Interesting scope article

[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?

 

[fam62c]

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?

That argument might have worked prior to 1978 but competition is here to stay. Modern 100-seaters can't be "outlawed" with wishful thinking. The notion that "if the airplanes can't be flown profitably at mainline rates (whatever that even is for an airplane like an EMB-190) they do not need to be in the air" may sound good but in reality that's not going to happen; somebody is going to fly them if they are a good match for the market. If the legacy carrier unions fail to come up with a solution to this issue other than simply prohibiting the planes unless they can dictate the economics a lot more jobs will be lost to competitors.

This issue is going to be one of the key issues in modern bargaining going forward. On the other hand who knows; we may find (like we did with 50 seaters) that in a strong economy with lots of customers flying that 100 seats is too small to really be efficient in many markets. I know that there were a lot of other factors and the economy and industry were different at the time but American never had much success with the F-100. So far JB and USAirways are the only US carriers to really use these planes so there's not a lot of information yet. For instance, in the case of JB, I don't know whether the economics of the 190 are so good that they offset the added costs of having a second fleet type. I would assume that this is the case or they wouldn't have bought the 190's in the first place but I don't know that for a fact. I'm sure it varies with the route, passenger demand, economy, fuel price and ticket price levels. I would like to know on what percentage of their total routes is the 190 a better profit producer than the airbus. There has to be a cutoff point.

 

[Lebowski]

Do you think the Valujet pilots would give a crap what ALPA's national payrate was? Frontier? JetBlue? Allegiant? Virgin America? Skybus?

Yes. A lot of pilots at those places want to move up to DAL, UPS, FedEx, SWA, etc. If union carriers stuck together on this issue and didn't let anyone in from carriers that didn't play by established pay rules, then the Skybuses of the industry would have a much harder time finding pilots. And scope would become irrelevant as the motivation to outsource and whipsaw would disappear.

The free market goes both ways.

 

[Snapshot]

The union doesn't have that kind of power.

The union has the power to shut the system down, they just won't exercise it. If 55,000 pilots didn't show up to work tomorrow, you'd see the power.

Getting SWAPA, APA, and Teamster airlines to sit down on the same side of the table against Management doesn't seem very far-fetched. Just make the current highest paid guy the rate. Get them on board and damn near every plane in America is parked.

A National Pay rate/basic work rules would be a godsend, and it's in our power to make it happen. Scope, schmope. 195 pays the same no matter who's driving and who's writing the check. Impossible to undercut.

Imagine, pilots becoming a fixed cost, like fuel. Never again would management be able to say "you've got to take a pay cut to compete with the wages at low-rent airline xyz". Management would no longer be able to declare bankruptcy and impose their will on the pilot group.

As for non-union carriers, I'd predict a tornado of Intent cards if they were absolutely guarenteed industry-standard rates by Organizing.

It'd take a while, the system would have to be shut down a couple of times, National and Local Officers would proabably spend some nights in jail.

Watch a documentary on Appalacian Coal Miners some time, it's amazing what not being a Pu$$y can accomplish.

Too bad Prater thinks working until you die is the way to "Take It Back".

 

[ualdriver]

Yes. A lot of pilots at those places want to move up to DAL, UPS, FedEx, SWA, etc. If union carriers stuck together on this issue and didn't let anyone in from carriers that didn't play by established pay rules, then the Skybuses of the industry would have a much harder time finding pilots. And scope would become irrelevant as the motivation to outsource and whipsaw would disappear.

The free market goes both ways.

If union pilots stuck together, never mind union carriers, we'd own the industry. I'd gladly participate in a one day protest shutdown. Ain't going to happen though. We would need near 100% unity...... I remember a thread started a year or two ago where someone stated that we shouldn't let non-union pilots on a union jumpseat. The same debate was started at my airline. If the union pilots just "stuck together" with that, we'd probably shut down Virgin America in a week!

