Re: Bankruptcy
FurloughedAgain said:
Example: The US Airways pension issue. As you know, the pension is the pot-of-gold in a major airline contract. ALPA has always been willing to sacrifice virtually anything to protect retirement for its senior members. Carefully watch the US Airways pension issue (the pension is scheduled to be terminated and replaced with a PBBG + comapny plan on March 31) to see how the entire process plays out.
Good posts, both of them. I like your comments on the bankruptcy scenarios and think you're pretty much on target as to the process.
I agree too that the pension issues will be the key player in the consessionary bargaining process; they afford the Company its greatest leverage. The "A" plans at the majors are very high cost. I'm not an R&I expert, but it's not too difficult to understand that when the investments made by the managers of the plans tank (as they have), the plan becomes grossly underfunded and the Company is then left to funnel the programs with cash infusions. At a time like now, when there are no profits and little "cash", something has to give.
Yes, the "union" will do anything to protect the pensions. It should not be difficult to see why that is the case. Just ask yourselves ... who runs the union? Without exception, all of the national officers are senior pilots from a major airline --- their own pensions are on the block. The MEC's of the major airlines have the votes to make the decisions. The Chairmen of those MEC's are all senior pilots --- their own pensions are on the chopping block too. In other words, the decision makers, at almost every governing level of the "union", would be personally affected, directly, by a loss of the A plans, including their possible conversion to cash plans. "Self preservation is nature's first law."
I don't say that as a criticism of these folks or to make them out as "bad" people. They are not, but nevertheless reality is -- their decisions will be influenced primarily by their own fortunes. If they have to make major concessions they will argue, logically, that the more junior pilots have time to recover .... the senior pilots do not. Therefore, the concessions will affect the juniors more than they affect the seniors. A senior pilot that loses his pension today, won't be there tomorrow when it "might" be renegotiated. He will try to save it and the only way may well be major concessions (in whatever format) that affect mostly juniors and mid-range seniority pilots in the near term. As you said, it's not personal, it's just business.
A major contributor to that scenario is the fact that ALPA's unicameral system of governance does not, and cannot, provide balanced decision making that protects the welfare of the of the majority (who are not "senior"). It is simply weighted too heavily in favor of the senior membership (major airlines). There are no real checks and balances in the system. The juries, the judges and the "prosecuters" are all the same people.
The problem, if it is a problem, is systemic to ALPA. The union's government is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. As a President of ALPA once said to me, "the major airline MEC Chairmen will never give up that power." I don't think he was wrong.
Will Comair fly 90 seat jets? Who knows. There are rumblings that Chautauqua has orders for 70 seat jets to be flown in the DCI system. I believe it is much more likely that Delta will terminate all of its own capital expendatures and let a code-share partner such as Chautauqua and/or Skywest take the financial burden and risk. That, as you can imagine, would be bad for the entire DAL family... Delta, Comair, and ASA.
I have no idea of whether the Company will ever offer 90-seat jets to Comair and ASA. In the light of the controversy surronding 70-seat jets, I think those of us in the "regional" sector of Delta would do well to focus on protecting what we have and should retain, rather than setting our sights on what we do not have.
There is a lot of moral justification to the idea that an aircraft of that size should be allocated to the "mainline" group. In my opinion, efforts by the ASA and CMR groups to secure such an aircraft for ourselves (IF the Company buys it) over the objections of the Delta pilots, would be no less inappropriate than the Delta pilot's efforts to transfer or limit our 70-seat aircraft. I don't see the D pilots not objecting.
While I recognize that these "dividing lines" based on aircraft seating are unilaterally created by the "mainline" and artificial, it is also true that the "regional" side of the equation has tacitly accepted the 70-seat divider for a long time. To suddenly attempt to redraw the line at 90-seats, without the consent of the Delta pilots, would, in my view, be little different from what they have done, i.e., attempt to redraw the line at 50-seats. Ethically, I feel we must practice what we preach.
Ideally, the mainline and regional groups should sit together, on an equal footing, and reach agreement as to where any "new" lines might be drawn. In the current atmosphere of mistrust, that is extremely difficult to do. Nevertheless, I feel it is in our mutual best interests.
If we can decide together where the line should be drawn in the first instance (and that's a very big IF), it will thereafter be much easier to decide who should fly what and how we might provide access to ALL of the Company's flying, for ALL of its pilots,
without attempting to force an unwanted merger and impractical combining of "lists". In the light of the other "options" available both to the Company and to each of "us" respectively, it might do us well to get in bed together (DAL/ASA/CMR), before either of us is forced to sleep with the Company. In times like these, diversion from the traditional thought processes is probably beneficial to pilots.
Please note that I am not advocating a merger of the companies and I am not advocating "one list". I respectfully submit there are better and far easier ways to recall furloughed pilots and reduce, if not eliminate, the potential for future furloughs or extreme concessions, both of which are unpalatable to the pilots regardless of group.
Hopefully when the industry recovers ALPA will have the wisdom to negotiate "brand-scope" to prevent outsourcing of flying to independant providers such as Chautauqua, Mesa, Trans-States or the other lowest bidders.
"Brand Scope" is a nice-sounding cliche, but what does it really mean? Viewed in the light of its source (Duane Woerth), it is suspect. I don't want to be the proverbial pessimist, but this is a glass that I see as half-empty. The devil is in the details, and no one that I know has seen them. Perhaps some of those "who sitteth at the right hand of the father" may be privy to the intent but, to the best of my knowledge, there are no "regional pilots" in that group.
Would it really prevent outsourcing? Who will decide who and what is included in the "brand"; who will decide what is "scoped out" and what is "scoped in"? Will it be the same folks that decided the strategy of anti-RJ Scope ... or will the RJ pilots be excluded in this round of decision making ... again?
Does the concept really "include" subsidiaries and exclude subcontractors .... or is that just what some of us would like to see? I could ask many more questions but that's enough for starters.
Before those of us on the subsidiary side of the house bite into the "brand scope" pie, it might do us well to learn the ingriedients. This could very well turn out to be another one of those infamous "sh!t sandwiches" with a new crust.
Personally, I'm scared stiff when a group of people that I don't know and who don't like me, in a room to which I am denied access and, who do not represent my interests, have the power to decide what is "best for me". Until I have an equal vote in determining my own fate coupled with the ability to say no, I can only see the brand scope glass as half-empty and highly suspect.
One final point on which you and I may disagree. You said, and I
"Hopefully when the industry recovers ALPA will have the wisdom to negotiate "brand-scope"...
If this concept of "brand scope" is indeed viable, then we must do it now. Waiting until the industry "recovers" will most likely make in both unnecessary and meaningless. IMO, the wrong kind of Scope has been a major contributor to the current mess. By the time we have a recovery the brand, whatever it may be, is not likely to resemble anything we know today. One should "brand" one's cattle while he/she still owns them.
Just my opinion.
