Northwest pilots offer to fly small jets, for smaller paychecks

[General Lee]

Inclusivescope,


I am not going nuts either. The whole thing here boils down to what Delta wants to do--since they control you and me. If they choose to bargain with Dalpa or ALPA and try to get cost savings from their largest expense---they are going to do it---and it will cost them something in return. Equal representation isn't going to happen from ALPA because Delta isn't taking an equal amount of concessions from you and me. Face it, we work for the same entity--but we don't make the same amount of money or have the same benefits. It is hard to represent different people who don't make the same amount of money. If you guys don't like the representation---then you might have to find a new one.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Remember NWA MEC made the first move in this 70 seat game, not NWA mgmt."

Once again, somebody is posting incorrect BS to try and make their arguement look better. You are wrong.


quote:
"But, all furloughs should be recalled in approx. a year and half gaging only on retirements and small growth. "

As one of the furloughs, again, I will say that is pure BS. I wish it were true, but that is a pipedream. If Northwest started recalling tomorrow at 40 a month, every month (which will never, ever happen), it would take roughly 18 months to get all the remaining furloughs back. Not gonna happen. Sans nw70, last furlough off the street in roughly 2 and a half to three years. And even that may not happen depending on what happens with contract negotiations and/or "investment" proposals, what is going on at Delta, etc..


"What I think everyone is trying to say is that Market dictates. "

NO...! What most people are saying is how they think that big bad mainline is screwing the careers of regional pilots everywhere with their scope.

In regards to NW, its "ok" for -9 routes to be replaced by 50 and 44 seat rjs. Its "ok" that over the last 2.6 years mainline has furloughed 928 pilots while PCL has hired what, 400 pilots?? If affiliate carriers were to get the 70 seaters, I am sure it would be "ok" that those same 70 seaters replaced even more narrowbody flying at mainline, resulting in even longer furlough times. Nobody on the regional side mentions any of those items. All that is "ok," ....but mainline exercises their right to 70 seat flying and everbody cries "bloody murder!! You are hurting our growth!" Hypocrisy at its BEST. As somebody else said, not one regional group out there would get any heartburn if 70 or any other seat flying went to them and resulted in the loss of jobs at mainline. They would be growing. But that is human nature, I am not arguing that, and have brought it up before. Everybody has to look out for themselves. I am tired of the same old "we're getting screwed" arguement, because if the roles were reversed, and you were getting the flying, you would do the exact same thing. Do I like being on the street while PCL grows? Of course not. But what can you do? Management will do what it is they do.

Its ok when mainline loses flying to the regionals, but its not when the regionals lose it to mainline?? Cries of "the union is screwing us" resound! Give me a break. Everybody is out for themselves.

This is not, and will never be, one of those situations where we can all sit around the campfire singing "kum-by-ya" (sp). This is what happens everyday in every facet of our capitalist society. Somebody is going to lose, while another group wins. Pure and simple. All you can do about it is what some have done: take the typical lazy American route when they feel "hey, I think I'm getting screwed, and can't get what I want" and sue!

 

[balls deep340]

Open-mind

quote:
"Remember NWA MEC made the first move in this 70 seat game, not NWA mgmt."

That was said by a NWA pilots post. It is incorrect.

quote:
"But, all furloughs should be recalled in approx. a year and half gaging only on retirements and small growth. "

This will happen take a look at your retirement schedule. NWA Mgmt is saying nothing about it because they will use it as a carrot in the negotiations. Also the 70 seaters won't start coming till 2007 and 2008.


"What I think everyone is trying to say is that Market dictates. "

NO...! What most people are saying is how they think that big bad mainline is screwing the careers of regional pilots everywhere with their scope.

NO....! We are trying to tell you do what will be best for the company in the long haul to secure your job as well as mine. Jet blue and SWA will some day be coming and we need to be ready. NWA70 would cost a fortune to operate and won't help your furloughs. Also who the hell will want to come and work for NWA if you have to start at right seat of a RJ making squat.



America west allows their contractor to fly 90 seaters and now they are getting more airbus's because with the added connector passengers it has allowed them to grow. You need to keep an open mind with more 70 seaters this will bring more feed for more flying at NWA mainline. If you just think about the short run and protecting your jobs you will screw NWA in the long haul. Keep and open mind and look to the future and don't be so scared. Remember George Bush pedals fears and thats how he gets votes.





This is not, and will never be, one of those situations where we can all sit around the campfire singing "kum-by-ya" (sp). This is what happens everyday in every facet of our capitalist society. Somebody is going to lose, while another group wins. Pure and simple. All you can do about it is what some have done: take the typical lazy American route when they feel "hey, I think I'm getting screwed, and can't get what I want" and sue!

NO one is suing anyone we all realize releasing scope is up to you and Mgmts negotiations and we have no control. I'm just saying we will all be better off if you get rid of the 70 seat scope. And yes even the furloughs will be better off. My opinion only. I mean the avro is flying around with 69 seats when it could hold 85 the company is missing out on lots of revenue. What a waste for why? And no it won't keep one extra-9 on the property.

as;ldk

 

[flap operator]

John Doe - just to play a little devils advocate here. So, it isn't right for NWA to furlough whilst PCL grows like mad. It would be a slap in the face for them to get even MORE growth right? What about Mesaba? YOUR company has shrunk Mesaba to the point it is at right now. YOUR company intentionally stopped growth at Mesaba and created the situation we're in now. While PCL hired and CRJs moved into DTW and MSP replacing saab routes, Mesaba furloughed right along side NWA. Thankfully all of our furloughed are back on property (many didn't return after being furloughed and recalled twice or more) and we are hiring... only for attritian however, not growth. Mesaba took its last plane in 2000 and has again, shrunk since 9/11. My quesiton to you is this... is Mesaba anymore worthy of obtaining growth that NWA? In your book, we're not. Why? BECAUSE YOUR COMPANY and YOUR SCOPE LIMIT MESABAs EXISTENCE AND SUCCESS.

