Combining the seniority lists

[surplus1]

Don't know there Surplus. I think all us majors have a special section in the unions called "Committee for the Screwing of Regional Airline Pilots" whose job it is to think up new and devious ways of making life miserable for you guys. I think it's made up primarily of ex-regional pilots. Ex-mils don't have the depth of knowledge necessary to do a really "major" job of it. True intent? Ah, you've got to read the really tiny little letters printed in invisible ink in the letter delivered by black helicopters.

Dragin,

Back long ago, before your MTV generation, when I was on the high-school debate team, I learned two things.

1) When you run out of something logical to say in defense of your position, attempt to antagonize your opponent. If successful, you win.

2) Never allow your adversary to "get your goat". Just keep hitting him with logic and he'll do one of two things a) get frustrated and attack you personally; b) run out of ideas with which to defend his position. Either way, you win again.

You've tried No 1; it hasn't worked, though I like the humor (I'll use it later in the post). You appear to be succumbing to part "b" of No. 2. There is hope for me after all.

It will please you to know that ALPA has already created two different committees to solve the problem. One back in '1996 which came to no meaningful conclusion and did nothing. Another last year called the JSC, which has yet to offer any substantive ideas other than of course, more meetings.

Most folks know that when you don't know what to do and folks think you should, you surround yourself with a new Committee and gather several more people who also don't know what to do who then help you to do nothing. I think the initials of the current chairman of your "Committee for the Screwing of Regional Airline Pilots" are DW. Voting members are UAL, NWA, AAA, DAL and CAL. The guest speaker at the last meeting was APA.

Over time, the Committee has developed a brilliant master plan establishing a new secrect subsidiary called S.C.O.P.E. (Society for Confused, Opulent, Piloting Enthusiasts). It has invested millions in developing, acquiring and attempting to implement numerous "Clauses" (ineffectual gadjets for the preservation of greed - not related to the famous North Pole resident) which it scatters at ramdom in an aimless effort to patch the holes in the dam that the C(S)RAP constructed, to stem the tide of small airline growth and restrain the waters of technological progress.

Meanwhile back in Dallas, Atlanta, Houston, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis, and to a lesser extent Chicago, the MGPRJ (Management Group for the Proliferation of Regional Jets) a secret organization that colludes (behind the scenes) with the infamous enemy of the profession known as the RJDC, have together brilliantly countered all efforts to spread C(S)RAP and SCOPE. Informed sources report anonymously that both C(S)RAP and SCOPE have failed to do their job. As Regional Airlines and their childlike pilots are observed, in ever increasing numbers, lunching and dining in the formerly exclusive Hub Clubs operated by C(S)RAP members, the MGPRJ and the RJDC forecast that there will be "a regional jet in YOUR future"

Right now, I think APA membership views any proposal concerning Eagle with a shrug.

There is something to be said for consistency no matter how near sighted. At the very least you can enjoy the thought that you are joined in the shrugging ritual by other members of the elite. I hope sincerely that by the time you all discover the consequences of benign neglect, it won't be to late for everyone.

As far as declassifying you plan/opening proposal, when can we expect to see it in writing from your MEC to DAL ALPA and management?

To the best of my knowledge my MEC doesn't joust with the politically incorrect and remains overtly disengaged. They have their hands full with the difficulties of taxation without representation.

Errr, . . . . I mean, what's COMAIR's proposal that Delta will ignore?

So far, Delta. Inc. seems to have grasped Comair's quiet proposal rather well and continues to outpace the competition where it matters.

Who knows what will eventually emerge? If I did, I wouldn't tell but alas, you already know that don't you. Your grasp of the complexities continues to amaze me. I do hope your collective shrugs will not ultimately be your undoing.

The ascension from the beer crowd to the champagne groupies is glamorous and exciting. When the bewitching hour forces a return to beer, there will be weeping and nashing of teeth as the walls of Castle Aloofness begin to crumble about you. It is extremely difficult to enjoy pigs feet and corn bread when you've been weened on caviar. I'll promise not to say I told you so.

Perhaps the erstwhile leaders of C(S)RAP will recall the predictions of the Good Book while there is still time. "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I wish you the very best.

 

[Clownpilot]

Chicken and the Egg

This whole discussion ignores one simple fact.

That fact is the reason and I mean the entire reason why regional carriers exist.

In the beginning, there were no regional carriers. There was Eastern, TWA, Pan Am, etc.

That was it. You drove to a major city then got on a large airplane and flew to another major city. Well along the way the airlines realized there was a huge market for people that don't live near enough to a major city to drive there and get on a plane. They also realized that these feeds were going to be small planes that they could fill in a smaller market, but relatively expensive to operate. As a result they realized they needed a low cost way to get people from remote markets to the major airports to put them on their jets. Voila, regional service was born. At AA it was done in the form of American Eagle. They asked APA for an exception to the contract to allow them to accomplish this goal. Similar things happened elsewhere. It was widely accepted that costs would have to be kept down to allow this to be a profitable venture.