But oh, the uproar! You can't politicize the jumpseat!! They're just trying to make a living like you and me!! I jumpseat on insert nonunion carrier here, how will I get to work?? Etc., Etc. I bet there will be some posts after this one for even mentioning this topic again in the course of discussion. Now try to get a bunch of pilots to shut down the country for a day?

We can't even get union pilots to agree on something as simple as a union jumpseat belonging to union pilots, never mind get them to not hire a GoJet A-lister or a Virgin America pilot or an RJ undercutter. And you think an airline like Allegiant or Virgin America is going to honor an ALPA "minimum wage?" Half those pilots blame ALPA for everything from global warming to the Middle East crisis. They sure as he11 aren't going to honor an ALPA anything and probably take great pleasure in working for less than anything resembling a union wage!

 

[ualdriver]

This issue is going to be one of the key issues in modern bargaining going forward.

I think the "bargaining" is done as we have already bargained. We (the mainline carriers) have given up, willfully and through coercion, 1000's upon 1000's of mainline jobs so management could get their RJ's. They got them. We have been beat about the head and shoulders for almost a decade. The bargaining is now over.

If we continue to "bargain" at every session we'll be told how the A320 is too inefficient to be flown at mainline. Then 7 years from now the 767. 5 years after that the 777. The "modern bargaining" would never end- we're done.

And just because a market would be profitable if an E195 was flown at a regional and it wouldn't if flown by mainline is not a valid argument for having those planes flown by regionals. Just as there are probably many markets where flying a 757 by the regionals may be profitable and won't be if flown by mainline. That doesn't mean we need "modern bargaining" to give 757's to regionals in order to "save jobs from going to competitors." It means that airline management has unrealisitc expectations and they're going to have to adapt or just ignore those markets.

On the other hand who knows; we may find (like we did with 50 seaters) that in a strong economy with lots of customers flying that 100 seats is too small to really be efficient in many markets...... I'm sure it varies with the route, passenger demand, economy, fuel price and ticket price levels. I would like to know on what percentage of their total routes is the 190 a better profit producer than the airbus. There has to be a cutoff point.

Sure there's a cutoff point. I bet you it would be really cheap to fill an A380 with 800 seats (or more?) and fly it from Chicago to Omaha. It's an expensive jet, but with 800 seats your CASM may be low enough to get a significant savings on costs. However, if only 300 people fly from Chicago to Omaha during the BEST day of the year, it's a money loser no matter how cheap your costs are, so you have to downsize your jet to a 737 in order to make a profit on the amount of people that are going to fly between a city-pair. Same holds true when comparing a 737 to a RJ or an A320 to an E190. That cutoff point is jealously guarded, I'm sure, but I suspect you already know that.

 

[Eagle757shark]

The union has the power to shut the system down, they just won't exercise it. If 55,000 pilots didn't show up to work tomorrow, you'd see the power.

Snapshot, I agree with you 100%. The problem is you have to many pilots who want to play nice. Back in 2003 US Airways and United went into bankruptcy. Both carriers terminated the pilots pensions that were supposed to be funded. That was an opportunity for the whole industry to stand up and say, if it can happen to them, it can happen to us. That would of been a perfect time for a 100% across the industry walk off the job. The problem is, many pilots selfishly saw it as an opportunity for personal gain. I remember guys saying at my previous carrier, when US Airways goes out of business, we will get more airplanes and grow in their markets. I remember the CEO telling people that he planned to get a fleet of 717s and would start a hub in Charlotte when US Airways was done. Many pilots thought this would advanced their careers all at the expense of other pilots. We pilots are our own worst enemies.

Ask yourself, how many pilots want Spirit airlines to go on strike so they raise the bar. Or, how many pilots want Spirit to go on strike so they may possibly go out of business and that may open up routes and growth for other airlines therefore advancement for other pilots. This is what hampers the pilot group from real power!

