion” for some time and points made in the past bear “repeating.” Captain Woerth's response detailed the hardships faced by the Delta pilots and how the ASA, Comair, and Delta MEC’s had recently held a series of meetings. Captain Woerth's letter also erroneously stated that Comair currently operated 35 70-seat jets and was slated to receive an additional 23 more in 2004.
On April 18th, Captains Cooksey and Ford responded to Captain Woerth stating that ALPA's letter actually illustrated the pressing need for reforms. While the ASA and Comair pilots are sensitive to the hardships faced by the Delta pilots, it's unfair to blame the ASA and Comair pilots for their plight. In fact, both prior to, and after 9/11, the ASA and Comair pilots warned ALPA's leadership and the Delta MEC that their approach to “job security” was fundamentally flawed and would not work.
Rather than implying that job losses at Delta justify the continuation of past practices, we believe they should serve as a clarion call for reflection and reform. Likewise, the fairness and objectivity of any meetings between the ASA, Comair, and Delta MEC’s will remain in doubt as long as ALPA maintains that the Delta pilots are free to impose restrictions upon the ASA and Comair pilots.
In summary, credible solutions can only be developed as part of a methodical and objective process. In plain terms, credible solutions require a process reflective of ALPA's duties to the ASA and Comair pilots and that focus on the protection of rights rather than the waiver of rights.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/april...rth_letters.pdf http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/cooks...th_02-26-04.pdf
ALPA Again Proves that Small Jet Restrictions Used as Mainline Bargaining Capital
In its March 31st code-a-phone message to the US Airways pilots, ALPA stated that management had failed to offer sufficient “returns” in exchange for the union’s permission to operate more small jets. The message followed a recent MEC resolution that referenced a list of ALPA's bargaining demands linked to small jet “relief.”
ALPA's public statements and resolutions affirm the RJDC's long held position that small jet restrictions have little to do with “job security.” As we have pointed out many times, ALPA's mainline interests merely use small jet restrictions as bargaining capital.
Unfortunately, the practice runs afoul of its duties to thousands of its members who depend upon the small jet for their livelihoods. By making the fulfillment of its obligations to its “regional” members contingent upon appeasement of mainline pilot groups, ALPA continues to perpetuate an inherent conflict of interest and a breach of its duties.
Furthermore, as illustrated by the proposed LOA 91, ALPA's talk of “brand scope” is just that -- talk. Once again, ALPA has permitted, supported, and funded efforts to unilaterally impose a vast new array of egregious terms and restrictions upon the union’s own members. As the RJDC has said many times, ALPA's real scope policies can be found at the mainline bargaining table.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/small_jet_bargaining.pdf http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/loa91.pdf
Commentary: Moving the Goalposts
While ALPA accuses Delta management of taking an “all or nothing” approach to concessionary bargaining, the union ignores the fact that for the last ten years it has applied the very same principle to its internal efforts to find scope “solutions.” Specifically, ALPA's chieftains have unilaterally decided that all system flying “belongs” to the mainline MEC’s for bargaining purposes. When coupled with the erroneous claims that each pilot group is completely “free” to bargain however it pleases, it's clear that ALPA is telling its mainline MEC’s that they will have the union’s full support no matter what they decide.
In simple terms, this is like buying a house from someone who states in advance they will not be bound by the terms of the sales agreement and that as the “real” owner of the house, they will be able to change the terms of the “agreement” any time they wish—even after the fact.
Therefore, when ALPA's leaders point to recent discussions between the ASA, Comair, and Delta MEC’s, they are hard-pressed to show how any such discussions could be considered fair or objective as long as one party is free to act with impunity. This is why this week we wrote ALPA's President stating that ALPA should develop a process reflective of its duties to the ASA and Comair pilots and one that focuses on the protection of rights rather than the waiver of rights.
When ALPA refuses to guarantee the individual and collective rights of its “regional” members, any “discussions” or “meetings” will inevitably devolve into “negotiations”-- whereby ALPA's duty to the ASA and Comair pilots will be reduced to a series of political transactions. ALPA will never be able to address the scope problem until it establishes a methodical and objective process free of undue political influence and pre-packaged “solutions.”
Given the unmitigated failure of ALPA's scope practices to achieve their stated objectives, it's time ALPA's leaders abandon their defense of failed policies and begin the process of addressing the real problems in an objective environment that protects the rights of all ALPA members.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/bsicsub.pdf
__________________
Ensuring One Level of Representation
www.rjdefense.com
Update
April 22, 2004
ALPA Forgoes Court Fight and Agrees to Produce Requested Documents
One day before the April 8th Court Conference, ALPA entered into a written agreement with plaintiffs requiring the union to turn over the remaining documents by May 15th. The agreement marks a significant departure from ALPA's previous arguments in which they claimed they were not bound by any specific deadlines and even one attorney's insinuation that ALPA's document production was nearly complete.