I do agree that since your contract captures all flying above 55 seats, you're entitled to it. COmplaining about that would be hypocrytical by all Mesaba folks, since our contract directly limits Big Sky growth in the same very way. It's just hard to want career progression and have that progression totally controlled by another company and their pilots.

I also agree with you it is all self preservation. Only we at the Airlinks can only self preserve what we can control, which is nothing.


FO

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"This will happen take a look at your retirement schedule. NWA Mgmt is saying nothing about it because they will use it as a carrot in the negotiations. Also the 70 seaters won't start coming till 2007 and 2008."


No way, no how, all the recalls are going to be back in 1.5 years. There are not enough retirements in the next 1.5 years to have everybody back due to that. You say management is not saying anything 'cause of contract negotiations. Well, those negotiations will be going on for what, at least another 6-8 months? They won't show that supposed "card" until negotiations are over right? That means that at the end of negotiations they are going to do a mass recall within 1 year......no way. Like I said, as one of those furloughs, I would love for you to be correct. But it will never happen.

"Also the 70 seaters won't start coming till 2007 and 2008."

I agree with that one. These aircraft won't show up on the property overnight. I do see that a good number of furloughs will be back before we have them "en-masse."

With regards to my comment on complaints of mainline screwing regionals, I will apologize to you in that it was not entirely directed towards you. I do, however, stick by my comments on the hypocrisy shown when people whine that mainline is taking growth away from them. And I also stick to my assertion that the majority of posts in this thread are claiming that mainline scope is creating a "lack" of regional growth, its illegal, etc. etc., and they are in turn complaining about it.


"Also who the hell will want to come and work for NWA if you have to start at right seat of a RJ making squat."

If they want to come to a mainline carrier, and that is the only route to it, they will do it. People do it everyday when they agree to work for $21 an hour at a regional.

"You need to keep an open mind with more 70 seaters this will bring more feed for more flying at NWA mainline. "


Yes, I am sure a SMALL percentage may be feed, but lets look at the reality of it. A good portion of the 70 seat flying is not going to be feed. All you have to do is look at the -9 flying that has been replaced by 44 and 50 seat rj's. Also, 44 seats are bypassing the hubs now. The 70 seaters will simply be replacing those smaller aircraft on said routes, and probably starting their own. It is not all going to feed mainline.


"NO one is suing anyone we all realize releasing scope is up to you and Mgmts negotiations and we have no control. "

Again, my bad for not being more specific, and apologies to you. That comment was not directed at the nw situation. It was directed towards the others complaing about mainline scope.

I'll have to get back with more responses, to flap operator as well.......my new parental duty is "calling" once again..I can't catch a break today.......lol

 

[flap operator]

JohnDoe - I'd be interested in seeing proof where 44/50 seaters have replaced so many DC9s. Most new CRJs have gone to upgage saab flying, downgage avros, enter new markets and add frequency. NWA mgmt have always beaten the "DC9s are actually cheaper to operate than RJs" drum. That said, I think NWA is just right sizing markets to match capasity with demand. If you can't fill a 9, why not use smaller shell size? Not very many 9s have even been retired. More 727s, DC10-40s and 747-200s have been retired than 9s. How is that the "fault" of the 44/50 seaters and the folks who fly them. Once again... YOUR company completely controls Mesaba and PCL... we go where they tell us to. Perhaps NWA mainline pilots should have embraced the Airlinkers a long time ago... perhaps we wouldn't be in this pissing match.


FO

 

[JohnDoe]

I just lost the entire friggin post I was working on.......lets try again......

flap operator:
"just to play a little devils advocate here. So, it isn't right for NWA to furlough whilst PCL grows like mad. It would be a slap in the face for them to get even MORE growth right? What about Mesaba? YOUR company has shrunk Mesaba to the point it is at right now. YOUR company intentionally stopped growth at Mesaba and created the situation we're in now. While PCL hired and CRJs moved into DTW and MSP replacing saab routes, Mesaba furloughed right along side NWA"

You'll get no arguements from me on any of those points. I'm not debating whether it is right or wrong. It is what it is. The situation is here and there's nothing we can do about it. Again, the purpose of my post was to call out the hypocritical "BS" I see people posting here with regards to mainline scope screwing them, losing growth, the union screwing them etc. etc. etc.. I used NW as an example because it is the situation that I have "facts" on. I wasn't going to use another carrier's situation for an example as I don't know about them.


"My quesiton to you is this... is Mesaba anymore worthy of obtaining growth that NWA? In your book, we're not. Why? "

I have never, in any of my posts, said one group is more worthy than another, Mesaba included. What I have said, and will say again, is that you get what you can negotiate for. Pure and simple. You were able to negotiate scope against Big Sky. Good for you. You protected your flying.


"It's just hard to want career progression and have that progression totally controlled by another company and their pilots."

Having come from a regional myself, I can understand that.


