ALPA Mesaba MEC Spin for NWA TA

[JohnDoe]

avrodriverj85:
You seem to be missing important points redtailer brought up, re-read 'em 10 times:

"Whether you like it or not, and this is really important for you to undertand, the Airlinks are nothing more than contractors. Meaning, you cannot demand what flying is given to you. If you are building a house, how can I as a contractor come up to you and say "I demand that I build your roof?" It just doesn't work that way.

-and-

"Sorry if it offends you that I refer to the Airlinks as contractors, but what else are they? Let's see, they are public entities each with their own stock ticker, seperate managements, except for a couple of BOD seats. Completely different financial coffers. Not majority owned by NWAC. And the only relation they have with NWAC is through a contract between two distinct corporate entities that must be renewed on a timely basis. "

You are not Northwest employees, hence the notion of one big "happy" NW family is a myth. You would have no problem doing any of the same things to Big Sky, and they are owned by your same parent company.


quote from avrodriverj85:
"Like I said in an earlier post, we are no longer in this together. We never really were."

Again, re-read what I posted earlier 10 times:

"It is not, and will never be, possible for one union to fairly represent different employee groups that each have different contracts (with vastly different payscales), flying different equipment, and all trying to get some of the same flying and growth. "

One union will NEVER be able to represent separate and distinctly different groups of employess that are all trying to obtain the same flying. The sooner regional pilots realize this, the sooner you can do something about it like form your own union. And it isn't even just between mainline and regional. Soon I see a rift between alpa represented regional carriers as they start to challenge each other's scope in an attempt to gain flying of other mainline carriers. If your alpa carrier is not a wholly-owned, why is your (and I mean that in a generic way, not in relation to Mesaba) scope preventing other alpa regionals from doing your flying any less "unfair" than mainline's?? After all, you are preventing other alpa "brothers" from obtaining work and growth.


And finally.....why should mainline have to protect your jobs with language in THEIR contract (and hence negotiating capital) about who can do feed for NW any more than you should have to?? You wouldn't spend capital on putting language in your contract protecting mainline, so get of the high-horse. Why don't you get your own scope language in your contract preventing any other outside contractors???

That paragraph aside, I will agree that letting another camel's nose into the tent with more airlinks MAY end up being a mistake. If the "last minute" need for feed left by a chap 7 carrier does occur, slowly transitioning that flying to Mesaba and PCL would be the way to go, but who knows if that would happen.

 

[Rhoid]

And? I think we'd all agree they were getting out of hand.

Like you would have turned down a job at a major when they were hiring because you thought that the pay was getting "out of hand"! I guess you'd turn down any pay raise because it might mean your pay is getting "out of hand"!

What you have pal is classic pay check envy. You and many other commuter pilots feel like since you missed making it to the big time with the big pay checks, then no one else should have that same oppurtunity.

You and most other commuter pilots need to realise what your place in the aviation world is... You are a CONTRACTOR to mainline and they and they alone determine where you fly, you do not OWN any of THEIR flying. If you want a say in where NWA flies then get a job at NWA, oh wait, you didn't want to work for them in the past because their pay was getting "out of hand"!

 

[Rhoid]

Like I said earlier - Hell, bring back 'pay-for training".
Pay Now or Pay Later - your choice.

Heck, why not institute Pay for Recall!!!

 

[P38JLightning]

why not!

>>>Heck, why not institute Pay for Recall!!!

Great idea! We already have Pay for Flight Time, Pay for Upgrade and Pay for Growth!

 

[DoinTime]

Whether you like it or not, and this is really important for you to undertand, the Airlinks are nothing more than contractors. Meaning, you cannot demand what flying is given to you.

Like it or not the mainline pilot group is nothing more than a contractor also. You provide a service for Northwest Airlines under the terms of a contract. The work you provide is secured by the scope section of your contract. If you don't have it scoped (or you relinquish those protections) you no longer "own" it. You will notice that NW pilots don't have rights on flight attendant work, maintenance, or ever the closely related job of dispatching. This is because you don't have that work scoped. While you may not have wanted that work you also didn't want regional flying.

While this doesn't "seem" right to most people that's the way it is in the cold, hard world we live in.

Keep in mind there was nothing specifically preventing mgmt from going with another carrier anyway.

The only thing that was specific was the NWMEC's ability to deny NW the ability to start up a new code share partner. Now that the NWMEC has shown they have no allegiance to the rest of the "family" we are powerless to gain any additional bargaining leverage to improve our working conditions. Both Pinnacle and Mesaba are bound by exclusivity clauses to NW through the NW pilots scope clause. I have no problem with this as long as there is some reciprocity in the agreement.

We do have some new specific language in this new TA though. Pinnacle and Mesaba are SPECIFICALLY prohibited from operating the 40 50-seaters that Northwest can bring on beyond the cap of 104 50-seaters.

I truly believed NW pilots would honor their MEC resolutions, the guidance of ALPA national, and the pilots at the Airlink carriers but they have proved me the fool.

Which by the way this TA does not cause any regional pilot to earn one less penny or cause even one job loss.

Maybe not in the near term but the deconstruction of the monopoly XJ and 9E shared on NW feeder flying will reduce our ability to make contract gains for ourselves in the future and ultimately erode job security.

About a year or two ago he made a statement about the decreasing mainline wages. Bottom line, if mainline wages come down far enough the regionals will no longer have the cost advantage for outsourcing. It will cost about the same or cheaper to keep that flying on mainline property.

Next thing you know, voila! RJs on mainline property. Not that I wish ill on anyone, unlike some folks here, but RJs would start to show up on mainline property. Remember, there is NOTHING contractually keeping those RJs from ever coming to mainline.

You got the theory right but are you saying its better to reduce mainline pay to reduce the discrepancy in wages or do you think it would be better increase regional pay to produce the same effect?

Mainline pilot groups across the industry enjoyed monopolies of their carriers flying for many years and the result of that was high wages and good work rules due to the threat of strike come negotiation time. Thanks to actions such as the NW pilot group is taking now regional pilot groups have lost any of the ability to inflict employer pain through work action. Unfortunately its the mainline pilots that suffer by having to come down closer to our pay levels instead of us coming up to theirs.