Fast forward to today. You regional people want to merge with the major carrier. In essence this eliminates the entire reason you exist. If major carriers wanted this merge to happen they wouldn't have created a separate entity to begin with. They simply would have bought regional aircraft for the mainline operation in the first place. The major airlines can buy whatever airplanes they want, the mainline pilots just have to fly it.

Get a grip. I laugh every time I see a regional pilot spew off about one list. Regionals exist because the airline didn't want the mainline combined with the feed. The regionals are there to provide a low cost feed to the mainline. The airlines are never going to combine the operations. Never.

Never.

Stop talking about this.

It's ridiculous.

 

[9rj9]

The monster has been created

exactly, now the airlines have created the regional monster, they have to control it or kill it. The Regional monster takes mainline flights and continues to grow despite scope and 9/11.
Most regional pilots do not want to merge, take the Western merger for example, the Delta guys treated those guys like **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** their entire career. The more senior pilots would never get what they think is fair and the junior guys don't want an X on their forehead.
The problem is merging may be the only way to save mainline growth. The question is how will mainline pilots control the monster.?

 

[Draginass]

Barbs and kidding aside, Surplus, I think we agree in principal with the idea of regionals being combined with their mainlines, one seniority list, and one contract, and one standard of compensation. Where we differ is in the outlook for practicality making that happen, and maybe in the methodology in combining lists.

1. I think the idea of suing ALPA is unproductive and a waste of time. I see it as born out of frustration with the companies and COMAIR's apparent defeat by Delta management during the strike (i.e. settle or we'll shutdown the company).

2. The evolution of regionals in the last 15 years, fueled somewhat by technology, but mostly by the expanding economy, is way beyond where anyone would have predicted.

3. Mainline unions are unable (as a matter of practicality) to compel the companies to absorb the regionals. Therefor the only practical step (of which some $$$ concessions were made at the bargaining table) was to legally restrict the companies from expanding regionals beyond a certain level. The companies agreed to these limits. I think the companies also underestimated the growth potential somewhat, AND see a window of opportunity to shift mainline flying to more cheaply compensated regional workers. But, now they are caught by their own agreed upon restrictions, and seek contractual relief. While you disagree, I and virtually all mainline pilots think it's just protecting our jobs (just like we scope out outsourcing), and think the courts will agree.

4. The RJDC people see the companies as too hard a target to compel integration, so instead go after what they see as a softer one, ALPA, hoping to compel them to make integration more inticing to the companies. While you say that can be done without economic incentives from mainline unions, I just can't see it, and you've been coy about presenting any practical plan.

5. We also disagree with the future potential of the RJs. While the RJDC people present them as the wave of the future, I think that's an gross overstatement to give them the appearance of inevitability, while I think their future practicality is limited. The companies don't look at airplanes, they look at costs, and would like nothing better than to expand the "regional" flying to national flying and gradually shrink the mainline. The companies can fly all the 44 seat RJs they want, at least at AMR. They just can't expand beyond AE's purpose of mainline feed (more or less). The current economic and political crisis gives them the figleaf of believability PR wise to expand regionals at the cost of mainline jobs.

We shall see how this plays out in the next couple of years. I think APA and AE ALPA is the best hope (and not much of that) for this happening anytime in the foreseeable future, since APA's contract is being negotiated right now.

One thing that I'm confused on is if the companies are serious about selling off their regional carriers, or if that is just a ploy. Logic would dictate that if they're making good money off regionals, even with scope restrictions, why sell them. I understand the profit potential of a sale, but long term, why not keep them? There is more than meets the eye with this, but I don't see what it is. With APA owning the rights to AA code flying, outsourcing feed doesn't seem practical unless AMR can defeat scope in the courts.

The apocalypse you predict with mainline compensation being gutted to "beer" (I assume you mean regional) levels if mainlines don't acquiese is farsical. Not buying that.

Change will occur, no doubt, but it will be incremental, not revolutionary. Still be interested in your detailed "plan" should you release it. I can be convinced, but you've got to show me the money, not just talk about it.

Time to quit for a while. My posts are getting as long as yours!

 

[publisher]

sale

Let's just deal with the issue of selling off the regionals as is happening before your eyes. Why

First, the opportunity to raise a substantial amount of cash, more or less free money. These companies can sell for a multiple of earnings,,,, and, still retain a measure of control.

Sounds good after you have just lost a bunch of cash.

Flexibility, we can sell and still benefit. I have an asset easily sellable in the open market. I have relative control with as little as 25% or less of outstanding stock.

These are separate entities and if they get out of line, we can eliminate our relationship. Still have the up front gain.

No carry through of labor agreements.

Aircraft and other assets off my balance sheet.

Different funding opportunities.

Additional debt but not on my sheet.

On and On

 

[Draginass]

Most labor contracts have successorship clauses. I don't think a sale of a company necessarily abrogates them.

 

[surplus1]

TO: Clownpilot

This whole discussion ignores one simple fact. That fact is the reason and I mean the entire reason why regional carriers exist. In the beginning, there were no regional carriers. There was Eastern, TWA, Pan Am, etc. That was it.

That's an interesting perspective, but it is far from being historically accurate. Regional carriers are not at all "new". That is why we invented the term "commuter airline".

