NWA ALPA 70 seat plan?

[InclusiveScope]

Anyone have any details on the the new NWA ALPA 70 seat jet plan? Today is supposed to be when the details go out.

 

[cargoflyr69]

To all NWA drivers.... Please do what it takes to keep 70+ seaters on-property. I hope this will help slow the race to the bottom and keep the contract carriers at bay.

 

[InclusiveScope]

To all NWA drivers.... Please do what it takes to keep 70+ seaters on-property. I hope this will help slow the race to the bottom and keep the contract carriers at bay.

Cargoflyr,
The USAirways "drivers" did exactly this and it LOWERED the bar further. Should mainline pilots underbid the regionals to gain the flying?

 

[michael707767]

Cargoflyr,
The USAirways "drivers" did exactly this and it LOWERED the bar further. Should mainline pilots underbid the regionals to gain the flying?

Why not? For years the regionals have underbid the majors to gain the flying.

 

[surplus1]

Why not? For years the regionals have underbid the majors to gain the flying.

Does that mean you think the process should extend to the regionals bidding for all of your flying, since you are prepared to underbid for ours?

Do you really believe that a full scale bidding war for each others flying will keep you in the driver''s seat?

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Northwest never gave up their 70 seat flying or deemed it to be "undesirable".

On the contrary they have fought long and hard to keep the DC9-10's on the property. The DC9-10's capacity is 78 passengers (64 in coach, 14 in first).

Why should they not fight tooth and nail to keep what flying they have on the property?

Should they yield 70-seat flying simply because it has been done at some other airlines?

Count me in among the group that believes that if NWA were to get another 70 seat product it would simply be to REPLACE the DC9-10, and the Northwest pilots should have first crack at that product since they already appear to have payrates in place to operate an aircraft with similar capacity.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Anyone have any details on the the new NWA ALPA 70 seat jet plan? "


Hate to ruin your hunt for "rjdc propaganda," but it says that the current proposal is NOT to achieve any "flow-down" to the affiliate carriers, or jet for jobs program. Says, once again, that 70 seat flying would be done by NWA seniority list pilots.

 

[surplus1]

Northwest never gave up their 70 seat flying or deemed it to be "undesirable".

On the contrary they have fought long and hard to keep the DC9-10's on the property. The DC9-10's capacity is 78 passengers (64 in coach, 14 in first).

Why should they not fight tooth and nail to keep what flying they have on the property?

Should they yield 70-seat flying simply because it has been done at some other airlines?

Count me in among the group that believes that if NWA were to get another 70 seat product it would simply be to REPLACE the DC9-10, and the Northwest pilots should have first crack at that product since they already appear to have payrates in place to operate an aircraft with similar capacity.

What you say is all true. However, do you really expect the company to pay NW pilots on the same scale as their current DC-9 rates, should the company decide to operate a CR7? If you do or rather if the NW pilots do there's a lot of dreaming going on.

I don't think the NW pilots should yield their flying, but if they want to operate CR7's at the mainline they will have to do what U pilots did at MAA, i.e., underbid the current "regional" operators by a substantial margin.

As an example, if you put a CR7 into the mainline infrastructure with pay rates like CMR or even ARW the addidional costs of the mainline operation will render the aircraft economically useless.

Remember, most of those baby -9's at NWA are fully amortized. New CR7's or E-170s will carry a lot of debt service.

My guess is the NW pilots will either give up their current rates and contractual goodies or they will give up the idea of RJ's. It will be interersting to watch.

 

[michael707767]

Does that mean you think the process should extend to the regionals bidding for all of your flying, since you are prepared to underbid for ours?

Do you really believe that a full scale bidding war for each others flying will keep you in the driver''s seat?

No I don't. And I don't think anyone should be trying to underbid anyone else. However, I think it somewhat hypocritical for regional guys to be complaining about the majors thinking of trying to capture back some flying by bidding less, when all along the only reason any flying was ever outsourced is because you were willing to do it for less.

