APA proposes pay scale for AE

[Draginass]

There's been several "resolutions" etc etc put forth to go back to ALPA. The latest resolution to even "explore" the possibility was voted down at the last meeting I was at and will continue to be so. It just doesn't have nearly enough support.

As far as the secret plan goes, I didn't realize a plan can still be
"practical" and still be unacceptable one of the principals involved.

As point of fact, the APA opener did not include pay rates. That's usually the last thing to be negotiated. With the APAs integration offer to AMR, I would hope that small jet rates would be included in the event that we can get AE pilots under our contract. Putting all AE pilots on the street, huh? Funny, I don't see hardly any condemnation of APA's offer among AE guys themselves. I suggest you let them speak for themselves.

Those ALPA national goons must really be scary when they're able to intimidate the vast majority of regional pilots to not support the RJDC -- or is it that the RJDC has virtually no popular or MEC support?

 

[Caveman]

Draginass,

Thanks. Finally there is some dialogue between us instead of vitriol. There may be hope.

You have centered on the crux of the problem and that is what and how much is each party willing to concede in order to gain solidarity.

The place to start would be to focus on what each side needs most and what each side can bring to the table to help the other side. It would also be an exercise in futility to exclude management concerns from the debate. They have to be appeased as well.

I think that what mainline is lacking is job security and sustainable growth. Both of these are short term problems in my opinion. What mainline has in spades is excellent work rules and pay.

On the small jet side we need the opportunity to move up to better paying a/c. Personally I think the pay for small jets is only slightly low. More is always better but we are in the ball park except of course for 1st year FO pay. Our work rules at Comair are ok but they certainly could be better. What we have in spades is excellent growth and job security.

It appears to me that mainline has what we need more of, i.e. better pay and work rules and we have what you need, i.e. growth and job security. So, how do get together?

Well probably the only way it will ever happen and make the company a willing if not reluctant participant is to have each side give up a little of what they have the most of. For example, the only way small jet guys will be able to partake of mainline work rules is if they give up some short term growth.

Here is a radical proposal that I've given about 10 minutes of thought to. I'll try to be brief. Since I'm in the Delta family I'll use them as my example.

1. Merge Comair and ASA lists on an equal seniority basis then staple that list to the bottom of the DAL list. Mainline gets instant job security and the bottom of the ComASA folks get instant job insecurity. But this should be a short term problem for the junior guys. I'll explain why in a minute.

2. Dump the block hour scope limits immediately. Management wins this round. They get to use the best airplane for the route instead of trying to deal with arbitrary seat/size limitations. The pilots will benefit in several ways. One, growth will continue because the company can rightsize the airplanes, that lessens their risk. The bottom of the seniority list keeps their jobs or suffer short term furloughs. The bottom of what used to be the mainline list will have to settle for flying small jets at Comair wages, but they will be employed and earning longevity. Remember, think long term. Same for the former ComASA pilots. Short term pain for long term gain. Let the company market the right planes for the right job and growth will continue. Right now they are restricted and growth is stagnating at mainline.

3. ASA works under Comairs contract and all parties keep their current contracts until the latest date that the contracts expire. In other words all contracts would expire at the same date and negotiating for a new work agreement that covers the entire group wouldn't take place until the last of the two contracts is ammendable. Again, management wins this one for the short term. No nasty strike at ASA and they get an extension of the current DAL contract until June 06'. We win when as one unified group we negotiate for the new contract. The result will be the same work rules and benefits for all pilots at Delta, Inc.

4. Impose fences to seat protect what everyone is currently flying. Make them relatively short term, say 3 - 5 years. After that you fly what your seniority will hold.

In my scenario mainline pilots will have to agree to short term limits on their ability to negotiate a better contract. They gain instrant job security and improved growth.

Small jet pilots MAY suffer some short term furloughs. They will eventually gain access to mainline work rules and unlimited upward mobility.

