NWA MEC and the CRJ 900?

[xjhawk]

I hear from a different threat that the MEC is grieving the awarding to mesaba the new jets? is there any truth to this? Why would this cause problems?

 

[theo]

I hear from a different threat that the MEC is grieving the awarding to mesaba the new jets? is there any truth to this? Why would this cause problems?

This is a good question. I don't know but would be interested in Occams Razors take. He seems very up on NWA issues. Occam?

 

[Schwanker]

With NWAs acquisition of MSA, the 900s become a scope violation.

 

[NuGuy]

Heyas,

The above is true. With the aquisition, MSA became the defacto Compass, and the 76 seaters belong to NWA furloughees.

But it also opens up the flowup for MSA dudes. Win/lose depending on how you take it. Single carrier petition might also be in the works.

Nu

 

[Occam's Razor]

The MEC is working-up a grievance at this time. Some of the "violations" will not occur until Northwest actually places the aircraft with MSA.

 

[xjhawk]

what?

Heyas,

The above is true. With the aquisition, MSA became the defacto Compass, and the 76 seaters belong to NWA furloughees.

But it also opens up the flowup for MSA dudes. Win/lose depending on how you take it. Single carrier petition might also be in the works.

Nu

what is single carrier petition?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Heyas,

The above is true. With the aquisition, MSA became the defacto Compass, and the 76 seaters belong to NWA furloughees.

But it also opens up the flowup for MSA dudes. Win/lose depending on how you take it. Single carrier petition might also be in the works.

Nu

A single carrier petition doesn't change anything. A single carrier petition is used to determine if separate employee groups should be represented by a single bargaining agent. In this case both NWA and Mesaba pilots are represented by ALPA. Now a PID by ALPA would be a logical step, but then again ALPA doesn't have a very good track record in regards to PIDs in this situation......

 

[~~~^~~~]

True, very true. Since you held back and did not say it, I will, this is another clear DFR case in the making.

 

[xjhawk]

PID DFR? clue me in on these terms please....I feel like i am being left out of a cool secret!

 

[JoeMerchant]

True, very true. Since you held back and did not say it, I will, this is another clear DFR case in the making.

Well Fins, you know me - I tend to hold back and keep my opinions to myself......

 

[JoeMerchant]

PID DFR? clue me in on these terms please....I feel like i am being left out of a cool secret!

PID: Policy Initiation Date - part of ALPA's merger policy. The ASA and CMR MEC's tried this when Delta purchased ASA and CMR, but the DAL MEC and ALPA's Executive Council were opposed.

DFR: Duty of Fair Representation - Deals with a unions duty to fairly represent it's membership.

Those are the short answers, but you can find out much more at:
www.rjdefense.com

 

[saabservant]

I'm told that the PID requires that there is a level of "operational integration" required. Well, since we already are fully controlled and run by nwa (mesaba just pays crews and rampies, nwa does eveything else) I'd say we are at least working on separate sides of the farm...not counting on alpa to help the little guys here. After all, it was nwa alpa that allowed compass to be created, so that nwa furloughs could fly there, and be whipsawed against mesaba and pinnacle. All for bargaining credit! A beautiful thing, if you are a 747 driver....

 

[PCL_128]

True, very true. Since you held back and did not say it, I will, this is another clear DFR case in the making.

So, let me get this straight. All you can talk about in reference to the ASA contract is the necessity of good Scope language, but when the NWA MEC tries to defend their scope, you cry foul. You don't see a problem here?

 

[JoeMerchant]

So, let me get this straight. All you can talk about in reference to the ASA contract is the necessity of good Scope language, but when the NWA MEC tries to defend their scope, you cry foul. You don't see a problem here?

I'm not going to speak for fins, but in my opinion, ASA scope should INCLUDE the Skywest pilots on a single seniority list. I doubt the NWA pilots are thinking about the Mesaba pilots - you see the difference.... Good scope INCLUDES, bad scope EXCLUDES....

 

[PCL_128]

I'm not going to speak for fins, but in my opinion, ASA scope should INCLUDE the Skywest pilots on a single seniority list. I doubt the NWA pilots are thinking about the Mesaba pilots - you see the difference.... Good scope INCLUDES, bad scope EXCLUDES....

That statement means as little now as it did the first time Dan said it years ago. By including only certain groups, you are thereby excluding others. Any scope language will always exclude. It's simply the very nature of scope protection.