We had the "flag carriers", PAA, TWA, NW Orient. The "trunk carriers" UAL, EAL, DAL, Braniff, Western, Continental, National (and others), but we also had a veritable host of "regional carriers", e.g., Allegheny, Mohawk, Lake Central, North Central, Ozark, North East, PSA, Alaska, Bonanza, Hughes Air West, Piedmont, Aloha, Hawaiian, Caribair, Trans Texas, (Even Delta before the C&S and NE mergers), etc., etc., (to many to remember all). It's just a matter of the time frame that you can remember or that you choose to cover.

I'm sure you notice I didn't mention USAir, which didn't even exist. Deregulation is the animal that changed most of that. Although there were many mergers before deregulation, there were many more after deregulation. Maybe the 60's, 70's and early 80's seems like ancient history to you, but to others that time frame is the Genesis of today's problems. If we elect to ignore history, we cannot learn from its mistakes.

The regional airlines of yesterday have all disappeared. What is important to note is they all disappeared because they were merged into the trunks or together to create new trunks or majors. While those mergers all generated the typical squabbles over seniority, there was one essential difference from today's world. Back then, ALPA didn't treat the regional pilot groups like red headed stepchildren and the pilots of the flag carriers, trunk carriers and regional carriers all knew that they were airline pilots. There was no line in the sand (real or imagined) to differentiate the "real pilots" from the inferior pilots, like there is today.

The commuter airline appeared on the scene to fill the gaps vacated by yesterday's regional carriers and a few start ups (notably Midway and Air Florida) emerged. Initially those make-believe airlines (in the eyes of ALPA pilots) were not even admitted to the union. At one point, ALPA went so far as to create a subsidiary union (UPA) in an illogical effort to keep the unwashed out of the club. They would not even admit Air Florida and Midway until after AF failed and Midway picked up the pieces.

When UPA fell on its face, the decision was made to organize the commuters and bring them into ALPA. This was a protectionist mechanism designed to control them but not to truly assimilate them. That concept of tokenism prevails in the minds of the ALPA hierarchy to this very day. I believe, it is one of the root causes of our current problem, i.e., the inability to represent regional carriers fairly while maintaining a philosophy of bigotry and discrimination against their pilot groups.

When a trunk carrier's management eventually came up with the idea of creating a code-share feeder operation (I think it was EAL/PBA originally), ALPA made an even bigger mistake. It allowed management to do this by creating an exemption to Scope. That mistake has come back to haunt us and now threatens to divide the union.

In 1993 when Comair introduced the regional jets, ALPA had a second chance to cure the mistake. It could have taken the position that "all jets will be operated by mainline", but it didn't even try. Instead, the powers that be chose to plug the gaping hole by inventing restrictions to Scope in an effort to limit the proliferation of these new small jets. I think the leaders saw the problem that was coming or at least the potential, but none of the major pilots groups was willing to pay the price of putting these jets back under the Scope clause. They took the money and continued to pursue the idea of adding more lines to the Scope clause.

ALPA had one separate alternative with which to "fix the problem". It could have set a course to restore the contracts of all the regional carriers flying jets to parity on scale with the mainline. That is what we had when the "old regionals" were around. The regional pilot groups didn't have the clout or leverage to do that on their own. They needed the full support of the union and the major airline pilot group to which their carrier was related. The mainline pilots took the money again and refused to sacrifice anything to help raise the bar at the small carriers. It wasn't their problem.

Unfortunately for the mainline pilot groups, the Scope strategy proved ineffective as management found ever-increasing ways to circumvent it. Management has been winning that battle and every one of us should understand that the enemy doesn't surrender when he's winning the war.

The price of fixing the problem that we ourselves helped to create and fostered with benign neglect, grows higher with each passing day as the regional carriers convert to all-jet fleets and continue to grow.

Now the mainline pilots have recognized, finally, that this could be bigger that both of us. Nevertheless, they continue to steer the ship of ALPA on a collision course with the reef all the while shouting "I'm the Captain". The mainline pilots refuse to recognize the regional pilots as professional equals; they refuse to support and join directly in the effort to raise the bar to parity; they continue to write more useless Scope clauses that they cannot enforce and, they are now attempting to take equipment from the big regionals without taking the pilots that fly them.

This policy of the ALPA (and the APA) is a recipe for disaster. It is not working and it is not going to work. Sensible regional pilots (and there are many) are simply not going to give up their equipment to the mainline without a guarantee of job security. They are not going to allow the jets-4-jobs nonsense that abrogates their seniority. They are fighting for their rights and will continue to do so in ever increasing numbers.

If the mega carriers decide to spin off their wholly owned subsidiaries completely, you will begin to see mergers between the large regionals, which will become small majors in their own right. They will compete, not against the mainline carriers, but pilot group againsr pilot group for the flying. I assure management will not object to that. Management will be able to make "deals" with these new carriers that keep the money flowing where they want it. They will actually work together in a series of alliances that benefit both (coincidentally at the expense of labor).

The bad part is the impact that this will have on the piloting profession. The mega carriers of today will exit the narrow body flying little by little and gravitate towards the lower cost structure of the new "mini-major" carriers, which will be regional in name only. The pilot groups at the new carriers, having been shunned by the big boys of today, will form their own labor union and bid for the narrow body flying. They will win the bidding wars or the mainline pilots will have to lower their cost structure to match them in an effort to keep the flying. The outcome will be devastating financially to pilots of both groups.