The company gains an extension on their fixed labor cost for the next five years and the ability to market the use of airplanes as they see fit absent of any scope limitations. Their downside is that when the new work agreement is negotiated they will incur additional costs attributable mainly to the size of the pilot labor pool. IMHO they also would be less vulnerable to a strike because it's unlikly that the feds would allow a pilot group the size of a merged DAL/ComASA group to walk out. The economic impact would be too severe.

Is this plan flawed. Most certainly. Like I said it took about 10 minutes to dream up. What it does do is cause all parties to give up a little to gain a little.

Fire away.

 

[surplus1]

Caveman

Good thinking! Perhaps not perfect but way better than anything anyone else has offered so far. You must be a Comair pilot. You not only have a mind, you're using it.

Guess what? You won't get a single mainline pilot to even listen to what you've said. Know why? They might have to contribute something to the solution.

There's not a one of them that will do that. After all they a mainline pilots and that's substantially better than being airline pilots.

Just watch what you get back. I predict at least 20 reasons why it "will never work".

 

[Draginass]

Actually, that comes close to what I would think a "least bad" proposal.

Not sure what you mean by seat protections when the plan would result in some mainline FOs being displaced into RJs at regional compensation (not just pay, but I assume benefits and retirement as well).

Would like to see some actuarial projections on upward movement as well as compensation loss. Also, aircraft projections and market analysis, which there is no clear picture.

Gut check tells me that the company would not see enough gain to compensate for loss of leverage. It's a numbers game and would require some really indepth anaysis.

DALPA would have to be convinced that they are going to lose their scope clause, and so far there's no indication that's going to happen.

In the end, the regionals MAY suffer some furloughes, but most gain tremendously.

Mainline gets to retrograde some junior pilots to RJ captain (presumably seats in new aircraft) (and certainly better than being mainline furloughed) and has its compensation frozen until 2006.

Trying to make it work in my mind, but it would take some serious number crunching and realistic projections. Not convinced, but thinking.

 

[FlyingSig]

Re: Caveman

Know why? They might have to contribute something to the solution.

Kinda like Comair pilots not wanting to loose any of their own seniority "for the good of the solution".

Works both ways and from what you preach, you don't want to give an inch either.

 

[Steve McCroskey]

Dragin,
In an earlier post you said that AMR would have to get a no-strike clause in the very slim chance they would agree to a merger of AA and AE. Why not give it to them as the US Gov't would never allow AA to strike in the first place, too much negative impact on the industry or some other reason. I completely agree on not removing a pilot group's ability to self help, but if the feds won't even allow it and AMR is willing to give something up for the clause it seems like it might be a freebe for APA. I know next to nothing about airline contracts and negotiations. I'm sure there are numerous reasons for not giving management this clause of which I am ignorant. Please enlighten me as to the other pitfalls of a no-strike clause.
I ask this sincerly and would honestly like to know more.

 

[Clownpilot]

>>Well, I got it from the horses mouth, i.e., AA pilots. According to what I read, posted by an AA pilot, there's an active movement among AA pilots, complete with petitions and proposed resolutions, to get your Board to take up and agree to a merger between APA and ALPA. It even includes quotes from the ALPA president. Are you sure you're up to date with what's going on in your own union? If you're not in favor of such a merger you'd best find out.>

Yeah well here's a horse that will tell you straight. I am an AA pilot and I am active in the union. I also monitor all union activities pretty closely. Yes, there is a small yet very vocal group who are proponents of merging with ALPA. They have yet to gain enough steam to even force a ballot vote. Many people, including myself, believe that a move to ALPA may be inevitable in the coming years. But support for that right now is very low. There is no immediate possibility of that happening. The TWA acquisition set back the ALPA movement probably years. Many guys now believe that after what TWA tried in the political arena it would be far too risky to become a part of the organization that represented them. Frankly, many guys are so pissed off from that Bond legislation that they may never support an ALPA move. However, the time may come. But, it won't be soon. Right now overall support for a move to ALPA is less than 10% as opposed to 35-40% pre TWA.

>>Well that's what started this thread. It even includes links (that I can't seem to make work).

I've been trying to get info on where it is. The links take me to ALPA website, but when I sign on, I can't find it anywhere.

