Mainline scope clauses

[goldentrout]

From the recent ALPA Fast Read Newsletter

US Airways Subsidiaries’ Pilots Protest Lost Jobs

Union leaders representing pilots at US Airways’ wholly owned subsidiaries Allegheny, Piedmont, and PSA Airlines met last week to discuss possible actions required to reverse the parent airline’s recent decision to outsource new small-jet operations to Mesa Airlines. “We believe that the US Airways management decision to divert express-carrier small-jet flying away from its subsidiaries stemmed in part out of frustration related to the inability to reach an agreement with its mainline pilots,” said ALPA’s president, Capt. Duane Woerth.
The conflict between US Airways and its mainline pilots relates to the specific type of airplane the carrier may acquire and deploy for express operations in accordance with the mainline pilots’ contractual job protections. When the mainline pilots demanded that US Airways adhere to contracted weight and size limitations restricting the use of a specific type of express jet that the airline was seeking to acquire, the carrier’s management converted its order for 25 of those jets to take delivery of an equal number of slightly smaller airplanes with specifications matching the labor-contract size requirements. However, management switched the deployment of these smaller aircraft away from its subsidiaries to Mesa. The move would deprive pilots at both the mainline and wholly owned subsidiary operations of jobs within the US Airways system.
“Aside from its punitive effects on pilots, the decision makes no sense in any other context,” said Capt. Olav Holm, chairman of ALPA’s unit representing pilots at US Airways subsidiary Piedmont Airlines. “By opting to use Mesa, US Airways management is trying to wedge a square peg into a round hole. There just isn’t a good fit,” Holm said.
“Mainline management underestimates the operational and cost efficiencies of using its integrated resources, including employees intimately familiar with the US Airways operation through years of exposure to it,” Capt. Holm added. “We fail to see this as a meaningful step toward successful economic recovery.”
According to Capt. Richard O’Leary, chairman of the Allegheny pilot’s ALPA unit, in the context of US Airways’ recent history, management’s action becomes doubly insulting to the subsidiary employees. “US Airways management’s move betrays the spirit of cooperation and partnership that the pilots thought they had forged with that management to get us through bankruptcy. Last year, we made sizeable sacrifices and committed to providing the kind of top-shelf service that garnered the FAA’s Diamond Certificate of Excellence Award for 2002 and recent recognition that Allegheny is the top performer of all the affiliates and wholly owned carriers flying under the US Airways code. In return, we were told the subsidiary carriers would participate in the new small-jet deployments. Management clearly isn’t keeping its end of the bargain,” Capt. O’Leary said.
The pilot leaders, in their meeting at ALPA’s Washington, DC offices, discussed possible recourses. “We’re looking at our options via the grievance provisions of the Railway Labor Act and through other legal avenues available under the pilot contracts,” Capt. Woerth said. “Specifically, we are examining the financing arrangement related to the recent announcement that US Airways will take delivery of 70-seat jets and lease them to Mesa Airlines.” The contracts at Allegheny and Piedmont Airlines provide that aircraft financed by US Airways must be flown by the wholly owned airlines.


For all you mainline guys who "live and die by scope," this ought to open up your eyes.

US Airways mainline pilots told management they couldn't order a certain size jet for the wholly owned subsidies because they were too big, violating the ever so clever "scope clause" of the mainline line pilot contract.

Why the mainline guys don't want ot fly these jets themselves and get their guys off furlough, I'll never know...but anyway...

Management says...fine, we'll buy slightly smaller jets...and neither you or the wholly owneds will fly them...we'll lease them to Mesa.

Mainline pilots...please explain to me again how, after seeing what happened above...after having thousands of your guys on furlough...after the whooly owneds have bought bigger planes and hired thousands since 9/11...

How is it again that your scope clauses are benefiting your pilot groups?

Now, not only are the scope clauses screwing the mainline pilots, but they are screwing the wholly owned pilots too.

