Northwest pilots offer to fly small jets, for smaller paychecks

[DoinTime]

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.

ComairALPA does not run Comair. ComairALPA contracts work with Comair, they inturn contract work with Delta. There is no connection between you and Delta, let alone DALPA. Regardless if you are wholley owned or not you are a CONTRACT CARRIER that must always abide by your Air Service Agreement.

I would have thought the introduction of new affiliates (CHQ) would have clued you in that ComairALPA doesn't control anything outside of Comair.

 

[Caveman]

Deleted

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

ComairALPA does not run Comair. ComairALPA contracts work with Comair, they inturn contract work with Delta. There is no connection between you and Delta, let alone DALPA. Regardless if you are wholley owned or not you are a CONTRACT CARRIER that must always abide by your Air Service Agreement.

First, I did not see anything in Caveman's post that claims CMRALPA "runs" Comair. I also don't see any such claim being made by other known CMR pilots writing in this thread. That's the kind of claim you would typically find in a "mainline" pilots' post, usually expanded to include not only his own airline but the airlines of others; we of CMR have made no such claim.

Second, you are mistaken when you say that there is "no connection" between us (CMR) and Delta; there most definitely is. DAL owns CMR Holdings and Comair, Inc.; it is the Parent Corporation. There could not be a more direct "connection". Like it or not, Delta, ASA and Comair are in fact a single carrier in every sense of the legal criteria embraced by the National Mediation Board. [If you wish, refer to the NMB website where you will find those criteria.]

Our "separateness" is imposed, purposely by our union and also by the management of our "Parent Corporation" which gains much by willingly accepting the benefits of the union's faux pas. It is at best "strange" when a labor union chooses to "get in bed" with management and oppose the best interests of its own membership.

Third, you are correct when you say that there is no connection between CMRALPA and DALPA. The absence of the "connection" is the direct result of overt action taken unilaterally by the DMEC, with the full support of the ALPA.

Fourth, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, CMR and ASA are not "contract carriers", they are subsidiaries of Delta Air Lines, just as Song is a subsidiary of Delta Air Lines. [The only real difference lies in who pilots the aircraft.] As such, there is no need for a "service agreement" between the parties. Comair is unable to "agree" or "disagree" with anything that Delta chooses to do. That is substantially different from a subcontractor, which is an independent corporation making a voluntary agreement with another corporation for the provision of services, a vendor. No "service agreement" and no "consent" are required of Comair to do business for Delta; Comair is a "wholly owned subsidiary". Comair has no "equity" (shares), Comair has no independent Board of Directors, Comair is totally controlled by Delta Air Lines. Delta issues directives and Comair complies. Choice is not a component of the equation.

I would have thought the introduction of new affiliates (CHQ) would have clued you in that ComairALPA doesn't control anything outside of Comair.

Interestingly, CMRALPA does not only fail to control anything outside of Comair, it fails equally to control anything inside Comair. Likewise, it controls nothing at Delta and does not pretend to do so.

By definition Chautauqua is not an "Affiliate" of Delta Air Lines. Comair and ASA are both "Affiliates". Republic Holdings ("Parent" of Chautauqua) is neither owned nor controlled by Delta Air Lines and its Board of Directors is not appointed or controlled by Delta. It is a separate and independent entity free to make, enter or exit agreements with Delta or anyone else. That is precisely why it has its very own "portfolio" of partners. Perhaps you do not understand the difference; nevertheless it exists.

Those technicalities though interesting are not really germane to this discussion, which is not about the ownership of Comair or its relationship to Delta Air Lines.

The discussion is about the potential impact of the proposal known as "NW70" with respect to the compensation of non-NWA pilot groups operating 70-seat (and smaller) jets and the job security of pilots in the employ of airlines subcontracting with NWA.

Most of us recognize that the NW pilots' CBA (collective bargaining agreement) includes a provision that "caps" the flying between NWA and its subcontractors and limits the subcontractor to aircraft with less than 56-seats. We also know that there is a grandfather exemption for 36 Avro jets (configured with 69-seats) and operated by Mesaba Airlines. That "provision" was included in the NW CBA in 1998.

Did it ever occur to anyone to ask how that provision got there, why there is an exemption for Mesaba Avros, what existed before that and what, if any input, the pilots of Mesaba, or the company Mesaba may have had or did not have in the sequence of events? I speculate not since most of you seem to presume that the NW pilots possessed an inherent right to negotiate such a proviso at the expense of the Mesaba pilots. I don't happen to share that view, but that's another issue.