"I'd be interested in seeing proof where 44/50 seaters have replaced so many DC9s. "

I don't have the time to come up with specific examples of flights, but people I have been reading on the NW mec message board do, and they have come up with examples. One good example was the fact that on a recent bid, there were roughly 100 fewer -9 positions than in the past, and this was for just one domicile, and one position I believe (I might be wrong on the position part, I'll have to verify). Another good example is the recent announcement of increased flying out if IND. I believe 15 of the 19 flights were airlink. Those flights are not feeding mainline. If the affiliates had larger aircraft, I believe that number would have been more. Yes, I would agree that some rjs have gone to saab replacement, and increased frequency. Rightsizing I am sure has happened, and was needed, but not on all routes. Again, others have come up with some very specific examples where downsizing from a -9 was not justified (and no, those -9's were not moved to "new" routes).


"How is that the "fault" of the 44/50 seaters and the folks who fly them. Once again... YOUR company completely controls Mesaba and PCL... we go where they tell us to. "

WHOA, hang on there...... Again, you will never find in any of my posts where I blamed the pilots. Go back and read my second to last post and you will CLEARLY see who I blame. It is not the pilots.


"Perhaps NWA mainline pilots should have embraced the Airlinkers a long time ago... perhaps we wouldn't be in this pissing match."

In my opinion, there is only so much "embracing" that can be done. A single list between any mainline and its regional affiliates is nothing but a dream. It will never happpen. No airline management in this country is ever going to let it happen. They have too much to lose, including a lower-paid employee group, and "whipsaw." By the same token, no employee group out there has the negotiating leverage/capital to demand and receive "one-list."


Better stop before I lose this post too.........

 

[flap operator]

John Doe...MEM is the best example as to 9 flying being replaced. NWa does a fantastic job at right sizing the markets. Since the CRj has made its debut with a red tail route changes including DC9s, saabs, avros and 319/320s have happened so often each quarter it would be near impossible to keep track of. My whole point is that I don't think the CRJs can be blamed as much as they are for job losses at NWA.

You may not have mentioned personal attacks... but it does become personal when NWA controls my career at Mesaba through a scope clause that is in place. You're right, you get what you negotiate. Only as an Airlinker we can't scope mainline, which is where the flying comes from. Whoopty frekaing do... we scoped Big Sky. That still doesnt help the situation at NWA.

I htink we agree on most points, but not all. I see it from an Airlinker and you see it as a former Airlinker and now a mainliner. Much different eyes with much more to see on the other side of the street.

My point about Mesaba being worthy... was to illustrate the fact that Mesaba has shrunk and has had folks on the street at one point. NWA is in a similar situation, but on a much larger scale, only folks believe that NWA is entitled to new jobs and not Mesaba. Because the flying is "owned" by mainline.

I think we'll see a curve ball out of the NWA mgmt boys. They'll get what they want in some form and so will the NWA pilots. The folks that will really get screwed are the Airlinkers... which would only be par for the course. IMO this will morph into a J4J situation will will create mutiny at Mesaba.

We're slipping down the slippery slope now... and it's going to get crazier.


FO

 

[JohnDoe]

"and you see it as a former Airlinker and now a mainliner. "

Actually, I don't even really consider myself a mainliner........LOL I haven't been there in 2 years 7 months and roughly 5 days, and was only there for 6 months when I was......lol At this point, I feel more entrenched back in the corporate/135 world (ahhhh....nothing like being on call 7 days a week, 365).


"...only folks believe that NWA is entitled to new jobs and not Mesaba. Because the flying is "owned" by mainline."

Well, I can only speak for myself and what I think others are saying. Its not so much a sense of "entitlement" per se because they are at mainline, as it is a sense of "ownership." We (they) have a piece of paper signed by management that says they get all flying above 55 seats. As I have agreed to before, management ultimately "owns" all the flying. They agreed to give that segment to mainline. --Sidenote to surplus: Yes, yes, surplus, once again, it is not forever. Nobody's contract is (well, Eagle comes close with that ridiculous 16 year contract), and I don't recall seeing anybody say they thought it was forever.


"I think we'll see a curve ball out of the NWA mgmt boys. "

No doubt about that one.........We'll have to wait and see what happens.


"We're slipping down the slippery slope now... and it's going to get crazier."

With regards to this entire profession you got that right. I see it going the way of the maritime industry. Between cabotage/foreign ownership, current administration politics, terrorist attacks, the price of oil, bankruptcies, LCC's willing to fly fo on a 100 seat aircraft for what, 39 an hour, a successfull outcome of the rjdc's case (which, if they are successful in getting rid of Delta's scope, could result in every alpa carriers scope being demolished, and we'll all be working for mesa wages ) etc. etc. etc., the next 10 years will be interesting.


But hey......we get to fly for a living right??? Thats all that matters, LOL . Bueller, bueller.....anybody...right?? One of the best lines I've seen somebody say on this board is "never do for a career what some people do as a hobby." I guess I should add a disclaimer to this last paragraph that states this is not an attack or response to anybody in this thread, so that it is not misunderstood as such.

 

[InclusiveScope]

MEC Hotline Friday, Aug. 6th.

This is a NWA Master Executive Council (MEC) Hotline recorded on Friday, August 6, 2004.

This Hotline contains new information about a negotiations update and the "No Availability Option" program.

There is repeat information about the latest Ziplines.

NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE
NWA management responded yesterday to ALPA's 70-seat small jet proposal by restating its original proposal; one that includes the ability to outsource the 70-seat flying and reduce the restrictions on jets with 55 and fewer seats. Management's proposal was promptly rejected by the MEC Negotiating Committee. Management negotiators were told that NWA pilots have already “bought and paid for” the rights to fly aircraft larger than 55 seats so if NWA purchases these jets, NWA pilots will fly them. ALPA is waiting for management to make serious proposals on major issues and is still prepared to negotiate mutually beneficial solutions on the “investment agreement” path. However, if investment agreement negotiations fail, ALPA is prepared to resume traditional Section 6 negotiations. The next negotiating session is scheduled for the week of August 9.

 

[DoinTime]

JohnDoe - I'd be interested in seeing proof where 44/50 seaters have replaced so many DC9s. Most new CRJs have gone to upgage saab flying, downgage avros, enter new markets and add frequency.

The best example of how RJ's have been replacing mainline equipment is in cities like LIT, GSO, TYS, ect. What looks like new service on the surface like twice daily MSP-GSO (a route previously not flown) is actually a means of distributing traffic throughout the hubs. When you put 100 more seats a day on MSP-GSO you decrease the demand for traffic going to both DTW and MEM. This necessitates downgrading equipment from mainline to RJ's in those markets as well.

Allowing 44-seaters to bypass hubs is a blessing to Northwest. It allows them to flood a market that is being served by a competitor with minimal costs. NW would never aggressively go after IND if they had to do it with mainline equipment. They tried that in MKE and lost their a$$ with load factors in the 20% range on some routes. Now you see RJ's everywhere in MKE.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 3 (Another long one for the General)

Surplus1,

While much of what you say may be true I have to disagree with several of your opinions.

That's fine. If you noticed, at the end of my last post I said that I was not asking anyone to agree with me. What I was asking is that you think about this. You are doing that, which means we can have a discussion of the issues.

I believe that we have the problems that we do because there has been no serious discussion and therefore little understanding of the real issues. Normally what we do is "take sides" and square off against each other. That locked in mind-set, regardless of which side it comes from does not lead to understanding. In turn, if there is no understanding there can be no meeting of minds and no solutions.

In my opinion, this is the dream problem for what is known as "Interest Based Bargaining". For those that aren't familiar with what that is, you might want to do a little reading on the subject.

Personally, I have no interest in "choosing sides" with respect to this "NW70" proposal. It is merely a vehicle that I can use in an attempt to promote dialogue. I do not see this "NW70" proposal as the culprit or the cause of the union's problems. It is merely an exacerbation of them; more of the same old song and dance. I'm not against NW pilots nor am I for MSA/PCL pilots. What I want is a solution to the problems that threaten all of us. No faction is more important to me than the other.

In the last diatribe, I asked several questions. In the various rebuttals so far, I can't help but notice that no one, on either side of the issues, has made any attempt to respond to the questions. Instead we just dig in with preconceived ideas and critiques of how long the post was. (This one is even longer).

As the General says, I'm "not getting my point across". Well, why is that? Based on his posts and others like it the answer is pretty simple. His mind is made up and there is just no way that he is going to allow his opinions to be changed by the facts, regardless of the source. That attitude is precisely why our union has these conflicts and is unable to resolve them. The people in power have no desire to find solutions. They are determined to pursue their prejudiced opinions, regardless of any facts or realities. I do not think that is an intelligent approach.

Instead of focusing on who is right or who is wrong we need to focus on what can be done to resolve the problem. We have been attacking the results (treating the symptoms) and ignoring the cause. That is not effect methodology.

Most of the posts I have seen on here has been about how the MSA and PCL pilots may be screwed by this deal and it is not right.

That has not been my intent so if that's what you got from my posts (I can't speak for others) then I have failed to communicate. So, I'm trying again.

Well, I'm sorry but take a look at it from the NWA pilots view. These aircraft are a DIRECT replacement for the short -9 fleet and that will cause several hundred downgrades or job losses if the 70 seaters were given away.

I do want to consider the perspective of the NW pilots, which cannot be ignored if we really want to solve the problem. However, I don't agree that your fears will come to pass. Try a different approach. Let's suppose that these RJ's did not exist. Would the DC9-10 gain perpetual life as a result? The answer is no, eventually it would be phased out. If the "regionals" did not exist, what would the NW pilots do then? Answer: they would transition to the larger aircraft that replace the DC-9 or, if there was not enough work for all some would be furloughed (as now).

How do we go about guaranteeing that these new RJs do not replace the DC9-10 and cost the NW pilots jobs? That's one of the problems that we need to solve. Moving the DC9-10 pilots to the RJ70 and a contract-within-a-contract (NW70) may shift jobs but it will not recover or retain jobs. Those shifted jobs will be at substantially lower compensation, benefits and work rules. That is the equivalent of asking these NW pilots to go and work for Mesaba, except for the fact they retain a NW "number". Is that really the best solution? I don't think it is. That won't solve the problem it will actually increase the problem.

Would it not be better to find a contractual solution that does not permit any loss of flying or reduction in force and also maintains the normal life style that NW pilots have become accustomed to? For example, what if instead of a scope clause that says the Company can't subcontract any 70-seaters, we were to say that the company cannot reduce its block hours or furlough any pilot as a result of any subcontracting?

I certainly don't have all the answers. Perhaps I don't have any answers at all. However, there are about 60 thousand pilots in the ALPA. Surely from among them somebody has the smarts to put their heads together and find a solution that is equitable for all. ALPA will argue that it has done so with the BSIC. I will argue that the BSIC is ALPA's second failed attempt and solving this problem with an ineffective committee with little more than the authority to wipe its nose.