The solution is so simple...one list and one scope clause "all flights operated by US airways (or DAL or UAL or whoever) will be flown by a pilot on the seniority list."

Let management figure out which planes to buy for the right markets, and let the pilots on the seniority list fly them...no more scope...no more whipsawing mainline against the smaller jets...it really is that simple.

Who at ALPA has the courage to make this happen and end all this scope and whipsawing forever?

Some say management will never go for this. I say that if we the pilots told them there would be no more scope...that they could buy whatever planes they wanted, whenever they wanted, and that all we ask in return is that a pilot on the company list fly the planes...I think management might just give a little if they didn't have to battle the union every time they wanted to buy a new aircraft.

Bottom line is the scope thing never has worked and is now just putting more current pilots out of work.

If you have a better idea than mine, please advise.

PS Note Duane's response above...if management had screwed the mainline pilots, Duane would have used every derogatory word in the work to describe US Air managment. Instead, since it was the wholly owneds who got the shaft, Duane just makes a casual notation about management's "frustration" with the mainline pilots.

I we wonder why there's an RJDC...

 

[PropTrash]

You hit the nail right on the head, Goldentrout! I have long been a proponent of the idea that if you fly an airplane with US Airways paint you should be on the US Airways seniority list (or Delta or whomever).

The US Airways mainline MEC and ALPA National have stepped into a fine pile of poo this time. Our concessionary agreement at the wholly-owneds stated very clearly that we were to be part of the future US Airways... now it seems that was never the case and that the company was never bargining in good faith. There is allot of very angry pilots who would love to get a little pay back. Our MEC is ensuring that we will not die quietly.

I put allot of the blame for the mess we are in on ALPA National for allowing the mainlines to engage in "predatory bargining." I just love it when another employee group with no stake in my future makes decisions which negatively effects my CBA. ALPA is going to have to recognize that single seniority lists is the only way to go. If they do not begin pushing for that management will whipsaw pilots against each other for eternity.

Hopefully the RJDC lawsuit will start to move them in that direction.

 

[stillaboo]

PropTrash,

How do you both support the RJDC and the idea that all pilots should be on 1 list?

The RJDC is all about separating the two groups in a permanent way, since quite obviously the current representation has a conflict of interest. That conflict would be removed if there was one list (and all the US WO pilots would immediatly be furloughed, b/c they would be stapled to the bottom of the US list).

-Boo!

 

[Otto_Pilot]

Scope

Scope, unfortunately, is a necessary evil.

Management has a feduciary responsibility to the shareholders to make money. One of the way that they do so is to find the cheapest possible labor.

Management realizes that when John Q. Public goes out and buys an airline ticket on US Airways -- he believes that a US Airways pilot is flying the airplane.

John Q. Public doesnt understand what Mesatauquapiedagheny is... or that the flight crew piloting the Dash, saab, beech, rj is not a US Airways pilot. So why would management want to pay mainline salary/benefit scales if they dont have to?

After all the regional product is much less expensive. Sure the cost-per-seat-mile is higher -- however aside from pilot pay/benefits, the pay/benefits for every single other employee group at a regional is less!!!

Flight attendants, dispatchers, schedulers, ramp-agents, ticket agents, simulator instructors -- you name it! They all work for substantially lower pay and benefits than their mainline counterparts --- and again, John Q. Public doesnt know/or care that these employees are not US Airways employees.

So management took advantage of us. Just as they realized that some pilots would pay-for-training to advance their careers so-to did they realize that pilots would fly jets for next-to-nothing to advance their careers.

Scope language is simple. It says, "only pilots on xyz seniority list may fly xyz aircraft".

This, believe it or not, is a good thing. It prevents management from going out and saying "Hey ACA.... you guys wanna fly 737s? If you'll do it for $75/hour they're yours."

