ALPA and the US Airways wholly owneds

[lear24]

From the ALPA website - a huge, bright red banner reading:

"Are you considering applying for a job with Freedom Airlines? If so, think again. Working for Freedom Air is bad for the piloting profession and it’s a gamble for your own career. "

They are so opposed to Freedom Air, but it's alright to start another airline similar in all but one way at US Airways. Since Mid Atlantic will be ALPA represented, it's perfectly acceptable to start an alter-ego airline. ALPA will turn their head and watch me be furloughed while mainline pilots flow down in a program they are creating out of their infinite arrogance. For so many years we wanted a flow through, but couldn't have it. Now that it suits them, they will come down and take our jobs. Thanks guys, and thank you ALPA national, for turning the other cheek to Mid Atlantic, but at the same time being the watch dog for what is right and preventing Freedom Air from starting. You all should be very proud.


lear24
Misrepresented ALPA member in good standing.

 

[~~~^~~~]

From the ALPA website - a huge, bright red banner reading:

"Are you considering applying for a job with Freedom Airlines? If so, think again. Working for Freedom Air is bad for the piloting profession and it’s a gamble for your own career. "

Who are they trying to kidd. ALPA nearly wet themselves with eager excitement to welcome in the Continental Scabs who broke the union.

ALPA's only beef with Freedumb Air is that they are going to operate 70 and 90 seat jets - in amazing defiance to Duane Worth's highly scientific opinion that "50 seats is a natural dividing line."

Once it happens at Feedumb, it might spread. After all Freedom could prove the paradigm that - Jeez Oh' Pete, and RJ pilot CAN fly a 90 to 110 seat jet. It is not just ex military morons with C12 time, or centerline thrust jets who can handle the awesome responsibilities.

 

[tintube]

"ALPA's only beef with Freedumb Air is that they are going to operate 70 and 90 seat jets - in amazing defiance to Duane Worth's highly scientific opinion that "50 seats is a natural dividing line." "

----------------

Only beef is that they are going to operate 70 and 90 seater jets?
Do you know that Mesa is in contract negotiations????Where have you been?????

Are you stating that no other ALPA Commuter operates more than 50 seater jets?

You start sounding like J.O.........................

 

[~~~^~~~]

Are you stating that no other ALPA Commuter operates more than 50 seater jets?

We do now.

ALPA is doing everything in their power to see "Express" carriers limited to <50 seats. The 50 seat "natural dividing line" is a D. Woerth quote, straight from the Horse's butt.

 

[tintube]

Then explain why D.W signed Comair, ASA, Eagle and Air Wisconsin contracs and TA's allowing them to fly 50+ seaters.

Can you also paste exactly what D.W said, without any twist to it?

Thanks.

 

[lear24]

I don't think this is just about 50+ seats, this is about union membership and alter ego carrier creation. My point with this thread is that ALPA is just fine with turning their head and ignoring the US Airways wholly owneds being hosed by the creation of an alter ego carrier, but stand the moral high ground when it comes to Mesa being hosed by the creation of an alter ego carrier.

The point to this thread is to express my disgust with my own union, and that they are fickle. They denounce one alter ego carrier, but allow the creation of another one, which incidentally will be staffed by those mainline boys that pay ALPA so much more money than us commuter scum. It's the creation of a second class of airline pilots, and it is not supposed to be allowed to happen, as per the ideas ALPA was founded on.

 

[metrofo]

I have to admit that i have had about enough of the whining and complaining from the WO's about MAA. lets just say it one more time for the record. MAA is not, has never been, and never will be classified as an alter ego carrier to any of the WO's. The largest aircraft that any of the WO's operate hold about 37 seats and are prop driven. MAA will most likely never see an airplane with less than 70 seats, at least not in the next few years. Face the facts, the reason the WO's dont have jets is that they were cheaper to operate from places like Mesa. That has nothing to do with U ALPA. Before you start looking for someone to blame, try to look internally first for the problem. Its not a coincidence that U had the ability to operate 70 RJ's and I would bet no serious consideration was given to operate them at the WO's. Is that U mainlines fault? Wake up and smell the coffee, sh*t runs down hill and if the WO pilot groups think they are going to have a windfall of jobs on the backs of the mainline pilots and thier scope clause, you are mistaken. I'll tell you what, if you really feel outraged by the whole MAA deal, when your number comes up, just turn it down as a way to protest the operation. And if you should ever have an opportunity to flow through to mainline someday, turn that down as well. The last thing you would want to become is one of those "mainline jerks". YEAH RIGHT!!!!!

