Interesting scope article

[crj567]

I agree, so General are you going to run for a Rep position?

That would be great, but the General is otherwise engaged... You see-he is still serving our the last five years of his term as "Supreme Chief Ass Pirate of the Universe."

-Maybe next election.

 

[General Lee]

That would be great, but the General is otherwise engaged... You see-he is still serving our the last five years of his term as "Supreme Chief Ass Pirate of the Universe."

-Maybe next election.

And you can be my "right hand man...." You could bribe people with McRondald fries you made yourself, or sexual favors. Most would probably take the fries (I am guessing).

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[PuffDriver]

What's in it for us?

You knew it was coming: :bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling:

 

[AvroGuy]

When you are furloughed and then you watch your company turn around and give that flying to a regional for the sake of lower pay, then you would understand! The DC-9/737-200/Fokker100 basically sat the same capacity as the CRJ900 and EMB-190. Management came in and furloughed pilots flying the DC-9/737-200/Fokker100 and outsourced that flying to a lower bidder. The regionals are flying the same routes at someone elses expense. So yes I have a beef because someone who had to provide for his family lost his job because someone like you was willing to accept lower compesation to do what he did. It would be one thing if this was growth and expansion to a degree, which is still unacceptable, but this was replacement flying. So give it a rest, you took another mans job that was flying those size aircraft on those routes. What goes around comes around eventually! NO MORE OUTSOURCING OF FLYING JOBS!

You think your job is free and clear at no expense to someone elses job. You better think again. I bet you support the lowest bidder without even thinking about it. Shop at wal-mart, k-mart, target. They have put other people out of business. aka at the expense of another man/woman supporting the family. Low wages and all. If you are going to get on the band wagon, you better look at your whole life and see what is going on and don't pay the absolute cheapest price for something again.

How about "No more out sourcing of american jobs to the lowest thirdworld nation bidder"--manufacturing, trucking, call centers, customer service.

Everyone just get off of your high horse.

 

[Eagle757shark]

You think your job is free and clear at no expense to someone elses job. You better think again. I bet you support the lowest bidder without even thinking about it. Shop at wal-mart, k-mart, target. They have put other people out of business. aka at the expense of another man/woman supporting the family. Low wages and all. If you are going to get on the band wagon, you better look at your whole life and see what is going on and don't pay the absolute cheapest price for something again.

How about "No more out sourcing of american jobs to the lowest thirdworld nation bidder"--manufacturing, trucking, call centers, customer service.

Everyone just get off of your high horse.

And that is the problem with this industry, your kind of thinking. You compare your profession to Walmart, K-mart, and Target. Damn you hit it right on the head. Hey buddy, how many lawyers lower their fees to get your but out of trouble? When you need the best medical procedure, would you go to a doctor who is willing to lower his fees? Remember, you get what you pay for. Ask every passenger on US Airways FLT 1549 how much their pilots are worth. I love what I do for a living, but I don't want to spend the next 24 years going backwards when we should be going forward. I invested a lot of time and training to get where I am, and don't appreciate it when someone tries to cheapen it.

I'd rather see the CRJ700/900 and EMB170/190 product on the same property as the 737/757/767/777. I'd rather see you on my seniority list with an opportunity to bid to any of these aircraft based on what you would enjoy doing. I don't want the airplanes to go away. If they can earn my company a profit, I just want them to be flown by the pilots on my seniority list. I would like for you to have the choice to have a chance to fly what you want within our fleet. I challenge you outside of pay, what reason is there to have a EMB or CRJ flown on another certificate? Why does Delta, have so many regionals flying for them? The average passenger buys a ticket to fly from point A to point B. They connect at a hub and fly on a outsourced connection flight. They still believe they are flying on a Delta jet, why. Explain this flawed philosophy and why we buy into it.

 

[JoeMerchant]

And that is the problem with this industry, your kind of thinking. You compare your profession to Walmart, K-mart, and Target. Damn you hit it right on the head. Hey buddy, how many lawyers lower their fees to get your but out of trouble? When you need the best medical procedure, would you go to a doctor who is willing to lower his fees? Remember, you get what you pay for. Ask every passenger on US Airways FLT 1549 how much their pilots are worth. I love what I do for a living, but I don't want to spend the next 24 years going backwards when we should be going forward. I invested a lot of time and training to get where I am, and don't appreciate it when someone tries to cheapen it.

