Redtailer said:
Surplus1, I don't know where you get your information but you might want to read the NWA contract first before responding.
I have read your contract. In fact I have a copy of it. I was not disputing what it says, just your ability to hold that under current circumstances.
First of all NWA Pilots DO own all of the aforementioned flying. No bidding by other parties allowed. The scope clause is very specific. >>>.
You missed my point in your haste to "defend" your contract, which is not being attacked by me. Nevertheless, the truth is you do not own the flying. The Company owns the flying, you have the contractual right to do most of it and that includes the 70-seat aircraft. I understand that.
The Company has asked you to give "scope relief". You have countered with a proposal to retain that flying at the mainline. There is nothing wrong with your doing that and I haven't said there was.
You are not in Section 6, so you do not have to negotiate anything at this time. However, your Company is asking for concessions. Up to now, you have offered 1/2 of what they want. So, you
are negotiating. You can put anything on the table that you want to, so can the Company.
If you do not reach an agreement, the status quo will remain in place. When Section 6 comes around, we are back to "everything" is on the table that either of you wants to put on the table. There is nothing unique or different about contract negotiations on the NW property vs. any other union property.
Someone chomping at the bit to take jobs away from the NWA pilots to benefit themselves?
You are mistaken. I work for Comair, not NW, not MSA, not PCL. I will never, yes, I can say and I mean never, work for any of those airlines and there is nothing I want or could take from any of you. However, if you negotiate substantially lower pay rates to place these aircraft at NW, it
will affect me. That is the principle reason I am concerned about what you do. The secondary reason is that lower rates, whether negotiated by you or anyone else, will affect all of us with the same equipment guage and the impact will be negative.
The current trend of low-ball rates to capture flying or growth is disadvantageous to all of us, you included. Therefore I am opposed to that.
In case you haven't noticed, the MEC is negotiating the pay rates and work rules now. If they do not come to an agreement then the NWA system will be at a loss for 70 seaters.
I have noticed. That is why I am posting. I am also familiar with the infrastructure of the legacy carriers. Since my airline currently operates the same type aircraft that you are now "negotiating" for, I am also familiar with its economics. I know that you, or any other "mainline" carrier, cannot operate this aircraft economically (competitively) in your current infrastructure, unless you lower your compensation and other contractual terms to values
substantially below those that I currently enjoy. It is not just pilot salaries.
When you do that, it will affect our ability to retain our current contract. As you might guess, I don't want to take a pay cut because you want to fly the CRJ-700. Were it not for that, I couldn't care less what you do.
My contract is already under intense pressure because of actions like those at USAirways, Mesa, Chautauqua, Mesaba, Pinnacle, PSA, Eagle, SkyWest, and now JetBlue, etc. You, by emulating them, will add fuel to the fire. That doesn't make me a happy camper.
They cannot if the NWA pilots decide to create a MDA type operation. Not a good alternative, but if that's what they agree to Mesaba and Pinnacle will not be able to bid.
Your idea that Mesaba or Pinnacle cannot bid for the work you are negotiating is erroneous. The Company is looking for ways to make this operation viable. You are "bidding" on the flying as we write. So can anyone else, Just as your group makes a proposal to the Company, they can do the same and probably have. It is true that your scope clause is an obstacle to the Company being able to accept a bid from it's code share partners. However, it is not an insurmountable obstacle. Scope clauses of that variety come and go.
It may make you feel good to say that if you don't fly them NWA won't fly them, but that sir is an ilusion. If the Company decides to get rid of your scope clause obstruction, it may take a while, but they can do it. If you do not give the concessions they want, they have the option of BK, which will trash your contract entirely. If they can't do that they can wait for Section 6 and trash your scope clause there.
The point is, if the company really wants to accept an outside bid for this flying, they can and will do it. Just like you may be willing to cut your rates, ceate a contract within a contract, set up an MDA type operation or whatever, so can the other bidders and there will be other bidders. In fact there already are or the Company would not have asked you for scope relief. If they want this airplane, they have long since determined what they need to operate it competitively and how their affiliates can provide it.