Redtailer, I hope your close to retirement because if your not you will personnaly bear witness to the repercusions of the infinate blindness of both yourself and your MEC leaders.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Thanks to actions such as the NW pilot group is taking now regional pilot groups have lost any of the ability to inflict employer pain through work action. "


Wait a minute....you just had a golden opportunity for "work action" and you declined to use it. You could have gotten a nice scope clause for yourself (with regards to outside contractors or whatever), but elected to accept a last minute TA. How is that NW fault? If you didn't protect yourself with this new contract.....why should somebody else?

 

[DoinTime]

Wait a minute....you just had a golden opportunity for "work action" and you declined to use it. You could have gotten a nice scope clause for yourself (with regards to outside contractors or whatever), but elected to accept a last minute TA. How is that NW fault? If you didn't protect yourself with this new contract.....why should somebody else?

I guess I didn't clarify myself very well on this subject.

While regionals are still able to go strike (provided the right measures have been taken) the effectiveness of this strike is significantly diminished when it fails to have a significant impact on the people who pull the strings. Look around, nearly all of the major carriers that have regional networks employ multiple airlines to cover this flying. Domicile flying among these carriers is mixed even further to continue watering down the effectiveness of a regional strike.

Mesaba's situation, while I was removed from it, seemed to me a perfect example of what I am talking about. They certainly had the opportunity to go on strike but if a strike will not yield the desired effects (more money, better work rules) it is pointless to proceed with one. Even splitting a monopoly with one other carrier (Pinnacle) is devastating to total bargaining power. Nobody will ever know if a pilot strike at Mesaba would have achieved beneficial results for the pilot group. I somehow doubt it would have improved their position.

These upcoming negotiations at Pinnacle and the next time around at Mesaba will be even more difficult as there will be another Airlink diluting the monopoly.

 

[sf3boy]

Doin Time said it all. The NWA pilots fail to understand that they are nothing more than contract employees themselves. Their scope language is the only thing keeping those contract employees from being replaced by a plane that seats ten less people and burns half the gas as well as lower paying contract employees sitting in the cockpit. Good luck to those at NWA. Have fun with Mesa, Great Lakes or whoever is the next Airlink for you. I hope you get to keep your "money grows on trees in the military" pensions for the senior boys.


For Mesaba and Pinnacle, since we are nothing other than contract employees, I hope now that we get 757's. If we can crew them for way less than mainline, great. We don't fly for NWA and we need only to worry about our own pilot group. Brand Scope....we definately don't need that. We need to make our companies' profitable and who cares if the mainline guys get furloughed. They new that was a possibilty when they climbed out of their KC-135 or cashed in their seniority number at a regional. It's all about me now. ALPA has made sure of that.

 

[sf3boy]

John Doe,
Mesaba did get a nice scope clause. ALPA said that it was paramount and we "supposedly" gave up numerous other items (i.e. pay) to get it. That was when the NWA and MSA MEC's were spouting off about brand scope. Now that the NWA MEC has said that brand scope was a figment of the regional pilots' imaginations, that scope language doesn't mean diddly poo. __________ (insert "low cost provider" here) can now come in and take the flying that the NWA pilots say is below them.

Thanks ALPA for leading us into an alley with no escapes. It sure would have been nice to know last Jan that the NWA MEC had no intention of trying to become a "brand airline" with its current regionals. Maybe that pitiful excuse for a wage increase would not have passed if we knew this was in the making.

 

[avrodriverj85]

SF3Boy


You're forgetting something, our MEC probably knew about this alot sooner than anyone else. Plus, since the NWA came out with this TA, our MEC has done nothing but remind us we are all still brothers, NWA brand scope, blah, blah, blah.. If we are going to go down, they might as well go down with us. I would say a recall of this bunch of back-stabbers (Wychor, Patz, Marut, Pierson, Metzger, and Peecher) is a good way to feel a whole lot better about our plight. I know that we'd all feel better if they were forced to return to the line and suffer like the rest of us. It would crush Wychors ego if he had to return to life as a line-pilot. Let's wipe those smirks off there faces once and for all.

 

[Redtailer]

DoinTime said:

Like it or not the mainline pilot group is nothing more than a contractor also.

sf3boy said:

The NWA pilots fail to understand that they are nothing more than contract employees themselves.

You guys are completely missing the point. I have not compared the employees to contractors, I called the COMPANIES contractors. There is a difference. We are all contract employees subject to the contracts with our individual companies. However, what I am trying to relay to you guys is that your COMPANIES aka PCL and MSA are contractors.

The sooner you realize the difference the sooner you will understand there are some things you can affect and some things you cannot. The trick is knowing the difference and coming up with an effective counter strategy.

DoinTime said:

The only thing that was specific was the NWMEC's ability to deny NW the ability to start up a new code share partner.

The work you provide is secured by the scope section of your contract.

Sf3boy said:

Their (NWA) scope language is the only thing keeping those contract employees from being replaced by a plane that seats ten less people and burns half the gas as well as lower paying contract employees sitting in the cockpit.

Ok, after all of these replies NO ONE has answered my original question. How much should NWA Pilots pay for YOUR scope protection? We paid for ours in 1998.

Do you guys understand that the job protections should be the responsibility of those being protected? The NWA pilot group has NO incentive to gurantee you any flying by giving up their paychecks.. Just what part of this do you not understand? IF YOU WANT SCOPE PROTECTION IT COSTS MONEY!!!!! Why would I pay money to gurantee you future flying opportunitties?!?!?!?!?!

IF YOU WANT PROTECTION, THEN PAY FOR IT YOURSELF! We did and that is why everything, except for the Avros, over 50 seats belongs on mainline property!!!!! This is not a charity, this is a job.

Can I be any more clear????


DoinTime Said:

The only thing that was specific was the NWMEC's ability to deny NW the ability to start up a new code share partner. Now that the NWMEC has shown they have no allegiance to the rest of the "family" we are powerless to gain any additional bargaining leverage to improve our working conditions. Both Pinnacle and Mesaba are bound by exclusivity clauses to NW through the NW pilots scope clause. I have no problem with this as long as there is some reciprocity in the agreement.

You are blaming your exclusivity on the NWA MEC???????? Reciprocity?????

Do you understand that NWA MEC has NOTHING, wait, let me make myself clear, NOTHING, to do with what YOUR company negotiated with NWAC. If you are having heartburn over it then tell YOUR management. Once again, it goes back to that contractor thing. NWA MEC has no say so and owes your group nothing in that regard. If you want to blame someone look at your executive management team for signing on the dotted line that NWAC put under their nose.