I'd rather see the CRJ700/900 and EMB170/190 product on the same property as the 737/757/767/777. I'd rather see you on my seniority list with an opportunity to bid to any of these aircraft based on what you would enjoy doing. I don't want the airplanes to go away. If they can earn my company a profit, I just want them to be flown by the pilots on my seniority list. I would like for you to have the choice to have a chance to fly what you want within our fleet. I challenge you outside of pay, what reason is there to have a EMB or CRJ flown on another certificate? Why does Delta, have so many regionals flying for them? The average passenger buys a ticket to fly from point A to point B. They connect at a hub and fly on a outsourced connection flight. They still believe they are flying on a Delta jet, why. Explain this flawed philosophy and why we buy into it.

Eagle757,

I understand your frustration, and many of us on the "regional" side have tried to "fix" this problem for years. There were ASA and CMR pilots who participated in the first ALPA scope committees back in 1995....14 years ago...Then in 2000, the ASA and CMR pilots tried to advance the concept of a single list for ALL aircraft.....All of these attempts were squashed by the Delta MEC. For years the mainline pilots didn't want to have anything to do with those "little" airplanes....That isn't MY fault...

As a result of the scope problem, many of us have chosen to make the regional level a career...If you want our flying now, you will have to work WITH us...not against us.....The mainline pilots are a little late to the party.....

I have no problem with a single list....but I am not going to go back on reserve at the bottom of the payscale.......

 

[Eagle757shark]

Eagle757,

I understand your frustration, and many of us on the "regional" side have tried to "fix" this problem for years. There were ASA and CMR pilots who participated in the first ALPA scope committees back in 1995....14 years ago...Then in 2000, the ASA and CMR pilots tried to advance the concept of a single list for ALL aircraft.....All of these attempts were squashed by the Delta MEC. For years the mainline pilots didn't want to have anything to do with those "little" airplanes....That isn't MY fault...

As a result of the scope problem, many of us have chosen to make the regional level a career...If you want our flying now, you will have to work WITH us...not against us.....The mainline pilots are a little late to the party.....

I have no problem with a single list....but I am not going to go back on reserve at the bottom of the payscale.......

I agree. I should say I don't blame the regional airline pilots for the state of our industry. Mainline pilots giving up scope and a lack of vision created this problem.

 

[~~~^~~~]

Nevermind, enjoy bayoneting straw men.

 

[Scope out RJ's]

Eagle757,

I understand your frustration, and many of us on the "regional" side have tried to "fix" this problem for years. There were ASA and CMR pilots who participated in the first ALPA scope committees back in 1995....14 years ago...Then in 2000, the ASA and CMR pilots tried to advance the concept of a single list for ALL aircraft.....All of these attempts were squashed by the Delta MEC. For years the mainline pilots didn't want to have anything to do with those "little" airplanes....That isn't MY fault...

Trying to fix the problem by filing a frivilous lawsuit trying to abrogate a mainline airline's legally binding contract is not trying to fix anything.
You created your world of a mess, now live in it you dog!
You're stuck at a regional because you can't get out!

As a result of the scope problem, many of us have chosen to make the regional level a career...If you want our flying now, you will have to work WITH us...not against us.....The mainline pilots are a little late to the party.....

Maybe we could sue for hundreds of $$millions like you losers. Naah, we earned our jobs the hard way. It's just a lot easier for you to just sit back and.....:crying: :crying: :crying:

I have no problem with a single list....but I am not going to go back on reserve at the bottom of the payscale.......

Of course you don't have a problem with a single list. you sued to try to get it, among other things.
Now get back to your rock! I'm sure LJ is lonely without you under there to keep her warm.

 

[Lebowski]

Why doesn't ALPA national (together with other union partners) fight scope creep with a specific, nationwide pay policy--like setting a MINIMUM national wage table on all aircraft in a certain range--like 40-50 seats, 50-76 seats, and 76-100 seats. They could do this while still leaving the larger aircraft open to negotiation at each major, but this would stop the continuous lowering of the bar.