 

[JoeMerchant]

That statement means as little now as it did the first time Dan said it years ago. By including only certain groups, you are thereby excluding others. Any scope language will always exclude. It's simply the very nature of scope protection.

It should at the very least, include ALL pilots within a corporation. Whether it be ASA/Skywest, NWA/Mesaba, PNCL/Colgan, or USAir/PDT/PSA that is a start. After that, it should include all pilots flying the code. There is a difference between excluding FUTURE flying from being outsourced and excluding CURRENT pilots.

Your scope may see the need to EXCLUDE, but I don't think that is GOOD scope. I want to INCLUDE the Skywest pilots even if they aren't ALPA. In fact I would go so far as to say that I would rather have a single pilot group at Skywest than to be ALPA.

 

[PCL_128]

It should at the very least, include ALL pilots within a corporation. Whether it be ASA/Skywest, NWA/Mesaba, PNCL/Colgan, or USAir/PDT/PSA that is a start. After that, it should include all pilots flying the code. There is a difference between excluding FUTURE flying from being outsourced and excluding CURRENT pilots.

Your scope may see the need to EXCLUDE, but I don't think that is GOOD scope. I want to INCLUDE the Skywest pilots even if they aren't ALPA. In fact I would go so far as to say that I would rather have a single pilot group at Skywest than to be ALPA.

I see your point, and I've discussed this with other ALPA reps many times, but there's one big problem. You've included AAA/PDT/PSA in your list above. What about Mesa, Colgan, and Republic? All of them fly US code. With carriers like Mesa and Republic, they are flying for virtually every legacy carrier. If we are successful in merging the Colgan and Pinnacle lists, then we'll be flying for 4 out of 6 legacy carriers. How do you "include" airlines in your scope when those airlines are flying for your airline's competitors?

I'm not just trying to discount your idea. I'd really like to know how you'd do this.

 

[JoeMerchant]

I see your point, and I've discussed this with other ALPA reps many times, but there's one big problem. You've included AAA/PDT/PSA in your list above. What about Mesa, Colgan, and Republic? All of them fly US code. With carriers like Mesa and Republic, they are flying for virtually every legacy carrier. If we are successful in merging the Colgan and Pinnacle lists, then we'll be flying for 4 out of 6 legacy carriers. How do you "include" airlines in your scope when those airlines are flying for your airline's competitors?

I'm not just trying to discount your idea. I'd really like to know how you'd do this.

First thing first. Lets first get single lists on each property. MESA/CCAir/Freedom, CHQ/Republic/Shuttle America, and Eagle did it. They had to pay for it in other areas, but it built a foundation for later. ASA needs to do this with Skywest and you need to do it with Colgan.

Next, comes the more difficult part of "brand scope". That will require the participation and negotiating leverage of mainline groups. I have my doubts that the mainline MECs get it however. We will see with the NWA situation. They blew it with their last agreement by specifically EXCLUDING PNCL and Mesaba and creating "Compass". Now they may have an opportunity to fix it... time will tell if ALPA has changed.....

 

[PCL_128]

First thing first. Lets first get single lists on each property. MESA/CCAir/Freedom, CHQ/Republic/Shuttle America, and Eagle did it. They had to pay for it in other areas, but it built a foundation for later. ASA needs to do this with Skywest and you need to do it with Colgan.

Next, comes the more difficult part of "brand scope". That will require the participation and negotiating leverage of mainline groups. I have my doubts that the mainline MECs get it however. We will see with the NWA situation. They blew it with their last agreement by specifically EXCLUDING PNCL and Mesaba and creating "Compass". Now they may have an opportunity to fix it... time will tell if ALPA has changed.....

The question isn't whether ALPA has changed. The question is whether the NWA MEC has changed. ALPA doesn't tell individual MECs what they must negotiate for (other than a few items specifically mentioned in the Admin manual). It's up to the NWA MEC to decide to fight for brand scope.

Incidentally, I actually agree with you. The NWA MEC had a prime opportunity to establish an example of brand/family scope, and they blew it. The makeup of the MEC has changed somewhat since then, so I don't know how they'll try to do this. Hopefully they'll push for a single list with Mesaba. Time will tell.

 

[JoeMerchant]

The question isn't whether ALPA has changed. The question is whether the NWA MEC has changed. ALPA doesn't tell individual MECs what they must negotiate for (other than a few items specifically mentioned in the Admin manual). It's up to the NWA MEC to decide to fight for brand scope.

