Northwest pilots offer to fly small jets, for smaller paychecks

[Kroll]

Exactly (except it won't be 5 more years. Would you believe 10?). You should be thrilled by the wonderful possibility of being able sit next to a NW new hire in the left seat, for less money than you make now. Such a deal! Just think of the wonderful "experience" you will gain moving from the left seat of an Avro85 to the right seat of a CR7 ... where you get to fly with a real airline pilot. You should all be breathing heavy in hopes that you'll get the opportunity.

Surplus1 are you bitter?

Have you been furloughed? Lost your home? Moved into your parents basement with your wife and kids? Many have. If NW70 goes through and someone wants to go. More power to them. Its their choice. I personally don't like this whole NW70 idea. I'm in agreement with you I'm sick of watching everyone lowering the bar. My only hope is that NW70 will keep the bar somewhere in the middle and give relief to those furloughes guys that need it.

Whos to say that any furloughed guys will end up going NW70. They may get to bypass because of recalls. As far Mesaba guys go I welcome them on the bottom of our list.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus1 are you bitter?

Nope, not bitter at all. Not easily duped either.

Have you been furloughed? Lost your home? Moved into your parents basement with your wife and kids? Many have.

Nope, not furloughed at present although I have been in the past. Didn't lose the house; got another job. Can't move into parents basement; I'm not young enough for that, they died. So, I have to take care of myself now.

If NW70 goes through and someone wants to go. More power to them. Its their choice. I personally don't like this whole NW70 idea. I'm in agreement with you I'm sick of watching everyone lowering the bar. My only hope is that NW70 will keep the bar somewhere in the middle and give relief to those furloughes guys that need it.

You're right, it's their choice although it won't be much of one. I'm not against relief for the NW furloughees, in fact I would like that. My concerns are directly related to what the NW pilots will undoubtedly have to do to get management to place this aircraft type at the mainline; i.e., lower the compensation and work rules to levels similar to those at MAA (just as the U pilots did). If that happens, it may help the NW furloughees, but it will also decimate the contract of my own pilot group and force us into concessionary bargaining.

If I have to chose between helping the NW furloughees and taking a 30% pay cut for my own people, guess what my choice will be?

Whos to say that any furloughed guys will end up going NW70. They may get to bypass because of recalls. As far Mesaba guys go I welcome them on the bottom of our list.

That's fine and I would hope they can all bypass and be recalled. That doesn't change what will happen if NW70 come to pass with a compensation package similar to MAA's.

I'm sure you would welcome Mesaba pilots on the bottom of your list, if you get NW70. By the way, how come you haven't done that before? Am I missing something?

If a Mesaba Avro Captain has to "flow" to the bottom of NW70 as an FO, (probably because his Avro disappears as a result of NW70) what will that do to his pay check? Think he'll get a raise or is he more likely to take a huge hit? His new seniority will also be of great benefit, right? Is that why you're willing to "welcome" him, or is it because the "buffer" will enhance your own seniority and provide some furlough fodder for you?

It all depends on what your MEC (assuming you are NW) is willing to agree to to "get NW70". If you can do it without underbidding everybody else, I have no problem with what you do. On the other hand, if it causes us to give up our contract then I do care and would not like to see it happen. I hope that's more clear.

 

[flap operator]

I think it's pretty interesting that this thread has turned into a WORLD against Comair thread. The world DOES NOT revolve around Comair... and since all the post 9.11 contracts have not bettered the contract of Comair in terms of pay - it's getting REALLY OLD hearing about how Comair is going to be affected in some form or the other. How has the MAA pay affected Comair thus far? Surplus, you keep assuming NWA70 will undercut Comair... how do you know that? You seem to be so concerned about a deal that involves red tails... not wavy blue and red tails. Every airline is different and in missions and comparing apples to oranges will get nobody far in the world... it just creates conflict.

What you guys did in 2001 is commendable but you aren't the idols in the industry and not everyone wants to be just like Comair. The personal attacks against posters, personal attacks against other companies and their pilot groups and the holier than thou attitude has played out already!


FO

BTW Surplus... I emailed our contract to airlinecontracts.com and it got returned. So... short of printing 300 pages and mailing it... I hope that they can resolve their issues and we can get our new agreement on the website.

 

[FarginDooshbahg]

The personal attacks against posters, personal attacks against other companies and their pilot groups and the holier than thou attitude has played out already!