 

[surplus1]

I wrote this in a different thread but it seemed to fit here so I copied it over

Surplus,
My opinion is that this whole gig is a threatening move by JO, and it may cause some heartburn, but somehow I don't think he'll get away with it.

I agree that the creation of Freedom is very threatening to Mesa pilots. That is the case whenever one corporation owns more than one airline, a condition that has almost always existed at Mesa. Freedom is not a concept that is "new" to the MAG property. While it does dilute the bargaining power of the Mesa pilot, Mesa pilots do have full access to the jobs at Freedom if they choose to accept them on the Company's terms. At least Ornstein hasn't yet asked them to give half of the jobs to pilots from another airline. In the current industry environment, it might be worth a little creative thinking.

Because of this long history of multiple airlines under the MAG umbrella (which I hope but doubt Mesa pilots will be able to eliminate), I frankly find ALPA's sudden fervor against Freedom to be highly hypocritical. Let's not ignore several relevant facts.

Mesa Air Group has a contract to conduct certain flying for America West. That contract includes the use of 50, 70 and 90 seat jets. The 50-seaters are currently flown by Mesa pilots. MAG was prevented from placing the 70 and 90 seaters on the Mesa certificate by a provision of the USAirways pilot contract which prevented MAG from operating any jet with more than 50-seats (even under contract with a totally unrelated and different airline) while it had a contract with USAir Group.

If USAG had not collapsed financially, MAG would have had to cancel its contract with USAG in order to operate those aircraft. In that circumstance, the Mesa pilots would not have any access to those aircraft. ALPA expressed no concern while that was the case. Ornstein moved to create Freedom as a means of avoiding the USAirways Scope, not the Mesa pilots. They were merely a fringe benefit. ALPA created garbage at USAG that has now created more garbage at MAG.

ALPA never objected to the alter ego airlines of ALG/PDT/PSA on the USAir Group property and fostered their continuation in that status. ALPA does not object to the alter ego subsidiaries of Comair and ASA on the Delta property and has overtly acted to keep them in that status. ALPA has raised no objections to the alter ego called COEX nor to Express1(Pinnacle). ALPA does not object to the alter ego status of American Eagle on the AMR property. ALPA has had no problem creating a fourth alter ego now called Mid Atlantic Airways on the USAir Group property. What then is the sudden reason for raising the hue and cry against Freedom? Do you really expect me to believe that it is ALPA's devotion to the welfare of Mesa pilots? I'm not that naive.

What's JO gonna do when AWA gets their scope? I mean, it ties into RJDC argument, and that's why I don't support RJDC. Abolishing scope clauses would open doors to other "Freedom Airlines's" which is what I am opposed to.

You've more or less answered the true ALPA motivation with your first sentence. That is precisely why ALPA has this special interest in preventing the creation of Freedom. It has nothing whatever to do with Mesa pilots and everything to do with AWA pilots. The Mesa pilots are simply being used as pawns.

ALPA has failed miserably in its long, misguided and concerted effort to block, then limit, the 50-seat regional jet. Now the focus is simply changing to an identical effort to block the 70 and 90 seat RJ's.

I have nothing at all against AWA pilots and would like to see them get a good contract, but when you ask me "what is JO going to do when AWA gets their scope" you make me grin from ear to ear. I must ask you, what is ALPA going to do when the AWA doesn't get their scope?

If AWA pilots want Scope that says there will be no subcontracting of any AWA flying and all jets operated by, for or in the service of AWA will be flown by pilots on the AWA list, I could and would happily support them in that effort. That is the purpose of Scope and would be completely legitimate.

