I like what you wrote. I will say that when you get hired, you agree to the terms of the contract. Unless the terms say that in the event of furloughs, nobody picks up time, you really don't have much to say.
I understand the legalities of the contract (which were changed after I got hired, but that's another story). The contract says nothing about using my influence to pressure people not to pick up open time, which is precisely what I did. It's not a concerted effort for someone who is not even on the seniority list to petition (informally) for people to avoid open time. We're on the same page on this one, I just wanted to expand a little.
As far as the NWA thingy, you are correct, it would appear as if there is leverage. HOW MCUH leverage is subject to debate. how it will be spent is subject to another. Scope may very well be a part of it, although I doubt it will be to bring our regionals on our list. You talk about business. What you call good/bad business could be construed the other way with a different argument. For example: Airlines need feed from smaller cities for connecting traffic. Connecting increases cost. The lower the connecting costs, the greater the connecting profits. So, to a degree, it behooves mainlines pilots to keep those costs low, with the leverage that those jobs will eventually be vacated to higher paying jobs at their airline. I don't necessarily agree with doing it that way, but it IS indeed the way it has been before i even came into the biz, and seems to be the way the status quo is determined to carry on.
This is the strategy that has led to the current situation. Airline pilots have essentially no power and when they are given a little leverage in the form of a merger that a lot of people
really want to happen, they look for a short term gain. Mainline pilots are mistaken if they think keeping regional pilots separate and regional wages low is in their interest. Of course it is in the companies interest to keep connecting wages low, it is also in the companies interest to keep 777 pilots wages low and they will use all of their means to work toward that goal.
In the 80's: "We don't want turbo-props, they will just deflate L1011 wages."
90's: "We don't want Comair to have CRJ's, but they won't last anyway, there is no point of giving up any pay to get them on property."
2000's: "Crap, those CRJ's have really caught on, but as long as they are only 50 seaters...and a few 70 seaters, it will be okay. We don't want to give anything up to keep them."
Bankruptcy: "Jesus! This really sucks, try to keep anything we can. Give them 76 seaters if it means saving something."
Now: "Yeah, we have a little leverage, but we need to get back some of what we lost in bankruptcy. Those RJs will go away eventually anyway."
2010's: "Take it back! Give them DC-9 replacements to pay for it."
2020's: "Give 'em the 757 replacement if it means keeping 787 wages."
2030's: Retired airline pilot: "Remember when Delta used to actually fly airplanes? I never thought ALPA would become so powerless Delta would just replace them. Who could have seen that coming?"
I would imagine the leverage will be used to bring the NWA guys par, increase the Delta side, job security protections, and perhaps to take back some scope.
I agree. However, I don't think this is the best use of leverage. In my opinion, scope is the basis of what an airline union must use to gain power. With power comes better contracts.