You're pissin' in the wind there, bro. Surplus only sees what he wants to see, and he only sees things HIS way. He never admits to any wrongdoing, even when he continually does to others what he so vehemently attacks those that do the same to him.

Quite amusing. And sadly pathetic. Just another old, decrepit lost geezer searching for that pot of gold that has LONG since passed him by. With NO hope of ever capturing it himself. So, in one last feeble gasp, he attempts to steal the gold of others.

(He also holds no sole possesionship of melodrama and metaphor which uses many flowery phrases to say absolutely nothing. See above...)

 

[flap operator]

I know i'm pissin' in the wind... I just needed to write what I was thinking for a long time! I feel better now.


FO

 

[surplus1]

The world DOES NOT revolve around Comair... and since all the post 9.11 contracts have not bettered the contract of Comair in terms of pay - it's getting REALLY OLD hearing about how Comair is going to be affected in some form or the other. How has the MAA pay affected Comair thus far?

Believe me when I tell you that I'm very aware that the world does not revolve around Comair. If it did, I would have no cause for concern and would thank the Lord for small favors.

I also don't have a problem with new contracts that haven't "bettered Comair" post 9/11. Our timing was just luckier than others and I know that.

I'll be glad to tell you how the MAA pay has affected Comair. Whenever anyone agrees to fly an aircraft that is larger than yours for as much as $30 - $55 per hour less in basic book rates alone, you are and will continue to be affected. Especially when that airline is a major competitor. Do you not think your contract at Mesaba was affected by what happened at Mesa, SkyWest and Air Wisconsin?

Comair is by no means the only airline affected. Current negotiations at ASA are affected, your own new agreement will be affected, negotiations at COEX (XJT) are affected, the new NW70 proposal is affected, Horizon will be affected, Eagle is affected, and even JetBlue has been affected (witness the new EMB-190 pay rates). And, I've only scratched the surface.

This is no different from the effects that the U and UAL bankruptcy and the new AA contract have had on Delta, are having on NWA and will have on CAL negotiations.

If you don't understand how one contract affects other contracts, there's not much I can say to you. Surely you've heard of "pattern bargaining"? Well, patterns are not confined to use by labor unions. This is not about Comair at all, it's about bidding for flying by underbidding your competitors with pilot salaries as the tool. That is the problem, not Comair.

Surplus, you keep assuming NWA70 will undercut Comair... how do you know that?

I'm really not assuming anything and I don't know what, if anything, will come of NW70. What I do know is how this business works and I also know the economics of the particular aircraft, since my Company just happens to operate it. Comair is not an island and neither am I. This has been my business for a very long time, and I'm not unaware of how contracts affect each other. The law of probability indicates what will have to happen if NW70 is accepted by NWA mangement. I know I'm not smart, but I'm not stupid either.

You seem to be so concerned about a deal that involves red tails... not wavy blue and red tails. Every airline is different and in missions and comparing apples to oranges will get nobody far in the world... it just creates conflict.

To be honest, I don't give a hoot about the color of tails. The mission of a 70-seat jet is the same no matter who operates it. So is the mission of a DC9 or a 737, whenever the operating company flys in competing markets. That's not apples and oranges, it's all grepefruit; sour. If it takes a little conflict to protect my interests so be it.

The personal attacks against posters, personal attacks against other companies and their pilot groups and the holier than thou attitude has played out already!

Whoa! I have made no personal attacks on anyone or on any pilot group. Companies are inanimate and can't be "personal". I don't have a holier than thou attitude because I differ with the powers that be. In fact, it is no secret where holier than thou attitudes begin and it's not in any regional airline.

BTW Surplus... I emailed our contract to airlinecontracts.com and it got returned. So... short of printing 300 pages and mailing it... I hope that they can resolve their issues and we can get our new agreement on the website.

Thanks for trying. I have no idea why it was returned since I have no personal connection with that website. If you would not mind sending it to me directly please send me a PM and I will give you the email address.

Thanks for your reply and best wishes.
Surplus1

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

Okay, I have to jump in here with this.
So, 'bag', can you post where Surplus has personally attacked ANYONE? You obviously don't bother to research anything before you post. Seems like YOU are doing the attacks here, not him. YOUR post seems to reflect all of the melodrama and metaphors that the uninformed person would post. His posts have facts, figures and yes, opinion. Seems like that is ok for you but not for him? Maybe when you have "some" of his experience and knowlege of the situation you can post something a tad more intelligent.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[FarginDooshbahg]

ATR-Driver,

Oh clueless one. I was simply turning the tables on Surplus. Pointing out what he does by doing the same. Obviously you are too stupid to see that, so therefore I have no further time to waste on you.

