ALPA and the US Airways wholly owneds

[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.

 

[enigma]

simple question

If this has already been answered, I apologize.

But, Why did USAir need to start MAA? Why not just place the RJ's on the mainline certificate and negotiate an appropriate pay scale?

regards,
8N

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Well...

Mr. Wolf used to say that it wasnt ONLY the pilots.

We could have flown the airplanes for a competitive rate but pilots do not an airline make -- dispatchers, cleaners, caterers, flight attendants, gate and ramp agents, etc... all also have mainline pay and benefit scales.

He said it couldnt be done.

How do you tell a mechanic that when he goes over to gate "6" he's going to be earning $20/hr less and he would not be contributing to a pension etc...

I'm not agreeing!!! Just repeating what I heard. (dont shoot the messenger)

 

[michael707767]

Re: Well...

Mr. Wolf used to say that it wasnt ONLY the pilots.

We could have flown the airplanes for a competitive rate but pilots do not an airline make -- dispatchers, cleaners, caterers, flight attendants, gate and ramp agents, etc... all also have mainline pay and benefit scales.

How do you tell a mechanic that when he goes over to gate "6" he's going to be earning $20/hr less and he would not be contributing to a pension etc...

Very good point. This is exactly why Delta will be starting a low cost airline as a seperate company.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: Well...

Very good point. This is exactly why Delta will be starting a low cost airline as a seperate company.

It is too bad that Delta and its pilots, plus the pilots of the current subsidiaries, can't seem to find a way to effectively use the two low cost airlines that Delta already owns without the need to start yet another subsidiary, which will eventually add fuel to the fire(s).

 

[michael707767]

Re: Re: Re: Well...

It is too bad that Delta and its pilots, plus the pilots of the current subsidiaries, can't seem to find a way to effectively use the two low cost airlines that Delta already owns without the need to start yet another subsidiary, which will eventually add fuel to the fire(s).

I have no doubt that the new Delta LCC will piss off the RJDC folks somehow.