Why doesn't that happen? Well, I have an opinion on that too. It doesn't happen because no one is really trying to find an answer. Instead we just square off against each other and proclaim "what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too." "See me, I'm king of the hill" Unfortunately, that doesn't work for anyone.

The 50 seaters and Avros have already been used to keep NWA pilots on the street and used as leverage in negotiations, but I don't hear any noise about that.

With that I can't agree. Perhaps they have been used as leverage in negotiations but that is a by-product of your own (NW pilot's) behavior. I don't think the Avros or the 50-seaters have cost the NW pilots even one job. On the contrary I think the evidence would support the reality that many more NW pilots would be "on the street" if it were not for the passengers that these airplanes bring to the mainline. Additionally, NWA would have no presence in many markets thus further reducing its revenue stream and causing even greater job loss.

If at some point in time NW had been operating these small aircraft types (I don't mean 30 years ago) and they were then transferred to Mesaba or Pinnacle, what you say would be true. That did not happen. If NW pilots had an interest in this type of flying, you would never have permitted it to be subcontracted in the first instance. When that was allowed, way back when, you lost nothing, you simply agreed that it was OK for someone else to do what you did not want to do yourselves. Now you remind me of people that want the Mexican fruit pickers to go back to Mexico while at the same time they refuse to pick fruit. The whole idea that you have lost jobs to the feeders is a fabrication and it doesn't hold water.

Maybe you never should have given control of that work to the Company, but you did, and you did so voluntarily. Now that you are losing jobs for totally unrelated reasons, you want this work back. Unfortunately for you, other workers who were not above doing it are now doing that work. It now belongs to them and you can't have it back without putting them "on the street". That may be fine for you but is not an acceptable solution for them.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 3

The union is doing what it has to do to protect those jobs. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty.

Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. Yes, the union has the responsibility to protect your jobs. What you seem to ignore is the fact that the very same union has an identical responsibility to protect the jobs of the MSA and PCL pilots. If the union takes your jobs and gives them to MSA and PCL that is dereliction of duty; agreed. If the union takes the MSA and PCL jobs and gives them to you that is an equal dereliction of duty. Will you agree to that?

That is the Catch 22. We have but one union. It cannot legally favor your interests at the expense of its other members interests. It also cannot favor their interests at your expense. That is exactly the position in which our union (ALPA) has placed itself.

When an irresistible force meets and imovable object what is the outcome? What you seem to advocate is that the union should do everything in its power to protect you and if in the process it has to shaft the others, then so be it. That sir is robbing Peter (MSA/PCL) to pay Paul (NWA). "A government [union] which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw

I agree that if the tables were reversed the MSA or PCL pilots would probably do exactly what you say they would; i.e., not worry about what happens to NW pilots. Why is it so difficult for you to see that you are doing the very same thing? How do two wrongs suddenly make one right?

We will never solve this dilemma if we maintain those attitudes, and if we do not solve the problem it will ultimately destroy the union. It is long past time for us to put our heads together and develop a solution that can satisfy both sides of the argument.

Regardless, the Avros have a shelf life, NW70 or no those jobs are going to go away and be replaced by 50 seaters. Replaced at MSA or PCL, who knows?

The prospect almost seems to please you. Why? And why do they have to be replaced by 50-seaters, because your "scope clause" says so? Why can't an aircraft of the same size replace them? If they are replaced by a 50-seater or not replaced at all, will it not result in a loss of pay and benefits for those pilots? Why should they be required to lose pay because of your scope clause? That is an unreasonable imposition as well as a dereliction of duty on the part of ALPA. "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" although I have little doubt you will not see it that way.

I am not going to touch the CMR and U agreements because they are materially different.

Yes, the agreements are different, but the underlying cause of the problems is the same. Groups of pilots are being negatively affected by other groups of pilots and the union that we all belong to is the force behind it all. That union's policy of preferential treatment for certain groups and discrimination against others is the root of the problem. Policies don't just happen they are put in place by men. When the men in charge have the attitude that the group from which they come has the right to do as it pleases without regard for others, then we get what we now have; a house divided against itself.

However, in the case of the Airlinks they are, like it or not, contractors. Those contractors have no say so what the company may offer to them and the contractor's union are crazy if they think they can legally force the employing company to outsource work that is not being offered, REGARDLESS OF THE REASON.

Guess what, I agree with you. However, I do not think there is any evidence to indicate that the bargaining units (union) at either Mesaba or PCL have made any attempt to force NW to outsource more work.

In the situation at CMR, which I admit is different, the CMR pilots' union is also not trying to force Delta to outsource more work. It is trying to prevent the Delta pilots' and our union from changing the amount of outsourced work retroactively. In other words we are not saying "you must outsource more", we are saying "you can't take back what you have already outsourced after the fact unless we agree to it." You (Delta pilots) agreed to outsource all flying in 70-seats and below without limitation. We started doing it. Now you want to come back and say that we can't do that any more because you changed your mind. Sorry, it's too late and no, you can't do that. What's more it is against the law for the union to do so. Remember, there is no union named DALPA. Our union is the Air Line Pilots Association, International.

In other words, the NWA pilots have an agreement with NWA as to what work may be outsourced. The contractor has no say so outside of the contract they sign to demand any more work.