The three-page agreement, approved by the Court, also addresses other administrative issues including a three-month extension of all other deadlines. The extension was requested by plaintiffs in order to assure we were not disadvantaged by ALPA's delays. The next regular conference with the Court remains scheduled for May 6th.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/040804_stipulation.pdf
ALPA's President Responds to February 26, 2004 Letter
On February 26th, ASA Captain Ken Cooksey and Comair Captain Dan Ford sent ALPA's President a lengthy letter detailing numerous issues of concern as ALPA's situation at Delta continues to worsen. Specifically, ALPA's leadership was warned that the union’s duties to the ASA and Comair pilots prohibit the Delta pilot leadership from using the rights and interests of the ASA and Comair pilots as bargaining capital in any sort of negotiations. Furthermore, it was clearly stated that ALPA's obligation to correct the harmful mainline scope clause cannot be made contingent upon the appeasement of other pilot groups.
More than a month later, ALPA's President responded by stating that these issues have been under “discussion” for some time and points made in the past bear “repeating.” Captain Woerth's response detailed the hardships faced by the Delta pilots and how the ASA, Comair, and Delta MEC’s had recently held a series of meetings. Captain Woerth's letter also erroneously stated that Comair currently operated 35 70-seat jets and was slated to receive an additional 23 more in 2004.
On April 18th, Captains Cooksey and Ford responded to Captain Woerth stating that ALPA's letter actually illustrated the pressing need for reforms. While the ASA and Comair pilots are sensitive to the hardships faced by the Delta pilots, it's unfair to blame the ASA and Comair pilots for their plight. In fact, both prior to, and after 9/11, the ASA and Comair pilots warned ALPA's leadership and the Delta MEC that their approach to “job security” was fundamentally flawed and would not work.
Rather than implying that job losses at Delta justify the continuation of past practices, we believe they should serve as a clarion call for reflection and reform. Likewise, the fairness and objectivity of any meetings between the ASA, Comair, and Delta MEC’s will remain in doubt as long as ALPA maintains that the Delta pilots are free to impose restrictions upon the ASA and Comair pilots.
In summary, credible solutions can only be developed as part of a methodical and objective process. In plain terms, credible solutions require a process reflective of ALPA's duties to the ASA and Comair pilots and that focus on the protection of rights rather than the waiver of rights.
Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/april...rth_letters.pdf http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/cooks...th_02-26-04.pdf
ALPA Again Proves that Small Jet Restrictions Used as Mainline Bargaining Capital
In its March 31st code-a-phone message to the US Airways pilots, ALPA stated that management had failed to offer sufficient “returns” in exchange for the union’s permission to operate more small jets. The message followed a recent MEC resolution that referenced a list of ALPA's bargaining demands linked to small jet “relief.”
ALPA's public statements and resolutions affirm the RJDC's long held position that small jet restrictions have little to do with “job security.” As we have pointed out many times, ALPA's mainline interests merely use small jet restrictions as bargaining capital.
Unfortunately, the practice runs afoul of its duties to thousands of its members who depend upon the small jet for their livelihoods. By making the fulfillment of its obligations to its “regional” members contingent upon appeasement of mainline pilot groups, ALPA continues to perpetuate an inherent conflict of interest and a breach of its duties.
Furthermore, as illustrated by the proposed LOA 91, ALPA's talk of “brand scope” is just that -- talk. Once again, ALPA has permitted, supported, and funded efforts to unilaterally impose a vast new array of egregious terms and restrictions upon the union’s own members. As the RJDC has said many times, ALPA's real scope policies can be found at the mainline bargaining table.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/small_jet_bargaining.pdf http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/loa91.pdf
Commentary: Moving the Goalposts
While ALPA accuses Delta management of taking an “all or nothing” approach to concessionary bargaining, the union ignores the fact that for the last ten years it has applied the very same principle to its internal efforts to find scope “solutions.” Specifically, ALPA's chieftains have unilaterally decided that all system flying “belongs” to the mainline MEC’s for bargaining purposes. When coupled with the erroneous claims that each pilot group is completely “free” to bargain however it pleases, it's clear that ALPA is telling its mainline MEC’s that they will have the union’s full support no matter what they decide.
In simple terms, this is like buying a house from someone who states in advance they will not be bound by the terms of the sales agreement and that as the “real” owner of the house, they will be able to change the terms of the “agreement” any time they wish—even after the fact.
Therefore, when ALPA's leaders point to recent discussions between the ASA, Comair, and Delta MEC’s, they are hard-pressed to show how any such discussions could be considered fair or objective as long as one party is free to act with impunity. This is why this week we wrote ALPA's President stating that ALPA should develop a process reflective of its duties to the ASA and Comair pilots and one that focuses on the protection of rights rather than the waiver of rights.
When ALPA refuses to guarantee the individual and collective rights of its “regional” members, any “discussions” or “meetings” will inevitably devolve into “negotiations”-- whereby ALPA's duty to the ASA and Comair pilots will be reduced to a series of political transactions. ALPA will never be able to address the scope problem until it establishes a methodical and objective process free of undue political influence and pre-packaged “solutions.”
Given the unmitigated failure of ALPA's scope practices to achieve their stated objectives, it's time ALPA's leaders abandon their defense of failed policies and begin the process of addressing the real problems in an objective environment that protects the rights of all ALPA members.
Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/bsicsub.pdf
__________________