Personally, I see this scenario as a nightmare and I do hope that I'm very wrong. Just the same, I don't believe that I am. If ALPA and the mainline pilot groups continue to pursue a policy of rejecting regional pilots and taking from them whenever they can, it is only a matter of time before we are at war with each other. I don't see any winners that are pilots in such a war. I think we should do whatever we need to do to avoid it.

If we are unable to resolve the issues that divide us on a fair and equitable basis within the next five years, the struggle will become inevitable. I don't ask you to agree with me, but I do ask you to think about it seriously. Not in my interest, but in your own.

Get a grip. I laugh every time I see a regional pilot spew off about one list. Regionals exist because the airline didn't want the mainline combined with the feed. The airlines are never going to combine the operations. Never.

If I were in management I would not want to combine the carriers either. I would want to do what I outline above. Perhaps not exactly but something along those lines. Personally, I am not in favor of "one list" and you would know that if you've been following these conversations, so I'm not spewing off. I believe the answer is somewhere between one list and the present status quo. Separate, but equal. An alliance between us if you will, yet each with his own sovereignty. Complicated, but no more than today's mess. Privately, I think you should have to pay the price of your arrogance and stupidity. I don't want that to happen because I think it is not good for the profession as a whole. Yet I acknowledge that the more I listen to most of you, the less I care about what happens to you. You will lose your power to dictate what we do or don't do. In the final analysis YOU are the one's that will lose your $150/hr copilot pay rates. People like me will gain a huge pay raise even though you view it as slave labor. Laugh now if you please, but remember that "he who laughs last, laughs best".

If you continue to refuse to change, it's not my throat that I envision being cut, it is yours. You can feel free to stop talking about this whenever you choose. You may call it ridiculous as often as you please. YOU, will ultimately pay the price of your actions or inaction. You've been warned repeatedly that there are rocks in the shallows, yet you steam full speed ahead, blindly. "I'm a lighthouse. It's your call."

 

[surplus1]

To: Draginass

Barbs and kidding aside, Surplus, I think we agree in principal with the idea of regionals being combined with their mainlines, one seniority list, and one contract, and one standard of compensation. Where we differ is in the outlook for practicality making that happen, and maybe in the methodology in combining lists.

Dragin, you're not too far off. In reality I agree with you that management is just not going to buy the idea unless the economics can be resolved. While I think I might know how that could be done, I don't think management will give up the bargaining leverage they have gained by being able to play us against one another. My ideas on how to do it don't account for that part of the problem.

1. I think the idea of suing ALPA is unproductive and a waste of time. I see it as born out of frustration with the companies and COMAIR's apparent defeat by Delta management during the strike (i.e. settle or we'll shutdown the company).

I'm not so sure if it's unproductive or a waste of time. Hopefully not either but only time will answer that question. I can tell you that it was unrelated to the strike. The suit was filed before the strike. The issues are the union's failure to represent and the Scope clause at DAL. The latter is the prime mover. If we can stop that type of scope clause most of us will be happy to go our separate ways. We can always solve the representational issues by decertifying the present union.

2. The evolution of regionals in the last 15 years, fueled somewhat by technology, but mostly by the expanding economy, is way beyond where anyone would have predicted.

Well, not anyone. The senior management of my particular company created the evolution and there is little doubt they both predicted and believed in it. Those of us that have been here awhile shared that belief. We were also doing quite well with it until the big shark came along and swallowed our tadpole. They've had indigestion every since. We can't be blamed or included in the lack of visions group that leads our national union.

3. Mainline unions are unable (as a matter of practicality) to compel the companies to absorb the regionals.

With that I agree. The price is now too high. It is the restrictions you mention that I see as the union's major failure. When they had the chance they refused to act and mainline pilots took the money instead. Now you want, after the fact, to plug the holes in the dam by demanding ever-increasing restrictions that operate to remove our livelihood. That we will continue to resist.

Result, you are now fighting both management and your fellow pilots at the regionals. The evidence appears to support the idea that the steps you thought you were taking, were not in fact practical or prudent. They have failed. The genie is out of the bottle, so to speak and you can't put it back in. Ultimately we will separate completely and become truly independent corporate entities. We will form new alliances with the big carriers that render your restrictions moot. Your inability or unwillingness (it really doesn't matter which) to find ways to join with regional pilots and get us on your side, will ultimately result in a cadre of capable competitors. Not against your Company, but against you.

The very thing you are trying to prevent by attacking us instead of attacking management with us, will result in the loss of the very jobs that you are trying to prevent. "But for the want of a horse, the war was lost."

If the lawsuit is unsuccessful it will only mean that the union gets off. The tide is coming in anyway and that won't stop it. Your opportunities to stem it are being discarded, by you. For this you will ultimately pay a price far higher than you imagine. We tried to help you stop it and you said NO. While I regret it, you will have to live with the consequences. We will do just fine. Though it may have been inadvertent, you have actually put management on our side. I predict you will come to regret the day.