[Note: If ALPA is really concerned about alter egos, then it would be fighting to negotiate Scope that prevents them. It has done so at most majors, but has never tried and usually resists efforts to do so at "regionals". If Mesa had Scope, Freedom would not be possible. Given the current Mesa contract there is nothing at all that its creation violates in the Mesa contract. ALPA is now trying to prevent after the fact, what it failed to prevent before the fact.]

However, I do not and will not support them (AWA) in any effort that attempts to limit or control the number or type of aircraft that may be operated by Mesa Air Group or any other airline. That is predatory scope and completely illegitimate. I believe it is illegal and should be prohibited by the courts.

Neither will I ever support them in any attempt to place any AWA pilots into the cockpits of Mesa airplanes by any means other than the normal hiring process at Mesa. Any attempt similar to the J4J coercion at USAirGroup would be equally anathema to me at AWA or anywhere else. That is a gross injustice that forces the abrogation of seniority and should never happen. The union should be crucified for doing it and the courts should overturn it.

Mesa pilots unfortunately find themselves in the middle and victims of the mess. On one side they have an anti-union CEO who will definitely use Freedom as a lever against them whenever he can. On the other side they are represented by a labor union that has clearly demonstrated elswhere that it has far more intrest in preventing regional pilots anywhere from flying 70 or 90 seat regional jets (whether alter egos or not) and supporting the predatory interests of mainline pilots who, not statisfied with what they have also want what others have, than it does in protecting the rights or interests of the Mesa pilots.

ALPA is taking advantage of the opportunity to use the PR advantages of "defending Mesa pilots", to achieve its very different objectives. If ALPA should achieve what it wants at America West, it will abandon the Mesa pilots to whatever befalls them just as it has every other regional pilot group.

What ever "side" of this mess you choose to take is up to you and I have no ill will towards you, but I do wish that you and other regional pilots would stop believing in ALPA fairy tales and become more aware of the reality of what is happening, no matter how disgusting it may be.

Regards to you!

Surplus1

 

[Tim47SIP]

Surplus

Everything you stated is true concerning the cause of freedoms start up. But one more thing comes to mind concerning this event. ALAP is also quite angry because it has no control over Freedom Air and has no ability to manipulate it's outcome. I think that they (ALPA) are throwing a tempertantrum because they have lost control over the situation and cant really do anything about it. Although I dont agree with MAG methodology, I cant blame them. It was ALPA's and U's scope that caused the startup in the first place. I still wonder how ALPA will deal with the pilots of Freedom as there really cant be a list since there are really no scabs. If there is a black ball list provided by ALPA, then what other operations are they going to try to black ball. When will it end? Will ALPA take back the guys from Mesa on LOA and that will eventually come back to Mesa?

 

[lear24]

I have to admit that i have had about enough of the whining and complaining from the WO's about MAA. lets just say it one more time for the record. MAA is not, has never been, and never will be classified as an alter ego carrier to any of the WO's. The largest aircraft that any of the WO's operate hold about 37 seats and are prop driven. MAA will most likely never see an airplane with less than 70 seats, at least not in the next few years. Face the facts, the reason the WO's dont have jets is that they were cheaper to operate from places like Mesa. That has nothing to do with U ALPA. Before you start looking for someone to blame, try to look internally first for the problem. Its not a coincidence that U had the ability to operate 70 RJ's and I would bet no serious consideration was given to operate them at the WO's. Is that U mainlines fault? Wake up and smell the coffee, sh*t runs down hill and if the WO pilot groups think they are going to have a windfall of jobs on the backs of the mainline pilots and thier scope clause, you are mistaken. I'll tell you what, if you really feel outraged by the whole MAA deal, when your number comes up, just turn it down as a way to protest the operation. And if you should ever have an opportunity to flow through to mainline someday, turn that down as well. The last thing you would want to become is one of those "mainline jerks". YEAH RIGHT!!!!!

Now let's face a few other facts:
Mid Atlantic IS an alter ego carrier to all US Airways wholly owned carriers, including mainline (which I assume you are a part of). Of course you are alright with mid atlantic, it creates jobs for you and yours. Mid Atlantic is not even close to the worst of it for us, though. When I am laid off and you all have jobs at my airline, through the jets for jobs extortion plan, I will feel warm and snug through the winter knowing that you have a place to work. I am a second class citizen, and a second class airline pilot, right?

