Part 1 of 2
Originally posted by jetflyer
[Re:]THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION:
I don't mean to bash you or flame you, but some of your thinking bothers me. I've been reading your posts on the subject with interest but I'm having a lot of problems with understanding what you want and more importantly (for me) why you want it. Maybe you can help me to understand if you could answer a couple of questions for me/us:
1. What is the real reason that you think this proposed merger between ASA/CMR is a good idea?
2. What are the benefits that you assume will come to ASA and CMR pilots from doing this?
I would also like to make some comments on your "Ultimate Solution" ideas. You have a lot of ideas but to me, not many of them make a lot of sense from a practical point of view. My ideas are no better than yours, for like yours, they are only opinions. However, we are not on the same frequency with this deal, so I'd like to tell you why.
The long-term welfare of my pilot group as a whole, IS important to me. I want to protect the seniors AND the juniors. I'm not willing to sacrifice the juniors to protect the seniors and I am not willing to sacrifice the seniors in an effort to enhance career opportunities for the juniors. In my thinking, junior and senior must both benefit from whatever we do.
Let's go to the specifics of your ideas.
1) KEEP ASA/COMAIR always at the TOP of the payscale. AVERAGE of the top 3 REGIONALS PAY + 5-10%.
It sounds like what you are proposing is what is known as an indexing system for determining our basic book rates. Such a system is in place at Alaska and Eagle. I believe that USAirways (not sure) had a similar system before the bankruptcy. I guaranteed that they would always have parity plus with the industry leaders.
Indexing has worked for Alaska (so far). That is because they are a small airline (about the size of Comair) and their pay was "indexed" to carriers like UAL, DAL, NWA and AA. That agreement was signed a long time ago. They have had an arbitration system for settling disputes (thus avoiding extensive negotiations). It has worked well primarily because the "index" was narrow (similar to yours) and it was reasonably safe for them to assume that the "Big Three or Four" major airlines would have the highest pay rates in similar equipment. We'll have to see what happens when their current negotiations are over.
Eagle also has an "indexing system", which I believe they were "sold", by union "officials" who did not fly for Eagle, in part on the basis of the ALK model. In my opinion, both of the union officials that sold the EGL group on its current contract came from "failed airlines", neither of which currently exist. At least one of these officials was noted for concessionary bargaining at his own airline. I think the EGL leadership of the time got suckered into a very bad deal. I thought so when it happened and I haven't changed my mind. They've been living in the hell of false expectations ever since. I would not want to see ASA or CMR repeat that debacle.
Unlike Alaska, the "index" at Eagle is broader (includes more airlines). Of greater significance is
which airlines it includes and the relative instability of "regional" carriers as compared to "mega airlines". So far, the Eagle "index" has managed to keep Eagle at or near the bottom of the pay scales among regional carriers and the arbitration system has proved to be virtually useless. In my opinion, it was a mistake for Eagle to agree to this index. It was also a mistake to agree to a 16-year contract and the arbitration process. What they did was give up their right to collective bargaining. What they got in return was obviously not what they expected.
When you apply an "indexing system" to Comair and ASA (as you suggest), the first thing that you do is remove our ability to negotiate our own book rates. You also eliminate the inclusion of CMR and ASA from the index. [Have you considered who this would leave at what you call "the top 3" and what the real differences might be]? Since you have no control over what the pilots of other airlines choose to negotiate/agree to as basic book rates, you have to assume that they will keep their rates at levels that would result in something that you would find satisfactory. Since there is no way that you can guarantee or control what these other airlines might do,
it simply means that you give them the right to negotiate your pay. Is that really what you want to do?
What happens if they all agree to Mesa or PSA book rates or do something like SKYW did? Even though you suggest a 5 - 10% "override", you could still wind up with a major pay cut, simply because the pilots at some other airline have decided to "work for less". Is that really what you want to risk? In my opinion there are far too many unanswered questions in the "regional carriers", and far too many differences between them, to make this system practical in application. "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."