Mesaba's situation, while I was removed from it, seemed to me a perfect example of what I am talking about. They certainly had the opportunity to go on strike but if a strike will not yield the desired effects (more money, better work rules) it is pointless to proceed with one. Even splitting a monopoly with one other carrier (Pinnacle) is devastating to total bargaining power. Nobody will ever know if a pilot strike at Mesaba would have achieved beneficial results for the pilot group. I somehow doubt it would have improved their position.

MSA pilots paid for what scope they received. No one else paid for it, therefore they deserve it.

You guys are trying to slam the barn door after the horses got out. I can't help that. The NWA pilots closed the door before it was too late. The lack of vision of your MEC does not make NWA pilots responsible for your welfare.

 

[DoinTime]

You are blaming your exclusivity on the NWA MEC???????? Reciprocity?????

Do you understand that NWA MEC has NOTHING, wait, let me make myself clear, NOTHING, to do with what YOUR company negotiated with NWAC. If you are having heartburn over it then tell YOUR management. Once again, it goes back to that contractor thing. NWA MEC has no say so and owes your group nothing in that regard. If you want to blame someone look at your executive management team for signing on the dotted line that NWAC put under their nose.

You obviously don't have a good grasp of your pilot contract nor the working agreements your company has with its service partners. These subsections of YOUR contract are the only things that restrict Pinnacle from operating for other carriers (I do not know the specifics of XJ's air service agreement):

Section 1.C.9.e. All Regional Jets and AVRO-85 aircraft operated by Mesaba Airlines, Express Airlines, and any other air carrier in which the Company or an Affiliate has an ownership interest, must be operated at all times with the NW code designator. If the NW code designator is removed from a Regional Jet operated by Mesaba Airlines, Express Airlines or another air carrier in which the Company or an Affiliate has an ownership interest, or from an AVRO-85 aircraft operated by Mesaba Airlines, that aircraft shall no longer be operated by the carrier.

and;

Section 1.C.7. Domestic Code Share Agreements
Nothing in this Section 1 C. shall preclude the Company or an Affiliate from establishing and/or maintaining a code share agreement with another U.S. certificated airline, provided that the code share agreement is with an airline which operates only aircraft that (i) are certificated with a maximum passenger capacity of less than 60 seats and (ii) are certificated with a maximum gross takeoff weight of less than 70,000 pounds. Each current code share agreement shall be amended to provide, and the terms of any future code share agreement shall provide, that in the event the airline, or any parent or subsidiary thereof, begins operating aircraft that (i) are certificated with a maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats or more, or (ii) are certificated with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 70,000 pounds, or more, the code share agreement shall terminate on the date of commencement of operation of any such aircraft. For purposes of Section 1 C., a code share agreement shall be defined as an agreement where an airline other than Northwest Airlines, Inc. uses the Northwest Airlines, Inc. designator (NW), on a single, dual or multiple designator basis, on one or more of its flights.

Ok, after all of these replies NO ONE has answered my original question. How much should NWA Pilots pay for YOUR scope protection? We paid for ours in 1998.

Do you guys understand that the job protections should be the responsibility of those being protected? The NWA pilot group has NO incentive to gurantee you any flying by giving up their paychecks.. Just what part of this do you not understand? IF YOU WANT SCOPE PROTECTION IT COSTS MONEY!!!!! Why would I pay money to gurantee you future flying opportunitties?!?!?!?!?!

IF YOU WANT PROTECTION, THEN PAY FOR IT YOURSELF! We did and that is why everything, except for the Avros, over 50 seats belongs on mainline property!!!!! This is not a charity, this is a job.

Can I be any more clear????

You once again are demonstrating why it is that the majors are destined to become more pay competitive with regional pilots by mainliners taking pay cuts instead of regional guys getting pay raises.

As you pointed out, regional pilots have a middleman in their relationship with the company they really do business with (the mainline airline). This relationship precludes us from being able to negotiate scope. The only protection from cut throat competition we can possibly have is from the group that can directly negotiate with the mainline. Without this protection the regionals are nearly powerless in withstanding pricing pressure from competing airlines. The result? Low wages and poor working conditions at the regional level which in turn puts more pressure on the mainline pilots trying to keep their jobs. Ultimately, management wins from all labor groups competing for the jobs.

Nobody was even asking for new language to be negotiated to ban anymore service partners. The language you had along with your commitment to not selling us out was sufficient. Instead you sold your management language that provides an incentive to bring in another carrier and bans XJ and 9E from even bidding on that flying. Your concession to NW will long term cost you, and Airlink pilots, many many times what you could have possibly gained from it now.

As the years pass mainline pilot groups will continue the trend of allowing more (and larger) jets flying at the regionals to try and hang on to those high paying widebody jobs for a little bit longer. Who would have thought that eight years ago the NW pilots would have agreed to having 150+ turbojet aircraft subcontracted out? Its pretty amazing how far mainline MEC's have allowed this industry to slide the past decade.

 

[Redtailer]

Section 1.C.9.e. All Regional Jets and AVRO-85 aircraft operated by Mesaba Airlines, Express Airlines, and any other air carrier in which the Company or an Affiliate has an ownership interest, must be operated at all times with the NW code designator. If the NW code designator is removed from a Regional Jet operated by Mesaba Airlines, Express Airlines or another air carrier in which the Company or an Affiliate has an ownership interest, or from an AVRO-85 aircraft operated by Mesaba Airlines, that aircraft shall no longer be operated by the carrier.

As I recall that did not stop Mesa/Freedom or CHQ/Republic. Once again, that goes back to your management signing the piece of paper. Also, they could have refused. No one held a gun to their head. MSA and PCL both as far as I know are free to start up other carriers and fly for other airlines. NWA pilot contract has no bearing on that. THE reason you are not flying for other airlines right now is due to your management's plan. Unfortunately, they could care less what you want.

You once again are demonstrating why it is that the majors are destined to become more pay competitive with regional pilots by mainliners taking pay cuts instead of regional guys getting pay raises.

You do not see the reason we are taking paycuts. It's not the regional pilots killing our pay rates right now. The reason is the economy, LCCs, and multiple catastrophic events. Regional pilots could be paid the same as us right now, all that would do is move the flying to mainline and we would still take pay cuts. Not that I am not in favor of raising the regional pay rates, but it is has little bearing on our pay rates.

As you pointed out, regional pilots have a middleman in their relationship with the company they really do business with (the mainline airline). This relationship precludes us from being able to negotiate scope.