It appears, from comments made in this thread, that certain members of the NW pilot group regard this "scope clause" as though it were etched in stone, much like the Ten Commandments. While they are certainly entitled to that opinion, it should not be confused with fact. That "clause" is no more than a contractual provision, which is subject to amendment and change whenever the NW CBA becomes amendable under Section 6 of the RLA. It is not different from pay rates, work rules or any other provision of the contract.

The NW pilots are currently in negotiations with their management. Those negotiations are the result of their contract having reached and passed its "amendable" date. They are also regarded as "concessionary" due to the fact that the Company is seeking to change the contract in a variety of ways that, if agreed, would result in substantial changes in the CBA that do not represent gains or improvements for the NW pilots. Estimates indicate that the value of concessions sought by NWA might equal $400 millions. In turn the NW pilots have offered concessions that they estimate to be valued at $200 millions.

Among the proposals made by the Company are changes to Section 1 of the CBA that would amend the "scope clause" and increase the cap from 55-seats to 70-seats, thus permitting NWA to subcontract flying in 72 small jets of the 70-seat variety. Apparently (which I can't yet confirm) that number of seventy-two (72) includes the 36 Avros currently operated by Mesaba. Once more, the devil is in the details, which appear to be carefully guarded secrets.

The NW pilots' negotiators do not wish to amend Section 1 of the CBA in the way the Company has proposed. Therefore, they have elected to make a counter proposal, which they label as "NW70". The principle substance of this proposal is that the 72 "small jets" proposed by the Company would be operated by NWA itself and staffed by pilots on the NW seniority list, in lieu of their being operated by subcontractors.



At face value, there is nothing wrong, evil or improper in the NW pilots' proposal, unless of course that magic number of "72" in fact includes the 36 Avros currently operated by Mesaba. If it does NOT include those aircraft so far so good, if it does include them, we have a major problem.

Those portions of the "NW70" proposal that have so far been made public are not clear on this detail. Those of us that have not seen the actual detailed "proposal" cannot determine exactly what it means. The released summary is not adequate for that purpose. However, since this is an "opinion" forum we can speculate, provided that speculation is not irrational.

If the detailed "NW70" proposal does incorporate the 36 Avros in the magic number of "72"- 70-seat aircraft, it follows that the positions for pilots that currently crew those Avro aircraft at Mesaba would transfer to the NW pilots if their proposal is accepted by the Company. Perhaps not immediately but certainly eventually as the Avros are replaced by more efficient aircraft. Obviously, we can't have one aircraft crewed simultaneously by the pilots of two different airlines. That raises the obvious question. If "NW70" comes to be, what happens to the Mesaba pilots that now staff the Avros at Mesaba? The available information does not make that clear. I have little doubt that the detailed proposal does.

We know that the "NW70" proposal includes some type of "flow-up" for the pilots of the subcontractors, which presumably includes both MSA and PCL. Again the "details" are not outlined clearly in the information "released" by the NW MEC. All that we do know is that the proposal gives "priority" to furloughed NW pilots. Priority over whom and particularly to what extent remains elusive.

We already know that the terms of the "agreement" between Mesaba Holdings and NWA permit NWA to cancel the operation of the Avros on very short notice. This was "threatened" and nearly came to pass during recent negotiations at Mesaba. That raises yet another question. Should NWA decide to cancel the Avro operation, and replace those aircraft with new CR7's operated under "NW70" by NW pilots, what happens to the Mesaba pilots that now fly them? They could hope that MSA might add some 50-seat jets, they could downgrade to the Saab (with the juniors being furloughed) or they could take their marbles and go play in another sand box.

If the "NW70" proposal is what it appears to be on the surface, they would also have the option to "flow" to "NW70" where furloughed NW pilots have "priority". Their seniority at Mesaba would be gone, their jobs would be gone, their employer would change, and they would now have "numbers" on the NWA seniority list, all of which are below approximately 700 furloughed NW pilots. It is quite a coincidence that 72 aircraft and 700 pilots appear to "match" nicely. That doesn't bode well for approximately 360 MSA pilots that would be up that familiar creek. It is not even known if the "option" is guaranteed or if they would have to be interviewed and qualify. That doesn't say much for their job security does it?

Continued

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

There is one thing that the "NW70" proposal does make very clear and it is one of two that are key to the issues that this entire scenario generates. Whatever the details of the "NW70" proposal may be, there is no doubt whatever that the NW pilots, under the auspices of the ALPA, are negotiating amendments to their CBA that materially affect, directly and indirectly, in a detrimental manner the job security and compensation of pilots that are not a part of their bargaining unit. This is being done without the full knowledge or consent of the MSA and PCL pilots, who are represented by the very same labor union.

