APA proposes pay scale for AE

[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?

 

[Draginass]

This is so blatant it's laughable. Normal modus operandi, however. In the meantime they'll be making money. Company answer? Screw your contract, see ya in court. I'm pretty sure they will.

 

[surplus1]

Draginass

This is so blatant it's laughable. Normal modus operandi, however. In the meantime they'll be making money. Company answer? Screw your contract, see ya in court. I'm pretty sure they will.

YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!


Yet another manifestation of my allegation that this type of Scope does not work.

 

[surplus1]

Clownpilot - Part 1 of 2

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.

Well, you're not alone. Lot's of mainline pilots presume that all regional pilots are the same, i.e., inexperienced novices foaming at the mouth for a "job at a major". Almost anything we propose is assumed to be a veiled "seniority grab" or some other desperate ploy, like elimination of all Scope, to achieve unjustified entitlement to something that the mainline pilots has. True of many perhaps but not all. I don't fall into that category myself and neither do any of the litigants in this now infamous lawsuit. We are not all wet behind the ears.

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. ---- 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.

Yes sir, I did see through your APA RJ proposal the instant I read the summary. I can't speak for Eagle pilots, but I know for certain that if such a proposal is made that affects my airline the way this one potentially affected AE, the ink wouldn't be dry before we "sort of politely" (as you put it), told you and the world what you could do with it.

We don't seek to take anything at all from the mainline pilots with whom we are entwined involuntarily. We didn't ask to be bought, didn't want to be bought, wish we had not been bought and would be more than happy to get out of the "deal" if we could. We fully expect the mainline pilots (in this case Delta) to protect their work. But we are NOT going to give them any of our work or allow them to restrict it without one h**l of a battle.

You'll probably disagree, but I'll also tell you that we do not buy the myth that regional jets are taking mainline jobs. The evidence and the facts are there to prove the exact opposite. Regional jets, wherever they exist in substantial numbers, increase mainline flying by more than 10% and, it follows, mainline jobs. I'm sorry you have people furloughed now and hope they will soon be recalled. The regional jet is not the cause of any of those furloughs. Were it not for the increased traffic that regional jets bring to the mainline, there is little doubt there would be many more furloughs today.

If mainline pilots want to force their companies to operate unprofitable aircraft that's OK with me, but please do not use me as the scapegoat to cover for that fictitious job loss concept.

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.

In many instances the regional airlines have been stepping-stones and many still are. You're not necessarily wrong about that. Just like all "majors" are not the same, all "regionals" are not the same. AA and AWA are both called "majors", there is little comparison between them. Comair is even more different than Corporate Air, yet both are called "regionals". The truth is most mainline line pilots don't have a clue as to what their own regional partners are doing or who they are, let alone some other commuter. The mainline union leaders however, know very well. They take full advantage of the rank and file's lack of knowledge to pursue their agendas.

My airline has it's share of new hire pilots, but the majority of our pilots are not "trying to become qualified" to do anything. They are already more than qualified to do whatever they choose. They are not idiots with tarnished records and lacking education. We have a lot of career people who were not necessarily desirous of being "regional pilots for life", but who wanted to grow and develop their own airline. One day, all of a sudden, this whale came along and swallowed our little goldfish and now the pilots that fly for the whale think they own us body and soul and can tell us when to jump. We of course are expected to respond by asking "how high". It isn't going to happen.

Their Company owns our company. They do not own us. The Company bought our flying but it didn't give that flying to the Delta pilots. They are trying to take anything they can and control what they can't. We disagree with that and will do what ever it takes to stop them.

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.

Yes, many are leading good careers (at least at my airline). We seek to improve those careers just as you seek to improve yours. That does not mean that the only avenue is to change jobs and move to the bottom of a different list. Our very junior pilots do have that ambition and they have always been free to leave whenever they wish. A voluntary job change is quite different from a forced job change; especially one that is forced by the actions of your very own labor union.

We support Scope against outsourcing, but we don't see ourselves as subcontractors. We are a division of the same Company. They don't have to like us, but they can't take our airplanes or our flying without a fight. By the way, the Company isn't trying to give it to them. They are trying to force the Company to do it against our will and the Company's.

The real problem I have with you perception is the idea that we are taking your flying or reducing the number of your jobs. That just isn't true. We do not operate the same equipment. Our (regional) part of the airline is not in competition with the (mainline) part of the airline; it is a fully integrated component of the same Company. When the Company places one of its mainline aircraft types on a segment that we used to fly, we do not see that as you taking our jobs. We simply put that airplane on a different segment.