4. The RJDC people see the companies as too hard a target to compel integration, so instead go after what they see as a softer one, ALPA, hoping to compel them to make integration more inticeing to the companies. While you say that can be done without economic incentives from mainline unions, I just can't see it, and you've been coy about presenting any practical plan.

I know that you and most mainline pilots see the RJDC as an effort to compel integration. I've been trying to tell you that you're mistaken, but apparently there is no way. You have missed the forest while focusing on the trees. It is not to compel integration, it is to establish independence, via the elimination of the restrictive Scope. We are not against ALL scope, just the particular scope. We want emancipation, not integration with you. Our territory was invaded by a foreign entity that wants to dictate every aspect of our lives without our consent or participation. That is what we are trying to get rid of. Some folks accept occupation and dictatorship, others fight against it. You have misinterpreted our motives and although I have tried to make you understand, I try in vain. That is because you believe so strongly that you are the most desirable thing on earth that you cannot even conceive that anyone might want to be severed from you. I guess you'll have to continue in that belief. Unfortunately, management understands it very well.

5. We also disagree with the future potential of the RJs. While the RJDC people present them as the wave of the future, I think that's an gross overstatement to give them the appearance of inevitability, while I think their future practicality is limited.

Yet another example of misunderstanding. The RJDC does not care about the future potential of whatever you define as a RJ. It cares about removing the artificial restrictions assumed (by your group) to be inclusive in the term RJ. We want the market to dictate our future, not the Delta MEC or the ALPA. The term has no specific definition. The "wave of the future" isn't what you or the analysts call and RJ, it's the evolution of a new segment of the industry that operates with a much lower cost structure.

We are trying to stop the artificial restrictions that you want to place on us and we are also trying to prevent you from transferring our equipment to yourselves. If you continue on your present course, someone will replace you sooner or later.

You are absolutely right when you say the companies look at costs, not airplanes. You have given them the impetus to replace your narrow body flying. They are seizing the opportunity. You will wind up with the wide body and transcontinental flying. We will get the rest. That is what you fail to see or refuse to acknowledge, I'm not sure which.

Perhaps you still have some time in the window to change your strategy. You don't want to, so you will have it your way. The window will close and you will be left outside. You still have control of the rudder to the ship, but your helmsman is on the wrong course. If he doesn't turn soon, you'll be on the rocks. Ultimately, we wont be the losers, you will and you still don't get it.

The regionals will continue to expand and far beyond what they are today. They will ultimately be separated from their "parent" companies of today. Next they will join hands and span the country from sea-to-sea. Their equipment will grow in size to meet market demand. They will get the business that you have priced out of existence in your own company and discarded as not being good enough for you. It will take a while, but watch. Sooner or later it will happen. That is the future of the so-called RJ.

I understand you think this is farcical, you've said so. That's OK by me. Yes, that's what I mean about mainline compensation being gutted. The logic of selling off the regional carriers makes total sense so long as the revenue stream is not interrupted by the sale. I believe there are ways to prevent the revenue loss and management will find them. You don't have to own the airplanes or the airline to make money from the seats that are being sold. Why do you think all the big carriers have formed so many international "alliances"? They get more revenue from the exchange (with little cost) than they would get from operating those flights themselves. They will do the same thing in the domestic markets, just as soon as they can.

Low cost and high revenue with minimal capital expenditure and little risk. The perfect world of corporate America. You can call it outsourcing or anything else you choose. If they can find a way to do it outside your 100 pages of Scope, they will. They're looking for that way as we write, and I think you all and the unions are giving it to them. That logic is why the IPO's make more and more sense, i.e., they have grown tired of hassling with what they see (and I agree) as your unreasonable Scope. It is not just the revenue from the sale that's important, it's the revenue after the sale.

If they can defeat Scope in the courts (I think there's a good chance for the carriers with subsidiaries) they may prefer that and a full Republican government (both houses & the White House) may provide that opportunity. If they can't they'll just go around it, one way or the other.

This isn't going to happen over night by any means. It will take time and it will be incremental as you say. You and I agree on that. But, if we sit still believing that it can never happen (the current mentality) that almost makes it inevitable.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Surplus,

I agree that your doomsday scenario is entirely plausible. As a matter of fact, it is not such a stretch to come to the conclusion that it is happening right now, although on a smaller scale than you predict. Due to management's willful disregard of the very contract that they signed, we are being played off against each other right now. However, I have a bit more optimism than you. You called mainline scope "unenforceable". I would not go quite so far...yet. As you know, we have grieved the violation of our scope clause, and i expect victory. Even if we lose, it only means we will have to meet to set more "appropriate" limits. Your assertion that scope is unenforceable is only accurate in light of a catastrophic and unforseen event like 9/11. The fact is, the vast majority of scope clauses were complied with before 9/11, and I expect that we will again force compliance. Now if you want to argue that the trend is for weaker scope every contract, I will agree with you wholeheartedly. The only difference between us now is that you want that trend to continue, and I want it to reverse.