2) Give ASA/COMAIR good TRIP/DUTY rigs, cancellation pay, deadhead pay, and COMAIR's 401K and retirement contributions.
IMHO, Comair already has good trip/duty rigs. Especially considering that most "regional" carriers have none at all and ours are equal to or better than several major airlines. I really don't understand what you think is inferior about the Comair rigs or who you are comparing them to. I'll grant you that they are not the "best" in the industry but they are reasonable for an airline like ours. With respect to the 401K and especially the "retirement", Comair is again ahead of almost every regional. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see no problem with our current contract in this area. I also see that we have much to lose if we try to change this now. Waiting for Section 6 would be far better IMO.
3) MAKE ALL DELTA CONNECTION FLYING done by ASA/COMAIR
OK. From my perspective this is a key element and very desirable. What you are really saying is that Comair and ASA need Scope that protects their flying. I agree. This is the toughest element in the equation; the most difficult to achieve. At Comair it was not achieved in the '94 contract because Comair pilots felt that pay was more important than the job security that Scope provides. We got what we asked for and time has proven we were wrong. In the last negotiations/strike we also did not obtain any protection of our flying. There were several reason for that. 1) ALPA convinced our negotiators that it was not achievable. 2) Given that we wound up with a change of ownership during the negotiations it became virtually impossible. 3) Our union denied us the right to bargain directly with our new employer.[/u]
That right to bargain with our "true" employer remains an obstacle today. Like it or not, neither Comair or ASA is authorized by Delta to negotiate who will or will not do Delta Connection flying, and ALPA does not allow the ASA or CMR MEC's to negotiate directly with Delta, Inc.. Unless we can negotiate directly with Delta, Inc', and unless Delta, Inc. signs off on it, any agreement with respect to DCI flying, made with CMR or ASA, is meaningless.
If and when Delta management agrees to bargain with CMR/ASA we might be able to agree on something. Anything else is a waste of time. We need to understand that simple reality before we offer to give away the farm. Merging Comair with ASA will change nothing in this area. So why do we want to do it?
4) ADD a FLOWTHROUGH with a NO FLOWBACK clause where ASA/COMAIR PILOTS go to the BOTTOM of the DELTA list if they WANT TO.
Interesting. I notice you got a lot of flack from others on this idea and you've been told that the Delta pilots will not agree to a flowthrough without a flowback. This will rattle some pin-feathers, but the fact is the Delta pilots don't have to agree to anything. We don't have to negotiate flowthrough with the Delta pilots. They do not control who Delta hires nor how they go about it (they just think they do).
Flowthrough has to be negotiated with Delta Management. No more no less.
In spite of that, it is reasonable to assume that the Delta pilots would oppose their company making a flowthrough agreement that they don't like. Reality is that Delta is not likely to do that without their agreement. IMO, it is not likely that the Delta pilots would support a flow-up if it does not include a flow-back. So, while we do not have to negotiate with the Delta pilots, for practical reasons, we would need them not to oppose what we propose.
The fact that you even mention flowthrough tells me that you would like to be a Delta pilot. That's fine. You can apply without a flowthrough. You can also apply at any other airline that you prefer over Comair. We don't need a flowthrough just to get you or anyone else a number on the Delta list.
First, the creation of a flowthrough would remove all incentive for ASA and CMR pilots to improve conditions on our own property. That is something that I would not want. I certainly don't want to give up my opportunity to improve my working conditions so that you can get a guaranteed job at Delta at some unknown time in the future. Why should I?
Second, (which all junior pilots seem to ignore) if we did establish a flow through, who do you think would flow first? I'll answer that -- the most senior pilots. How many pilots would have to "flow" before the junior pilots that want this would get a chance? Just pick your own seniority number (after we merge with ASA) and that will give you and idea of how long it would take you to get there. By when do you think Delta will hire that many pilots?
Continued
