APA, CHQ, and the EMB-170

[ASH]

Really, when those piece of sh!t 140s dump people left and right all the time???? And on top of that your performance is worst that Trans States and Eagle????Wow...

** This isn't beautiful numbers, but it certainly isn't shabby.
Any delays we take are ATC or ground crew related. We are sitting there ready to go. And no, we knock out Trans States by a long shot..better check your facts.

OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Following is our system performance through 7-22:

On-Time [A’14] Completion Factor
American 78.7% 98.5%
Delta 81.7% 99.1%
US Airways 70.9% 97.5%
United 61.8% 98.8%
System Total 77.0% 98.4%

 

[surplus1]

Once again here we go with the same old bulletproof seperate certificate trick circle of logic.

And once again it depends on APA's exact scope language. If the APA's language only applies to a certificate carrier, then fine, CHQ could do it. If, however, the APA's scope language applies to holding company (which I suspect is the case) then they may not do the flying once they violate the APA's scope.

Case in point, the CHQ pilots signed the contract they did (as did the Mesa pilots) in exchange for holding company scope. That means no matter how many certificates Republic Holdings (or MAG for that matter) choses to operate, they have to use its pilots.

So why couldn't management simply use the infamous seperate certificate trick to get around that? Because CHQ and MAG pilots have holding company scope. I suspect the APA writes their language as well as the teamsters and ALPA for sure.

I don't have a problem with you defending your cause, whatever it is, but as much as you might like or for that matter the APA might like, contract law isn't designed to fulfill your desires or mine. I suggest you get a copy of the AA contract and determine what it actually says. It might be better to do that before you start debating its finer points.

You also need to understand, which it seems you don't, that the desires of the AA pilots don't make the world go around. The company Republic Holdings is bound by certain provisions of the CHQ pilot contract. That is irrelevant. The question is whether or not Republic Holdings is bound by the terms of the APA contract (most unlikely) or by the terms of the contract between AMR and CHQ (most unlikely also). There is no separate certificate "trick", there are separate corporate entities and fortunately they are not all subject to the desires of AA pilots to rule the world of who flies what for whom.

By the way, Surplus, you mentioned you hoped CHQ would sue and win and get to keep the AA flying if AA decided to try to enforce the language. Restraint of trade you called it I believe. You also said you thought that would be in your best interest. What possible interest could you have in not cutting out the Chautauqua cancer, even if its only 15 jets? Do you think that would set a precident whereby Delta's 57 70 seat limit and zero 71+ seat limits would be thrown out of court, letting us "bid" on that flying, as if any would go to us? Please. You've got to know beter than that. Stopping this cancer now is our top priority, not tearing down the walls of scope or trying to get a judge to mandate an arbitrated revisit to the seniority grabbing PID.

Yes, I did say I hoped CHQ could overturn that crap and I meant it.

What Chautauqua cancer are you refering to? I guess it's a matter of opinion. You see CHQ as a "cancer", I see a scope clause that attempts to regulate a company's business with a third party as the cancer and yes, I would like to see it eliminated.

With respect to Delta, YES, I would very much like to see the elimination of the 57 CR7 restriction and anything I can do to make that happen I will. I believe it is illegally imposed and the union's recognition and support of it violates the law. If there is a cancer, that would be it.

Again I don't know what cancer you want to stop or who's top priority you might be referring to. I just know its not mine. As for Scope, whenever it extends to control the work of people not employed by the making pilot group, then it is illegal, improper and needs to be torn down.

If the mainline carriers had refused to bargain away their Scope, I would be in their corner. But, they did not. They sold certain portions of their former rights and now they no longer have those rights. We bought the rights, we are using them and they are not for sale. They can't just "take back" what they sold because they now have seller's remorse. It is no longer theirs and they have no right to it whatever. NO right to tell us how many 70-seat jets we may fly. They sold ALL the 70-seat flying in 1996. ALL of it without limit. Anything they try to "take" after that is theft, grand theft. We did not agree to give it back or to sell it back. It is ours. Without limit without restriction.