You paint a picture of pilot groups competing for flying based on salary, then you sue us because we are attempting to prevent just that. The fact is, your lawsuit seek virtually unfettered growth at Comair. I am sure that you will agree that much of that growth, if allowed, will come at the expense of Delta pilots, in the form of a flying shift from a highly paid group to yours. We are attempting to prevent this, and I firmly believe that we should continue to do so. I find it interesting that you and I both agree that ALPA made a mistake when they allowed any mainline flying to be done by a "commuter". However, when we fight for something that will at least limit the amount of such whipsawing, you claim unfair representation.

Onelist is a noble solution, that would solve many of our problems (with a staple). However, I don't think it is realistic right now. Perhaps I am wrong. That is why I started this thread in the first place. Absent onelist, I believe that scope is the only effective tool we have to prevent the scenario you predicted. Cryptic hints of a better solution are not enough to make me abandon my belief in a strong scope clause. Scope is admittedly flawed, but until I hear a better (realistic and achievable) solution, I will continue to support scope.

Our flying is being farmed out to our DCI partners and our Skyteam partners. We have allowed this due to greed and short-sightedness. I believe that the Delta pilots have seen the error of their ways, and I predict that scope will be the number one priority in our next contract. I hope that we have finally awakened. I think that we have. The idea that we might relax our scope for Comair and ASA just because they are owned is not realistic. The fact is, we view comasa as the first step in your prediction. Your lawsuit asks the courts to force us to allow you unfettered growth. You may think that would benefit the profession as a whole, I remain unconvinced. In fact, I view the very scope you are attacking as my only available weapon to prevent the erosion of narrowbody flying, and the elimination of the $150/hour f/o that you mentioned.

We will fight to protect our scope clause. Yes, even that which restricts the growth of the wholly-owneds. If the rjdc is successful, I believe (and hope) that we will leave ALPA, and negotiate a contract that will continue to have strong scope (the APA did it, and in an entirely noble concept, AMR is complying with it!).


Let's face it. You and I agree that the system is broken. ALPA screwed up. The barn door is open. However, we differ on what our next step should be. There are still some animals who have not yet left the barn. I want to close the door before any more get out. It seems that your argument is, "we shouldn't have opened the door, but now that we did, we should open it wider." That doesn't really make sense to me. I know that you have ideas, and I am probably simplifying them, but until I hear a workable plan, I have to support a strong scope. Your implication that we should allow certain kinds of scope, while allowing unfettered growth at comasa, is unsupportable as far as I am concerned. Perhaps you could let me in on more of your plan, because I cannot lend my allegience to a movement until I know what it is for which we are fighting. What the rjdc is asking for in the lawsuit is unacceptable. I hope that your plan includes more than simply allowing comasa to fly an unlimited amout of our seat-miles. I think that it probably does. I would like to hear it. Until I do, I have to argue only the facts, and one of the facts is that you support a lawsuit which, if successful, would enable management to take vast amounts of our flying and give it to you to do for less money. Rather similar to your predicted scenario, isn't it?

 

[skydiverdriver]

Thank you both, Surplus and FDJ's for the reasonable and gentlemanly discussion. One thing of note, I noticed that the chairman of ALPA called the man who started Mesa's new Freedom Airlines a Frank Lorenzo clone. I think that Freedom was the result of restrictive scope. If you give a businessman a problem, he will find a way to solve it. I think you should keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. The only way to stop something like Freedom is to treat all pilots the same. Good luck to you guys.

 

[Draginass]

I don't think management will give up the bargaining leverage they have gained by being able to play us against one another. My ideas on how to do it don't account for that part of the problem.

Well, Surplus, thank you, . . . . . . at last. A small problem, though, huh.

Result, you are now fighting both management and your fellow pilots at the regionals.

Funny, I'm not fighting anyone, and certainly not AE ALPA. In point of fact, our two unions have a pretty good relationship. I think the vast majority of AE pilots recognize the importance of scope, as witnessed by the outsourcing grievance they are currently in.

You will wind up with the wide body and transcontinental flying. We will get the rest.

Why limit yourself to domestic flying? Why not take it all? If compensation at mailine is too high and scope is "illegal" (haven't seen anybody arrested for it yet), then why would international and wide-body flying be immune from transfer? If scope is struck down, then why not all code-share including domestic code share? That would give management the necessary flexibility to shift resources around to better meet customer demand. Why should AMR not have the flexibility to contract out to UAL or AWA, or even allow cabotage with off-shore carriers like Ryanair, for that matter?

Let's take a poll. How many of you F/Os at the regionals would be willing to give up your Saab and fly a wide-body internationally out of New York for $60 an hour and a 401k? Of course, you'll have to do it for that for the rest of your career, or until someone else is willing to do it for less.


As is usual in today's America, what happens in the future depends upon the unpredictability of a caprious court system. If the courts delcare that scope provisions, rightfully negotiated in good faith between a labor group and management, are invalid, then the unions will be emasculated into pointlessness. If that happens it won't matter if you're mainline, COMAIR, or any other carrier. If the companies can outsource your jobs at will, there are always pilots that would be glad to work for less and the profession will adjust to a compensation rate based upon the lowest common demoninator. The damage to the prestigue and lucrativeness of the profession would be substancial.