 

[RobCat]

All due respect but we as a whole need to re-evaluate this whole regional name and word. When we hear REGIONAL we think less than. Guys I flew from SAT to IAH on a 75 than from IAH to MSP on a 145. Those E jets are flying at higher altitudes on longer legs than the DC9s and Mad-Doggs. Let call those contractors what they are.

 

[~~~^~~~]

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.

How about we give unity a try?

We should not have a line at 100, or 90, 76, 70, 50, 40, 35, 0r 19. We need a circle that puts the flying at mainline with all that brand's union members inside the circle.

The lines we draw between fellow pilots within our brands are affected by political whims and are not strong enough to hold up when tested under stress.

As fleets are renewed and new technology comes on line we need to force those airplanes inside the circle of union flying.

There is no follow on to the 40 or 50 seat RJ. That market will mostly run its natural course. The next generation of narrow body domestic jets belong at mainline as do its pilots.

Yes, some of us need to hold our nose and do the difficult work that mergers involve. The alternative is the continued slide of our profession.

There has always been more pilots than jobs, there always will be. The only way to increase the level of wages and working conditions is to join together in unity and bargain collectively.

 

[fam62c]

I think the "bargaining" is done as we have already bargained. We (the mainline carriers) have given up, willfully and through coercion, 1000's upon 1000's of mainline jobs so management could get their RJ's. They got them. We have been beat about the head and shoulders for almost a decade. The bargaining is now over.

If we continue to "bargain" at every session we'll be told how the A320 is too inefficient to be flown at mainline. Then 7 years from now the 767. 5 years after that the 777. The "modern bargaining" would never end- we're done.

And just because a market would be profitable if an E195 was flown at a regional and it wouldn't if flown by mainline is not a valid argument for having those planes flown by regionals. Just as there are probably many markets where flying a 757 by the regionals may be profitable and won't be if flown by mainline. That doesn't mean we need "modern bargaining" to give 757's to regionals in order to "save jobs from going to competitors." It means that airline management has unrealisitc expectations and they're going to have to adapt or just ignore those markets.




Sure there's a cutoff point. I bet you it would be really cheap to fill an A380 with 800 seats (or more?) and fly it from Chicago to Omaha. It's an expensive jet, but with 800 seats your CASM may be low enough to get a significant savings on costs. However, if only 300 people fly from Chicago to Omaha during the BEST day of the year, it's a money loser no matter how cheap your costs are, so you have to downsize your jet to a 737 in order to make a profit on the amount of people that are going to fly between a city-pair. Same holds true when comparing a 737 to a RJ or an A320 to an E190. That cutoff point is jealously guarded, I'm sure, but I suspect you already know that.

So what would you propose as a WORKABLE solution?. In my mind the legacy unions will need to bargain over this issue but that doesn't necessarily mean just giving the flying to subcontractors. If the unions started with the premise that the flying would be done on the main list but were willing to work on the economics there might be a solution. I would think that a legacy carrier would be better off capturing 100 seat flying on their list at, for example, JetBlue rates, benefits and work rules rather than seeing a subcontractor take the work or just prohibiting the flying all together in the system and seeing the company get driven out of markets by competitors.

There might even be a possibility for a "farm team" approach where the company operates a seperate division for the smaller planes but the lists are joined and pilots can utilize their seniority to bid positions within both divisions. There would need to be some limits to movement to keep training costs under control but there would be one seniority list. This would be kind of a "hybrid" system that would allow for seperate economics to a point while maintaining one list and aligning the interests of all the pilots. I think that if the unions had done this years ago with the smaller planes so the economics worked out there wouldn't be so much of the us vs. them mentality and the guys flying the smaller equipment wouldn't feel like second class citizens.

