Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
ALPA Mesaba MEC Spin for NWA TA
- Thread starter avrodriverj85
- Start date
- Watchers 14
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
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.saabservant said:
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!
saabingitagain
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2004
- Posts
- 35
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
disgruntled
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2003
- Posts
- 337
InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
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
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 395
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.....
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2004
- Posts
- 313
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.Redtailer said:
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.Redtailer said:
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???Redtailer said:
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2002
- Posts
- 507
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
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 395
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.
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.
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.
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?!?!?!?!?!?
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.
Last edited:
InclusiveScope
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 385
Two points Redtailer:Redtailer said:
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 395
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.
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.
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
"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
disgruntled
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2003
- Posts
- 337
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...
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2004
- Posts
- 313
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.
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."
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.]
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.
.
First of all, take a Valium before your head explodes. I would hate to think that I contributed to the spontaneous combustion of anything.
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.Redtailer said:
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."
Redtailer said:
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.]
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.Redtailer said:
Umm... yeah. You know, I never said they did. Riiiiight... Yeah.Redtailer said:
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.
.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