If they could do that, then why have a mainline at all? We've proven that we as pilots are willing to fly most anything for most any price. Look at this message board. ACA to fly 737s on our own! Skywest signs TA for up to 90 seats at 50 seat pay-rates! Jetblue acquires EMB190s!

We are our own worst enemies. So yes -- scope is a necessary evil. It prevents us greedy pilots from falling for the next management trend. Airbus 330-RJ's. (tongue-in-cheek)

THAT BEING SAID

I believe RJDC when they say that there is GOOD scope...and BAD scope.

We need scope. The major airline pilots need it to keep the flying they have. The regional pilots need it to prevent what happened at US Airways from happening elsewhere in the industry.

There is no reason why US Airways should have more regional code-share partners than any other airline in existance!!!

Scope language in Allegheny, Piedmont, or PSA contracts might have prevented this from occuring -- or even reversed it in the context of their own concessionary agreements.

Language that stated that all US Airways Express flying be done by wholly-owned affiliates of US Airways group.... something to that effect.

Language that stated that no US Airways Express carrier will fly an aircraft greater than 70 seats and/or 75,000 lbs gross-weight unless that carrier is integrated with US Airways by way of a bidirectional flowthrough with fences and protections or an outright merger.

you get the idea.

The mainline MEC did the best they could (and it wasnt very good after all). They made an ATTEMPT to keep as much flying as possible on their own property -- with 1800+ pilots on furlough that was their obligation. They failed (again).

But what bargaining power did they have? As you have stated above, they had none. Management was going to place those airplanes with or without their blessing.

SCOPE is not the enemy -- bad scope is. Good scope, in my opinion, might have saved the wholly-owned carriers and provided more jobs within US Airways Group.

The bigger question is -- how much longer are we going to HELP management reduce the piloting profession that of a minimum wage worker by flying larger and larger airplanes for regional pay-scales?

50, 70, 90, 110 seat "regional" jets? Come on. Whats next? 150 seat "regional jets". 220 seat transcontinental "regional" jets?

Guys -- just because some manufacturer calls something "regional" does not mean we have to fall all over each other to fly it cheaper than the other guy.

Admit it or dont. We got in this business for only a few reasons. #1. Lifestyle -- days off. #2. Love of flying. #3. Money.

The more "regional" jets that are built and transferred to substandard carriers the fewer major airline jobs will be available for pilots who want to make that leap.

So we have two choices. Either stop flying bigger RJs. or make the "regional" career something that we can live with as a life-long career. That means BETTER pay (not worse). BETTER retirement (not NONE). Better schedules. Duty rigs. etc.

The entire industry should take an example from the Comair pilots. When do you say enough is enough???

 

[RUhiring?]

How does this affect a mainline furloughed pilot?

If it's a new SJ and flies in the US Express system, then 50% of the jobs go to US Mainline furloughees. This decision to put the planes at Mesa does not affect the number of jobs available. Those 25 jets will be staffed 50% by the US guys. Which doesn't change just because the planes are operated by a different carrier.

I agree that US Management is making a mistake. I also think that they need to be strung up and pummeled. I have lost all respect for the airline and the way it treats it's own people. There is no way to measure my disgust with them.

However, in this instance, their decision doesn't change the number of jobs available (to furloughees) through the J4J program.

 

[Otto_Pilot]

it does

Theoretically it does.

Remember that all of the 70-seat varients that were placed at the wholly owneds were to be staffed at 100% by furloughed pilots.

By placing them at Mesa the staffing goes back to the 50/50.

 

[Dash8]

vagaries

DO NOT lump the wholly owned pilots in with the contract carriers, your statements are condescending and misleading.
Piedmont, Allegheny, and PSA employees, ARE USAirways employees despite what you may care to believe. We work for the same company, saying what you did only belittles our plight within group. Just because we work at a subsidiary doesn't change the fact that we're still managed by USAirways group (particularly through the puppets installed in the "sub"management levels at the wo's).
So stop with the contemptuous attitude and lumping us with those bargain basement contractors.