I disagree. You can negotiate scope with YOUR company which in turn must negotiate with NWAC or another entity. Now, the big question is whether or not your company will be competitive with that scope clause in place and it is a choice that you have to make. NWA MEC made their choice because they represent NWA pilots and believed it would be beneficial for the NWA pilot group. Your group must make the same choices.

The language you had along with your commitment to not selling us out was sufficient. Instead you sold your management language that provides an incentive to bring in another carrier and bans XJ and 9E from even bidding on that flying.

When the contract was negotiated, I doubt one of the conversations at the negotiating table was about how this language was going to preserve the two
Airlinks. This portion of the TA is all about flexibility for NWA. Now unless PCL or MSA can produce 40 RJs overnight without the assistance of NWAC then you guys are not viable bidders. Not per the contract, but as a matter of competitive edge.

As the years pass mainline pilot groups will continue the trend of allowing more (and larger) jets flying at the regionals to try and hang on to those high paying widebody jobs for a little bit longer. Who would have thought that eight years ago the NW pilots would have agreed to having 150+ turbojet aircraft subcontracted out? Its pretty amazing how far mainline MEC's have allowed this industry to slide the past decade.

As I stated in an earlier post. ALPA made the mistake years ago by allowing even 1 RJ to be outsourced. Given the opportunity I'm sure that mistake would not be made again. The ONLY reason scope clauses are loosening up right now is due to the bankruptcy courts and the threat of bankruptcy. There is a line in the sand where the regionals stop and mainline begins, but that line is not a straight one. It shifts back and forth amongst the carriers. NW70 was intent on erasing that line. In fact the very NWA MEC that you guys are cursing is the same one that has been fighting to make one seniority list. The sole reason it has not come to fruition yet is that it is being blocked by NWAC. NW70 may change that yet somehow the regional pilots are still getting screwed on flying that already belongs to NWA pilots.

So how is it that they are trying to sell you out and help you at the same time?

 

[sf3boy]

Redtailer, nobody but ourselves should pay for our scope and XJ and over at 9E. I know this. I know this well as the POS contract wages we ratified last spring look me in the face everyday. We were told that we had to accept those wages to get that Iron Clad scope. I guess I am tired of the three MEC's acting like best buddies, telling us 5+ year Saab FO's that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, only to have you give away your flying to a potential third party. We all know that it is your flying, or at least I know that. NWA has the routes and your pilot group had the forsight to make sure the jobs stayed on your property.

At any rate, I really hope US Air and United call pull through. As someone else said, once you let Mesa in the door, they are in the bloodstream permanetly.

 

[dondk]

I am confused....
ALL of the flying belongs to NWA MEC.. I agree with that.
Now with the 2 current Airlinks, all I have heard for the past 2-3 years is how we (the current airlinks) are taking mainline flying. I wish I had a buck for each time I heard some "off color" comment from a -9 driver about thier loss of flying or loss of block hours.

Now the very same group, relax's the scope to let a "lower cost" operator into the mix. What protection did the NWAMEC put into the TA to make sure no more flying it taking away from mainline? Or is the flying going to come out of the Airlinks?

I have heard that it is to pick up the flying of when one of the others go belly up. The question though is.. intially I can see some other 3rd airlink doing this, but at some time, couldn't NWA just decide to. "well we can send 2-3 of the 3rd airlinks flights and take away a mainline flight"?

What protection is built into the TA to further protect the current mainline flying? If as an example of Airways... PIT-DTW.. Airways regionals operate that presently.. What protection is there to NWA pilots that they don't lose the flying to the 3rd Airlink? This would do the same for PHL-DTW or is United's case ORD-DTW, ORD-MSP, DEN-MSP. It starts somewhere, just like the current airlinks did years ago.

Some of those routes may already flown by airlinks, do we (the airlinks lose) or does mainline lose if they should switch to the cheaper operator? I'd guess mainline flying would go before airlink flying.

The only protection I can see is no more than 40 RJ's with no more than 50 seats. I don't see the protection of not reducing the block hours of any of the NWA fleet's. Unless your hoping that the $$$ that NWA will save by not buying 40 new RJ's and they will put that towards more a few more A320's.

 

[Doberman]

So would this restriction on 70 and 90 seaters apply to other flying that a possible 3rd partner would fly under another flag. If so, you could count MESA and several outs out of the running. Just wondering!

 

[surplus1]

Unfortunately, Surplus1 is right

Although he comes across as a wacko nut, using vulgar visuals to get his points across, it is pretty hard to argue with history.

I apologize for the graphic language. When I write in English no one listens; when I get vulgar for some reason you do. Given you acknowledge that I'm right I don't mind being called a "wacko nut" . Nevertheless there is much in your reply that indicates you still don't fully understand what is going on, what has happend to you or why, and you're blaming the wrong party.

Most of us hoped, but did not really believe that nwalpa would expend any negotiation leverage to close the door to another airlink partner. That they actually agreed to it with no restrictions to where that partner may operate, and no requirement that it be eventually merged into the existing structure tells us where we stand. Mainline sees us not as partners in the fight against executives but as a threat. All the cumbaya talk is just that.

That paragraph illustrates that you don't get what I'm trying to say to all of you. The only thing you got right is the very last sentence. NWALPA is not the culprit. The responsible party is the Air Line Pilots Association, i.e., ALPA national and your own MEC.

The "mainline" has never seen you as "partners" and never will. Your MEC, not the NWMEC, is jointly responsible along with ALPA national for protecting your interests.

ALPA national is run by "mainline" pilots. It has never adequately represented the interests of regional pilots. Neverthless were in, we're equal members and the ALPA has the legal responsibility to represent us fairly, and is prohibited by Federal Law from discriminating against us or bargaining in bad faith with our interests as the stakes. It is violating all of those responsibilities, repeatedly.

When conflicts of interest arise between ALPA carriers, the national union has the responsibility to attempt to resolve them. If unable to do so, it still must ensure that neither party to the conflict is permitted to harm the other and should not allow contractual provisions be either party that have such effect. And yes, ALPA National does have the power to prevent that. It simply chooses never to use that power against a mainline group adversely affecting a regional group. It has used the power to prevent a regional from adversely affecting a mainline group or another regional.

This double standard is no accident. In fact ALPA has consistently pretended to represent the interests of regional carriers and operates a propaganda "machine" designed to convice them that it is doing so. Meanwhile it carefully works behind the scenes to supress the interests of the regionals in favor or mainline interests, and more recently (as in the case of USAirways) has overtly acted directly against regional carriers, abrogating their contracts in favor of the mainline pilots.