I think the unions got caught by surprise years ago when major airlines first started putting their paint jobs on planes flown by wholly-owned divisions and outside subcontractors. As long as the airlines were flying airplanes with props nobody cared even though the number of these airplanes was exploding in the late 1980's and early 1990's. The whole industry was growing, guys were moving up and everybody thought that working at a "regional" was just something to do for a few years until you got on with a "major." Nobody envisioned the extreme cost pressures that the industry would face in the future that forced almost every major carrier to shrink and file Chapter 11. If we had taken the attitude that an airline pilot is an airline pilot and an airliner is an airliner things might have turned out differently.

The guys at the top were never interested in making any sacrifices to keep small airplanes in-house and on one list; it was somebody else's problem. The thought of a guy coming out of the military and having to start in the right seat of a Jetstream, Saab, ATR or even a CRJ-200 just seemed unreasonable at the time. There never should have been "major airline pilots" and "regional airline pilots" there should have just been airline pilots. There has to be a solution to this other than what we have now. As the 70-100 seaters become more numerous and the 50 seaters decline in numbers this might be the time to try something new. The Legacy carriers are going to want a lot more of the larger planes and fewer of the smaller ones and the unions still have limitations in place to prevent this from happening. The unions have something that the company wants (control over fleet numers and composition) and the company has something that the union wants (lots of flying being done "off list") so the time may be right for a workable compromise that's different than what's been done in the past; it's worth an effort anyway.

 

[~~~^~~~]

So what would you propose as a WORKABLE solution?.

There might even be a possibility for a "farm team" approach where the company operates a seperate division for the smaller planes but the lists are joined and pilots can utilize their seniority to bid positions within both divisions. There would need to be some limits to movement to keep training costs under control but there would be one seniority list. This would be kind of a "hybrid" system that would allow for seperate economics to a point while maintaining one list and aligning the interests of all the pilots. I think that if the unions had done this years ago with the smaller planes so the economics worked out there wouldn't be so much of the us vs. them mentality and the guys flying the smaller equipment wouldn't feel like second class citizens.

It was tried. The "B" scale and "C" scale pilots resented it horribly and fought to get the B scale off the property. Now it resides at the regional level on a separate list.

I think you are on the right approach. It needs to be on one list and we need to figure out the economics to make that work.

Be careful for those who try to take your idea and modify it with flow through agreements as a substitute for one list. Flow throughs are bad:

• Management can't usually keep promises of future employment
• Pilots lose longevity stepping across an imaginary line
• Pilots are still separated and have separate interests
• In mergers pilots who have flowed down, or have yet to flow up, are not treated as employed pilots

 

[pilotyip]

Here is how the UAW does it; they reach a deal with a single company, then go to the next company and say match it or you will be shutdown and all the new cars being sold will be built someplace else, then they go to the next company and repeat. When the auto companies where rolling in money it was a good deal for all. But over the last 30 years it has eliminated 70% of the union jobs, gave great raise to non-union companies, and now it is concession time. Now the Airlines could follow the same path as the UAW and it would be great for 30% of those who still had jobs. This is also great for the non-ALPA airlines that would fly all the passengers when the ALPA pilots were on strike. BTW if anyone has the answers why are you not raising money to start the ideal pilot airline?

 

[fam62c]

It was tried. The "B" scale and "C" scale pilots resented it horribly and fought to get the B scale off the property. Now it resides at the regional level on a separate list.

I think you are on the right approach. It needs to be on one list and we need to figure out the economics to make that work.

Be careful for those who try to take your idea and modify it with flow through agreements as a substitute for one list. Flow throughs are bad:

• Management can't usually keep promises of future employment
• Pilots lose longevity stepping across an imaginary line
• Pilots are still separated and have separate interests
• In mergers pilots who have flowed down, or have yet to flow up, are not treated as employed pilots

I don't know if I would call this a "B" scale in the strict sense of the word. I don't consider the regionals as really a "B" scale by definition either because the lower rates have some basis in the difference in aircraft size/capacity for revenue generation. The major airline unions have had lower pay scales for smaller airplanes for many, many years and this has always been accepted as normal. When airplanes got bigger and heavier the unions wanted higher pay rates. The companies used the same logic when smaller airplanes were put into service and wanted lower rates.