It it is true, I find it extremely interesting that the APA, which does not yet represent Eagle pilots, would propose pay rates for Eagle aircraft in its contract opener.

To me, that would confirm completely what I originally said with respect to the APA proposal to "integrate" AE. It is a proposal designed, not to integrate AE pilots, but to transfer AE aircraft to the AA seniority list, without AE pilots.

That takes a lot of cojones.>>

We submitted a proposal to AMR management for the eventual integration of all jet flying at AA. This included bringing a part of AE that flies RJ's into our fold. Management responded that our proposal gave them nothing to work with, was completely unrealistic, and didn't warrant a formal counterproposal of any kind. And frankly we never received one. But, it did end the PR campaign against us that they were using to try to convince people that we were the reason they had to furlough AE pilots and employees. It was all a PR game.

You can go on and on about this issue but as I have said before, scope will control the RJ issue and we must preserve that scope clause at all costs. I am the strongest advocate of maintaining strong scope not only as a control measure for management but also as a control for the 'one list' wackos.

 

[Draginass]

Steve -
The President is the one that initiates the PEB that suspends the right to strike. Eventually, if no settlement is found, then it's within the power of the Congress to impose a contract -- something that Congress would be politically loath to get involved in. It's dependent on the politics, which, of course, sway with the wind. The President will change, but if you waive your right to strike, you're stuck with it no matter who the president is. Unfortunately, the negotiating tactic of most companies is to delay, delay, delay, then only negotiate seriously when a strike is an imminent threat. Without that power, the negotiating leverage of a union is virtually nil. The courts are very slanted towards the companies and very hostile to labor now, and even working to contract minimums can be deemed illegal as evidenced by the court order to Delta pilots to fly "voluntary" overtime. A no-strike provision in a contract is a really bad idea. Without that and strong scope provisions, you might as well save your money on union dues because it won't be a profession anymore, just a job until management can find someone to do it for less than you're willing to take.

Ask some AE guys what they think about their 16 year no-strike contract.

Maybe some others more schooled in labor law can give a more detailed answer.

 

[surplus1]

Re: Re: Caveman

Kinda like Comair pilots not wanting to loose any of their own seniority "for the good of the solution".

If Delta pilots aren't going to lose any of their seniority at DAL(and they should not have to), then there is no reason for Comair pilots to lose their seniority at CMR either.

Works both ways and from what you preach, you don't want to give an inch either.

Actually I might be willing to give quite a bit to Delta pilots, but you are absolutely right when you say I won't give one inch to ALPA.

Delta pilots owe me nothing and I owe them nothing. We start with a level playing field and that makes a deal possible. A lot of you guys think this is a fight with Delta pilots. It's not.

On the other hand I pay the union to represent my interests. Not only has it failed to do that, it's ripping me off. If there is anything I can do to stop that, I intend to do it.

 

[surplus1]

[B
Yeah well here's a horse that will tell you straight. I am an AA pilot and I am active in the union. I also monitor all union activities pretty closely. Yes, there is a small yet very vocal group who are proponents of merging with ALPA. They have yet to gain enough steam to even force a ballot vote. Many people, including myself, believe that a move to ALPA may be inevitable in the coming years. But support for that right now is very low. There is no immediate possibility of that happening. The TWA acquisition set back the ALPA movement probably years. Many guys now believe that after what TWA tried in the political arena it would be far too risky to become a part of the organization that represented them. Frankly, many guys are so pissed off from that Bond legislation that they may never support an ALPA move. However, the time may come. But, it won't be soon. Right now overall support for a move to ALPA is less than 10% as opposed to 35-40% pre TWA. [/B]

Thanks for the assesment. I won't debate the TWA scenario, mostly because I think ALPA did little to represent them (for political reasons associated with the effort to recruit you).

Anyway, I'm happy to hear that support for a merger is such a small minority. While I am obviously NOT an AA pilot, I think you're far better off runing your own show. The type of politics that caused you to leave ALPA in the first place are alive and well today. The only real difference is that it's being played against folks like me. BTW, you weren't much bigger than we are today back then.