The AA pilots have the right to exclusively fly any airplane operated by American Airlines, they have no right at all to determine what anybody does for United. The DAL pilots have the right to exclusively fly any airplane operated by Delta Air Lines, the have no right whatever to tell Comair pilots what they can fly or where they can fly it. As long as they continue to try, there will be trouble. Whether you like that or they like that or not, "frankly scarlet, I don't give a da*n."

I don't know what you mean by "trying to get a judge to mandate an arbitrated revisit to the seniority grabbing PID" and I don't know anyone that is trying to revisit any PID. As for "seniority grabbing" there's a lot more of that going on by major airlines at regional airlines than was ever included in any PID. I think you're confused about a lot of things my friend. You need to regroup and try again. If you're going to drop bombs get the target identified before you release.

And its time we all get together in our holding company and work together to cut the cancer out ASAP. If we wait for a judge's toothless ruling that might harm ALPA but will never fix our outsourcing problems, we're going to have a heck of a lot worse to look forward to than J4J I can promise you that (like noJ/noJ).

Who is "we", what holding company are you talking about, which cancer are you refering to? I'm not sure. I also don't understand how ALPA can be harmed. All that ALPA has to do is stop harming others and it will be "home free".

If you're talking about Comair, whatever outsourcing problems may be present at Comair are the fault of both the Company (Delta) and Comair pilots themselves. While we were worrying about our pay checks we failed to protect our flying. We failed to protect it against the Delta pilots or anybody else. Don't blame Chautauqua pilots for what WE didn't do. Their Company didn't even have an agreement with Delta at that time and I'm sure the company didn't ask the pilots before they did it. If you want to blame them for something, maybe a better contract would be OK, but don't blame them because we have no job security provisions in our own contract. That is OUR fault, not theirs.

 

[ASH]

Wow, well said

 

[DDpaysoff]

Surplus, you are out of line here. You have no idea the problems Chautauqua has caused flying under the AA code already, amr has been able to get around two separate scope issues to allow them to fly. Some of the stuff you say on here makes sense but leave this one alone. Do you really want DAL scope out of the way, so Chautaqua can underbid your 70 seat flying like they do everything else? Because I guarentee they will. Or excuse me, DAL's 70 seat flying that they let CMR and ASA have, for now? Or whatever you want to call it. APA is absolutely doing the right thing.
Seriously, what makes you think CMR or ASA will win a bid for 70 seat flying over the other carriers. Since we get paid more, we can just add an * to the bottom of our bid and say "we will do it better." DAL has already proven that doesn't matter anymore even if it were true. The only reason we have 70 seat jets and regional guys making $125,000 a year is because of DALPA's scope.

 

[bvt1151]

Do you really want DAL scope out of the way, so Chautaqua can underbid your 70 seat flying like they do everything else?

You obviously didn't read his post where he talked about protecting Comair flying.

 

[767200]

Really, when those piece of sh!t 140s dump people left and right all the time???? And on top of that your performance is worst that Trans States and Eagle????Wow...

** This isn't beautiful numbers, but it certainly isn't shabby.
Any delays we take are ATC or ground crew related. We are sitting there ready to go. And no, we knock out Trans States by a long shot..better check your facts.

OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Following is our system performance through 7-22:

On-Time [A’14] Completion Factor
American 78.7% 98.5%
Delta 81.7% 99.1%
US Airways 70.9% 97.5%
United 61.8% 98.8%
System Total 77.0% 98.4%

If you think CHQ knocks TSA with the numbers you posted above, you better check them, cause you either put the wrong numbers or TSA is beating the heck out of you....

 

[ASH]

Yeah...but my dad can lick your dad anyday!

Huh...got alot of Waterski resume's over here @ CHQ...hmmm..

 

[BoilerUP]

This thread has gotten absurd. First CHQ was bashed because they accepted a less than Comair + contract to kill the threat of a non-union carrier taking their flying in 2003. Then they were slammed because of low E190 rates when the odds they will be on property during this contract is slim to none, now some are bashing CHQ because of this APA/UAX/E170 dustup. Give me a break.