OK, I agree with that too. But, the subcontractor has not demanded anything. It is the NW pilots that seek to change the agreement in a way that would eliminate the 36 Avros, after the fact. ALPA can't do that, legally. If you don't want to outsource the other 36 aircraft that the company would like you to that's fine, but you can't take back the 36 that are already there. So, if the company changes the aircraft type from Avro to CR7, 36 should go to MSA and you (NW) can do what you want with the rest. In other words, NW pilots need to keep the agreement they made and stop trying to change it to something that favors them more at the expense of the MSA pilots. Just as you don't want them to do that to you, you should not think that you could do it to them.

So your line or reasoning is off base in that the NWA pilots have no obligation to take care of the Airlinks. In fact, in theory, they can renegotiate the scope clause and reclaim all of the outsourced work and the Airlinks would cease to exist at the end of their contract or by use of an escape clause.

Well it looks like my line of reasoning may not be as "off base" as you claim. I agree completely that the NW pilots have no obligation to take care of the Airlinks. However, when you tell me that you feel you can reclaim all the outsourced work and cause them to cease to exist, I say, you aren't part of the solution you're part of the problem.

The NW pilots may be able to do that but what you obviously fail to understand or acknowledge, I'm not sure which, is that NW pilots belong to ALPA and so do MSA and PCL pilots. ALPA is the bargaining agent, not the NW pilots. The NW pilots can't make any agreement with NWA unless that agreement is approved and signed by the ALPA President. Like it or not, you are NOT independent and you are not autonomous. If the ALPA allows you to make an agreement that puts MSA and PCL out of business causing its own members to lose their jobs, ALPA is liable for violating its Duty of Fair Representation to the MSA and PCL pilots and it is ALPA that will be sued out of existence.

If you all (NW pilots) want to leave the ALPA you are free to do so, but as long as you are there ALPA does not have the legal right to enter into any agreement on your behalf that harms its own members. That's just the way it is.

I am very much aware that "mainline" pilots don't see it that way. You all have the attitude that you run the show and can do whatever you want, but you're also very quick to say that others can't feed you some of your own medicine. You yourself just demonstrated that above when you told me that the MSA/PCL pilots had no right to demand more outsourced work, but you have the right to negotiate them out of business.

I'll make a blunt statement: If you folks (mainline pilots) do not change that attitude this union will come to an end. Your ancestors at NWA were among the founders of this union. You are free to secede if you wish but that seems unwise. If and when you make that decision you won't just lose some of the rights you now erroneously think you have, you will lose them all. You will open a Pandora's Box the likes of which you can't even imagine. You will trigger a bidding war, not for 70-seaters but for ALL of your flying. To keep it, you will have to become the "lowest bidder" or your own Company will sell your work to anyone that will do it for less. If you think $400 millions is too large a concession try that and I guarantee you it will look like a drop in the bucket.

I don't want that to happen and I sincerely hope that we can come to our senses and avoid it. That won't come to pass as long as we believe that we can step on each other with impunity.

Airline managers don't care who flys the airplanes, they only care how much it costs them to pay for flight crews. When there are flight crews that will do for $100 dollars what they now have to pay you $279 to do, you will either accept lower wages or you will lose the jobs. It is that simple. Yes, you have a "contract", but when the time comes you will not be able to get a renewed agreement unless you make drastic concessions. You can strike if you want to, and you can also be replaced.

If you are going to "bid" for my work by offering to do it for 1/2 or 3/4 of what I am paid, I will have to match and better your bid to keep my job. When it comes down to survival, that will happen.

The onus of being called a "scab" will not protect you. ALPA already has in its at least a thousand of scabs that did just that. They replaced striking pilots at CAL. It will happen again and it will be much worse this time.

We can avoid this civil war and the chaos that will come to all by making reasonable judgements and prudent agreements with each other that protect us all.

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 3 of 3 (Aren't you glad its over)

My point is that while the negotiations at NWA will affect the Airlinks they have no claim to any of the flying that they do other than the fact they are paid a contract rate to do X amount of flying. NWA tells them when, where, and what to do, but ultimately it belongs to NWA mainline.

You are absolutely correct, except for one thing that you miss completely. Your entire point is based on the idea that YOU (the NW pilots) are NWA mainline. I hate to burst your bubble but you are not. The work or the flying does not belong to the NW pilots and it does not belong to the Airlink pilots. ALL of it belongs to the Company, Northwest Airlines.

That's the mistake that all mainline pilots make. In fact, I don't think it's a mistake at all for you know the same thing that I know. It's a deliberate and orchestrated effort by the union to convince regional pilots that you really do "own" the flying and you're doing them a favor by letting them have the scraps that you don't want. It's all a giant scam that a lot of "babes in the woods" have bought into.

The fact is you don't own squat, you simply have a contractual right to do some of the Company's flying. Well guess what, so do we. You are "contractors" and we are "contractors" and in reality we are both contracting with the same Company. As you pointed out earlier NWA controls everything that its contractors, meaning MSA/PCL, do. You were right about that, you just haven't figured out that you are one of those contractors. The only difference is the corporate shell games, the main purpose of which is management's desire to humor you.

The Company has an obligation to bargain with you because you are represented by a labor union. But, the Company has no obligation to agree with you. If you can't come to an agreement you may withdraw your services or they may lock you out and hire replacements. The rules for you are no different than the rules for us and, on top of that, we are represented by the same union.