However, when one of the Company's regional type aircraft is substituted on a former mainline segment, you see it as losing work. If your airplane was going to the desert I might agree, but it isn't. It is simply being re-deployed to a different and more profitable route more profitable for that aircraft type. You have lost nothing.

Please continue to Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Clownpilot - Part 2 of 2

When you say "more for us is less for them", I disagree. You are making the same mistake again. More for you is NOT less for us. The more airplanes you buy and operate the greater the need for aircraft of our type, not a reduction but an increase. When we add more small jets, you gain more passengers to keep your big airplanes flying and eventually to allow you to buy more or even bigger airplanes. It's not one-for-one (the size difference is too great) but it is a benefit to you, not a negative. We want you to have more so that there will be more need for what we do. You should want more of us, for the very same reason.

Instead, you have embraced the totally unsubstantiated myth that we are taking your flying. You then respond with ever-increasing Scope that, if you had your way, would put us out of business completely. You blindly refuse to recognize that IF you succeed, the number of your aircraft will soon begin to shrink and you will lose jobs to more furloughs.

I believe your thinkers know this full well. You are afraid of the RJ not because it is causing you to lose work, but because you think it will lower your wage base. So your leaders have decided to create the job loss myth in an effort to block the proliferation of the Regional Jet. You have failed to do that with Plan A =(wait and see if it fails to work), so you shifted to Plan B =(Scope the d***ed things out of existence). Plan B doesn't work as the corporation finds ever-increasing methods of circumventing your Scope. Now you want to combine Plan B with the new Plan C =(Transfer all the jets to your list). "We can't stop it so we'll just take it."

Well, unfortunately we happen to be flying those little jets. If you succeed with Plans B and C, it will be at our expense. We'll all be unemployed while you play with our undesirable equipment.

We are not the one's that created the outsourcing window in your original Scope, YOU DID. Now, after the fact, you've changed your mind and you want to put the Genie back in the bottle. The methods you have chosen also destroy our livelihood in the process. That may be OK for you, but it sure isn't OK for us and we have no choice but to fight you every inch of the way.

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. .

None of those thoughts are "bad" thoughts but they ARE erroneous thoughts. Why? Because they are all predicated on the false premise that our operations result in the loss of your jobs.

The better jobs at the majors will continue to be there and there will be MORE of them because of what we do, not less. I'm not against moving our flying to the mainline, but you must understand that means our pilots must move with the flying. The corporation simply isn't going to agree to do that in the conventional manner. It would take a new and very creative plan to convince them to do that. The APA proposal isn't even close to being that.

I wish you could tell me WHY you believe that the "premo major job" is given up to create more less desirable jobs. That just isn't happening. As long as you keep the "premo job" (as you call it), why do you care if there are more of the less desirable jobs? It has NO negative effect on you. Why do you care if these undesirable jobs get more desirable? That also has no negative effect on your prime job. On the contrary, it makes your prime job more secure.

Flow-through is a placebo that has no purpose of benefit to regional pilots in its know formats. The ONLY type of flow-through that makes any sense is one that "flows" ALL affiliated regional pilots to your list in order of their seniority and that precludes any off the street hiring or mergers from reducing or interrupting the flow. No ratios with "off the street new hires." If I flow up to the bottom, you do NOT flow back into the left seat. That can never work. The only good flow is a merged list and the company is not going to agree to that. YOU guys have given them every reason not to.

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.

I want you to understand, desperately. I do NOT want to become your enemy and I do not want you to become my enemy. Your solution to the problem is different from mine, yes. That is because I sincerely believe that your solutions are designed to solve a perceived problem that does not exist. Therefore, your solutions are completely unnecessary. Your decision to joust at windmills does not justify my demise.

It is true that ALL of the AA flying was originally yours. ALL of the DAL flying was originally there's. Both of you (and all other mainline carriers) created an exception by exempting certain types of that flying. You gave up the control that you had. It was not taken or forced from you. You relinquished it for the asking because you did not want it. That started more than 20 years ago. Our companies came into existence. They entered into agreements with or were acquired by your Company, within the guidelines that YOU established. As time progressed, the quality of our equipment improved but it remained within the parameters that you ceded.

