Competing for new airplanes

[Nindiri]

Speaking theoretically, and forgetting about scope for the moment, would it be ethical for a regional airline to actively compete with it's major affiliate for "mainline" sized equipment?

For example, Delta places a B-717 order. Would it be acceptable for the pilots at ASA/Comair/Sky West/Etc to negotiate and offer to fly them at the same rates and work rules as Delta mainline? Why or why not?

Obviously it's not going to happen, it's just a "what if" scenario.

 

[General Lee]

"What if" everyone tried to out bid everyone else and we ended up doing it for FREE? What if ASA/Comair/Skywest out bid mainline and did it for 1/2 the pay and 1/2 the benefits? Sounds fun? What if the management people got bigger bonuses for allowing Comair etc. to fly the planes for less? What would they buy? Homes in Nantucket, or maybe Hilton Head Is. What would Comair 717 Capts buy? A condo near the CVG airport---due to the fact that he gave up everything to fly a larger plane for half the cash, and now has only 10 days off a month (that was part of the bid). Sounds fun. Go for it........(Dalpa won't give that up, they would just give the junior guys a B-scale wage like DL Express---that is what will likely happen)

Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[LearLove]

Yeah, lets not give mgmnt any ideas.

 

[Nindiri]

Learn to read, General. I said at the SAME pay rates and work rules as mainline. I didn't say anything about under-bidding each other.

 

[General Lee]

What is the difference between our subsidiaries? The benefits. If you have the same pay rates, then you can still under bid us with less benefits. You should want to come up---not want us to come down. If we had everything the same, then we would have a merged list. I would like that to happen---with a staple of course--- but I am not in charge. Can you see the difference now Nindiri?

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Nindiri]

Okay, let me try phrasing this so that even the General can understand. If the ENTIRE compensation package (pay, benefits, retirement, work rules, and eveything else) was the same, is there any reason a regional shouldn't compete for bigger equipment by trying to offer a better product for the public?

Relax, GL. It's obviously not a realistic scenario, I'm just wondering about the ethics of it. What is the difference between a mainline carrier trying to take jets traditionally used at the regional level (RJ70's), and the regional trying to take new orders of jets traditionally operated by mainline? Does one side have an inherent right to both aircraft, or is that simply a product of successful negotiating in the past?

 

[bogberto]

While you're waiting for the General, can you explain to the rest of us who are also confused why exactly you ask this question? Are you trying to avoid working for more than one airline in your career? Why would you want to stay at a regional, which is inherently dependent upon someone else's ideas to stay in business, when you can work for a mainline carrier?

Maybe I need to drink a few more and read this one again, but ... what's the point of the question?

 

[Nindiri]

Sorry you're confused, Bog. It's a simple question. If one airline pursues the equipment usually operated by the other airline, why should it's own equipment be off-limits? What's good for one is good for the other.

 

[TonyC]

I assume we're in the world of pure hypotheticals here, and we're just yamming away because we have nothing better to do. (IF that doesn't describe you, please don't be offended.)

So, you're asking (lemme see if I get this straight) there's a hypothetical mainline-type airplane - a 717 - on the assembly line, and Boeing is taking bids on it. Delta has offered X dollars, and Comair (ASA or whoever) decides they want to buy the same 717. It's NOT that they're going to try to operate the same airplane with cheaper pilots. In this PURELY HYPOTHETICAL world, the regional promises to compensate the pilot in every way possible exactly like his Delta mainline brother.

One might ask how this could even be conceivable. I know I asked that. How can Comair operate the airplane cheaper? (IF they're ofering more money, they must be assuming they can generate more profit, and that implies they can operate it for less.) If it's not pilot compensation, what can it be? Gas costs the same. Maintenance would be the same. What does that leave, considering that pilot compensation takes up such a huge percentage of the operating costs, right? Wrong. There are plenty of other variables that could be altered to vary the bottom line. Upper level management compensation comes immediately to mind. Advertising comes to mind. Adding a 717 to the livery could fundamentally alter the public perception of the regional and bring them in droves to the fleet in general - - perhaps the profit will be made up in additional business on the other airplanes in the fleet. Advertising, marketing, catering, gates, routes - - literally thousands of ways to make a profit, even if the pilots' compensation exactly matches mainline - - well, again, as much as possible.

Now I said possible, because even in the hypothetical world, some things will be, by definition, different. Even if hourly rates, work rules, and tangible benefits are identical, the story doesn't end there. This scenario would most certainly mean that the 717 would be the largest equipment the Comair pilot could expect to see. While this would be an improvement to those who intend to retire with Comair, it would be a detriment to those who intend to prgress to mainline. The stagnation, then, would be a blessing and a curse.

But even if you could ignore those differences, in this hypothetical world, we are back to the original question:

Would it be ethical for Comair to compete in the bidding with Delta mainline for the production-line 717?

My answer - - and just an opinion, mind you - - is yes. The only ETHICAL hurdle would be the Scope language, and the question stipulates "forgetting about scope for a moment." SO, ethical? Yes. Practical? No.

OK, now it's time for my caffeine. My answer could change in a few minutes.

 

[wms]

You may see your ethics question put to the test if DAL gets CR7s for the mainline. Of course DALPA's definition of what is ethical will change when the shoe is on the other foot.

I have no problem with the 70s going to ML and would rather see growth where I want to go, not where I don't want to stay. Also, the bar would be raised for our own negotiations. I just don't like the way ALL parties involved flip-flop their views for their own good.