Surplus is right on the button - the APA has no right to deny the flying of a company with another codeshare, regardless of the size of aircraft. CHQ never had an agreement with AMR, they had one with TWA. When AA bought TWA, they got the CHQ, TSA and 3C contracts as well. American Connection was formed to honor those contracts, probably because it was cheaper than terminating the contracts and the subsequent court battle & settlement. I'm no lawyer and have no inside info on what happened, so this is all a WAG.

APA has been bent over by AMR time and time again, and it seems because of this they think they are the master race and can control all the plebes in the AA circus. If they want to try to control EGL, CHQ, TSA and 3C American flying, more power to them...but they don't have any right to control the flying of somebody with another carrier. If the APA really wanted AX gone, they probably should have let AMR declare Ch. 11 - God knows where they would be then.

CHQ pilots aren't the enemy, and they aren't out to take "your" flying, whether you belong to ASA, CMR, AA, EGL or anybody else.

 

[yaks]

While APA's scope clause doesn't give them the right to tell another company what to fly, it does require AMR to abide by its provisions. AMR cannot put the AA code on the CHQ flying because of the 70 seat restriction. AMR has said they will honor the provisions of the contract. End of story.

 

[80drvr]

This thread has gotten absurd. First CHQ was bashed because they accepted a less than Comair + contract to kill the threat of a non-union carrier taking their flying in 2003. Then they were slammed because of low E190 rates when the odds they will be on property during this contract is slim to none, now some are bashing CHQ because of this APA/UAX/E170 dustup. Give me a break.

Surplus is right on the button - the APA has no right to deny the flying of a company with another codeshare, regardless of the size of aircraft. CHQ never had an agreement with AMR, they had one with TWA. When AA bought TWA, they got the CHQ, TSA and 3C contracts as well. American Connection was formed to honor those contracts, probably because it was cheaper than terminating the contracts and the subsequent court battle & settlement. I'm no lawyer and have no inside info on what happened, so this is all a WAG.

APA has been bent over by AMR time and time again, and it seems because of this they think they are the master race and can control all the plebes in the AA circus. If they want to try to control EGL, CHQ, TSA and 3C American flying, more power to them...but they don't have any right to control the flying of somebody with another carrier. If the APA really wanted AX gone, they probably should have let AMR declare Ch. 11 - God knows where they would be then.

CHQ pilots aren't the enemy, and they aren't out to take "your" flying, whether you belong to ASA, CMR, AA, EGL or anybody else.

Your revision of history and contract law is AFU.

 

[767200]

Yeah...but my dad can lick your dad anyday!

Huh...got alot of Waterski resume's over here @ CHQ...hmmm..

Good, then they can go fly those 170s for pennies......Thanks but no thanks.

 

[igneousy2]

While APA's scope clause doesn't give them the right to tell another company what to fly, it does require AMR to abide by its provisions. AMR cannot put the AA code on the CHQ flying because of the 70 seat restriction. AMR has said they will honor the provisions of the contract. End of story.

I don't give much credibility to anyone who mentions AMR and "honor" in the same breath.

"end of story"

 

[amcnd]

Last time I checked APA put the screw to AMR with a 23mil AX scope violation!!!

I dont think the company is willing to lose again. And I hope will end the contract with CHQ.

 

[Cleared Direct]

http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/PublicRelations/Hotline/hotline.asp

This is Lynne Clark, Editorial Services Manager, with the APA Information Hotline for Friday, July 30, 2004.

CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES: APA representatives met with Management this week regarding the recent announcement by Chautauqua Airlines (CHQ) that the carrier will be acquiring EMB-170s to conduct regional feed operations as a United Express carrier. Even though Chautauqua will not base these aircraft in St. Louis or use them as part of the American Connection service, APA reiterated its position that Chautauqua cannot operate a single EMB-170 and still remain a Commuter Air Carrier as specified in Section 1.D. of the contract. Management has stated their intention to comply with their obligations under the Green Book, and APA will continue to meet with the Company until the matter is resolved.