ALPA claims that it can do nothing because MEC's are autonomous; ALPA lies. MEC's are not legally autonomous and ALPA has gone to court and successfully proved that when it wanted to do so. ALPA has even stretched its power across international borders intervening against regional carriers that it represents in favor of a mainline carrier that it did not represent. This is not my opinion. The written documents and court cases are available for review.

Your MEC is elected by you and has no duty other than to protect your interests. When it chooses to side with ALPA National and support policies that favor mainline interests at your expense, YOU need to do something about it.

Hoping and believing meaningless ALPANA rhetoric supported by your own MEC won't cut the mustard. That's what you've done and that's why you now have the "new" problem. It is not enough for your MEC to "work hard", which I'm certain it does. The question is what and who is it working for?

These problems are not simple and it is not "easy" for your MEC to walk the tightrope of ALPA's internal political machine, but it must at least try. Open support of policies like flow-through and "brand scope" cannot function on the basis of promises of "family bliss" from MEC's that clearly would "Scope" you out of existence tomorrow if they could. Your MEC leadership has the experience to see through these scams. If they are not doing so, your enemy is within as well as external.

As Redtailer has pointed out in this thread, the "mainline" carriers made a mistake by granting too much relief from their own job security (Scope) to the Company. That's their fault. However, you already exist and you belong to the same labor union. They cannot undo or correct their "mistake" at your expense by endangering your jobs. They gave up the work that you do voluntarily and the National Union cannot legally assist them to "take it back" and endanger your job security. Both of those things are happening.

I am not advocating that you hate them nor that you should be their enemy. However, you need to recognize that they are not your "friends" either. You are equal members of the union and your rights are the same as those of any other member. You need to stop being subservient to mainline pilots. Any agreements that you make with them are business agreements. If they are not it writing and binding, they will not be kept. Anything else that you "believe" will come at your expense. This is not about being "nice", it is about your own job security.

Maybe you dream of a "mainline career" and the idea of being stuck at MSA is one that you hate. That's fine. However, until you accept a class date at another airline, the job you have today IS your career whether you like it or not. If you don't protect it, nobody else will. You need to force the union to represent your interests fairly for they will not do it unless you do. If that means you have to sue to get your rights, then do it. I guarantee you that Duane Woerth will not shed a single tear if you lose your job.

The "band of brothers" bit is a myth, a fairy tale, a placebo. I wish it wasn't, but it is. When it comes to job security and seniority there is no band of brothers, period.

In the current situation the NW pilots, faced with concessionary bargaining, have chosen to relax some of their Scope provisions. As a result, some aircraft operated by PCL may now have their seating capacity increased. What did that cost them? Nothing! Those airplanes have never constituted any threat to NW pilots and 44 or 50 seats doesn't change that one iota. So they had a contractual provision that prohibited additional code share partners and limited the total number of subcontracted small jets. Well guess what, neither one of those items was protecting them from any threat either. They were a control mechanism; a bargaining chip (at your expense). The ONLY factor of any relevance to NW pilots is the fact that their Company was investing the capital used to acquire those airframes. As long as there's cash available its a good investment for the company. They buy the airframe and they lease it to you for a profit. That's a good deal for them and they make money by doing it. Now cash is tight and the NW pilots are being pressured for concessions. Naturally they don't want their company to invest in capital items that are no benefit to them, when that capital could be used to pay them more (or result in a smaller pay cut). So they gave up the additional code share provision.

Did it cost them anything to do that? NO! Will the additional 40 RJs represent a threat to their job security? He!! no. None of the RJs ever did. Did they just give it to the Company for nothing? NO! The cashed in their bargaining chip and the Company gave them a $15 million dollar credit for doing it.

There has never been any better evidence that ALPA's entire anti-RJ policy with respect to the 50-seat jets is an elaborate ponzi scheme; a sham. Did you really expect the NWMEC to keep some vague and unwritten promise to you all and forego a $15 million dollar payoff? Well, if you did you've been proven wrong.

Could ALPA recognize that giving up this provision would create more whipsaw for PCL and MSA? YES. Could ALPA recognize that it would undermine bargaining efforts at PCL? YES. Could ALPA have intervened to prevent the NW MEC from doing that? YES! Would ALPA do that? Obviously not. Why not? ALPA couldn't care less if you face more whipsaw or if you have a lousy contract. If ALPA has to chose between the interests of the NW pilots and those of the PCL and MSA pilots, it will favor the mainline group every time.

ALPA knows that the 50-seat RJs have never represented any "threat" to the mainline. Their objections are merely bargaining collateral used to extract more from the mainline companies for the mainline pilots; a tool. When they have to give it up they do. It has no real value to them but it does have a value to the Company so they use it as a bargaining chip. In other words, the union you pay to represent your interests, allows mainline pilot groups to use your interests as bargaining chips in their negotiations. In this case they even got a direct credit of $15 million dollars for doing it.

Sorry to burst your trust bubble, but that's how it is. You're being "used" by your own union. You have chosen not to fight to protect what is yours, so not only do they take it from you at will, they make you beg for it and pretend they're doing you a favor, and you swallow.

Should you fire them? NO. You should force them to represent your interests fairly or pay the consequences. Leaving the union is not the anwer. If you do that you'll have no legal recourse and they'll screw you anyway. What can you do? Stop kissing butt and pretending that you have a love in. Fight back!

 

[Catbird]

Surplus1-

Best information concerning the Misrepresentation of Commuter Trash I have seen.

 

[saabingitagain]

So, NWAMEC has specifically restricted MES or PCL from operating the additional 40 CRJs because they did not want NWA to buy them.. MES has $166,000,000 in the bank.. that would have purchased a lot-o-airplanes. Now we are forbidden to even bid for that additional growth.. Thanks. I understand that NWA wanted the ability to get a "turn-key" operation at bargain basement prices. However, you get what you pay for. MES has the best operational performance of any redtail... including mainline.. VERY experienced crews.. very mature operation.. But I guess we will have to be happy driving our little props around for the next 14 years.

 

[saabservant]

Surplus1:

Perhaps you should write "Flying the Line, Vol. III, The Misrepresentation of Our Regional Ho's"....

Thanks for the insight.