 

[FDJ2]

No I don't. And I don't think anyone should be trying to underbid anyone else. However, I think it somewhat hypocritical for regional guys to be complaining about the majors thinking of trying to capture back some flying by bidding less, when all along the only reason any flying was ever outsourced is because you were willing to do it for less.

BINGO!!!!

 

[surplus1]

>>>>> when all along the only reason any flying was ever outsourced is because you were willing to do it for less.

Mike, that's where you and I part company in the thought process. Flying was not outsourced because regional pilots were "willing to do it for less". It was outsourced because mainline pilots didn't want to do it at all and you gave it to the company in exchange for a few more pieces of eight.

So it's not that we "do it for less", it's that you declined to do it at all. The choice was yours (we did not exist) and it was voluntary on your part. Truth is the only reason you seek to do it now is because the market has changed and you've priced yourselves out of it. With so many of your own pounding the pavement, what we do has suddenly become attractive.

We have never underbid you, simply because we don't do the same kind of flying. You are now intentionally underbidding us in an effort to add what we do to your portfolio. That is, in my opinion, an extremely dangerous strategy. Not only will it drag the rest of what you do down, it may literally force us to bid for what you now do exclusively in an effort to survive. I don't think that's "good" for either of us. In fact, it's a Pandora's Box.

 

[michael707767]

Mike, that's where you and I part company in the thought process. Flying was not outsourced because regional pilots were "willing to do it for less". It was outsourced because mainline pilots didn't want to do it at all and you gave it to the company in exchange for a few more pieces of eight.

I disagree. It was outsourced because the company was not willing to compensate the mainline pilots high enough to make them want to do it. Do you really mean to tell me we never wanted to fly a 70 seat jet, when we have flown them in the past? Are you trying to tell me that the mainline pilots would have refused to fly a Brasilia if the pay had been $70 an hour back when an engineer made $65 an hour? You are kidding yourself. Talk to any pilot. They would fly a C-172 if the pay were high enough. True the price would have been too high to negotiate a pay scale our pilots would have accepted. It would have come out of the pay scales on other aircraft, or resulted in a lower retirement or worse benefits. But to say we did not want to do that flying at all is pure folly.

But lets say for a minute you are right, the mainline pilots did not want to do that flying. Just because it waswe allowed to be outsourced does not mean it had to be outsourced. Management would have only done it if it were cheaper to outsource.

Last, even though NW is trying to secure the 70 seat flying (which it is already doing), no mainline pilot group has yet taken away any flying from any regional by under bidding them. USAirways? Nope. 70 seaters were not allowed by their regionals until the same deal that created MAA. At the same time MAA was created they allowed 70 seaters to go to the regionals, but they never took away any aircraft from a USAirways regional. Did MAA set the bar pretty low? Sure. But in doing so they did not underbid anyone who was flying a 70 seater for USAirways and take that flying away from them.

 

[deceptibum]

the economics or the present

Look everyone, I am not attempting to start a war. But if you look at the world around you, you would realize that it is changing. If you younger fellows feel to believe that an airline pilot is made from flight instucting to working loyaly to a regional and beyond, well for some of you, yes it would work...... but, for a lot of employees this is not the case. I don't usually write comments on here just to stir up gossip like others, but I just state the facts so to speak. I too am only in the mid 20's, 25 to be exact and I just dont't see the "standard" progression to further an airline career. Yes I work for eagle and yes we all know the stagnation at this place, but let me say this............ I read somewhere on here, that we all got into this path to one day be an international captain, however; look at prognostics. Evolution happens very slowely. Just like now. Take the opportunities that come along, and make best of the rest. The future of US "standard career progression" is all up in the air. What used to be the goal "legacy airlines" is, for the immediate future, a useless venture. The low cost deals seem to be the wave right now. What I say is this.....yes I would like to see 70 seat CRJ's at mainline in order to preserve "some" integrity in pay, but what about the future? Are we all to live under substandard pay for flying just about the same size equpment at mainline does now? I say hold out like Comair did. They have fought tooth and nail and still claim the highest "regional" pay and benifits and still recruit pilots after all the threats and indimidation. Just thoughts to consider for anyone......