 

[Cleared Direct]

APA has no right to deny the flying of a company with another codeshare, regardless of the size of aircraft.

You might want to check the specific language of APA's scope clause before you make such statements. There have already been other unions that have done just exactly that.

CHQ never had an agreement with AMR, they had one with TWA. When AA bought TWA, they got the CHQ, TSA and 3C contracts as well. American Connection was formed to honor those contracts, probably because it was cheaper than terminating the contracts and the subsequent court battle & settlement. I'm no lawyer and have no inside info on what happened, so this is all a WAG.

Your whole post is a WAG, and you should not post obviously wrong information. The CHQ, TSA, and 3C contracts with TWA were history. All were renegotiated by AMR with the threat of complete termination of feed if they could not get new competitive contracts.

 

[FlyFastLiveSlow]

Yes I think that Eagle should take over the 20 E-140 that CHQ as for AX .They are set up the same as Eagles RJ's. 2 honeywell FMS's all the rest of CHQ's aircraft have colins. And while we are at it, Eagle should get the 10 E-145's Trans states is leasing from Eagle.(although they were Eagles oldest aircraft...Dogs..) Just incase in a year TSA dissides to buy some 51+ seat airccraft for there United operation.If this hold up, it will limit the companies that AA uses for there feed to just about Eagle. Anyone like Mesa,Skywest,Wisky,Mesaba,Horizon cant fly for AA. They allready ahve 70 seat aircraft.

With the animosity between AA and Eagle, do you think AA would give the STL flying to Eagle? I could certainly see TSA aquiring 14 more jets and doing the job cheaper and maybe better than Eagle could.

 

[English]

Eagle does not have the staffing to cover the STL flying, much less any new flying. They are severely understaffed. So, even if they got the planes back, they'd have to be parked, because all the pilots are too busy being junior manned to staff them.

 

[80drvr]

With the animosity between AA and Eagle, do you think AA would give the STL flying to Eagle? I could certainly see TSA aquiring 14 more jets and doing the job cheaper and maybe better than Eagle could.

Any animosity ultimately stems from the fact that we're competing for a finite pool of flying in a downward business cycle. Job security is one of the most fundamental human needs...you can't expect folks to sing kumbaya as they see that going down the drain (and if you do, they probably need a drug test). Increasing the pool of flying performed by AMR carriers would be a positive step for AA and Eagle. More flying means more opportunities for upgrade at Eagle, less impact from the flowback, and probability that some routes on the margin between an 80 and RJ return to mainline.

 

[P38JLightning]

tactical responses

>>>>>>I don't have a problem with you defending your cause, whatever it is [my cause is defending the Comair and ASA pilots careers from a far greater threat than harmful scope, and that's way, way too liberal 50 seat and under scope] but as much as you might like or for that matter the APA might like, contract law isn't designed to fulfill your desires or mine. [actually it is. In fact, that's all it is. Do you think management wants to pay us our current rates, or pay some cd lineholders almost 100 hours a month for flying 20? We desired it, we got it, they agreed, and now they must honor it. A labor contract is about nothing but that labor group's desires] I suggest you get a copy of the AA contract and determine what it actually says. It might be better to do that before you start debating its finer points. [which is why I said the answer depended on how the scope language was written. I gave 2 of the most likely variants and the consequences in relation to the issue being discussed for both].

You also need to understand, which it seems you don't, that the desires of the AA pilots don't make the world go around. [wow touchy] The company Republic Holdings is bound by certain provisions of the CHQ pilot contract. [why? oh yeah that's right, because their holding company management is bound by their holding company scope. I'd be willing to wager that that was a fundamental desire of the CHQ pilots by the way.once again, AA/APA/AMR/Whatever is not restraining the trade of CHQ in any unfair manner. AMR or the APA isn't telling chq that they can't fly 70 seaters for UAL, just that IF they do, THEN they can't do business with their company. Could it be challenged in court? sure. You could challenge anything and you will have your case heard on some level, with even the majority of frivilous suits getting well past the "throw this out of court" phase. But it doesn't mean you are right]


Quote:

Yes, I did say I hoped CHQ could overturn that crap and I meant it.

of course you did. because you think that will give your case some steam when you try to get the 57 70 seat limit overturned, as well as the block hour restrictions, the stage length restrictions, etc of the 50 seaters, and don't forget those pesky limits of zero on how many 757's, 777's and MD-80's we are allowed to fly. What you fail to realize, or more likely chose to ignore, is that we aren't going to win any free for all bidding war against the likes of CHQ, MAG, Mesaba, Jet Blue, MidAtlantic/USAirmainline, SkyWest or anyone else. We need more scope and it needs to be limiting and harmful to other groups. That's what scope is, what it should do and what we need to make it do.

What Chautauqua cancer are you refering to? I guess it's a matter of opinion. You see CHQ as a "cancer", I see a scope clause that attempts to regulate a company's business with a third party as the cancer and yes, I would like to see it eliminated.

again, there is no constraint of their trade going on here. they are free to operate any aircraft they want. if they do, they must terminate the AA agreement. Just like ACA was free to fly as many Airbus aircraft they want. They just had to exit DCI if they did.

With respect to Delta, YES, I would very much like to see the elimination of the 57 CR7 restriction and anything I can do to make that happen I will. I believe it is illegally imposed and the union's recognition and support of it violates the law. If there is a cancer, that would be it.

Either you believe we would get more A/C because you think we are "the go to carrier" or a 29% profit margin machine about to buy TWA, OR you think we will bring Delta mainline planes our way and you will then get a raise. Nither is going to happen.

Again I don't know what cancer you want to stop or who's top priority you might be referring to. I just know its not mine. As for Scope, whenever it extends to control the work of people not employed by the making pilot group, then it is illegal, improper and needs to be torn down.

Of course. You already have your upgrade. Your line. Your weekends off (if you want them) your holidays off and summer vacations. The types of trips you want. Comair could furlough 500 or hire 3000 and your life wouldn't be impacted in the slightest. The growing junior majority feels differently and is slowly making our voices heard. While you are fighting for your 10% raise to fly the 767, we are fighting for our very livelyhoods because we see the trend vector going harshly in favor of the contractor whores and its direct impact on us. Far more severe than not getting more 70's or any 90's or any 757's. The RJDC preaches junior pilot rights all the time, but that's not their priority. They want the chance for greater than a staple at DAL and/or the walls of scope brought down because they think they have at least a chance at winning a bidding war, and/or a massive million dollar payday from the courts.

If the mainline carriers had refused to bargain away their Scope, I would be in their corner. But, they did not. They sold certain portions of their former rights and now they no longer have those rights. We bought the rights, we are using them and they are not for sale. They can't just "take back" what they sold because they now have seller's remorse. It is no longer theirs and they have no right to it whatever. NO right to tell us how many 70-seat jets we may fly. They sold ALL the 70-seat flying in 1996. ALL of it without limit. Anything they try to "take" after that is theft, grand theft. We did not agree to give it back or to sell it back. It is ours. Without limit without restriction.

Ah yes, the interpretation of "squatter's rights" taken to the Nth degree. But just because they allowed us 70 seaters doesn't mean we get exclusive rights to all 70 seaters and they can't underbid us, now does it? That's why the RJDC is having an annurisim right now over that and any possible "brand scope" agreement. If an agreement is reached, your staple+ and 757 bidding dreams are dead in the water. So you are trying to poison the well by saying up front that whatever happens will be evil and not help us one bit and should be opposed. Nice try but we are smart enough to have the right to see what it is first, which of course is why you are saying once it happens its too late. So we must have the rights to vote on it. On that we agree, as does our MEC despite some fine propaganda on the part of the RJDC. I just wonder who will get 50% + 1, the staple+ RJDC crowd or the junior majority? Maybe its time for another "why ALPA is evil" update in the crew lounge while there's still time.