 

[~~~^~~~]

PropTrash,

How do you both support the RJDC and the idea that all pilots should be on 1 list?

The RJDC is all about separating the two groups in a permanent way,

Boo, where did you get that from? Dan Ford assisted with the Policy Implementation Date request (the first step in ALPA's merger process) back at the 2000 Board of Directors' Meeting. Before the RJDC, we tried to get ALPA to merge the pilots to avoid alter ego flying and scope battles.

A merger is the most straight forward and elegant answer to the problems of ALPA conflict of interest, alter ego (non brand) flying and the current scope war. Just because the RJDC is open to any solution that provides regional pilots with representation certainly does not mean the RJDC is against one list, not at all.

 

[ElecJet]

The more "regional" jets that are built and transferred to substandard carriers the fewer major airline jobs will be available for pilots who want to make that leap.

So we have two choices. Either stop flying bigger RJs. or make the "regional" career something that we can live with as a life-long career. That means BETTER pay (not worse). BETTER retirement (not NONE). Better schedules. Duty rigs. etc.

The entire industry should take an example from the Comair pilots. When do you say enough is enough???


Well said Otto-Pilot!

 

[Ralph]

As someone without industry experience it seems to me that ALPA negotiated great work rules and pay at the majors. Why can't they do that at regional airlines?

I'm sure a contract that pays new guys 18K a year would never pass at Delta. I don;t think it would even be presented for a vote. Why does ALPA say "Great!" to that same contract at a major?

It just seems odd.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

As someone without industry experience it seems to me that ALPA negotiated great work rules and pay at the majors. Why can't they do that at regional airlines?

I'm sure a contract that pays new guys 18K a year would never pass at Delta. I don;t think it would even be presented for a vote. Why does ALPA say "Great!" to that same contract at a major?

It just seems odd.

Just out of curiousity, Ralph, to whom specifically are you referring when you say "ALPA?"

I am not sure if you are aware of this, but while ALPA national lends assistance, the contracts are negotiated by a negotiating committee, made up of pilots from the airline in contract discussions.

 

[Ralph]

As I understand it someone or some group presents a contract to the pilots to ratify (assuming the pilots have a union of course) and then the pilots vote yes or no to pass it.

I'm assuming that the pilots at Delta for example would not vote on a contract that pays pilots 18K a year with 5 days off and no overtime. That contract would never even make it to the pilots to vote on right?

Why does that same contract get presented to the pilots at Mesa for example?

I guess what I'm asking is why are there two different sets of standards for contracts when it appears to me (and really I have no actual knowledge here) that a single union/organization (ALPA says they represent Delta and Mesa on their website) represents both groups of pilots. Would ALPA present the contract that mesa voted on to the pilots at Delta?

 

[Freight Dog]

Even if PID was agreed to by Delta pilots, or any other mainline pilot group and their WO's, it STILL would requires a blessing of mainline management bean counters to merge the groups.

What makes you think that Delta management would agree to merge Comair and ASA into Delta mainline? Why would they do that? Out of goodness of their hearts? Rigggght!!!

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

As I understand it someone or some group presents a contract to the pilots to ratify (assuming the pilots have a union of course) and then the pilots vote yes or no to pass it.

I'm assuming that the pilots at Delta for example would not vote on a contract that pays pilots 18K a year with 5 days off and no overtime. That contract would never even make it to the pilots to vote on right?

Why does that same contract get presented to the pilots at Mesa for example?

I guess what I'm asking is why are there two different sets of standards for contracts when it appears to me (and really I have no actual knowledge here) that a single union/organization (ALPA says they represent Delta and Mesa on their website) represents both groups of pilots. Would ALPA present the contract that mesa voted on to the pilots at Delta?