When things get tough and you strike they don't replace you only because it's a big hassle and it's very expensive. Replacements are not readily available because the Union binds us together and we don't cross each other's picket lines. Times have changed and we now live in a world where there are thousands of unemployed and readily available replacements, equally qualified. If the union implodes you will also destroy that bond and things will degrade to a free-for-all. "Be careful what you ask for, you might get it."

None of this will happen overnight, but we are at the beginning of what could lead to a civil war. I'm not advocating it but I am predicting it. I would like us to heed the warnings, on both sides, and take action that stops this trend and prevents the destruction of what has been a great union for all of us. That action must eliminate the conflicts of interest that are prevalent now and increasing almost daily.

You'll notice that I do not subscribe to the 'Family' concept because it simply isn't a family. Just a company utilizing contracted services for supplemental lift.

Welcome to my club. I don't subscribe to the "family" concept either. There is no such thing. That whole idea is a part of the scam and so, by the way, is the latest version of it called "brand scope".

As long as we have separate seniority lists the only common bond is membership in the same labor union. If that common membership is destroyed, regardless of the reason, there will be no bond at all and we will be competing openly for the same work.

To prevent that from happening we do need a dividing line that determines how the work will be allocated. We have a conflict because one of the two parties believes that it has the sole, I presume God-given, right to draw that line wherever it wants too, and that it may redraw the line at any time how an where it chooses. That is the error. If the line of demarcation is to be honored it must be fixed by mutual agreement of both parties. Thereafter, it can only be changed with the consent of both parties. I can't think of any other feasible way to end the disputes, short of a single "list", which just isn't going to hppen. If you or anyone else can my ears are wide open. All I know is that the concept of "my way or the highway" just doesn't work.

It is much like a merger. When a merger occurs we must both decide how the seniority list will be integrated. That requires negotiations and a mutual agreement. When the negotiations don't produce agreement we have an agreed method of resolving the dispute; arbitration. It is not a perfect system and folks do get hurt sometimes but it is a lot better than no system at all. In the absence of that system, we can always revert to the infamous Allegheny/Mohawk protocol, which was a government-imposed system for protecting the interests of competing labor groups.

The bottom line of all this comes right back to the union. As you said, the failure of the union to protect the interests of the NW pilots would be a dereliction of duty, I agree with that. You must recognize that a failure of the union to protect the interests of the MSA and PCL pilots is the very same dereliction of duty. "Dam_ed if you do, dam_ed if you don't." This is the dichotomy that we must resolve.

ALPA has done nothing to limit the regionals' rights to fly aircraft, their companies have chosen not to fly those aircraft because they could not profitably do so within their agreements they made to get the contract flying. So don't blame ALPA, if you want larger aircraft look at your own company. (i.e. I-Air)

I wish I could share that perspective but I don't. Broaden your own scope just a little and you may be able to see what ALPA has actually done. I would gladly look to my own company for more aircraft or larger aircraft if I were free to do so. I can't because ALPA has not only permitted but actively supports and helps a foreign pilot group to write a scope clause than prohibits me from doing so. The purpose of Scope is to protect the work that you have, not to take or limit the work of others. That is a perversion of Scope.

For years almost every mainline carrier has resorted, with the full support of ALPA, to assorted perversions of the Scope clause. Not only that, they continue to attempt to "tighten" that scope clause in an effort to reduce or remove the work that we already do or force its transfer to the other group. By the way, the proposed "NW70" in its current format would do just that, i.e., force the transfer of the 36 Avros from MSA to NW pilots. Let's not ignore the fact that the 36 Avros are included in the "NW70" proposal for 72-jets. Yes, ALPA is to blame. ALPA is the exclusive bargaining agent and bares full responsibility for all contracts negotiated in its name and signed by its President. Hiding behind the myth of MEC autonomy just won't fly.

In my airline's situation, I can't ask my company to sever its relationship like I-Air did, because my company is a wholly owned subsidiary of another company. When my company was not a wholly owned subsidiary, it was free to do as you suggest, but that is no longer the case. ALPA didn't make my company a subsidiary and I don't blame ALPA for that. However, ALPA did help by refusing to support a merger. I blame ALPA for creating a scope clause, at another airline, that imposes limitations on my work that did not previously exist, and for doing so without my consent.

My pilot group doesn't want anybody's 737's or DC9's or anything else they have and is not trying to take them. On the other hand the pilot group with which we are "affiliated" has, with the full support of the ALPA, consistently attempted to take our 70-seaterss, limit our 70-seaters, limit our 50-seaters, and restrict our operation.

What we also don't want and will not accept is a series of unilaterally imposed, arbitrary and patently unnecessary restrictions on the work that we do, which impede our growth and cost us millions in lost compensation and benefits. These restrictions are not sought by my company and are not wanted by its parent company, they are imposed by ALPA on behalf of a different pilot group. I pay dues to have the union represent my interests. I don't expect those interests to be "sold" to another pilot group.

It is indeed a dereliction of duty on the part of ALPA, and it is also against the law. I post because I do not want to see the dereliction continue. It is time for the ALPA to change, an the time is now.

The End (at last)

 

[Apollo]

Well said. Hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!!!

 

[Caveman]

Surplus,

Outstanding post! I don't normally sit on the sidelines and let someone else do all the grunt work, but you are way out of my league on this topic. Let me know where to show up and I'll at least carry the briefcase for you.

 

[surplus1]

Surplus,

Outstanding post! I don't normally sit on the sidelines and let someone else do all the grunt work, but you are way out of my league on this topic. Let me know where to show up and I'll at least carry the briefcase for you.