We submitted a proposal to AMR management for the eventual integration of all jet flying at AA. This included bringing a part of AE that flies RJ's into our fold. Management responded that our proposal gave them nothing to work with, was completely unrealistic, and didn't warrant a formal counterproposal of any kind. And frankly we never received one. But, it did end the PR campaign against us that they were using to try to convince people that we were the reason they had to furlough AE pilots and employees. It was all a PR game.

I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that the APA proposal was really a scam, i.e., just a PR game. The only thing I feel sad about is that there appeared to be a lot of "suckers" at AE willing to jump on that bandwagon and failing to recognize what you were really doing. PR though it may have been, in the remote change that AMR has swallowed it, it was a vehicle that allowed you to take the Eagle aircraft for yourselves at their expense. Apparently and unfortunately, many (from what I read in forums like this one) AE pilots are green enough and naive enough to see it as something good for them.

You can go on and on about this issue but as I have said before, scope will control the RJ issue and we must preserve that scope clause at all costs. I am the strongest advocate of maintaining strong scope not only as a control measure for management but also as a control for the 'one list' wackos.

As I have said before, you are entitled to your beliefs and the pursuit of what you see as your best interests. All that you need to comprehend is that we are entitled to the very same thing.

As for the "one list" bit, I am personally against it (which I have said before as well). However, I am very much dedicated to prevent you from controlling my flying or my life and, just like you intend to continue to try, I intend to continue the effort to stop you.

You've made it clear in previous posts that you are not worried about what we think, you intend to pursue your course with no possibility of compromise. There's not much I can do about that, but it doesn't reduce me to cowering in fear of your wrath either.

No doubt the folks with your attitude will win many battles. You're big, strong and very powerful. So was Great Britain, but it didn't phase the Minute Men. History has a record of repeating itself when we don't learn from it. I don't think you all have.

 

[surplus1]

To Steve & Dragin

There is merit to what both of you say with respect to a "no strike" clause in the contract. Here's another prespective for your consideration.

The No Strike clause is a part of the contract. While the contract technically never expires, it becomes amendable at a date certain. Either party can propose changes.

Given the foregoing, it is safe to presume that the party not wanting to continue the "no strike" provision, would propose its elimination in the new Agreement. Should elimination of the "no strike" provision result in an impasse between the parties (by itself or in combination with other items), the Board would still be required to declare the impasse and release the parties to Self-Help.

On the date and time of the "release" to self-help, the Agreement terminates and the contract is null and void. Since the "no strike" provision is a part of the contract it ceases to exist.

Therefore, the no-strike provision is meaningless and its provisions are only effective and in place for as long as the contract is in place. It might prevent informational picketing and so forth, but it cannot prevent a legal strike once the NMB has released the parties to self-help. Its importance is therefore minimal. If you get something you want for signing it, there is little reason that you shouldn't. It only means you have to be good boys while the contract is in place.

The law does not allow you to engage in any self-help activity while the contract is in place. Very little difference from a no-strike clause.

BTW Dragin, the Delta pilots & ALPA did lose their open-time case. So did the Airborne pilots, back in 1997. Difference is the IBT took the Airborne case to the Supreme Court which recently ruled that the Company could NOT require them to fly open time when doing so was voluntary per the contract.

The Delta decision was rendered by a District Appeals Court (panel of judges - not the full bench). The IBT case is a decision by the Supreme Court and will set the precedent in similar cases. That's a plus for unions.

 

[Draginass]

Any no-strike provisions that the corporations would bargain for would almost certainly be along the lines of the AE contract -- very long term and in conjunction with other contract renewal contraints. They know that the unions would up the ante to mainline compensation as soon as practical.

I see a long term "no-strike" as a deal-breaker. The key ingredient is the future enforceability of scope. If the ATA can legally slither around union scope clauses, that puts on a new emphasis and immediacy. In the end, though, if they can get around scope and outsource union jobs, then unionism is essentially neutered. I think scope will essentially stand, but it will be a fight, no doubt.

 

[surplus1]

Any no-strike provisions that the corporations would bargain for would almost certainly be along the lines of the AE contract -- very long term and in conjunction with other contract renewal contraints. They know that the unions would up the ante to mainline compensation as soon as practical.