I have more faith in the system than to anticipate the above scenario, however. Fortunately, those in the profession who would relish in bringing down the bar, are few. They, however, have strong allies in the ATA and airline managements, who see a chink in the armour of unionism and surely will pursue it with enthusiam.

We shall see. For those in the early and mid points in their careers, the stakes are very high indeed.

 

[Clownpilot]

Re: TO: Clownpilot

>>That's an interesting perspective, but it is far from being historically accurate. Regional carriers are not at all "new". That is why we invented the term "commuter airline".>>

When did I ever say regional carriers were new????

>>If the mega carriers decide to spin off their wholly owned subsidiaries completely, you will begin to see mergers between the large regionals, which will become small majors in their own right. They will compete, not against the mainline carriers, but pilot group againsr pilot group for the flying. I assure management will not object to that. Management will be able to make "deals" with these new carriers that keep the money flowing where they want it. They will actually work together in a series of alliances that benefit both (coincidentally at the expense of labor).>>

LOL. Majors own their feeds so they can control the schedules and feed their mainline. Selling them wold eliminate that control. It's a hollow threat. Also, it removes their control of route planning, makes them susceptible to broken code shares, and gives the feed carrier an incredible amount of leverage by putting them in a position to start a bidding war for their services. Analysts who think the majors will sell their wholly owned subsidiary feeds are idiots. They'd be cutting their own throats.


>>The bad part is the impact that this will have on the piloting profession. The mega carriers of today will exit the narrow body flying little by little and gravitate towards the lower cost structure of the new "mini-major" carriers, which will be regional in name only. The pilot groups at the new carriers, having been shunned by the big boys of today, will form their own labor union and bid for the narrow body flying. They will win the bidding wars or the mainline pilots will have to lower their cost structure to match them in an effort to keep the flying. The outcome will be devastating financially to pilots of both groups.>>

Stop doing drugs. The FAA is allowed to test for that. Did you come up with this on an acid trip?



>>Privately, I think you should have to pay the price of your arrogance and stupidity. I don't want that to happen because I think it is not good for the profession as a whole. Yet I acknowledge that the more I listen to most of you, the less I care about what happens to you. You will lose your power to dictate what we do or don't do. In the final analysis YOU are the one's that will lose your $150/hr copilot pay rates. People like me will gain a huge pay raise even though you view it as slave labor. Laugh now if you please, but remember that "he who laughs last, laughs best".

If you continue to refuse to change, it's not my throat that I envision being cut, it is yours. You can feel free to stop talking about this whenever you choose. You may call it ridiculous as often as you please. YOU, will ultimately pay the price of your actions or inaction. You've been warned repeatedly that there are rocks in the shallows, yet you steam full speed ahead, blindly. "I'm a lighthouse. It's your call.">>

A regional pilots wet dream; "mainline must merge with us to protect themselves from management." What a joke. This is the last desperate grasp at straws of the pathetic regional pilot who can never climb out of the regional cellar. They wish doom and gloom on the Major pilots threatening disaster if we don't merge lists and align with their cause. The hysterical part is how transparent it all is. No mainline pilot believes your doomsday scenario and this pathetic attempt to get a job you couldn't get on your own by trying to scare the mainline pilots into giving into your fantasies is just plain pathetic. If you really believe your own drivel you're in bigger trouble than I thought you were. Go ahead, call me arrogant and tell me my arrogance will come back to haunt me. The fact is that I've studied this and your assertions are just plane unrealistic. If you want a real job apply for it. We're not gonna just hand it to you.

 

[E120ASA]

Great topic, but sorry, it will never happend. Out goes the lights.

 

[skydiverdriver]

Draginass,
I think you know that you make no sense, but someone may need to tell you anyway. Take all of mainline flying away, that's a good one. Were you laughing when you said that? I'm sure the rjdc is working for just that, so that Comair can take over all of Delta's flying and make it all ours. What is your point? Are you trying to make us look stupid by being stupid yourself? If you could explain to me why you are speaking this way, perhaps I could understand you and the rest of the sky-nazis. No, on second thought, don't bother. I think I know enough allready.

 

[surplus1]

Well, Surplus, thank you, . . . . . . at last. A small problem, though, huh.

You're most welcome. No, not a small problem. A big problem that we created and they are taking advantage of. We let it happen, we must fix it.

Funny, I'm not fighting anyone, and certainly not AE ALPA. In point of fact, our two unions have a pretty good relationship. I think the vast majority of AE pilots recognize the importance of scope, as witnessed by the outsourcing grievance they are currently in.

Well, that's very good news. A welcome change from your past practices. Pray tell me, what motivated your newely found recognition of the existence of AE? Any chance it's related to the fact you have folks on furlough? Probably not, my bad. Guess it's because you want to convince them how much you really care. Now I understand why you offer to take all their jets, of course without them. Sorry, I blew that again, you did promise to take what was "remaining" wasn't it? If you ever got to Phase III.

Tish tish, don't get upset now you're forgetting what I said. I'm not opposed to scope. It's Section 1 isn't it? And that's because it's the most important part of any contract. But, there is Scope and then there is the other kind of scope.