This is all very familiar and easy to identify as the "MO" common to ALPA "relationships" between mainline and regional carriers. The majors do as they please, the regionals are left to pick up the pieces and survive on the leftovers, and the ALPA declares "Well done; industry leading". That would be fine if we were negotiating the sale of widgets but we are not. The lives, jobs and compensation of real people are at stake.

Question #1. Is it proper for one bargaining unit of a labor union to negotiate provisions in its contract that materially and negatively affect, directly or indirectly, the job security of a separate bargaining unit of the same union, without its consent obtained in advance or, should such negotiations be limited only to the members of the respective bargaining units? In other words, is it OK for NW pilots to negotiate on behalf of Mesaba pilots without their consent?

Question # 2. Does the controlling labor union, in this case the ALPA, have the legal ability to permit this negotiation without breaching its Duty of Fair representation to the adversely affected bargaining unit and each member thereof?

The second key issue is the high probability that in order to achieve the conditions proposed by "NW70", the NW pilots will have to proffer compensation, work rules and benefits applicable to the "contract-within-a-contract" that will substantially undercut existing contracts between other members of the union and their employers and further, undermine the negotiating ability of more than one separate bargaining unit of the union.

Question # 1 - Is it proper for the union, ALPA, to support negotiations at one bargaining unit, which undermine negotiations already in progress at another bargaining unit or that deliberately invite, trigger or promote concessionary bargaining at other units of the same union?

Question # 2 - While it is not possible for the union to obtain identical provisions in every contract that it may negotiate with multiple and separate entities, what if any are the responsibilities of the union to avoid such wide discrepancies in its bargaining positions as might trigger the collapse of its other contracts for the same type of work?

Scope is an essential element of every collective bargaining agreement. It serves the purpose of allocating work within the bargaining unit to its members. When "Scope" extends beyond the bargaining unit in question and attempts to allocate the work of a separate bargaining unit immediate conflicts arise.

Question # 1 - Is it proper and legal for any one bargaining unit of the ALPA to negotiate and to limit the flying work that may be negotiated or done by a separate bargaining unit on its own "property"?

Question # 2 - Can ALPA legally negotiate a contractual provision for Delta pilots (substitute any other airline) that limits the amount of work that may be done by Comair (substitute any other airline) pilots in the exclusive service of Comair, to include the type and number of aircraft in which that work will be done, without their consent?

Question # 3 - If the answer to question #2 is yes, can ALPA subsequently change those limits with respect to the number, type, size, range, speed, weight, airports served, stage lengths flown, etc., at any future time and without the consent of the Comair pilots?

Question # 4 - Could ALPA negotiate a Scope provision at Delta, in the Delta PWA, that requires the termination of all Comair flying and results in the dismissal/unemployment of all Comair pilots, without their consent?

Question # 5 - If your answer to Q # 2 was yes, what would prevent ALPA/Delta from doing what is asked in Q # 4 at any time of their choosing?

If each bargaining unit is in fact free to do as it pleases, when it pleases without regard for the effect of its actions on other bargaining units within the parent union, the need for the parent union comes into question, as does its ability to resolve conflicts of interest that may develop from time to time. If ALPA is impotent to manage these conflicts or unwilling to even make the effort, its viability as the representative of "the profession" as a whole ceases to exist.

What we in fact would have is 42 + - different and independent "unions" with no ability to utilize the advantages of "collective" bargaining, each engaged in a pitch battle to take from the others as much as it can, whenever it can. Delta pilots would be vying for the work and aircraft of NWA pilots and United pilots, etc., with a weapon of "Scope" as their tool. In that environment, each "unit" might well be better off to secede and pursue its own interests exclusively, while it prepares for the inevitable bidding war that is soon to follow.

At present, United pilots don't "bid" for the flying of Delta pilots nor do they attempt to limit the aircraft they may operate with twenty pages of scope clauses. Why then is it OK for USAirways pilots to "scope" out of existence the flying of Piedmont pilots and "bid" for their flying and that of the other subcontractors?

I'm not picking on any one airline. I'm just trying to illustrate that ALPA has adopted a policy that permits and fosters efforts by mainline pilot groups to control not only their own work but the work of pilots at airlines that ALPA itself has declared to be and recognizes as "separate". This policy is an oxymoron of monumental proportions. The recent debacle at PSA is an excellent illustration.

That is what we appear to be doing. The advantages of a "Federation" do not exist if each member of the federation may disregard at will the rights of others or the impact of its actions on other members of the federation.