 

[Lear70]

As an example, if you put a CR7 into the mainline infrastructure with pay rates like CMR or even ARW the addidional costs of the mainline operation will render the aircraft economically useless.

Too fu*king bad for NW management. Paying CMR rates for the 70-seaters is about as low as I believe the NW pilots would go and I sincerely doubt they'd drop any of their work rules for it - they're too hard to get back. I'm a betting man, and I bet this will be the stalemate item that drives these talks near the edge of work action.

We have never underbid you, simply because we don't do the same kind of flying. You are now intentionally underbidding us in an effort to add what we do to your portfolio. That is, in my opinion, an extremely dangerous strategy. Not only will it drag the rest of what you do down, it may literally force us to bid for what you now do exclusively in an effort to survive. I don't think that's "good" for either of us. In fact, it's a Pandora's Box.

Now don't go getting ahead of yourself; NW pilots haven't underbid us YET and as far as my contacts at mainline are telling me, have no intention of underbidding us as far as rate and work rules are concerned. However, I agree with your summary of what would happen if they did - talk about a race to the bottom; that's a Pandora's box that I hope I never see opened (UAir's pilots haven't opened it yet - their situation is different as they had little economic choice in the matter as a dying airline's last gasp for breath).

NW is diffent from UAir in many details but, most importantly for this topic, is different as NW is one of the most financially solvent legacy carriers left right now - if NW PILOTS agree to SJ pay rates and work rules less than say PCL or MSA in order to retain 70- and 90- seaters on property while they ARE in such a "relatively good" financial position, it would be the most crippling blow in the effort to hold or raise the bar for regional airlines than has ever been seen, and would more than likely lead the way for every other legacy carrier to act in kind at their next negotiating opportunity.

Just to be clear, it's my sincere hope that the NW pilots keep 70- and 90- seat SJ's ON THEIR PROPERTY and keep pay rates on the same formula that they use NOW to calculate pay (seat capacity, aircraft range, night/day, etc) which would pay them probably about 20% less than current DC-9 rates or maybe slightly less if they need to concede some room on it for management. Otherwise, it just speeds our way to the bottom of the pile...

 

[LivinDaDream]

I would look for a "Regional within a Major" type of situation from the NWA plan.

As someone stated earlier, the economics (pilot pay aside) are so out of whack at ALL Legacy Carriers that any these 70 or 90 seat planes are a huge loss at mainline. However, if the cost structure of the 70 seat operation can be separated from mainline, with NWA pilots flying them, it may work. Even if the NWA pay rates are industry leading for these planes, if NWA can run this operation with a different set of work rules, and a separate infrastructure, it's feasible.

Of course, the key for the pilots would have to be protecting the rest of the narrow body fleet. If they are replacing DC9's with RJ's, it won't fly with nearly 800 on the street. I think this part is also achievable.

NWA has started thinking outside of the box for the first time in it's existence. The point-to-point flying out of MKE and now IND shows that they are finally willing to try new things.

Just what I expect the proposal to be. The end result may be no where near this, but it's not a bad starting point.

 

[furloughed dude]

I read the proposal submitted by NWALPA. The quick summary goes something like this:


1. 70 seat jets flown by NWA mainline pilots

2. Of course there is a catch, this flying will be a "contract within a contract". Pay will be industry standard, yep Comair, Eagle, etc. There will be a defined benefit plan, i.e., some sort of 401k matching only. No credit for the mainline retirement. Furloughed pilots would get first shot at this, however, they could bypass until they get called back to the real mainline (I know this makes no sense). Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots might be able to flow up to this, but below all furloughed pilots. This would ensure them a mainline seniority number eventually. No "flow down", so it is a win-win for airlinkers.