Believe me. I have every bit the "experience" of Surplus and then some. What I don't need nor would ever want is his brand of "knowledge". If you want to tag along on his coattails, be my guest. He or his ilk don't fool me for a minute. But, you must be one of the gulibile ones who will believe anything. So sorry.

 

[ATR-DRIVR]

well since i don't 'tag' along with anyone, i don't have that to worry about.
'believe you?' yeah, ok whatever there mr experience. turning the tables huh? sigh, sure. I rest my case.
Oh by the way, good choice of screen names also.

 

[Caveman]

Agree or disagree with Surplus but no one can accurately accuse him of hurling cheapshots. Like most of us he occasionally gets a little excited, but the vast majority of his posts are well reasoned. You may disagree with his opinions but his facts are documentable. I don't recall him posting any serious invective. If his conversation has gotten a tad personal it's usually in retaliation. I think most of us are guilty of that every now and then. Unlike FDB. I did a quick review of FDB's posts. It didn't take long, there are only 22. but in all but a handful, his/her sole intent seems to be to hurl some smartassed comment while safely ensconced in internet anonymity. He/she has chosen an appropriate screen name.

Back to the topic at hand. The company owns all the flying. If a pilot group has an contractual agreement dictating who gets to fly it, so be it. But that contract is term limited and periodically subject to ammendment. All of it, not just pay and work rules. What can not, but unfortunately does happen is that the renegotiation include an arbitrary ammendment of a third parties contract with the same company without that third parties consent. As of now it seems pretty clear to me that the NWA pilots contractually own all the over 70 seat flying (except the Avro). That doesn't mean they also by default own the 70 and below market. In fact the scope clause of their contract in essence restricts the scope of their contract to the above 70 seat flying. The flawed logic of a mainline pilot says that they waived the right to fly the 70. You can't waive what you don't have. They didn't waive anything, they chose not to include the 70 in their bid for services. They could have but they didn't. Now all of a sudden they decide they want to bid to fly the 70. Fine, I don't have a problem with that but you don't get to ammend somebody else's contract in the process by restricting their opportunity to fly the 70 when their contract doesn't prohibit it. If a WO contract dictated that they could only fly 50 seat or less airplanes there would be no problem, but that isn't the way it is. There is no limitation in any WO contract that I know of that prevents them from flying larger a/c. If mainline wants to offer their services and can come to terms with the company, fine. But the agreement had better not impose any restrictions on the WO"s ability to flythe 70 because as of right now neither of their contracts prevents them from doing so. Mainline has no right to impose any restrictions to the WO's agreements without their consent.

 

[Miss'nFly'n]

Just another point of clarification about the 70 seat issue...

In an earlier post I was directly responding to the "no scope on turboprop" discussion & in doing so pointed out that the "69 seat/70,000# weight" language had some exceptions. One of them being the infamous "regional jet".

In the regional jet language there is a clause stating the "NW code designator may not be placed jet aircraft operated by another airline that are certified with a maximum passenger capacity greater than 55 seats". Of course there are a whole host of exceptions pertaining to code share agreements, etc. (You've gotta love lawyers, pay them to write a document that you have to hire them back to interpret. Now that's featherbedding!)

Now, the contract also does not define a jet with less than 45 seats as a "Regional Jet"...thus the ability to fly as many 44 seat RJ as you can buy & also to by-pass hubs, etc.

Good debate (minus the personal flames), just wanted to keep the facts straight.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote from caveman:
"In fact the scope clause of their contract in essence restricts the scope of their contract to the above 70 seat flying. "

What essence is that?? NW mainline "owns" 56 seat and above per their scope, not just 70 seat.


"The flawed logic of a mainline pilot says that they waived the right to fly the 70. You can't waive what you don't have."

Waived what, and when??? NW achieved the scope they currently have 6 years ago. Apparently they didn't want to "waive" anything. And you are right, NW didn't have 70 seaters back then so, yep, they can't waive what they didn't have.


"They didn't waive anything, they chose not to include the 70 in their bid for services. They could have but they didn't. Now all of a sudden they decide they want to bid to fly the 70."