A policy like this could change the picture at the BOTTOM end of the industry. It would help avoid situations like Republic E190 FOs topping out at $37/hr to fly a 100-seat jet. Isn't that the motivation for majors to outsource?

If a minimum rate table were set for these major/regional crossover aircraft that was based on comparable mainline rates, you could elminate mainline's motivation to outsource the lower end of what most of us believe should be mainline aircraft.

It could be set up so that any pilot who chooses to go to a carrier (union or not) that operates one of these class of aircraft below the set pay table would forever forfeit their opportunity to fly at an ALPA/union carrier. You could even phase it in, so that it doesn't necessarily hamstring the current set of regional pilots (like the Republic E190 FOs). Give them a little time to move out of their current position, then after that--say a year from now--you forever surrender your hopes for moving up.

To me, this seems like a simple, pragmatic way to lift the bottom up, so to speak (no pun intended for you backdoor types). I think a national seniority list is a pipe dream. But a policy like this could be implemented practically overnight and lend some much needed firepower to APA and other groups who are fighting for scope, when it's already been given up at other carriers.

Any better ideas?

 

[Eagle757shark]

Why doesn't ALPA national (together with other union partners) fight scope creep with a specific, nationwide pay policy--like setting a MINIMUM national wage table on all aircraft in a certain range--like 40-50 seats, 50-76 seats, and 76-100 seats. They could do this while still leaving the larger aircraft open to negotiation at each major, but this would stop the continuous lowering of the bar.

A policy like this could change the picture at the BOTTOM end of the industry. It would help avoid situations like Republic E190 FOs topping out at $37/hr to fly a 100-seat jet. Isn't that the motivation for majors to outsource?

If a minimum rate table were set for these major/regional crossover aircraft that was based on comparable mainline rates, you could elminate mainline's motivation to outsource the lower end of what most of us believe should be mainline aircraft.

It could be set up so that any pilot who chooses to go to a carrier (union or not) that operates one of these class of aircraft below the set pay table would forever forfeit their opportunity to fly at an ALPA/union carrier. You could even phase it in, so that it doesn't necessarily hamstring the current set of regional pilots (like the Republic E190 FOs). Give them a little time to move out of their current position, then after that--say a year from now--you forever surrender your hopes for moving up.

To me, this seems like a simple, pragmatic way to lift the bottom up, so to speak (no pun intended for you backdoor types). I think a national seniority list is a pipe dream. But a policy like this could be implemented practically overnight and lend some much needed firepower to APA and other groups who are fighting for scope, when it's already been given up at other carriers.

Any better ideas?

In a free market economy, how do you set payrates? The union doesn't have that kind of power. I know there was a battle about 10 years ago between Comair and Delta. The solution to outsourcing is to fix SCOPE. The goal should be that any jet flown under any banner should be on ONE seniority list. My solution is for the EMB145/170/190 and CRJ200/700/900 be flown by mainline. This is the only way to stop outsourcing in THIS industry. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or confrontational, but this is the only solution.

Delta should have NEVER let Comair fly CRJ200s for them. Delta pilots should have insisted that those aircraft be flown by Delta pilots and flown at payrates that would allow Delta to make a profit. The minute they allowed this, it gave airline executives a way to change this industry forever. Can it be fixed, I doubt it. It will take mainline pilots to stand firm on scope to give up a few extra dollars. In a seniority based system I doubt guys are willing to fight for it. I ask respectfully, can someone explain to me why we need regional carriers that are flying jets? Why can't those aircraft be flown by the carrier that is outsourcing to a regional? As a pilot starting out, imagine what this industry would have been like had I gone to American starting off on the EMB145. Then after 3 years or so having the opportunity to bid to something larger like the MD-80 or 737. In my opinion this is what should have happened at Delta, American, United, Continental, US Airways, America West, TWA, and Northwest. Right now SCOPE is the only way to fix this mistake.

 

[Smarta$$]

These are the new 100-110 seat jets.

Boeing isn't interested in that segment anymore.

The A318 is a flop: A smaller version of the A320 and, as a result, too expensive.