3. This is a proposal to NWA, not vice-versa. There are obviously provisions that keep limits on this kind of flying. Obviously, you don't want to have all of the DC-9 flying going to the new B-scale.

4. Interesting thinking, I guess they think the flying is out there, why not make it possible for NWA seniority pilots fly these. NWALPA owns this flying and will not outsource to airlink, so if NWA wants 70 seaters, it is a possibility. I can't say that I would take part of this operation, but some furloughed guys will.

5. Hopefully, they can get a decent 70 seat rate, obviously not anywhere mainline, but still better than the existing regional carriers. I have a feeling that it will be more like a comair rate, but who knows...

 

[InclusiveScope]

RJ Defense Coalition
Ensuring One Level of Representation
[url]http://www.rjdefense.com[/url]

reply to: [email protected]


“BRAND SCOPE”: Truth and Consequences

Introduction

Imagine what life would be like at ASA and Comair if the Delta pilots were empowered to renegotiate your contract, cut your pay in order to subsidize their concessions, and displace you out of your aircraft in order to make room for a “preferred” class of pilots. Further, you would have little or no say in the negotiations. More importantly, your “vote” wouldn't matter because the new terms and restrictions are part of their contract—not yours. This is not fair. This is not new. This is ALPA's “Brand Scope.”

Now that ALPA has reportedly proposed “Brand Scope” at Delta, it's a good time to learn more about ALPA's latest bargaining ploy. For over two years ALPA has been arguing in court and in other forums that there is no such thing as “ASA” and “Comair” flying. As their argument goes, all “brand” flying “belongs” to the Delta pilots who may negotiate with it however they please.[1] So it shouldn't come as any surprise that the fuzzy concept of “brand scope” is little more than a desperate effort to disguise ALPA's dereliction of its duties to the ASA and Comair pilots.

“Brand Scope” Defined

ALPA has called for “brand scope,” as if it were a new union strategy intended to address changes in the industry. But examination reveals that “brand scope” is yet another ALPA euphemism for permitting Delta pilots to bargain whatever scope they desire with senior management, thus leaving the ASA and Comair pilots to vie for the leftovers. For example:


-- All flying ultimately belongs to the “mainline” pilots for scope purposes who may bargain any scope they please.
-- “Mainline” pilots allowed to unilaterally redefine “regional” or “feeder” flying.
-- Wholly-owned jobs and flying used by “mainline” pilots in their negotiations.
-- Wholly-owned bargaining subordinated to “mainline” bargaining.
-- “Mainline” pilots only required to “confer” with wholly-owned pilots.
-- ALPA national assumes no responsibility for actions of its “mainline” pilot groups.
-- Wholly-owned pilots have no standing to object.

It should be clear that ALPA's calls for “brand scope” amount to only a new marketing plan to sell an old product that doesn't work and only harms those so unfairly treated.

Actions Do Speak Louder Than Words

If you asked ALPA's leaders to define “Brand Scope,” they would probably tell you that it hasn't been defined in specific terms and that it's up to each “family” of affiliated pilot groups to work out the details. Don't be deceived. “Brand Scope” is defined, not by words, but by ALPA's actions—at the mainline bargaining table.

Delta Air Lines: Without first seeking the approval of the ASA and Comair pilots, ALPA has proposed to management that the Delta pilots be given “career” security within the Delta Brand (i.e. special employment rights as ASA and Comair.) “Brand Scope” is also reportedly part of DALPA's latest concessionary proposal.[2]

US Airways: Without first seeking the approval or input from the ALG, PDT, and PSA pilots, ALPA negotiated and implemented LOA 91 which greatly expanded the mainline pilot's control over the placement of small jets within the US Airways system. LOA 91 granted displaced mainline pilots super-seniority and special employment rights at all carriers within the US Airways “Brand” and its egregious terms were imposed upon ALPA's “regional” members on a “take it or leave it basis.”

United: Without first seeking the input or approval of its ALPA code-share affiliates, ALPA imposed Jets-for-Jobs on all 70-seat jets carrying the United code.