When in the course of conducting its business the federation (ALPA) not only ignores detrimental behavior of one member towards another, but actively and overtly chooses which individual member' interests it will "favor" over those of another, it clearly violates its fiduciary responsibility to each of its members and embraces the doctrine and the practice of discrimination. In turn, it may also violate the law that governs the conduct of a labor union towards its members, i.e., the Duty of Fair Representation.

One need not subscribe to the ideas of something called the RJDC to understand these issues. Whatever your opinions may be, these are the questions that we as a federated union must answer. At present, no recognizable effort to do so is visible in the conduct of the ALPA or the behavior of its current leadership.

This problem is not isolated. It does not only affect Delta and Comair, NW and Mesaba, Continental and Express Jet or USAirways and ALG/PDT/PSA. It affects each and every one of us that are members of the ALPA. If this union is to survive in any form resembling what we have known and enjoyed, these issues must be addressed and the conflicts of interest resolved. If they are not, the very survival of the ALPA is at risk.

I do not ask any of you to agree with me. I do ask each of you to think about this. The union we save may be our own.

 

[General Lee]

Man alive, that Surplus1 sure can type. Maybe it is just me, but after reading the first few paragraphs, I start to see this: %%*^$%&^*%(^(*$%#$$%*&


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[flap operator]

Surplus1... I tend to agree with most of what you say. What you've brought up are the fears I have in this very deal called NWA70. Oh, and by he way... the 72 planes DO include the avros. And after the whole "we're going to park the avros 'cause they're so all of a sudden inefficient after operating them the same way for 7 years, boy isn't it coincidence you're in contract negotiations" drama - the agreement isn't ammendable* anymore and extends to 2007.

You're exactly right... the devil is in the details.

One thing about control... you don't have to be wholly owned to be controlled. Mesaba and Pinnacle are to tightly controled by NWA, our spineless CEO has to call Richard Anderson or Carl Pohlad to ask if he can take a dump! All it takes is a "services agreement" as we have to execute complete control. In essence we are treated as if we are wholly owned. We might as well be, NWA owns a controlling interest in MAIR. Our mgmt are NWA rejects. There is a NWA hand in nearly everything we do at XJ, depsite wha tthe public sees and our mgmt try and tell us. Comair and ASA may be wholly owned, but they're still carriers that feed for DL and do whatever DL tells them to do. In essence, not techincally, Comair and ASA are indeed contract carriers.

FO


* if we strike, go bankrupt, don't pay our bills, fail to maintain them, fail to elect a CEO that NWA approves of etc... the deal can be terminated.

 

[Miss'nFly'n]

I have to agree that "wholly owned" is a misnomer...it's more a question of who owns your assets. I question some of the regional spin-offs that have occured where all the aircraft are 'owned by' or 'leased in the name of' the mainline company. Add to that an exclusive service agreement that bars the new "independent" company from seeking out new business or their own aircraft. However unlikely it may seem, at the end of the service agreement, if the mainline company wants to take their planes & go play with someone else, your screwed. Yea, that's a stock I want to own .

FWIW, I don't think this NW70 deal will fly, and if it does it will be way to far down the line to impact the furloughs (Lord willing). Now, the question I think is more relavant: Would a MSA or PCL captain jump over to the left seat of NW70 for a mainline number?

 

[Kroll]

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



Nice. I sure want you with your temper to flow up to the main line. I bet your real fun to fly with too. I guess all you can do is call me names, huh? Do you fly off the handle with your crew? Oh and No I haven't gone there yet. You have just strengthened my opinions about your pilot group. I'm sorry if my opinion ticks you off. Many things your pilot group has done tick me off. I'm sorry I have generalized here. I know there are some good PPL at Pcl. If you have a problem with my "BIG MESABA HEAD" Pmail me. I'm not going to respond to you again here.


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

What are talking about here? I don't work for Mesaba or NWA.......I did.

 

[InclusiveScope]

Man alive, that Surplus1 sure can type. Maybe it is just me, but after reading the first few paragraphs, I start to see this: %%*^$%&^*%(^(*$%#$$%*&


Bye Bye--General Lee

It's just you General. Instead of bragging about quantity of posts, Surplus goes for quality. His 1432 posts contain far more rational thought than your 3000+ posts that you are so proud of. After a few words of your posts, all I see is:

"My FA friend at ASA said they wanted to get DOH, but I know that Delta needs to start flying 747s between ATL and DHN so that it can lower the CASM, because Grinstein says he doesn't like RJs on long routes, and we will bring the MD11s out of the desert because SONG is great and has great looking FAs and TV and did I mention how much we Delta pilots helped the CMR pilots through their strike and how much CMR pilots suck now because they won't hire furloughed Delta pilots, etc."