The only thing that we have done that might be called "different" is put the propeller inside the cowling. When it was first done, you raised no objections, thereby ceding it to us for the second time. Now 10 years later, ten years during which we have played the game by YOUR rules, you come along and declare that you wish to change the rules. Had you done that before we were already established, I personally could buy it (I happen to believe that an exception to Scope was a total lack of foresight and a huge error). When you arbitrarily decide to change the rules each time you go to the bargaining table we have a problem. Your desired new rules, destroy my life. I'm sympathetic to the fact that you perceive you made a mistake, but I am completely unwilling to allow you to destroy me in an effort to fix your perceived error. I can never agree to that, unless you can provide for my needs. Unfortunately, you can't.

I insist that we are not hurting you, no matter how many 70-seat or smaller jets we fly or how many miles we fly them. I'm not expecting you to simply accept my opinion. The facts are there to substantiate my allegation. Just look at the number of passengers required to break even in a RJ compared to the same number in the smallest mainline aircraft. You cannot improve your life by forcing the company to operate unprofitable equipment. The management of the airline is not trying to intentionally destroy its core business by buying regional jets. They are trying to make money and that is their purpose in life.

I hope some of this has helped you to understand our perspective and maybe broaden your own. I reiterate once more, I don't want an enemy I want a brother. I just can't accept a brother who will take from me because he thinks I pose a threat that he merely imagines.

Finally, when the union that I pay to represent my interests openly supports, aids and abets, my brother's attempt to destroy my life my only recourse is to seek the assistance of an impartial judge. That is exactly why a lawsuit has been filed and will be pursued until the hegemony stops or the judge decides in our favor. If we cannot achieve justice in the courts, it will end the litigation and probably the brotherhood with it.

Best regards, and Fly Safe.

 

[Clownpilot]

To Surplus

>>YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!


Yet another manifestation of my allegation that this type of Scope does not work.>>

It works if it is enforced. Your claim that we should abandon it because management tries to violate is just another example of a very self serving position.

>>You'll probably disagree, but I'll also tell you that we do not buy the myth that regional jets are taking mainline jobs. The evidence and the facts are there to prove the exact opposite. Regional jets, wherever they exist in substantial numbers, increase mainline flying by more than 10% and, it follows, mainline jobs.
If mainline pilots want to force their companies to operate unprofitable aircraft that's OK with me, but please do not use me as the scapegoat to cover for that fictitious job loss concept.>>

What?????? You provide FEED because that was supposed to be the reason you exist. We have feed a feed requirement percentage of 85% written into the scope clauses. There is a very real scenario where management would love to use RJ's on smaller routes or non hub point to point flying that would essentially replace our flying because they can operate those flights cheaper by having you fly them. That's outsourcing our flying. To you. Whether you will admit it or not. We granted a scope exception to provide feed to the mainline not to replace our flying in markets that management thinks it can operate more efficiently by replacing us.


>>We support Scope against outsourcing, but we don't see ourselves as subcontractors. We are a division of the same Company. They don't have to like us, but they can't take our airplanes or our flying without a fight. By the way, the Company isn't trying to give it to them. They are trying to force the Company to do it against our will and the Company's.

The real problem I have with you perception is the idea that we are taking your flying or reducing the number of your jobs. That just isn't true. We do not operate the same equipment. Our (regional) part of the airline is not in competition with the (mainline) part of the airline; it is a fully integrated component of the same Company. When the Company places one of its mainline aircraft types on a segment that we used to fly, we do not see that as you taking our jobs. We simply put that airplane on a different segment.>>

You can't actually believe your own rhetoric. This is really demented thinking. You are here to provide feed to us. If management puts a mainline plane on your route it means that there is enough business in that market to warrant a larger aircraft, the mainline grows, and there is more mainline for you to feed.

>>However, when one of the Company's regional type aircraft is substituted on a former mainline segment, you see it as losing work. If your airplane was going to the desert I might agree, but it isn't. It is simply being re-deployed to a different and more profitable route more profitable for that aircraft type. You have lost nothing. Instead, you have embraced the totally unsubstantiated myth that we are taking your flying. >>

Unsubstantiated myth? Oh my god. I have watched management attemp to replace our flying on routes that weren't performing as well as they hoped so many times I can't even count. It is pure replacement of our flying whether you'll accept it or not. You should be trying to get a mainline job not limit them.


>>I believe your thinkers know this full well. You are afraid of the RJ not because it is causing you to lose work, but because you think it will lower your wage base. So your leaders have decided to create the job loss myth in an effort to block the proliferation of the Regional Jet. >>

Planet Pluto thinking. If you increased our flying we would be supporting you. RJ's are a fact of life. But they must be used correctly and as intended.