Northwest: Without first seeking the input or approval of the Pinnacle or Mesaba pilots, the Northwest MEC decided its negotiating committee will allocate flying within the NWA brand and has crafted bargaining proposals that would require that NWA pilots fly all 70-seat jets (i.e. new “preferred” alter-ego entity or Jets-for-Jobs.)[3]

Traps and Truths

Trap #1: “Brand Scope” takes many years to implement.
Truth: ALPA is obligated to protect the rights and interests of the ASA and Comair pilots. As such, ALPA cannot ignore duties owed today by promising to act properly tomorrow.

Trap #2: The mainline interests must negotiate on behalf of the “regional” carriers because they can't access the “real” management team.
Truth: This is a ploy to keep the “regional” pilots in the dark concerning ALPA's specific proposals and to hide the fact that ALPA's mainline interests use the small jet and its pilots as bargaining capital. Management must bargain with whomever ALPA sends to the table. ALPA, not management, determines “access” to the process and the relevant information.

Trap #3: The “Brand Scope” item listed in Delta-ALPA's recent proposal was just a “place-holder” on the agenda to be filled in later if the parties so choose.
Truth: ALPA's own definition of “Brand Scope” calls for the effected pilot groups to agree in advance before anything is negotiated with management. The fact that the ASA and Comair MEC’s did not authorize the Delta MEC to place anything on the agenda, much less agree to “Brand Scope,” suggests that “Brand Scope” is not what ALPA claims it to be. “Brand Scope” is off to a “Bad Start”.

Summary

Brand Scope is defined by ALPA's actions, not words. To-date, ALPA's actions at every other “mainline” carrier proves that Brand Scope is nothing more than a new label for old practices. In the year since “Brand Scope” was advanced by ALPA, two of the union’s largest carriers have unilaterally imposed their “brand” of Jets for Jobs and new small jet restrictions; while two more major carriers appear to be planning the same.

However, unlike less fortunate pilot groups, the ASA and Comair pilots have engaged in a vigorous defense of our rights. You can prevent the unilateral imposition of Brand Scope by supporting these efforts and staying informed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] ALPA to US District Court in Ford v. ALPA.
[2] December 2003 “Negotiator's Notepad” and published reports concerning ALPA's July 20, 2004 proposal to Delta Management.
[3] Northwest MEC Code-a-phone message dated July 16, 2004

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Northwest: Without first seeking the input or approval of the Pinnacle or Mesaba pilots, the Northwest MEC decided its negotiating committee will allocate flying within the NWA brand and has crafted bargaining proposals that would require that NWA pilots fly all 70-seat jets (i.e. new “preferred” alter-ego entity or Jets-for-Jobs.)[3]"



And exactly why is it that they would have to get the input or approval of Pinnacle or Mesaba to operate 70 seat jets???

They have a little piece of paper (since 1998, this is nothing new), called a contract, signed and agreed upon by NW management that states all flying 56 seats and greater belongs to mainline. Again, this is nothing new, it has been that way for almost 6 years now.

PCL or Mesaba never had the 70 seat flying (exception of grandfathered avros). Nothing is being taken away from them. They never had it in the first place.

Neither PCL or Mesaba are "wholly-owned." They are contract carriers.

 

[AFELLOWAVIATOR]

No I don't. And I don't think anyone should be trying to underbid anyone else. However, I think it somewhat hypocritical for regional guys to be complaining about the majors thinking of trying to capture back some flying by bidding less, when all along the only reason any flying was ever outsourced is because you were willing to do it for less.

Your claim sounds good on the surface but it is full of holes if you look closer.
How can we "do it for less" when there are no aircraft like we fly at mainline?
Actually, the mainline pilots are the ones "doing it for less". Look at USAIR.

Comairs rates for the RJ are amongst the highest in the Airline industry .Mainline USAIR pilots rates are amongst the lowest. Sorry to bust your bubble.