To make a long story shorter, the bidding war is already in progress. All that is left is a decision of who is the lowest bidder and who gets the "award". That is the problem that bothers me.
What part of "not the same mission" did you not understand? 2 different aircraft with 2 different types of missions. But I will say that no matter what happens the Avros are on the chopping block. <<<>>> Keep in mind the DC9, as stated by the NWA CEO, has the lowest CASM in the system including the RJs and Avros. <<>> Let's also not forget that the 70 seater will also be a direct replacement for the DC9-10 fleet. So please don't lecture me about losing pilot positions.
I know that the Avro is already on the chopping block and I understand its "mission". I also know that you operate the 9-10, that they are amortized, and have the lowest CASM in your current fleet. I understand that CR7's, if you operate them, will ultimately replace the 9-10. If you don't operate them and Mesaba does, they will still replace the 9-10. So, if you replace the Avros, Mesaba either has to buy 50-seat RJs or lose jobs. (In the bastard operation you all have, Mesaba doesn't buy airplanes, NWA buys them for Mesaba & PCL both). If Mesaba operates the CR7 and the 9-10 goes away, you will lose the jobs instead. No matter how it turns out, its a bad situation for somebody.
Your case is somewhat unusual because you are the only major airline operating such small aircraft as the DC9-10. There is no "gap" at all between your aircraft and the CR7. I understand the implications.
Once more, my principle concern is the same as yours; self preservation. I am worried about pressures on my own pilot group resulting from your efforts to retain this flying. I realize that to be competitive, for the reasons previously mentioned, you would have to lower your compensation much below ours and even below Mesaba's, by a substantial margin. That triggers my Master Warning.
We are no different than you. Self-preservation is natures first law. That applies to you and it is why you are making "proposals". It applies to us and it is why we aren't thrilled by the prospect of what you may do.
I have nothing against NW pilots, but understand .... the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The decision made by USAirways pilots re MDA, converts them into my enemy. Not because they are mainline pilots but because they have undercut our compensation by as much as $55 per hour. They have no longevity, no contract for MDA, no work rules, and no benefits. If you do the same you will become my enemy as well. On the other hand if Mesaba is ultimately the successful bidder, they will still undercut us but, by a lot less than you will have to. Guess who I favor?
YES! After reading posts like yours for the last week that are loosely based on some facts but are filled with so many inaccuracies they twist the truth. Then people get some idea that what you and others are putting out there is fact when in reality it's garbage.
There is no garbage in my post. I do not know the exact numbers that your MEC is proposing. Unless you are a member of the NW MEC, you don't either. What you have read is the same thing that I have read, published in your "Across the Table" news rag. Additionally, my understanding of the industry and the negotiating process is not at the amateur level. I have a pretty solid background in the process and a thorough understanding of the options, which I am quite certain matches yours.
This is not an emotional event for me, it's about protection of our interests; business. I'm sorry if that ofends you, but that's how it goes when folks start bidding wars. Your scope clause is nice to have, but it is also unrealistic in the current environment. The cat is unfortunately out of the bag, The only way to "fix" it is to find a solution that makes NW/MSA/PCL the equivalent of a single group and that is virtually impossible unless you can convince your Company to give up its whipsaw leverage, I hope you can, but the chances are not in your favor.
Like it or not, if the Company really wants to operate that aircraft type, they will find a way to do it, with or without you. You can take that to the bank.
By the way I like your MEC's concept of a flow up without a flow back. That's a much better start than the J4J BS of USA. Given you have made that proposal, if it was my call at MSA and PCL, I would work hard to find away to ensure that NW pilots don't lose their jobs, if it turns out that you don't get the airplanes. There are many options that could be fair to all.
I wish you the best, as long as you don't underbid us.