 

[InclusiveScope]

ALPA Prohibits Mesaba and Pinnacle from Obtaining New Small Jets



On October 16th, ALPA’s leadership at Northwest Airlines announced that the union reached a “Bridge/Investment” agreement intended to help the company avert financial problems similar to those encountered by USAirways, United, and Delta. However, the new agreement also contained provisions effectively prohibiting Mesaba and Pinnacle from operating any of the additional 40 small-jets “permitted under the new agreement. The union hypocritically required that new small jet flying be outsourced.



The RJDC has long warned that ALPA was engaged in economic warfare against an aircraft that mainline members erroneously deem a “threat.” Here, despite ALPA acknowledging the importance of the small-jet to Northwest’s success, it nonetheless is actively denying growth opportunities to Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots so that corporate funds cannot be used to acquire the “wrong” aircraft. Furthermore, since small jet restrictions also define ALPA’s demographics, the forced distribution of small jet flying among numerous “affiliate” carriers also protects the political power of the union’s “mainline” interests.



ALPA’s actions at Northwest again illustrate the union’s inherent and irreconcilable conflict of interest. As the exclusive bargaining agent of Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots, ALPA has a duty to work for, not against, their interests. ALPA’s demands that future small jets be outsourced are not only hypocritical, but a powerful example of how ALPA works against those it has a duty to represent. The union’s actions also prove that ALPA’s “brand” or “family” scope initiatives are merely political camouflage for the union’s business-as-usual approach to mainline bargaining and the unilateral imposition of small-jet restrictions.



Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/ziplines_101804.pdf


ALPA Boasts that it was “Paid” $15-Million Dollars for NWA Small Jet Agreement



In an effort to convince the Northwest pilots to accept the new “Bridge/Investment” agreement, ALPA boasted that it received a $15-million dollar bargaining credit in exchange for “permitting” the company to increase its 50-seat RJ flying. Likewise, ALPA went to great lengths to claim that the increase in small-jet flying would pose no threat to mainline job security.



In its summary of the Northwest agreement, ALPA stated the following about small-jets and scope:



Ø The Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar bargaining credit.

Ø Increased small-jet flying posed no threat to mainline job security.

Ø Northwest needed to deploy additional small jets in order to remain competitive.

Ø Increased small-jet flying would produce badly needed revenues for the company.



In its efforts to promote the new Northwest agreement, ALPA has affirmed the RJDC’s contention that small-jet restrictions do not enhance mainline “job security” but are instead used by ALPA’s mainline interests as bargaining capital. More importantly, ALPA has confirmed that its arguments defending the need for small jet restrictions are patently false. Small jets of all sizes continue to play a growing and vital role in the recovery of network carriers and restricting their use is not only bad business, but an egregious violation of ALPA’s duties to the thousands of ALPA members who depended directly and indirectly upon the small jet for their livelihoods.



Related Link: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/NWAtasummary.pdf



ALPA’s Letter to Mesaba Pilots Illustrates Why Legal Action is Necessary



In the aftermath of ALPA’s Northwest agreement, the chairman of Mesaba’s MEC sent to all Mesaba pilots a letter that conceded ALPA’s new mainline agreement was inconsistent with ALPA’s “family” or “brand scope” promises. The letter also confirmed that ALPA’s new agreement specifically prohibited Mesaba from operating any of the additional “permitted” small jets. However, instead of defending the interests of the Mesaba pilots, the letter defended the union’s bad faith conduct, including how ALPA “does not wish to allow NWA to finance aircraft not flown by mainline pilots.”



In characteristic fashion, ALPA’s letter glossed over the union’s glaring conflict of interest and the fact that ALPA violated yet again its duties to the Mesaba pilots. The letter also attempted to mislead the Mesaba pilots by portraying the new agreement as a “sacrifice” by the mainline interests, while ignoring the fact that the Northwest pilots received a 15-million dollar “bargaining credit” in exchange for the new small-jet restrictions.



Significantly, the letter’s author is also an ALPA Executive Vice-President and the co-chair of ALPA’s Bilateral Scope Impact Committee (BSIC.) ALPA’s officers, including all if its Vice-Presidents, have refused repeated written requests to investigate the legitimacy and fairness of the union’s mainline bargaining practices. Likewise, ALPA’s BSIC Committee has ignored the real issues at the heart of the union’s “scope” problems and, not surprisingly, has elected to characterize quantifiable objections concerning ALPA’s mainline scope practices as mere “perceptions” and “feelings.”



While ALPA says the ongoing litigation is meritless, its own actions affirm that the union will ignore its duties to its “regional” members whenever it is politically expedient. As the Courts have ruled, the intent of having judicial oversight over a union is to ensure that union members are never left without recourse or remedy. When ALPA’s officials defend the union’s conduct while conveniently refusing to investigate its legitimacy, the need for legal intervention becomes even more apparent.



Related Links: http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/msa_hotline_102704.pdf

http://www.rjdefense.com/2003/woerth041803.pdf

 

[Redtailer]

InclusiveScope:

Just what part of "CONCESSIONARY CONTRACT" did you not understand? RJDC is a joke, and a bad one at that. Especially spouting garbage like that.

It's amazing how convieniently you left out the fact that additional scope relief was given for more RJs to go to MSA or PCL.

Let's see $15 million to outsource RJs. Yeah, I'm going to pay that out of my bank account to help protect your job. Let me get out my checkbook.

As stated earlier, unless MSA or PCL can produce 40 RJs overnight with their own financing, you are not viable option. Let's see you have RJs coming over the next year, none of which you own. You make a profit quarter after quarter yet you don't pay for fuel, gates, or landing fees. Yet somehow you feel entitled to every RJ that has NWA painted on it. So please tell me just how you propose that MSA or PCL fill that order.

When you can do that, then I'm sure NWAC would have considered it.

Lastly lets not forget MSA AND PCL NEVER HAD ANY PROTECTION AGAINST OUTSOURCING!!!!

If you really wanted protection you should have negotiated a scope clause to YOUR contract and not rely on others to babysit your career!!!!

Oh wait, the RJDC believes those things are illegal.. Darn...

What dribble.....

 

[Mel Sharples]

It's amazing how convieniently you left out the fact that additional scope relief was given for more RJs to go to MSA or PCL.

Sooo... unlimited 44 seaters? Riiiight. I'm sure they are right around the corner. NWA just wanted more 50 seaters so that was just a smokescreen. Thanks, though, for screwing both pilot groups at once.

As stated earlier, unless MSA or PCL can produce 40 RJs overnight with their own financing, you are not viable option.