Thank you for the very kind words. I don't write because I like to read my own rhetoric. I sincerely believe we have a very serious problem in our union and I would like to see it amicably and fairly resolved. However, I will not sacrifice the future of Comair pilots on the altar of ALPA hegemony. When the chips are really down, I know who my brothers truly are, all 1788 .... minus about 5, plus a few that retired.

Now about that briefcase ..... next time I see ya, I'll take you up on the offer.

Fly safe and
Semper Fi
Surplus1

 

[FDJ2]

Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. Yes, the union has the responsibility to protect your jobs. What you seem to ignore is the fact that the very same union has an identical responsibility to protect the jobs of the MSA and PCL pilots. If the union takes your jobs and gives them to MSA and PCL that is dereliction of duty; agreed. If the union takes the MSA and PCL jobs and gives them to you that is an equal dereliction of duty. Will you agree to that?

That is the Catch 22. We have but one union. It cannot legally favor your interests at the expense of its other members interests. It also cannot favor their interests at your expense. That is exactly the position in which our union (ALPA) has placed itself.

A union breaches its duty of fair representation if its actions "can fairly be characterized as so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness' . . . that [they are] wholly 'arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.'" O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (quotation omitted). Judicial review of union action, however, "'must be highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude that [unions] need for the effective performance of their bargaining responsibilities.'" Gvozdenovic v. United Air Lines, Inc., 933 F.2d 1100, 1106 (2d Cir. 1991) (quoting O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67).



"[A] union's actions are arbitrary only if, in light of the factual and legal landscape at the time of the union's actions, the union's behavior is so far outside a 'wide range of reasonableness,' . . . as to be irrational." O'Neill, 499 U.S. at 67 (quoting Ford Motor Co., 345 U.S. at 338). A union's reasoned decision to support the interests of one group of employees over the competing interests of another group does not constitute arbitrary conduct. See, e.g., Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 892 F.2d 216, 221 (2d Cir. 1989); Jones v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 495 F.2d 790, 798 (2d Cir. 1974).

 

[jarhead]

A union's reasoned decision to support the interests of one group of employees over the competing interests of another group does not constitute arbitrary conduct. See, e.g., Haerum v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 892 F.2d 216, 221 (2d Cir. 1989); Jones v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 495 F.2d 790, 798 (2d Cir. 1974).[/color][/size][/QUOTE]​

​

[/FONT]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


There is the saying, “you can please most of the people most of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time”.

Indeed, there are times when the union simply cannot please all of the groups. When this happens, it may have no choice but to support the interests of one group over the interests of another. But when the union does have a choice, it may not support the interests of one group at the expense of another.

Here are 2 examples: In the first example we'll see a man favor his eldest son over his youngest. The second example shows the same man favoring his eldest son at the expense of his youngest.

Let’s assume that it is December 23'rd and a last-second Christmas sale exists at a local bicycle shop.

Example 1:

A father, desperate to locate Christmas gifts for his two boys, wanders into the bike shop and buys the only two bikes remaining in the store. They are the same exact bike, only the colors are different. He is a poor man, yet elects to spend the rest of his savings on these last two bikes - despite the no return policy associated with them.

On Christmas morning the two bikes shined like gems while parked next to the tree. But, much to the man’s chagrin, both boys ran towards the red bike. At this moment, the father knew that he had to decide which of his two boys would receive the red bike (supporting the interest of that son over the other) and who would receive the blue bike.

The father decided to let the older boy have the red bike.

Example 2:

During the following months the youngest boy spent his days earning money so that he could fix up his blue bike. He added a bell, and even a light to it. The older boy did not take care of his red bike but he used it constantly. One day he took it to the pool, forgot to lock it up, and it was stolen.

When the older boy came home he ran to his father to ask if he could have another new bike, but his father did not have the money to do that. He then saw his younger brother’s blue bike. It still shined like a gem. He wanted it badly. The boy then asked if he could take his brothers bike for himself. His father suggested that they share the bike but the older boy stated he’d like to take the bike to the pool everyday so sharing was out of the question.

The father really wanted to please his oldest boy, so he took the blue bike from the younger boy and gave it to him.

 

[surplus1]

FDJ2,

In classic form your focus has returned to proving who is right without regard to what is right. You want to "win" and you don't care how you do it.

It is sad that you and those who think like you are obviously disinterested in finding any solutions to the problems we face. All that you want to do is "get your way". I'm not even sure that you realize that a problem exists, let alone how serious it may become.

ALPA's thinking appears to match your thinking rather well. You are prefect players on the stage of the "Ostrich Effect" -- bury your heads in the sand and then wonder as to why you cannot see the world around you. You have become part and parcel of the problem, rather than the solution.

I can only hope that your attitudes will not be the one's that prevail. If they do, there will undoubtedly be weeping and nashing of teeth; primarily yours. You don't get that either.

You are correct in the sense that ALPA and other unions have won most DFR litigation and perhaps ALPA will win again. If it does, the problems won't go way, they'll just get bigger. Soon after you proclaim "victory" you will come to the recognition of reality. You will have won the battle and lost the war. Your "thrill of victory" will undoubtedly be short lived as you begin the new bidding war, and the stakes will be your own jobs.

When it's over you may once again declare yourselves the victor but what is left will be the ashes of what you have today and not worth having.

I don't find that prospect entertaining and when it happens, you won't either.