It does run downhill, thanks for reenforcing your superiority. I have no right expecting to keep my job. Maybe I can flow down and kick a 135 freight pilot out on the street, since it runs downhill, eh? He never had a flow through to my airline, and I never had a flow down to his airline, but maybe I can just force myself upon his pilot group and have my way with them, like mainline is with us? Surely he doesn't deserve his job as much as I do! Sadly, your arrogance doesn't suprise me, it's what we've been facing ever since US Air bought us.

The mainline scope clause said specifically that RJs shall not be operated at the wholly owned carriers. That is the reason we have no RJs. Mesa makes a profit to better themselves off of US Airways, as they get paid to operate the RJs. Allegheny, PSA and Piedmont make profit, and it all goes back in Groups' pocket. You should know that, unless you are one of the guys who doesn't even know Group owns the three regionals. It is not cheaper to sub contract, their pilots make less, but they charge more. The reason we do not have RJs at my airline is due to the mainline MEC's arrogance, plain and simple.

We're not whining, we're just sick of being walked all over and then told how good we have it.

All of this aside, my point still remains, I am sick of my union not representing me. US Airways walking all over us, I can expect. My own union to which I pay dues to walking all over us, makes no sense.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Re: Re: ALPA and the US Airways wholly owneds

Once it happens at Feedumb, it might spread. After all Freedom could prove the paradigm that - Jeez Oh' Pete, and RJ pilot CAN fly a 90 to 110 seat jet. It is not just ex military morons with C12 time, or centerline thrust jets who can handle the awesome responsibilities.

Fins, come on! Do you really believe that ego is the motivation for attempting to keep larger jets at mainline. Couldn't it possibly be that mainline carriers pay more? Or could it be that mainline pilots have negotiated clauses that give them control over the flying? Or could it be that people are worried that the 110 seat limit might lead to 250 seat limits and before you know it we are competing with freedom for 777 flying in the delta system?

You might not agree with the tacticts, but at least give them enough credit to realize that they might have some motivations besides ego or discrimination.

Believe me, we know that you could handle our 777's. Doubts of your abilities is NOT the reason we want to keep them for ourselves!

 

[metrofo]

Lear24, let me set the record straight on a few issues. I believe someone is lying to you when they told you that U ALPA has any restriction on the WO's flying the original batch of 35 airplanes and then the second batch of 35. The only limitation listed was that it was tied to a period of time after the signing of the last contract and all of the furloughed pilots had to be recalled. It NEVER limited those RJ's from going to the WO's,that was a company business decision. Second, I never mentioned a thing about J4J in my previous post because I myself dont think that is a great program to begin with. We were talking about MAA and if that carrier was an alter ego of the WO's. It is not and as you stated correctly it is only an alter-ego of mainline. That is why it is completely up to the mainline MEC to decide who should be flying those airplanes. There is not a WO pilot in existance that has any reasonable claim on any of that work. I was not trying to assert any superiority but denounce any right of entitlement that the WO's might have toward MAA. J4J is another story and you have a legitimate gripe on that one when and if any of your guys are furloughed only to be replaced with a jet and one mainline guy.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Lear24

Lear24 said, "The mainline scope clause said specifically that RJs shall not be operated at the wholly owned carriers."

It just so happens that I have a US Airways contract here so that we can review a few sections.

Section 1(B) Scope

Except as provided by section 1(B)(3) below, all present and future flying performed by the Company or US Airways Group (including any carrier controlled, operated, or partly or wholly owned by the company or US Airways group directly or indirectly) shall be performed by pilots on the US Airways seniority list.

Hey! That seems to be an important section. Seems to me that it is saying that ALL US Airways GROUP flying belongs to the US Airways pilots with the exception of what they will permit to be flown by codeshare partners and wholly-owned units within this section... hmmmm

Ok, so lets look at 1(B)(3) then...