>>We are not the one's that created the outsourcing window in your original Scope, YOU DID. Now, after the fact, you've changed your mind and you want to put the Genie back in the bottle. The methods you have chosen also destroy our livelihood in the process. That may be OK for you, but it sure isn't OK for us and we have no choice but to fight you every inch of the way.>>

All they have to do is comply with the scope restrictions written into the contract and I'll have absolutely no argument.

>>I want you to understand, desperately. I do NOT want to become your enemy and I do not want you to become my enemy. Your solution to the problem is different from mine, yes. That is because I sincerely believe that your solutions are designed to solve a perceived problem that does not exist. Therefore, your solutions are completely unnecessary. >>

Replacing AA routes and flights with RJ's is not a problem? So it's only my perception that our aircraft are being replaced on these routes and it's only in my mind that we have lost flying when this happens and therefore jobs? Man, you only see what you want to see.

>>It is true that ALL of the AA flying was originally yours. ALL of the DAL flying was originally there's. Both of you (and all other mainline carriers) created an exception by exempting certain types of that flying. You gave up the control that you had. It was not taken or forced from you. They entered into agreements with or were acquired by your Company, within the guidelines that YOU established. >>

Ceded but controlled. Fine. here's the deal. Eagle can have 67 aircraft in the RJ range. That's it. They cant fly ANYTHING larger than 70 seats no matter what. Below 45 seats they can operate all they want. Those are the rules. Stick to the rules and I'll never argue. Grow all you want inside the parameters outlined in the scope clauses. I won't say a word. But if you want to exceed the ASM cap, the weight restriction, the feed requirement, the block our limits, well then I guess that flying has to come back to us. That's the agreement.



>>The only thing that we have done that might be called "different" is put the propeller inside the cowling. When it was first done, you raised no objections, thereby ceding it to us for the second time. Now 10 years later, ten years during which we have played the game by YOUR rules, you come along and declare that you wish to change the rules.>>

Dead wrong. Management wants relief from what they agreed to. They want to exceed the parameters of the scope agreement and ask us to just hand it to them. It's laughable. They say, how can we operate if you won't allow us to exceed those restrictions? We simply respond that they can fly anything as much as they want under our contract at AA. They can buy any plane and fly any route they want. We'll fly it. You interpret this response as our trying to take your flying. No, it's that we won't let them operate more than they agreed to. This tends to cause you guys to throw a hissy fit.


>>Had you done that before we were already established, I personally could buy it (I happen to believe that an exception to Scope was a total lack of foresight and a huge error). When you arbitrarily decide to change the rules each time you go to the bargaining table we have a problem. Your desired new rules, destroy my life. I'm sympathetic to the fact that you perceive you made a mistake, but I am completely unwilling to allow you to destroy me in an effort to fix your perceived error. I can never agree to that, unless you can provide for my needs. Unfortunately, you can't.>>

And the academy award goes to....... Surplus.....................



>>I insist that we are not hurting you, no matter how many 70-seat or smaller jets we fly or how many miles we fly them. I'm not expecting you to simply accept my opinion. The facts are there to substantiate my allegation. The management of the airline is not trying to intentionally destroy its core business by buying regional jets. They are trying to make money and that is their purpose in life.>>

You're wrong. Thats our flying. You have limited access to it under a scope exemption. Comply with those limits and I have no argument. You want more? Well, you can't have it. If management wants more than it agreed to it has to benefit us. Your sense of entitlement to what is not yours is ridiculous.



>>Finally, when the union that I pay to represent my interests openly supports, aids and abets, my brother's attempt to destroy my life my only recourse is to seek the assistance of an impartial judge. That is exactly why a lawsuit has been filed and will be pursued until the hegemony stops or the judge decides in our favor. If we cannot achieve justice in the courts, it will end the litigation and probably the brotherhood with it. >>

You people are seeking to help management destroy the good airline jobs. Because you don't have one you want to see the average airline job quality lowered to your level. If you break scope it will increase the number of low paying jobs decrease the number of high paying mainline jobs and limit the opportunity for our younger pilots to obtain that dream job in the future. Why anyone would want to do that is now clear to me. I guess you're stuck there and misery loves company. You may have talked yourself into thinking you are right but the suit is ludicrous, baseless and will fail miserably. If necessary, I will substantially increase my PAC contibution that I make now to ensure it's failure. I just really don't think it will be necessary.

This is my last post on this subject. I was wrong again. We are on completely opposite sides of the fence.