We're not allowed to own our own aircraft per the agreement with NWA. Hence why we are screwed by this deal. Even if we had them, we couldn't fly them. So, again, thanks for the Dutch door action.

Let's see you have RJs coming over the next year, none of which you own. You make a profit quarter after quarter yet you don't pay for fuel, gates, or landing fees. Yet somehow you feel entitled to every RJ that has NWA painted on it. So please tell me just how you propose that MSA or PCL fill that order.

If I hear one more NWA pilot say that, I am going to puke. You honestly think we are making money hand over fist while NWA foots the bill??? Are you stoned???

NWA would shut 9E and XJ down tomorrow if they weren't making huge profits. Yes, they pay the bills but they make the majority of the $$$. Our pay is capped no matter what. Yes, fuel costs are a b!tch to everyone but if NWA weren't making money off the regionals then wouldn't be around. Period.

By the way, I know you guys are pawns in this game too. Just don't act like what your MEC did was what you had to do and then in doing so you didn't throw family scope out the window. NWA ALPA were the ones preaching family scope. We were just dumb enough to believe it before you pulled the rug out from underneath us.




.

 

[flap operator]

Redtail - you obviously can't tell the difference between Mesaba and Pinnacle. I've actualy run into a few others at NWA that can't tell. That's shamefull at best.

Pinnacle is growing... Mesaba is NOT. Mesaba pays for the fuel for the saabs as well as landing fees AND insurance for our planes. Mesaba even pays NWA to lease the planes... so they're breaking even or making money on Mesaba there. NWA buys our seats and markets them. It isn't as sweet of a deal at Mesaba as everyone would like to believe because NWA doesn't pay for EVERYTHING.
AZJ

 

[Redtailer]

Sooo... unlimited 44 seaters? Riiiight. I'm sure they are right around the corner. NWA just wanted more 50 seaters so that was just a smokescreen. Thanks, though, for screwing both pilot groups at once.

Before making statements like that you should do your homework first.

Under the previous agreement with the current NWA narrowbody fleet size only 52 50-seat RJs were allowed.

The new agreement now provides for up to 105 50-seat RJs, not including the unlimited number of 44 seaters. Even if they convert the 44 seaters to 50 seats, they may be replaced with more 44 seaters at any time.

Let's also not forget that NWA MEC also GAVE UP SCOPE to increase the narrowbody-RJ ratio allowing MORE RJs not including the 40 outsourced RJs.

Amazing how small things like that keeps getting by everyone. Yet NWA MEC is just out to screw the regionals. Here's a screwing, lets bring all the 50 seaters to mainline property and say to h*** with the pilots at the regionals.

We're not allowed to own our own aircraft per the agreement with NWA. Hence why we are screwed by this deal. Even if we had them, we couldn't fly them. So, again, thanks for the Dutch door action.

Hmm, your company signed on the dotted line. You knew what you were getting in to when the contract was signed. They could have said no and you can complain about how you're getting screwed on the Saab.

We're not allowed to own our own aircraft per the agreement with NWA. Hence why we are screwed by this deal. Even if we had them, we couldn't fly them. So, again, thanks for the Dutch door action.

You have completely missed the point. The reason for the 40 RJs is that MSA nor PCL cannot produce 40 RJs overnight ready to go. If you guys had them lying around then it probably would have gone to you, but you don't so it didn't.

If I hear one more NWA pilot say that, I am going to puke. You honestly think we are making money hand over fist while NWA foots the bill??? Are you stoned???

Lets see, the last three quarters starting with the most recent PCL had a profit of $12 mil, $10 mil, and $8 mil. Gee, I guess you guys must have been doing pretty well with your independent flying. Oh, you don't have any? Then I wonder who all that flying was for and who was footing the bill?!?!?!?!?!?

NWA would shut 9E and XJ down tomorrow if they weren't making huge profits. Yes, they pay the bills but they make the majority of the $$$. Our pay is capped no matter what. Yes, fuel costs are a b!tch to everyone but if NWA weren't making money off the regionals then wouldn't be around. Period.

First off lets get one thing straight. NWA DOES NOT make a lot of money from the revenue of the RJs. Where NWA makes it money is the connecting pax to mainline from the the RJ feed. The bread and butter is on mainline flights, the RJs do nothing more than help feed and capture market share.

Your pay is capped????? Last time I checked you negotiated it with your company. If you don't like your pay and work rules you only have yourselves and your management to blame for that. NWA MEC has NO say so over your pay. The only one screwing you is yourself. Neat trick.


You guys need to stop acting like a bunch of spoiled 3 yr olds and learn how to stand on your own feet. Stop blaming others for the failures of your own MECs.

NWA, MSA, PNCL are 3 separate companies each with their own contracts with their unions. Each gave up or paid for what is in their contracts. If you didn't want to spend negotiating capital on scope then you got what you deserve.

NWA MEC negotiated in the best interests of NWA pilots and NWAC, not PNCL, not MSA, and not any other carrier. They don't have a responsibility to do so and they shouldn't.

 

[InclusiveScope]

NWA MEC negotiated in the best interests of NWA pilots and NWAC, not PNCL, not MSA, and not any other carrier. They don't have a responsibility to do so and they shouldn't.

Two points Redtailer:

1. The NWA MEC is not a legal entity in terms of duty of fair representation. There is only ALPA when discussing DFR issues. ALPA has a DFR responsibility to all 3 parties- MSA, PCL, and NWA.

2. Your statement illustrates precisely why RJDC says that "Brand Scope" is a myth. In the end, the mainline pilots do not care about "Brand Scope". The mainline pilots only care about the mainline pilots. The regional pilots need to understand this. Only in the case of legal challenge will they do otherwise.

 

[Redtailer]

Inclusive Scope:

I'm going to play devil's advocate and just accept what you're saying. If ALPA has a duty to equally protect all of the groups then you're saying by the mainline pilots allowing the company to outsource as many jobs as it wants is a good thing? Even if those jobs go to CHQ (Teamsters) or a non-union group?

Or how about the outsourcing of the DC-9s to PNCL? They can fly them at half the rate NWA currently flies them at. This also would be good?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. The reason the scope clause is there is not only to protect the jobs at mainline, but to protect the pay scale for that aircraft as well. That is a choice ALPA made and it is the correct one.

If you're going the way of no scope clauses and the greater good you have to play the scenario through to the end oppose to just looking at bits and pieces.