What the heck are you trying to say here, you lost me.....?? There was no 70 seat to bid on then. What could they have bid on?? They did NOT "all of a sudden" decide to bid for the 70. Again, that is uninformed rhetoric on your part. Management came to the mec requesting scope relief for 70 seat jets. The mec, like a good mec should (especially with 928 furloughed pilots), said no, but we'll give you a proposal for mainline to fly them, as per our scope.


quote:
"If a WO contract dictated that they could only fly 50 seat or less airplanes there would be no problem, but that isn't the way it is. There is no limitation in any WO contract that I know of that prevents them from flying larger a/c. If mainline wants to offer their services and can come to terms with the company, fine. But the agreement had better not impose any restrictions on the WO"s ability to flythe 70 because as of right now neither of their contracts prevents them from doing so. Mainline has no right to impose any restrictions to the WO's agreements without their consent."

Neither Pinnacle or Mesaba are wholly-owned. They are contract carriers. Whats your point with this one??


Now on to the surplus issue. I will agree that I haven't seen him casting insults or anything like that, but some posts back in this same thread, he "jumped" on redtailer for trying to pass "opinions" for "facts" in his post. Well, sorry, but his rebuttal post was just as full of "opinion," "speculation," and "what-ifs" as redtailer's may have been.

 

[DoinTime]

Both Pinnacle's and Mesaba's serivice agreements with Northwest prohibt us from violating the terms of NWALPA's working agreement. The NWALPA has not placed a limitation on our pilot groups working agreements but rather on the airlines we work for.

If Delta's pilots choose to limit Delta to the number, and fleet types, of aircraft that are flown under the Delta code sobeit. This in no way affects the contracts of the affiliate carriers. Now if they try to negotiate a pay cut or changes in work rules then you have a problem.

 

[Caveman]

I stand corrected on the details of the NWA contract. I understood the limit was 70 seats or less. The point I wanted to make is still valid if you replace the number 70 with the number 56. In the specific case of NWA if NWALPA was contracually awarded everything above 56 then obviously they should continue to enforce their scope.


The fact that PCL and Mesaba aren't wholly owned is irrelavant (sp?). A mainline pilot group shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily restrict another carriers opportunity to fly larger a/c if their PWA doesn't self limit them and the mainline scope doesn't include the aircraft in question. In other words, once both the mainline and other carriers have entered into an agreement any changes made after the fact can not in any way affect the other pilot groups PWA.

"Both Pinnacle's and Mesaba's serivice agreements with Northwest prohibt us from violating the terms of NWALPA's working agreement."

Mesaba/PCL shouldn't interfere with NWALPA's agreement, but NWALPA shouldn't mess with theirs either. NWALPA's affiliation with ALPA prevents them from interfering with another ALPA carriers working agreement too.

 

[FarginDooshbahg]

Unlike FDB. I did a quick review of FDB's posts. It didn't take long, there are only 22. but in all but a handful, his/her sole intent seems to be to hurl some smartassed comment while safely ensconced in internet anonymity. He/she has chosen an appropriate screen name.

Just like 99% of the rest of the "posters" on this board do. So, "Caveman"...I guess that is your real name, since you wouldn't dare safely ensconce yourself in "internet anonymity" would you? Loser...

You too, ATR-LIFER.

You seem to have gotten your pretty lace panities all in a wad over what some obvious "dooshbahg" has to say on an anonymous internet board. Quite the life you lead there.

Yes. I DO have an appropriate screen name. At least I have the guts to admit it instead of trying to pretend to be something I am not, MR. BIG TIME AIRLINE PILOT. Oh wait....I guess that should be MR. BIG TIME TURBOPROP LIFER.

 

[Lear70]

The fact that PCL and Mesaba aren't wholly owned is irrelavant (sp?). A mainline pilot group shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily restrict another carriers opportunity to fly larger a/c if their PWA doesn't self limit them and the mainline scope doesn't include the aircraft in question.

Mesaba/PCL shouldn't interfere with NWALPA's agreement, but NWALPA shouldn't mess with theirs either. NWALPA's affiliation with ALPA prevents them from interfering with another ALPA carriers working agreement too.

That's EXACTLY why the agreement limits PCL and MSA from flying for another carrier. Northwest put a LOT of money and assets into developing Pinchnickle into a major CRJ player and they did it for their own cost / profit benefit. To allow that company, once spun off via an IPO, to then bid on, obtain, and operate flying for another carrier that very well could be direct competition would be worse than foolish... try business economics insanity.