The AE pilots have a right to be concerned. The companies that they are worried about operate the same equipment and they are not a part of AMR. They are subcontractors.

Eagle is not a subcontractor. It is a component of AMR (just like you are). When you write scope to keep the flying of AMR for AMR pilots, you get 5 stars *****. When you write scope against your own company and fellow pilots you are misapplying the purpose and the intent of Scope.

I thought you had figured that out and that was why you made your 3-phase proposal, but I guess I was wrong. Oh well, that's the story of my life. The day my ship came in where was I? At the airport. Missed it.

Why limit yourself to domestic flying? Why not take it all? If compensation at mailine is too high and scope is "illegal" (haven't seen anybody arrested for it yet), then why would international and wide-body flying be immune from transfer?

Sorry, I was just trying to emulate your lead. It's really a 3-phase program for your benefit. I just told you about Phase I due to space limitations. I didn't have room to put the details in the summary. Don't worry, if there are any of you left when we get to Phase III, you'll be able to come over too.

Dragin, I can play your game, but it's pointless. Why don't we try to discuss the real issues and spare ourselves the barbs. Like I told you before, I've been around the pattern more than once. This can be a debate or we can make it a p*****g contest. Either way I can handle the flak. I'm not asking you to agree with me and I'm reading everything you write carefully without any preconceptions. Do the same and we can learn something from each other. There is really no need to be supercilious.

As is usual in today's America, what happens in the future depends upon the unpredictability of a caprious court system.

You're very right about that. One of the best examples I can think of is the rantings of the so-called judge that ruled against your union originally. When I read the full opinion, I couldn't believe my eyes. That is why the phrase justice system is such a misnomer.

If the courts delcare that scope provisions, rightfully negotiated in good faith between a labor group and management, are invalid, then the unions will be emasculated into pointlessness.

Your statement is accurate. However, that is NOT what our litigation is asking the courts to do. We are asking the court to vacte a particular scope provision precisely because it was negotiated in bad faith by a labor union that would not allow the affected party to participate in the process contrary to its own Constitution and ByLaws. That is substantially different from what you perceive.

While I cannot account for the capricious nature of the court system, we do not expect nor do we want the court to declare all Scope invalid. You may not like or agree with what we are doing, but we are not frivilous or stupid.

If you wish to debate the merits of the case you are welcome to do so. Before you begin the very least you should do is familiarize yourself with the complaint. Jumping to erroneous suppositions that have no basis in fact makes you appear as capricious as you accuse the courts of being.

If that happens it won't matter if you're mainline, COMAIR, or any other carrier. If the companies can outsource your jobs at will, there are always pilots that would be glad to work for less and the profession will adjust to a compensation rate based upon the lowest common demoninator. The damage to the prestigue and lucrativeness of the profession would be substancial.

You are quite right about all of that with perhaps one minor exception. I don't think the damage would be "substantial", I think it would be devastating.

Again, we do not ask nor do we want the courts to strike down Scope. We want the court to find that the union acted in bad faith and improperly negotiated the scope clause in question. Therefore, the clause should be vacated and a new Scope section renegotiated in the proper manner.

Should the court rule in our favor it will not strike down Scope or render it meaningless. It will actually enhance future Scope by ensuring that is in fact negotiated in good faith with the affected parties at the table, participating fully.

The theory is actually quite simple. You may negotiate on your own behalf whatever scope you choose to control the allocation of your work. You may NOT negotiate any scope that controls the allocation of my work. Further, you may not negotiate anything on my behalf without my consent. There is no rocket science in that.

Fortunately, those in the profession who would relish in bringing down the bar, are few.

If your intention is to infer that is my position or desire you have failed totally to comprehend anything that I have written. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My advocacy and the entire purpose of my effort is to preclude the occurence of precisely what you allege. That is exactly why I think it is so urgent that we find an equitable solution to the problem that has developed. Failure is not an option.

The worse case scenario of which I wrote is not something that I see as desirable. Nevertheless, it IS something that I see as probable if we fail or refuse to adress the current issues that divide us.

I am a diehard unionist with 24 years of active volunteer service in defense of the rights of my fellow pilots and my own, both in IFALPA and ALPA USA. The very last thing that I want to witness is the demise of my union or the failure of my union to accomplish its intended purpose, i.e., the fair and unbiased representation, promotion, protection and defense of every member's profession and rights.

Just as it is my sworn responsibility to intervene and attempt to prevent any member of my profession from actions that damage his own reputation or that of the profession, so also is it my responsibility to intervene and attempt to change the course of my union when I believe that its actions fall short of its responsibilities to the membership, be it only one member or all 60,000.

I am trying to do that to the best of my ability. The union to which you now belong came into existence because the union to which I belong failed the members of American Airlines. Your predecessors decision was to leave. My decision is to remain and fight for what is right from within. I think that is the preferable course of action. You are free to think differently if you so please.

I can tolerate your calling me names or ridiculing my views, but do not accuse me of being anti-union or against my profession. Them thar is fighting words.

We shall see. For those in the early and mid points in their careers, the stakes are very high indeed.

Yes, the stakes are high for all. Too high to ignore or treat with benign neglect. "We'll find a way or make it!"

Surplus1