My understanding, and I may be wrong, was that the original "B" scales were simply a line drawn where every pilot hired after a certain date would work at a lower pay scale than the people who came before them flying the exact same airplanes, really more of a concessionary pay scheme directed specifically at new-hires who had yet to come onto the property. The new pilots would take 100% of the pay reductions so the more senior people could remain totally or mostly whole. As an example, the pilot who was a DC-9 FO hired prior to a certain date earned "X" and the pilot who was a DC-9 FO hired after that date doing the same job in the same plane for the same company would only earn ".7X." It was one of the worst examples yet of the willingness of unions to sacrifice those at the bottom so the members at the top can remain untouched. Legacy guys at the top today complain that their wages are lower because guys at the bottom of the profession are willing to work for less but that came about because the guys at the big airlines didn't worry about the guys at the little airlines in the past. We inadvertantly created two industries where there should have only been one because we wanted to skew the pay structure hugely in favor of senior guys flying big planes assuming that everybody would get their turn at the top sooner or later. It would have worked assuming the industry kept growing profitably forever but, of course, this didn't happen.

Anyway, I agree with you. The legacy carriers need to consider the 100 seaters as a new equipment type and they need to get those pilots on their list even if all the pilots on the list need to chip in to make it happen. To do otherwise will only cause a repeat of the same historical mistakes we've made in the past and will ultimately result in smaller legacy carriers with less jobs, lower profitability and ultimately lower wages anyway. If you can set the precedent and capture the flying on one list you can try to make improvements when times are better and the industry is in better shape. If we don't do anything different than we've done in the past the 100 seaters will either end up being subcontracted out or wielded as an economic weapon by unrestricted competitors who are not limited by scope clauses. Nobody wants to hear this but scope in itself isn't going to solve anything and it's not going to save any jobs in the end because it attempts to impose false economics in a free market. Somebody will always come along and fill the gap in the marketplace created by restrictive scope. The only answer is to do whatever is necessary to get the 100 seat flying done on the main list.

 

[fam62c]

Here is how the UAW does it; they reach a deal with a single company, then go to the next company and say match it or you will be shutdown and all the new cars being sold will be built someplace else, then they go to the next company and repeat. When the auto companies where rolling in money it was a good deal for all. But over the last 30 years it has eliminated 70% of the union jobs, gave great raise to non-union companies, and now it is concession time. Now the Airlines could follow the same path as the UAW and it would be great for 30% of those who still had jobs. This is also great for the non-ALPA airlines that would fly all the passengers when the ALPA pilots were on strike. BTW if anyone has the answers why are you not raising money to start the ideal pilot airline?

Well said, pattern bargaining proved to be an unmitigated disaster in the end because investment capital will always flow away from inefficient companies/countries. It sounded like a great idea during the post WWII economic boom where America was the factory for the whole world but as things changed the whole concept backfired and moved work offshore. First the textile industry, then consumer electronics, steel, autos, shipbuilding, etc. Unions went too far and killed the golden goose; they forgot that if the company can't be profitable nobody will have a job in the end. Pattern bargaining only works where a company/country is totally immune to lower cost competition and has complete control over pricing and profit. The only way the concept would have a chance in the airline industry would be if we had a severe undersupply of pilots and airlines couldn't find enough of us to staff the airplanes. In this scenario any company that didn't pay the going rate would be out of business for lack of crews. I hope this day comes and I hope I will still be young enough to have some career left but I'm not going to hold my breath. If there are more jobs available and wages rise more people will become pilots and when the next downturn hits we'll have a glut of pilots once again.