You have to remember what we're talking about here... Northwest is in it for themselves, not for the benefit of a small regional airline's growth and those pilots' future career potential. In the interest of self-preservation, Northwest management will continue to lock down their contract carriers, those carriers will try to expand as profitably as possible, those contract carrier pilots will try to better their career expectancies, and the Northwest pilots will try to protect the increasing loss of their own flying jobs. There's nothing predatory about that whatsoever, that's just simple self-preservation.

Now what ALPA is doing with some of U's wholly-owned's... that's another discussion entirely, but we can have that one on the other thread that's started up on that topic.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"A mainline pilot group shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily restrict another carriers opportunity to fly larger a/c if their PWA doesn't self limit them and the mainline scope doesn't include the aircraft in question. "

Doesn't that logic work both ways??? Northwest mainline's contract doesn't "self-limit" them from flying 70 seaters, and the regionals (Mesaba and PCL) contracts scope don't include the "aircraft in question." Why should it only work one way??

Let me ask you this: I assume you work for either comair or asa. Do you have scope language in your contract that prevents the outsourcing of your flying to outside "contract" carriers?? If you do, aren't you "restricting" the potential of other "contract" carriers to fly larger aircraft if they are asked to by Delta management; contract carriers that are also represented by ALPA??......With the financial mess Delta is saying they are in, I am sure they would love to get rid of the comair regional-industry-leading payscales, and go with a cheaper "contract" carrier (who may also be represented by ALPA). But right now they can't, because you have protected your flying with scope. Kinda like NW mainline is...........And don't forget, you said "The fact that PCL and Mesaba aren't wholly owned is irrelavant", so comair being a wholly-owned shouldn't matter.

 

[Kroll]

Nope, not bitter at all. Not easily duped either.


I'm sure you would welcome Mesaba pilots on the bottom of your list, if you get NW70. By the way, how come you haven't done that before? Am I missing something?

If a Mesaba Avro Captain has to "flow" to the bottom of NW70 as an FO, (probably because his Avro disappears as a result of NW70) what will that do to his pay check? Think he'll get a raise or is he more likely to take a huge hit? His new seniority will also be of great benefit, right? Is that why you're willing to "welcome" him, or is it because the "buffer" will enhance your own seniority and provide some furlough fodder for you?

QUOTE]

It is my understanding that it will be a MAA/PCL pilots choice to come to NW70. I'm sure they will have to interview for the position. I can't imagine everyone from MAA and PCL will freely get to walk right in. Once your in NW70 you hold a NWA number. You know all this though. You have read the jet proposal.

I am a X-MAA pilot as I'm sure you can figure out. Those pilots are some of the best PPL in the industry. They have always (while I was there) looked out for there fellow pilot. I wouldn't wish a furlough on anyone. Let alone PPL I like and respect. Saying what I said had nothing to do with padding myself from a future furlough. Life throws curve balls, so I'm really not worried if there is a single guy under me at NWA (by the way I'm about as close as one can get to the bottom). If I get furloughed again thats life. There was a reason I didn't mention PCL pilots and I will not go there on this board. I hope for all our sakes this turns out to be a better deal.

 

[Caveman]

JohnDoe,

I think we are talking about two different situations. I'm trying to assert that neither group can change any part of their PWA that would impose any restriction on an already contracted affiliate without the affected parties consent. Unless I mistake what you are saying I agree that prior to a company entering into an arrangement with a new pilot group, the new group must adhere to any pre-existing limits between the company and their current pilot group. For example, DALPA's pre-existing scope requirement limiting any code share from flying similar equipment was enforced when ACA opted for the Airbus. As a result they can no longer codeshare. That is good scope and appropriately enforced. When either PWA later becomes ammendable any changes can not negatively affect the other pilot group without their consent. This is where ALPA's duty of fair representation breakes down. As of today, ALPA's policy seems to be that the changes to mainlines PWA should abbrogate the WO PWA with or without the consent of the WO pilots. That is unfair and probably illegal. How this applies to what's going on at NWA is unclear to me because, as previously noted, I'm not as up to speed as I thought I was on the NWA scope conditions.

 

[DoinTime]

There was a reason I didn't mention PCL pilots and I will not go there on this board.

You've already gone there you arrogant a$$. Put away your big Mesaba head and come back down to earth.

They have always (while I was there) looked out for there fellow pilot.

Unless your an FO, then you are on your own.