How did I do General?

 

[dondk]

\
FWIW, I don't think this NW70 deal will fly, and if it does it will be way to far down the line to impact the furloughs (Lord willing). Now, the question I think is more relavant: Would a MSA or PCL captain jump over to the left seat of NW70 for a mainline number?

Unfortunately.. I think the deal will fly.. NWA wants something bigger than 100 or so 44 seaters. Right now they are stuck with 44's until the narrow body fleet gorws (not going to happen any time soon) or get relief on the scope.

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

As for PCL CA's jumping over for a left seat.. My money would be there would be some.. Maybe 10% or so.. We have plenty who have expressed their desire for a one list type of deal , especially if the risk is low.

 

[balls deep340]

don't think so

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

Actually NWA Mgmt. made the first move. A few year ago they asked for scope relief. NWA Mgmt. wants: unlimited 50 seaters, 72 seventy seaters, and the avro brought from 69 seats to 85.

No way will the deal go through as it is currently written. NWA MEC NWA70 plan is their dream proposal. When you negotiate you have to compromise and it will turn into a J4J deal somewhere other than NWA mainline.

my .02 cents.

 

[dondk]

Rephrase

Will there be 70 seat a/c on NWA property? Yes...

Will the 70 seat a/c be flown by NWA MEC.. Yes...

the deal may not go through as is.. but it will go through one way or the other...

I thought the relief that NWA wanted on the scope was better than 5 years ago. This new relief is about a 18 months old and was only for the 50 seaters orginally. I may have some wires crossed on the specific's..

 

[Redtailer]

Surplus1,


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

These are just my opinions:

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

Call me crazy, but I doubt that if MSA or PCL were to get those jets that any of them would lose sleep over the NWA pilots losing their jobs to keep the Airlink pilot groups employed and growing. 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?

Whatever the details of the "NW70" proposal may be, there is no doubt whatever that the NW pilots, under the auspices of the ALPA, are negotiating amendments to their CBA that materially affect, directly and indirectly, in a detrimental manner the job security and compensation of pilots that are not a part of their bargaining unit. This is being done without the full knowledge or consent of the MSA and PCL pilots, who are represented by the very same labor union.

I am not going to touch the CMR and U agreements because they are materially different. However, in the case of the Airlinks they are, like it or not, contractors. Just as in the manufacturing sector jobs are being outsourced to 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. 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. 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.

Scope is an essential element of every collective bargaining agreement. It serves the purpose of allocating work within the bargaining unit to its members. When "Scope" extends beyond the bargaining unit in question and attempts to allocate the work of a separate bargaining unit immediate conflicts arise.

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'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.

Also, there is a lot of talk about how the affiliates are not allowed to fly larger jets because they are having terms imposed on them. I totally disagree with that line of thought because at no point does the CBA say X airline will fly only Y type aircraft. What it DOES say is that only Z number of Y aircraft will fly on the NWA certificate. In other words the Airlinks may fly a 747 if they want to, just not for NWA. Now when your company figures out how to do that ON THEIR OWN then you may feel free to fly what you wish. 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)

 

[balls deep340]

Maybe?

I understand your pain. But, all furloughs should be recalled in approx. a year and half gaging only on retirements and small growth. Even with the smaller -9 gone no furloughs will be expected with retirements. Most at NWA especially ones way up the seniority list will want to do what is best for the company in the long run, and flying 70 seaters with high priced Mechanics and Flight Attendants will hurt the company - hence hurting their precious pension.


Mind you though, I think most people will disagree on the merits that it is not economically viable. So a compromise is in order. J4J - mark my words. Unless you are willing to work for free over at NWA.

 

[balls deep340]

back again

I should also add you are completely correct contractors(express carriers) have no claim to mainlines flying. You could theoritically scope us out of flying C172s if you wanted.


What I think everyone is trying to say is that Market dictates. In other words your cost structures do not support a 70 seater at any pay rate. Just think of all of your non-flight ops employees they make probably 150 percent more than people at regionals. Ramp agent at 9E $6.25 at NWA $20 plus pension and a lot more bennies.

Also being in section 6 means MGMT has power to take this all the way to strike if they want those 70 seaters at espress carriers bad enough. I don't think it will come to that. If NWA pilots don't get a clue MGMT will just keep the scope and buy a bunch of 44 seaters because that would be cheaper than 70s flown by NWA70 said to say but true.
Peace