Ralph,

You would have to ask the pilots at Mesa that question, for it is they who negotiates their contract. That is the point that you seem to be a bit confused on. ALPA national does very little to negotiate contracts. The actual negotiations are done by a negotiating committee made up of pilots from that airline. After they reach a tentative agreement, it is usually then presented for a vote by the rank and file.

Since the individual MEC's and negotiating committees negotiate the contracts, blaming ALPA national, while popular, is inaccurate.

And to answer your question, no, my negotiating committee would never present a mesa contract to the Delta pilots. They have, however, reached TA's with much too lenient scope clauses. I blame them, and our pilot group for voting on it. I don't blame ALPA national.

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Even if PID was agreed to by Delta pilots, or any other mainline pilot group and their WO's, it STILL would requires a blessing of mainline management bean counters to merge the groups.

What makes you think that Delta management would agree to merge Comair and ASA into Delta mainline? Why would they do that? Out of goodness of their hearts? Rigggght!!!

Freight,

I have tried to make that point hundreds of times. They don't want to hear it.

 

[PacoPollo]

Scope is DEAD.

Make me laugh how those APA pukes wear those stupid Badges... Even laugh my azz off when this AA hole came asking the jumpseat wearing the scope badge. The CA very 'calm" told him To take that badge off or he wouldnt go.. Couldnt stop Laughing all flight...

 

[Ralph]

Now I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, I'm really just asking because I don't know!

So is it ALPA the created the "scope clause" or the delta mainline pilots? (Yes I understand that other airlines have them too)

It doesn't sound like ALPA negotiates the pilot's contracts so what the heck are they for?

Why doesn't ALPA attempt to set some minimum industry standards for contracts?

Obviously someone will just go and underbid mesa by a few dollars. I assume ALPA wants more pilots to make more money? Why can't ALPA provide some industry guidence and say "no FO makes less than 30K, no captain makes less than 50K" or something like that.

Or is it that the non-union carriers muck that plan all up?

 

[jarhead]

Question for FDJ

As you say, the Delta Pilot's MEC does the negotiating with DAL on contracts. That would be the same with all other carriers MEC's as well

The question is, what is the Primary function of Duane Woerth, and ALPA National. What does National bring as value to an ALPA pilot?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Re: Question for FDJ

Ralph and jarhead,

No need for apology, I know you are not trying to argue. I hope it didn't sound like I was taking offense.

ALPA national is (in my opinion) a wonderful provider of legal support, medical advice, lobbying efforts, support in the form of assessments during a strike, etc. However, the health of the airline, as well as the strength of the MEC and the unity of the pilot group have far more influence on contracts than does ALPA national. For example, I have worked at two major airlines, TWA and Delta. Although both represented by the same union, our contracts were vastly different. Should ALPA have instituded a minimum wage at TWA? Perhaps, but it also might have meant the demise of the airline. I like the current situation better, in which each MEC is able to negotiate what is best for the pilots of that particular airline. Of course, scope is the most important part of any contract. Without it, everything else is worthless as mgt will always farm out the flying to the lowest bidder.

While the solution isn't perfect, it is the best we have. Many will propose a national seniority list, but in my opinion, this would lead to far more problems than it would solve, and I don't support it. I also don't think it is achievable.

Paco,

You better hope scope is not dead or you too will be replaced. Unless of course you become the lowest bidder.

Scope is by far the most important and valuable weapon we have to protect our profession. Although imperfect, and not always effective, it is an absolute necessity. To hear someone not allow a jumpseater because he was in favor of a strong scope clause speaks volumes about why this profession is in the shape that it is in.

You should have asked him if he had any extra badges. It seems you need scope just as much as he does.

 

[jarhead]

FDJ

How much of your ALPA dues (1.95% of pay???)goes to the coffers at national, and how much of your dues go to your MEC?

Or is it like Federal tax revenue sharing, where the feds get it all, and then kick back to the states some portion based on effective lobbying efforts....i.e., "The Big Dig" in Boston