The AA pilots have the right to exclusively fly any airplane operated by American Airlines, they have no right at all to determine what anybody does for United. The DAL pilots have the right to exclusively fly any airplane operated by Delta Air Lines, the have no right whatever to tell Comair pilots what they can fly or where they can fly it. even 75's right? As long as they continue to try, there will be trouble. Whether you like that or they like that or not, "frankly scarlet, I don't give a da*n." again, we agree.

I don't know what you mean by "trying to get a judge to mandate an arbitrated revisit to the seniority grabbing PID" and I don't know anyone that is trying to revisit any PID. As for "seniority grabbing" there's a lot more of that going on by major airlines at regional airlines than was ever included in any PID. I think you're confused about a lot of things my friend. You need to regroup and try again. If you're going to drop bombs get the target identified before you release.

Quote:

Who is "we", what holding company are you talking about, Delta, and on that we also agree. which cancer are you refering to? I'm not sure. I also don't understand how ALPA can be harmed. All that ALPA has to do is stop harming others and it will be "home free".

on the cancers, I believe CHQ is a direct and fatal threat to the livelyhoods of all junior Comair pilots. I have no beef with any airline who is cheaper than us, but they've had their chance to raise the bar and they didn't. They did manage to raise THEIR bar. I mentioned before about the meetings and love ins preaching mutual solidarity and you responded in a way that implied you thought I was talking about the BSIC. I was not. I was talking about the pilot group meetings we have including CHQ, ACA and SkyWest and ASA. Seperate from ALPA. And in these meetings we all pledge mutual support and raising the bar so crew costs are out of the picture. Then as soon as they are out the door SkyWest and CHQ underbid us both as companies and as pilot groups with the express intention of obtaining our orders and options. They were successful and now it is we who must regroup and identify our targets.

If you're talking about Comair, whatever outsourcing problems may be present at Comair are the fault of both the Company (Delta) and Comair pilots themselves. While we were worrying about our pay checks we failed to protect our flying. We failed to protect it against the Delta pilots or anybody else. Don't blame Chautauqua pilots for what WE didn't do. Their Company didn't even have an agreement with Delta at that time and I'm sure the company didn't ask the pilots before they did it. If you want to blame them for something, maybe a better contract would be OK, but don't blame them because we have no job security provisions in our own contract. That is OUR fault, not theirs.

We agree again. Our scope sucks. We need better, and it needs to be restrictive, exclusive and the benefits need to go to ASA, Comair and Delta pilots. The junior contingent at either airline doesn't have the luxury of chilling out for the next 5 or 10 years waiting on a judge's toothless ruling or a million dollar windfall.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

Surplus, you are out of line here. You have no idea the problems Chautauqua has caused flying under the AA code already, amr has been able to get around two separate scope issues to allow them to fly. Some of the stuff you say on here makes sense but leave this one alone.

With all due respect I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The issue we are discussing has nothing to do with "the AX problem" and CHQ flying under the AA code. That is a separate issue related to the Eagle contract. In that case, the AE pilots may have a gripe, but their contract has not been adequate to prevent it. That is another case of mistaken priorities. The AE pilots were so interested in a "flow-through" to AA, that they neglected to adequately protect Eagle flying or even their own seniority, which is why AA pilots are displacing AE Captains.

This thread is about the issue of the APA attempting to prevent operation of the E-170, not for AA, but for United. Now, perhaps they can do that if CHQ wanted to use this equipment under the AA code but I think they are "reaching" when it comes to the UAL code. Reaching into an area where, in my opinion, they have no right. In any event, their "protest" will be moot as soon as those aircraft are on the Republic certificate, which won't be long. So what exactly are they "protecting" by stirring this pot? How will this flying for United adversely affect the AA pilots? In fact it will not, so what's their motive; pure greed?

I don't know if you're with AE, but if you are, you should realize that if the AA pilots got their way completely Eagle would cease to exist, you would be on the street and they would be in your cockpits. That's their intent, they just haven't figured out how to do it yet. However, they have a history and it is one of manipulating Eagle to their own advantage. Surely, if you are AE, you have learned something from that. Note also that they are by no means alone in that intent.

Do you really want DAL scope out of the way, so Chautaqua can underbid your 70 seat flying like they do everything else? Because I guarentee they will.