1(B)(3)

Sections 1(B)(1) and 1(B)(2) shall not apply to a carrier that is owned, controlled or operated by the company ... ... if and only if such carrier:

a. Does not operated any aircraft with a maximum seating capacity in excess of 69 seats.

b. Does not operate any F-28 aircraft

c. (regards max weight and cargo aircraft...not applicable to our discussion)

d. Does not operate any jet-aircraft except:

(1) During the first 12 months following the effective date of the agreement , in conjunction with all other commuter carriers using the company's code, name, logo, or marketing identity, up to an aggregate of 12 jet aircraft.

(2) During the 13-24th month following the efective date (same as above) up to 15 jet aircraft.

(3) During the 25th through 36th month (same as above) up to 25 jet aircraft.

(4) When all pilots furloughed prior to the effective date of the agreement have been recalled, then (same as above) up to 35 aircraft.

Now, as we both know this was further modified by Letter of agreement 79 which allowed them to fly 70 airplanes -- and then modified once again to allow them to operate 465 as a part of the restructuring plan -- arguably a staggering number of 30-70 seat jets running around the US Airways route structure while over 1000 US Airways pilots are on furlough.

So as you can see there was no language preventing the wholly-owneds from flying jet aircraft. The language did not specify where the company put those airplanes -- it simply authorized them to place jets at the regionals. Sounds to me like if you should be mad at anyone, its the mainline management -- not its pilots.

But if you're still mad at the pilots -- and thats your right -- try to imagine how mad over 1070 pilots are at their own MEC for allowing 465 small jets to outsource their jobs without so much as a recall schedule based on retirements negotiated in return!!

The fact is we all --- all of us from the Airbus 330 Captain who went from $300 an hour to $200 and hour to the most junior mainline F/O who was furloughed after 3 years on the property, to the most junior wholly-owned F/O who will be paying a lot more for health insurance --- we ALL took a massive hit as a part of this restructuring. 1070 US Airways pilots so far (with 500 more to come) have paid the greatest price of all -- they've given up their careers so that management will have the tools to rebuild the airline. Saying "no" wasnt an option.

Now they have the flexibility to fly 465 jets in order to "feed" a 245 airplane mainline fleet.

Yes, I agree, J4J was a bad deal -- the mainline MEC should not have presumed to enter into an agreement which would abrogate your seniority -- I wish they had come to a different agreement, one that would merely have provided us with JOBS. But they didnt. And the fact is -- as you can see from section 1(B)(1) at the beginning of this message, the US Airways pilots own all of the group flying and it is ONLY the language in their collective bargaining agreement which allows any of the wholly-owneds, contract carriers, "Go Carribbean" carriers, etc to exist.

all present and future flying performed by the Company or US Airways Group shall be performed by pilots on the US Airways seniority list.

Regards,
A Proud Wholly-Owned Pilot

 

[michael707767]

If AWA pilots want Scope that says there will be no subcontracting of any AWA flying and all jets operated by, for or in the service of AWA will be flown by pilots on the AWA list, I could and would happily support them in that effort. That is the purpose of Scope and would be completely legitimate.


Surplus1

So you would support the AWA pilots in scope saying they had to do all AWA flying, even if it meant that some Mesa pilots lost their jobs becuase they could no longer fly RJs under the AWA code?

 

[lear24]

Metrofo and FurloughedAgain

I am highly encouraged to know that you don't think jets for jobs is a good idea. Mid Atlantic creation is inevitable, and we all know that, whether we think it is right or not. I am just not impressed with the way ALPA (and my own MEC, for that matter) is handling much of anything anymore. Here's hoping US Airways group turns itself around and we all get to continue flying for a living, or return to it soon.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Lear24

Lear24 said, "The mainline scope clause said specifically that RJs shall not be operated at the wholly owned carriers."

FurloughedAgain,

With reference to your quoted contract, permit me some questions.

1) At the time this contract was signed and with respect to Section 1.B.3.d. (1),(2) and (3) specifically, can you tell me

a. How many jet aircraft were being operated in codeshare agreements with USAirways by carriers not owned or controlled by USAirways (e.g., Mesa, etc.) during each of the intervals specified in (1),(2) and (3) respectively?

b. How many USAirways pilots were on furlough during each of the same intervals?