Maybe they can't move flying jobs offshore but here's the economic reality in a deregulated airline industry: wages go up, costs go up, ticket prices must go up. When ticket prices go up less people fly so fewer airplanes are needed. Fewer airplanes means less pilots needed and more pilots without jobs. More pilots without jobs and high ticket prices means new start-up airlines with low costs initially designed to attract price sensitive travelers and increase competition. Increased competition means lower ticket prices and lowered profits which will eventually result in losses if the economy weakens. Losses means bankruptcies and imposed lower wages. Eventually the cyle will start over again with slight variations depending on the length of the expansion/recession periods of the economy and whether the weak, bankrupt carriers liquidate or not. This is the reason that not one US carrier has ever been able to maintain consistent profitability through up and down cycles. Southwest got close but their costs are catching up with them too in this downturn. The unpredictable costs, revenues and severe competitive landscape make this the most difficult industry to be profitable in that I know of.

Anybody who thinks that unions will be able to force higher labor costs on a deregulated industry during a severe downturn with a huge oversupply of pilots looking for work is crazy.

 

[~~~^~~~]

I don't know if I would call this a "B" scale in the strict sense of the word.

My understanding, and I may be wrong, was that the original "B" scales were simply a line drawn where every pilot hired after a certain date would work at a lower pay scale than the people who came before them flying the exact same airplanes, really more of a concessionary pay scheme directed specifically at new-hires who had yet to come onto the property.

I was thinking of the example of Delta Express & the 737-200 operation in MCO.

The 2000 contract raised the pay rates, so Delta tried outsourcing it to high cost 40 and 50 seat RJ's which made no sense in a leisure market and now SWA owns it. SWA pays their pilots well, so I don't think pilot pay was the issue as much as the -200 was an out of date jet in need of replacement and the RJ was a lousy replacement. In other words, management dorked that one up, not ALPA.

Many of the guys I fly with were Express Captains, wish that opportunity still existed

 

[pilotyip]

Thank You

Well said, pattern bargaining proved to be an unmitigated disaster in the end because investment capital will always flow away from inefficient companies/countries. It sounded like a great idea during the post WWII economic boom where America was the factory for the whole world but as things changed the whole concept backfired and moved work offshore. First the textile industry, then consumer electronics, steel, autos, shipbuilding, etc. Unions went too far and killed the golden goose; they forgot that if the company can't be profitable nobody will have a job in the end. Pattern bargaining only works where a company/country is totally immune to lower cost competition and has complete control over pricing and profit. The only way the concept would have a chance in the airline industry would be if we had a severe undersupply of pilots and airlines couldn't find enough of us to staff the airplanes. In this scenario any company that didn't pay the going rate would be out of business for lack of crews. I hope this day comes and I hope I will still be young enough to have some career left but I'm not going to hold my breath. If there are more jobs available and wages rise more people will become pilots and when the next downturn hits we'll have a glut of pilots once again.

Maybe they can't move flying jobs offshore but here's the economic reality in a deregulated airline industry: wages go up, costs go up, ticket prices must go up. When ticket prices go up less people fly so fewer airplanes are needed. Fewer airplanes means less pilots needed and more pilots without jobs. More pilots without jobs and high ticket prices means new start-up airlines with low costs initially designed to attract price sensitive travelers and increase competition. Increased competition means lower ticket prices and lowered profits which will eventually result in losses if the economy weakens. Losses means bankruptcies and imposed lower wages. Eventually the cyle will start over again with slight variations depending on the length of the expansion/recession periods of the economy and whether the weak, bankrupt carriers liquidate or not. This is the reason that not one US carrier has ever been able to maintain consistent profitability through up and down cycles. Southwest got close but their costs are catching up with them too in this downturn. The unpredictable costs, revenues and severe competitive landscape make this the most difficult industry to be profitable in that I know of.

Anybody who thinks that unions will be able to force higher labor costs on a deregulated industry during a severe downturn with a huge oversupply of pilots looking for work is crazy.

A fresh breath of reality in a sea FI fantasy. It is nice to see your post instead of the usual name calling. As you stated in the end the consumer will set cockpit wages. That is the reality of de-reg