 

[Nindiri]

Make no mistake, I don't want to see B717's going to regional partners, either, but I also don't want to see RJ's going to mainline. It blurs the distinction between the two, and opens up a Pandora's box that management would be all to willing to exploit. Why make it any easier for them?

 

[TonyC]

Make no mistake, I don't want to see B717's going to regional partners, either, but I also don't want to see RJ's going to mainline. It blurs the distinction between the two, and opens up a Pandora's box that management would be all to willing to exploit. Why make it any easier for them?

I got suckered into thinking you were actually asking an ethics question - - when all along you were just trying to stir the pot?

Is it ethical to ask a question about ethics, and have people invest time and thought to provide reasoned answers, if you were never interested in the answer in the first place?

 

[FDJ2]

Sorry you're confused, Bog. It's a simple question. If one airline pursues the equipment usually operated by the other airline, why should it's own equipment be off-limits? What's good for one is good for the other.

Answering hypothetical questions is difficult because the question can evolve and change, but nevertheless I'll give it a shot.

It is unethical to act in a manner that would circumvent, destroy or interfere with the collective bargaining process or a collective bargaining agreement. Since the major carrier pilots have scope, through their collective bargaining agreements, over that flying and code, than it would be unethical to attempt to circumvent their collective bargaining agreement. On the other hand, the regional carriers, either wholly owned or not, typically do not have any language in their collective bargaining agreements which controls the code of their major airline partner.

All that being said, how would a regional pilot negotiate for someone elses code? Labor groups do not typically negotiate on behalf of their company with another company for work.

 

[bogberto]

I think perhaps your question might be countered with: would it be ethical for a mainline carrier to allow a subcontractor to fly "mainline" size jets. The lil Fokkers were mainliners 10-12 years ago. Heck the baby 9s are still mainline aircraft.

Pretty much any regional exists due to a mainline carrier's brand. That mainline entity has a certain civic duty to protect its employees and ensure that they can earn a living by providing them the (in this case) aircraft and routes to fly. By "selling off" flying to a lower bidder (which any regional is, even if we were paid more than a mainline pilot), the mainline entity is not protecting the future of its employees because it is reducing their window of opportunity for the future. Or, one could argue that by farming out the flying, the mainline carrier is indeed protecting its employees because it is not introducing more risk into the equation (when times get rough the regional can be cutoff and a mainline aircraft covers the route).

We could spend hours and drain pitchers of beer arguing / discussing the varies ways to slice and dice this scenario. There really is not right or wrong answer since there are so many external variables that could and would effect this situation.

Personally, I'd rather see 70+ seaters at mainline. Maybe you want to stay at a regional 'til you retire, and that's cool. No problem here. I, however, do not. Who's right? Who's wrong?

Trying to add ethics into a discussion of modern day corporate America is futile. We're all just pawns in a game, to them, and they want their 5000 sq ft house on the Keys.

 

[TonyC]

That mainline entity has a certain civic duty to protect its employees and ensure that they can earn a living ... By [insert your choice of transitive verb] the mainline entity is not protecting the future of its employees ...

If you think any company exists to protect its employees, you're confused. Copanies exist for ONE reason, and ONE reason alone = = > PROFIT.

Some companies realize that employee morale is an important element, and try to keep them happy - - but it's a METHOD of obtaining the GOAL (profit), not the goal itself.

Trying to add ethics into a discussion of modern day corporate America is futile.

He wasn't trying to engage in a discussion about ethics - - that was just a red herring, and another launch pad for a discussion of scope.

 

[Catbird]

Why not? U pilots endorsed the outsourcing of flying at U to MESA from the day they walked on the property. Non Union Mesa began flying union routes.The W/O's were not involved in the negotiations. Now they have crafted LOA 83, LOA 91, and whatever else Worthless and Pollack pulls out of the toilet. After the display of fraternal partnership by ALPA National and AAA pilots your naive if you don't endorse RAMMING THE RED HOT POKER up their superior rumps.

 

[ALPO]

Well said General Lee!! Nindiri is the exact problem with this industry, Scab mantallity, doesn't see growing regioals is just hurting him in the long run.
Equal pay? What about every thing else that is lost? Reteriment?
Chance to end out your last 10 years flying a 777 at 300+ a year.
Hope he's happy in his little RJ, because that's all he'll ever fly.

 

[jjetpilot]

Ndiri just grow UP.............little minds ask idiot questions......

 

[Nindiri]

He wasn't trying to engage in a discussion about ethics - - that was just a red herring, and another launch pad for a discussion of scope.

TonyC

Incorrect. It seems like you can't even talk about anything on this board without the scope or Delta/DCI police getting all over you. I thought the question of which airframes should go where and why was interesting, at least hypothetically and at midnight when nothing else was going on. Apparently I was wrong.

 

[bogberto]

Originally posted by TonyC If you think any company exists to protect its employees, you're confused.

Not confused. I'm well aware that any company is in business to make money. My post didn't make a claim any different.

Originally posted by Catbird Non Union Mesa began flying union routes.

We're non-union? Then who's taking the 1.95% of my paycheck every two weeks. Danm! Fooled again.

 

[TonyC]

I thought the question of which airframes should go where and why was interesting, at least hypothetically ...

Make no mistake, I don't want to see B717's going to regional partners, either, but I also don't want to see RJ's going to mainline. It blurs the distinction between the two, and opens up a Pandora's box that management would be all to willing to exploit. Why make it any easier for them?

Your agenda was made clear in your second post on this thread. It wasn't a hypothetical ethics question at all.