I'm sure you will recognize that the answers are highly relevant. While, as you state, the language does not specifically prohibit the placement of jets at the wholly-owned regional subsidiaries of USAG, it is a fact that the operation of any jets under the U code, by other subcontracted carriers, would materially preclude the operation of jets at the wholly owned subsidiaries if not prevent it all together.

Can you provide data that would substantiate that such a condition did not exist?

Your post states that the contract reads

Sections 1(B)(1) and 1(B)(2) shall not apply to a carrier that is owned, controlled or operated by the company ... ... if and only if such carrier:

Was Mesa "owned, controlled or operated by" the Company during these periods? Were any of the other regionals that subcontract to USAir Group and use jets?

If the answere to that question is NO, then what part of Section 1.B. provides the exemption that allowed Mesa and those carriers to operate jets subcontracted to USAir Group?

Sorry to be "picky" put contractual interpretation is not as simple as may appear from the posting of the language of some of its parts.

I have no argument with the U pilots and no particular argument with the UMEC. The latter, has no responsibility to protect the interests of ALG/PDT/PSA pilots. However, I must ask again where was ALPA while this U contract was being developed and written?

Was this contract that you quote negotiated prior to the acquisition of one or more of the wholly owned regional carriers?

If it was negotiated subsequent to their acquisition, were USAirways pilots members of the ALPA at the time or did they have their own union? [Yes, I know the answer]

What were the Section 1 Scope provisions of the contract that preceded the one you quoted, as they relate specifically to the operation of jets or for that matter any aircraft by the regional wholly owned subsidiaries? Was Section 1.B. in the preceding contract, the same as what you quoted in this contract? If not, how was it different?

While the contract you quoted was being negotiated, who represented the interests of the wholly owned regionals at the table?

A lot of questions I know, but ALL of them directly relate to the responsibility of ALPA to fairly represent the interests of the wholly owned pilots. They also can determine who has legitimate rights to the flying of USAir Group and how those legitimate rights were originally acquired.

In other words, just because someone writes something in a contract and sombody else agrees to that, that alone does not make it legal. To assume that it does is a big assumption. Note please that so far, I am only scratching the surface.

Everything that you stated may be completely legitimate. The point is we can't really tell from what you posted.

Now they have the flexibility to fly 465 jets in order to "feed" a 245 airplane mainline fleet.

That is an interesting observation. It is safe to presume that if an when this comes to pass, the pilots of the 465 "feeder jets" will substantially outnumber the pilots of the mainline fleet, is it not?

What if at that point the pilots of the 465 "feeder jets" get togehter and negotiate a joint contract, Section 1 B. of which reads as follows:

Except as provided by section 1(B)(3) below, all present and future flying performed by the Company or US Airways Group (including any carrier controlled, operated, or partly or wholly owned by the company or US Airways group directly or indirectly) shall be performed by pilots on the combined Mid Atlantic, Allegheny, Piedmont and PSA seniority list.

1. (B)(3)

Sections 1(B)(1) above shall not apply to a carrier that is owned, controlled or operated by the company ... ... if and only if such carrier:

a. Does not operated any aircraft with a maximum seating capacity in excess of 160 seats.

b. Does not operate any B-767 aircraft

c. Does not operate any jet-aircraft except:

(1) During the first 12 months following the effective date of the agreement , in conjunction with all other carriers using the company's code, name, logo, or marketing identity, up to an aggregate of 220 mainline designated jet aircraft.

(2) During the 13-24th month following the efective date (same as above) up to 170 mainline designated jet aircraft.

(3) During the 25th through 36th month (same as above) up to 100 mainline designated jet aircraft.

(4) Where mainline designated aircraft exceed the limits specified in (1) (2) and (3) above at the times indicated, they will be transferred to the the certificate(s) of the carriers referenced in 1.B.1. above and flown by pilots on the combined seniority list thereof.

Would you think that was OK? If not, why not?

Yes, I agree, J4J was a bad deal -- the mainline MEC should not have presumed to enter into an agreement which would abrogate your seniority

A very reasonable statement. Now, why was it all right for the mainline MEC and the ALPA to have presumed that they should enter into an agreement containing the Section 1. B. provisions that you quoted previous, which agreement abrogates the job security and career progression of the wholly owned pilots, without their consent or participation?