How did you come to the conclusion that the DAL scope in any way prevents Chautauqua, or anyone else, from operating 70-seat aircraft for Delta? Maybe you should read that scope clause again. The ONLY thing it does is limit the number of 70-seat jets to 57 -- for ALL DCI carriers. There is nothing in it, repeat nothing, that would prevent Delta, Inc., from giving ALL of those aircraft to CHQ or SKYW tomorrow. Therefore, it has ZERO impact on the effect of CHQ rates and it offers no protection whatever to ASA or CMR pilots from anyone.

Yes, the danger of underbidding does exist but I already know what CHQ 70-seat rates are. I also know what USAirways 70-seat rates are, and I am a lot more interested in what those rates will do to Comair pilots. They are the lowest in the industry and they undercut CMR by $30 - $55 per hr. in the captain's seat. I suspect the latest "NW70" proposal will be quite similar. So yes, there are other regionals with lesser contracts that we (CMR) need to be concerned about but, the real danger is from the mainline carriers. They have launched a two-pronged attack against us. First they seek to scope us out of the equipment so that they can have it. Second, they have set new indusry lows in underbidding us for that flying. What they can't get with scope they seek to recover with low-ball compensation. Do not be surprised if the Delta pilots attempt to follow suit.

I don't ask or expect you to just agree with me. However, I do urge you to give these issues some serious thought. Make yourself familiar with the real meaning of their "scope clause", how it affects you and who it benefits. When you have done that I don't think you'll be telling me that it protects ASA and CMR pilots.

Or excuse me, DAL's 70 seat flying that they let CMR and ASA have, for now? Or whatever you want to call it.

"DAL's 70-seat flying". To whom are you referring? DAL the Company or the Delta pilots? If you mean the Company then yes, they have given CMR and ASA that flying, so far. Unfortunately, there is nothing to guarantee that they will continue to do so.

If you mean the Delta pilots, then you're as full of it as they are. The Delta pilots voluntarily chose to give up all access to all flying in aircraft with 70-seats or less. That flying no longer belongs to them, it belongs to the Company. When they gave it up it was because they felt it was beneath them to work for what it would pay. Since then they have changed their minds and they want to take it back. That would be fine but for one thing; it is now our flying. To take it back means they must take it from us. That isn't going to happen without a fight.

They believe they have succeeded in taking back all but 57 airframe's worth. That is being challenged in the courts. It happened becuse we dropped the ball, and because we were duped by our own union. If we win the litigation, we will get it back to where it was. If we don't, nothing that we have will ever be secure again. They, with the blessing of our own union, will be able to take some of it or all of it, at will. Those are the stakes and that is what we are fighting. It is not rocket science.

For them, they just want more than they had. In fact, they want it all. For us it's a matter of survival.

Keep this in mind: there is no such thing as a permanent scope clause; it is not etched in stone. Every time the contract becomes amendable, everything that either side wants to negotiate becomes negotiable. Scope is no exception. If the Company wants to renegotiate the Scope clause they can. Contrary to popular opinion, the outcome is not predetermined

Reality is that ALL of the flying belongs to the Company, not the pilots. We the pilots negotiate for that flying. The Delta pilots chose to abandon a portion of the flying and we picked it up. They kept the remainder. How long they can keep it or how long we can keep it is subject to negotiations.

If it is ok for them to now renegotiate to take it back, that means we must give it up or act to protect our interests. In that case it would also be OK for us to negotiate for what they do. If they are going to low-bid for our segment of the Company's flying, why can't we low-bid for their segment of the Company's flying? The fact is we can. Is that what you would like to see?

Do I want that to happen? NO, absolutely not. It would be disastrous for both of us. However, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. The easiest way to avoid a disastrous bidding war is for us to agree to leave each other's flying alone. They don't bid for ours and they stop trying to scope it out of existence. In exchange, we won't start bidding for theirs. If we cannot agree to that, ultimately there will be a civil (bidding) war between us and no scope clause will prevent it. It is that serious.

Continued