ALPA's job is to protect the lifestyle and careers of all of it's members. The plan being the regionals being a stepping stone to the majors. ALPA protects that career and tries to keep it from being outsourced and having pay degredations. And if that means keeping mainline flying by contractually keeping the flying in house then so be it.

If a regional pilot decides not to go that route, too bad. He has not subscribed to THE PLAN.

As far as the 40 RJs are concerned, ALPA made a choice of the options:

1. Allowing outsourcing of the RJs to an independent carrier to grab overnight marketshare, something that neither Airlink is capable of.

2. Keep all of that flying in house and when lets say PHL becomes vacant NWA does not have the resources to capture that flying. Instead, it goes to another carrier with the resources readily available.

In the short term the NWA regionals do not get the flying either way. However, if a foothold can be gotten with those RJs then there is potential for growth all around which is a win-win for everyone involved.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Or how about the outsourcing of the DC-9s to PNCL? They can fly them at half the rate NWA currently flies them at. This also would be good?"


Watch it redtailer...you are cracking the rjdc rhetoric code.....lol

You are asking a question you won't get an answer from inclusive on.

When a mainline has scope against a regional to preserve their jobs, cries of "alpa is not giving us fair representation" resound. But when a regional (who is also alpa) is allowed to grow at the expense of former mainline routes and jobs......thats ok......LOL

 

[saabservant]

THE PLAN?

Not sure where that is published, but it started decades ago when mainline pilots decided to protect their own pay and pensions and allow management to outsource small airplane flying and to set up "contractors" and b-scales. It's happened in many occupations and in many unions. The company is hurting, mgmt. demands concessions, so the leadership agrees to lower pay for new-hires.
Thereby diluting bargaining power and eventually, cutting the throats of everyone. They could'nt care less, because by the time the outsource comes back to threaten them, they are retired.

Negotiate our own scope? We did that, with the MSA holdings company, the only entity we are empowered to deal with. We cannot negotiate with NWA to restrict additional airlinks. Only NWALPA can.

Just contractors, right? OK, if you say so, but why is it that the first thing a soon-to-be furloughed FO at mainline asks me is "how's the flow-through talks going?". Maybe it is because he wants to flow-back?
A lot of these folks (especially at Delta) feel they are entitled to take jobs and seniority at their regional contractors, that "all flying in the brand is ours...". Just as you seem to think we believe we are entitled to move up, or get additional flying. Not all of us...

Redtailer, I'm not interested in a back and forth with you, but I am interested in a little better leadership from alpa. Both natl. (Wychor) and mainline (Mclain) have been published saying that brand scope should provide for protection AND career opportunity. This implies we are not just "contractors", and if they were sincere about that, they have sorely missed an OPPORTUNITY. For fifteen million, they could have allowed a quick entry into usair markets AND stopped that new airlink from being used against PCL (which is in negotiations-and you don't think this will be used against them? Or you, in the long run?) or MSA.

The fact is that our interests are being used by your leadership as bargaining chips with NWA. Wychor is MSA MEC chairman, a natl. vice-president, and head of the scope impact committee. And this is what they do to him? What does this say about our, or his place, in this union? His mild letter to his own group says it all, that he is there to protect the interests of alpa natl. and nwalpa. It is just politics, after all. What's the phrase? "It's not personal, it's just business".
The problem there is, alpa is prohibited from allowing one member carrier from harming another. It is in the bylaws.
It would be extremely wasteful to get lawyers involved, when all it would take is accomodation on both sides...

 

[Mel Sharples]

Redtailer -

First of all, take a Valium before your head explodes. I would hate to think that I contributed to the spontaneous combustion of anything.

Hmm, your company signed on the dotted line. You knew what you were getting in to when the contract was signed. They could have said no and you can complain about how you're getting screwed on the Saab.

Your only comeback is "your company signed on the dotted line"? Honestly... that's it??? If that is the case, then you need to call a lawyer and sue your childhood school district for the education you were obviously robbed of.

Every point I made in my previous post, you can't refute. "If you guys had 40 RJ's laying around. . ." You know what? If my uncle wore a dress, he would be my aunt -- but that doesn't change reality. The TA never gave us a deal to even try to get new flying and you know it.

Whatever contract our company signed is irrelevant. You were saying if we had RJ's and I'm telling you it doesn't matter if we do or don't. And your only comeback is "your company signed on the dotted line."

First off lets get one thing straight. NWA DOES NOT make a lot of money from the revenue of the RJs. Where NWA makes it money is the connecting pax to mainline from the the RJ feed. The bread and butter is on mainline flights, the RJs do nothing more than help feed and capture market share.

Please, God, please tell me you honestly aren't that dumb. Do you REALLY think that we are all that dumb? I say again, if Northwest didn't make money IN ANY FORM (as in straight revenue or feed) we would be shut down tomorrow. Do you get it yet? You can spin it any way you want, but we (XJ and 9E) allow NWA to make more money.

Do you really, truly, honestly think that they would allow us to make money while they get almost nothing for it? If you do, then you REALLY need to sue your old school district.

[Note: At this point I am scared by the lack of common knowledge displayed by Redtailer.]

Your pay is capped????? Last time I checked you negotiated it with your company. If you don't like your pay and work rules you only have yourselves and your management to blame for that.

Easy, Francis. By "our pay" I meant Mesaba Airlines from NWA. We get paid per flight, so we can't make any more than we do for what is negotiated. This has nothing to do with our union contract, so let's stick to the topic at hand and put down the water bong. You're really starting to worry me.

NWA MEC has NO say so over your pay. The only one screwing you is yourself. Neat trick.

Umm... yeah. You know, I never said they did. Riiiiight... Yeah.

What NWA MEC does control is our ability to get new flying from NWA. And don't start in again on what our ASA with NWA says. We signed because we had to. Those were the terms NWA wanted so don't give me that "your company signed" B.S.

You know what??? Your company ran itself into financial straights so that's why I don't give two hoots if you guys take cut after cut after cut. You guys are the reason your company is in financial straights in the first place. You take a pay cut and you still make more than almost every other pilot in the country.

Do I sound like an a-hole yet? Well that's what you are saying to us, brother. This "you first right after me" attitude is old. When we were negotiating our contract, you said, "Brand scope is the way of the future." Yet when you needed to cut, that was the first thing that went and not once has anyone in the NWA ALPA structure offered an apology.

Just remember: Aviation is a small community and what goes around comes around. Should have thought of that before you stuck a knife in "brand scope", brother.


.