Don't get mad, I just want to understand the "logic" of their reasoning and the justification of their actions. You see I view them as predators and I view ALPA as being in violation of its Duty of Fair Representation to the wholly owned pilots.

If I am wrong in thinking that way, I would like to know why? Why and by what legal justification does the ALPA presume that it has the legal right to grant preference to one group of its members to the jeopardy and detriment of another group of its members?

Those are the concerns that I seek to have addressed.

 

[surplus1]

So you would support the AWA pilots in scope saying they had to do all AWA flying, even if it meant that some Mesa pilots lost their jobs becuase they could no longer fly RJs under the AWA code?

Yes sir, I would. [It does NOT necessarily mean that Mesa pilots would lose their jobs]

America West does not at present own or control any airline subsidiaries. Mesa is not a subsidiary of AWA, it is merely a subcontractor.

AWA pilots have no responsibility to protect the job security of Mesa pilots. Therefore, if they do not wish their flying to be subcontracted and are able to obtain the agreement of their Company, they are well within their rights to negotiate and conclude such an agreement.

By the same token, Mesa pilots have no responsibility to assure or protect the job security of AWA pilots. If Mesa pilots could negotiate and obtain an agreement that prevents Mesa from subcontracting all or any part of its flying, they have a right to do so.

Mesa pilots can also negotiate to preclude their company from accepting or agreeing to honor any provision(s) of the AWA PWA. This might well result in a severance of the business agreements between AWA and MAG. MAG is free to pursue such other avenues as it might deem appropriate.

This may not be "practical" for Mesa pilots, because they are a smaller group and may have less negotiating "leverage". However, the principles are the same.

There is nothing wrong with Scope that prevents subcontracting and protects and reserve a company's flying for that company's pilots. That is the purpose of Scope. Had that purpose not be abdicated in the past, we would have none of the problems that we currently face.

When one coportation is allowed to own and operate more that one air carrier, the scenarios are quite different, so let's not lapse into a comparison of apples and oranges.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Surplus

<grin>

I'm always nervous about posting in these subject areas for fear that Surplus will rip up one of my posts.

In this case I can plead ignorance of many of the questions he asked. The 1997 CBA that I was quoting was negotiated over two years before my arrival on the US Airways property so I honestly dont know the answers to his questions.

If you want me to carbon-copy any other sections of the contract though, let me know. That part I can do! <grin>

 

[michael707767]

When one coportation is allowed to own and operate more that one air carrier, the scenarios are quite different, so let's not lapse into a comparison of apples and oranges.

Are you telling me that an airline pilot group should have to give up or change their scope whenever their management decides to buy another airline? Sounds like a good way for management to get around scope altogether.

 

[surplus1]

Are you telling me that an airline pilot group should have to give up or change their scope whenever their management decides to buy another airline? Sounds like a good way for management to get around scope altogether.

I like the way you post. You don't say much yourself but your carefully word your remarks to illicit commentary. When you get enough information and put it together, then you'll "pounce". Like a spider waiting in a web. That's good though and I like the challenge <grin>

No, I'm not telling you that an airline pilot group shoud have to "give up or change their scope" whenever their management decides to buy another airline. What I'm actually saying is pretty much the exact opposite.

What I am telling you is this. If their management acquires another airline and, at the time of the acquisition, that airline was not engaged in operations that violated the existing Scope in the PWA of the acquiring airline, one of two things can happen.

a. The pilots of the two airlines can become a single class and craft with a single seniority list.

b. If "a" above does not happen for whatever reason(s) or the corporations do not merge, the pilots of the acquiring airline may NOT subsequently unilaterally change their Scope in such a way that the flying of the acquired pilot group is transfered to them or otherwise limited, reduced and restricted by the acquiring pilot group to anything less than it was pre acquisition.

If they want to change after the fact, then they and the acquired pilot group must agree to the change.

If the changes are made without agreement between the pilot groups and both have the same union, the agrieved party will sue that union. It they have different unions, the union representing the agrieved group will sue the other union.

In other words, one can't steal from the other and expect no consequences.