The DC9/MD88 fleets at DL have, at most, 5 years left.

Mainline pilots can no longer consider an Embraer "beneath them."

But, I guess they can consider a CRJ beneath them? Gee, I wonder how this mess all started?

 

[ualdriver]

Why doesn't ALPA national (together with other union partners) fight scope creep with a specific, nationwide pay policy--like setting a MINIMUM national wage table on all aircraft in a certain range--like 40-50 seats, 50-76 seats, and 76-100 seats.

I don't think it will ever happen, either. For example, let's say 15 years ago someone came up with the idea that ALPA National set a nationwide pay policy- setting a minimum wage, for example, for narrowbody turbojet aircraft like the 737/DC9/MD80. Let's say that Captain rate was set at the going rate at the time- 200 bucks/hr and a pension and F/O's were to be paid some percentage of that amount.

Do you think the Valujet pilots would give a crap what ALPA's national payrate was? Frontier? JetBlue? Allegiant? Virgin America? Skybus? Would things have turned out different for us now if we had that national pay rate? Why would it be any different for RJ rates? If ALPA sets a RJ rate, someone else will just come along and undercut it. If these ALPA RJ carriers "stick to their guns," it will result in them being undercut by Virgin RJ or whoever, resulting in the ALPA RJ carriers shrinking as they lose business. Then you'll have a bunch of disgruntled RJ pilots coming onto forums like these telling us all how ALPA sucks because they lost their job or they had to take a paycut, undercutting years of pattern bargaining, to come down to Allegiant RJ Airways payrates or whoever.

The core problem is a huge oversupply of pilots. Until that's fixed, all we can do is try to minimize the damage this oversupply causes.

 

[fam62c]

I think the new generation of 100 seaters is going to require some type of more creative solution to the scope issue than the options available today. Right now the options are basically to outsource the flying to another carrier which can't be done because of scope limitations, or operate the planes at the mainline level which may not be feesable because of the cost structure.

The problem I see with scope provisions is that while you can control what happens within your own company you can't control what your competitors are doing. The theory is that if you can restrict 100 seaters from being flown by a subcontractor then they will HAVE to be flown at the mainline level. Unfortunately , this isn't necessarily true because the cost structure (and I don't just mean hourly rates, it goes way beyond that) may not allow the planes to be flown profitably. The end result could be that if carrier "A" is unable to operate EMB-195's on routes where they are the best fit airline "B" may be able to because they don't have any limitations. In the end this may mean that rather than saving jobs at airline "A" the scope clause actually results in airline "A" losing jobs and airline "B" gaining jobs.

I'm not sure what the answer is but at some point in the future the legacy carriers are going to have to find a way to have modern 100 seaters in their systems, operated at competitive cost structures, unless they want to surrender large portions of their domestic market share to the competition. As the existing narrowbody fleet ages and fuel prices rise over time it will become even more crucial.

The trick is to find a way to get the 100 seaters flown on the main seniority list at a cost structure where the planes can turn a profit. The problem will come when you try to convince more senior employees that they will need to lower their overall compensation to allow for the introduction of an aircraft fleet that they will never fly. Maybe I'm wrong and it's as simple as just adding a new pay rate to a legacy contract to allow for the new type but I don't think this will work. For example, if you put JetBlue's EMB-190 rates in Delta's contract I'm guessing that all the other costs at DAL would not allow the EMB's to be operated at a competitive total CASM. I'm sure that there's a way to do it but I'm not sure that the legacy carriers and the unions have really sat down and made a real effort to solve the problem yet because both sides have very entrenched positions on the issue. The solution probably lies somewhere in between subcontacting and just adding the planes to the existing operation with a new pay rate and no other accomodations. One way or another this issue will need to be solved in the future because I don't think that the legacy carriers will be able to simply ignore the existence of the modern 100 seaters and choose to not operate them in their systems at all.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

If the airplanes cannot be flown profitably at mainline rates, they do not need to be in the air.

They brag about how "efficient" these airplanes are, yet if you can't pay someone a decent wage to fly them, how efficient really is that airplane?

Efficient in undercutting wages, maybe?