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.