OK, if you are going to include the entire contract in a long-term deal like AE or even a side letter than extends the no-strike provision beyond the basic Agreement, then we agree. Long term agreements like the AE contract should never happen. No one can forecast that far out. The way Eagle got that one rammed down (by their union) is something else, but I won't go there.

I see a long term "no-strike" as a deal-breaker. The key ingredient is the future enforceability of scope. If the ATA can legally slither around union scope clauses, that puts on a new emphasis and immediacy. In the end, though, if they can get around scope and outsource union jobs, then unionism is essentially neutered. I think scope will essentially stand, but it will be a fight, no doubt.

I think you know I'm not against Scope. Where we disagree is over what Scope can contain. I think every pilot group should have the right to control its own work and to prevent the outsourcing of its own work.

I also think that Scope should prevent any one corporate entity from owning and/or operating more than one airline. As I see it, that is the crux of this problem.

Once you have allowed the "parent" company to operate separately more than one airline or to engage in outsourcing of any kind, you have permitted a Trojan Horse.

I would still like to see Scope remove all outsourcing. However, once you have permitted the alter ego of a "subsidiary" to exist, you have redefined outsourcing. The alter ego is not outsourced, it's the same company. If you had prevented it from day one, you and I would agree. For what ever reason you didn't. That was a mistake.

Once you have allowed it, you can't change the rules after the fact. The problem arises when you try to unilaterally change the rules under which you already allowed the alter ego to exist. That part of your scope, will be struck down (I believe). In other words, if you allowed the alter ego to fly 70-seats, you can't come along and expect to change that to 50-seats after the fact. If you imposed ASM restrictions on day one, OK. If you did not, you can't change them after the fact. You can try of course, but as soon as you do, you are no longer "preventing" something, you are now taking away what you already permitted.

That last part is where you injure the other party. That is what's being challenged and ultimately I think you will lose that. UAL as an example, will win. They have not allowed any alter ego. They have allowed outsourcing, but they can still control that. AA, DAL, AAA, CAL and ALK, have all allowed the alter ego thing. All will have huge problems because of it.

DAL was the last to do this and that is the prime reason we didn't want it to happen. When you company buys another airline and you don't require a merger, you're giving the company the poison with which to slay you. That's crazy. I don't care if they fly kites, you don't ever allow that to happen.

This difference may appear to be subtle, but it really isn't. It is extremely different from standard Scope.

What I call "standard Scope" is necessary, should never be given up and should be enforced. Where we disagree is in the definitions.

I don't know about the APA, but ALPA has had a long standing policy agains Alter Ego airlines. Because they were "only regionals", the union chose to abdicate and ignore its own policy. That has created the debacle that we face today.

 

[Clownpilot]

What a surprise

>>I'm pleased to see you acknowledge that the APA proposal was really a scam, i.e., just a PR game. The only thing I feel sad about is that there appeared to be a lot of "suckers" at AE willing to jump on that bandwagon and failing to recognize what you were really doing. PR though it may have been, in the remote change that AMR has swallowed it, it was a vehicle that allowed you to take the Eagle aircraft for yourselves at their expense. Apparently and unfortunately, many (from what I read in forums like this one) AE pilots are green enough and naive enough to see it as something good for them.>>

I can see from this posts that we are not on opposite sides of the fence in our thinking at all, in fact, we may be much closer than I realized. The mistake I made was lumping you into the 'put us on your list' crowd that I consistently see posting yet can offer no viable scenario in which it would be in our best interest to do so.
You are absolutely correct in your assessment of the APA RJ proposal to AMR. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it would have been disastrous for AE pilots. Why? Because the proposal called for moving all 70 seat flying to AA, then all 50 seat flying, with the eventual absorption of all Eagle flying and an amalgamation of the Eagle pilots into the AA pilot group. Guess how long 'eventual' would have become had they even considered this proposal? Here's a hint. You and I would both be retired. We said sure we'll give you all the RJ's you want, we just have to fly them. That's kinda like giving somebody money in the form of chips and telling them its only worth something if they spend them in your casino. No, none of it made much sense and we all just kinda smiled at each other, knew exactly what the other was thinking, then politely dropped the whole thing. Well, sorta politely.

>>As I have said before, you are entitled to your beliefs and the pursuit of what you see as your best interests. All that you need to comprehend is that we are entitled to the very same thing.

As for the "one list" bit, I am personally against it (which I have said before as well). However, I am very much dedicated to prevent you from controlling my flying or my life and, just like you intend to continue to try, I intend to continue the effort to stop you.

You've made it clear in previous posts that you are not worried about what we think, you intend to pursue your course with no possibility of compromise. There's not much I can do about that, but it doesn't reduce me to cowering in fear of your wrath either.>>

I think my attitude about this comes from the belief, possibly the flawed belief, that the commuters were a stepping stone. I have never really considered the plight of the career commuter pilot. Most guys I knew just figured it was a necessary step in some cases to obtain the qualifications to move on to the next level. Having said that, I do understand that many guys are now leading good careers at the commuter level with decent pay. These are the ones for whom this is an important issue. Certainly their perception of our desire to control scope and outsourcing of our flying is a threat to their livelihood. More for us is less for them. My thought has always been to preserve the premo major job and not give it up to create more less desirable jobs. To that end I believe we need to revisit the flowthrough provisions. If we can make the commuter job a reasonable step to the attainment of the major job, we could convince the guys there that it is a worthwhile effort to keep the flying primarily in the mainline. That way they'll know there gonna have a good job when they get there. Right now, I think much of the frustration come from seeing no good path to that end.

Having said that, for now the feed must remain separate and must be controlled.


>>No doubt the folks with your attitude will win many battles. You're big, strong and very powerful. So was Great Britain, but it didn't phase the Minute Men. History has a record of repeating itself when we don't learn from it. I don't think you all have.>>

This is the part I don't understand. We're fighting to preserve our futures as you are. We are really not your enemy. But our solution to this problem is different than yours I guess. We know that attempting to get management to increase their costs by combining our groups is unrealistic. Our best path is to fight to preserve the flying we have and prevent them from outsourcing what was ours to begin with. AE exists because of a granted exception to our contract that clearly states "all AA flying will be performed by pilots on the AA seniority list." We fight for what is ours, not against you. BTW, I know that DAL is different.

 

[Airline Pilot27]

Here's one for the Scopers

SMYRNA, Tenn. – Corporate Airlines has signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) to modify its current codeshare agreement with American Airlines beginning in July 2002. Under the new agreement, which is currently being negotiated, Corporate Airlines would place its “3C” airline designator code on American’s flights from St. Louis to destinations nationwide.
“This new agreement will help us build on our reputation – which is already synonymous with quality in the communities we serve – in markets beyond the Midwest,” said Chuck Howell, president and CEO. “At the same time, we’ll continue to offer convenient service for American’s passengers from St. Louis to the 10 Midwestern cities that have so graciously embraced us as their hometown carrier.”

Corporate Airlines currently provides flights from American’s St. Louis hub to Marion and Quincy, Ill.; Burlington and Waterloo, Iowa; Owensboro and Paducah, Ky.; Cape Girardeau, Fort Leonard Wood and Kirksville, Mo.; and Jackson and Nashville, Tenn. These regional services are provided to American Airlines under the AmericanConnection brand. Additionally, the company offers AmericanConnection service between Nashville and Tri-Cities, Tenn.
All AmericanConnection services operated by Corporate Airlines will continue to participate in the American Airlines AAdvantage® Program. This means that passengers traveling on AmericanConnection services may earn elite status qualifying AAdvantage miles and may redeem AAdvantage miles for travel on Corporate Airlines.

Corporate Airlines is a privately held company with headquarters in Smyrna, Tenn. It began operations in Dec. 1996. In addition to the company’s AmericanConnection services, Corporate Airlines provides nonstop service between Nashville, Tenn. and Atlanta.

----------------------------------------
Could this be a way of getting around an ASM restriction?