Incidentally, I actually agree with you. The NWA MEC had a prime opportunity to establish an example of brand/family scope, and they blew it. The makeup of the MEC has changed somewhat since then, so I don't know how they'll try to do this. Hopefully they'll push for a single list with Mesaba. Time will tell.

ALPA had the power to refuse to sign the CCAir agreement, they are responsible for every agreement they sign. I understand individual MEC autonomy, but if something doesn't change, ALPA will not survive. ALPA must change and exert some leadership on the mainline MECs. Otherwise, we should all go our separate ways and bargain for ourselves... that isn't the best solution, but that is what will/is happening.....

MEC's have autonomy, but ALPA is the bargaining agent and is responsible for every agreement.

 

[theo]

If this is a scope violation of the NWA pilots contract, what will the likely outcome be? Do you force the issue, to merge lists, or require those a/c be flown at another carrier, or get an extra dollar per hour as a payment for allowing NW to keep the lists seperate? Just wondering how people think this one will go.

 

[contrail67]

Thought this whole thing was already spelled out in their contract....under "SJ" language. A wholly owned company may operate up to 55 76 seaters...after that they must be filled by a furloughed NWA guy/gal. The 36 that were ordered are allowed as AVRO replacements. After 55, there is language about a flow up-down. Below is right out of the negotiated concessionary NWA contract. Just to clear things up...or make them worse

2. SJ’s configured with 51-76 seats not owned, leased, financed, or controlled by NWA and operated at Feeder Carriers flying their own aircraft.
• No limitations on use.
• Must have a certificated seating capacity of 86 seats or less, with the exception that if the CRJ-900LR is operated the maximum seating certification level is 90 seats.
• Limited to 55 aircraft. This total includes the existing 35 Mesaba Avros, which these aircraft are intended to replace.
• The 55 limit may be exceeded on a 1:1 basis with the “entering into service” of a 77-110 seat configured SJ to be flown at NWA mainline. The pay rates and work rules for the 77-110 seat mainline SJ are covered later.
• Furloughed NWA pilots are entitled to 5 new hire jobs at the Feeder Carrier operating the aircraft.
• The Feeder Carrier’s furloughed pilots have first right to any jobs at their airline.
• The furloughed NWA pilots employed at the Feeder Carrier would work under the terms of that carrier’s pilot contract.
3. SJ’s configured with 51-76 seats which are owned, leased, or financed by NWA and operated at Feeder Carriers.
• All parameters are the same as the previous section, and are included in the 55 aircraft limit, except the employment opportunities for furloughed NWA pilots.
• Furloughed NWA pilots would then be entitled to ½ of the Captain and ½ of the First Officer positions created to operate the aircraft provided by NWA. (Except at Mesaba, where there are already pilots operating 35 Avros, which will be replaced.)
• The furloughed NWA pilots employed at the Feeder Carrier would work under the terms of that carrier’s pilot contract.
4. SJ’s configured with 51-76 seats which are flown at a separate wholly owned subsidiary/affiliate of NWA (called “SJet” for now”).
• No limitations on use.
• Must have a certificated seating capacity of 86 seats or less, with the exception that if the CRJ-900LR is operated the maximum seating certification level is 90 seats.
• Limited to 90 total aircraft, which is inclusive of the 55 aircraft limit for the Feeder Carrier flying.
• The 90 aircraft limit may be exceeded on a 1:1 basis with the “entering into service” of a 77-110 seat configured SJ to be flown at NWA mainline.
• Furloughed NWA pilots have the first right to the jobs at “SJet”, but will be on a separate seniority list.
• There would be a “flow up / flow down” between pilots at “SJet” and NWA, including new hire pilots at SJet and NWA. The flow up / down would be subject to metering limitations.
• NWA would be allowed to sell “SJet” after 10 77-110 seat configured Small Jets “are in active service” at NWA mainline.
• If the successor owner of “SJet” does not comply with the Flow Up / Down provisions, the number of 51-76 seat SJs being flown by Feeder Carriers would be required to be reduced to a baseline of 55 aircraft.
• The pay rates and work rules for the “SJet” flying are covered later.
• Note: the trigger for NWA to outsource up to 90 76 seat configured aircraft is dependent upon maintaining the flow up/down process

 

[PCL_128]

Thought this whole thing was already spelled out in their contract....under "SJ" language. A wholly owned company may operate up to 55 76 seaters...after that they must be filled by a furloughed NWA guy/gal. The 36 that were ordered are allowed as AVRO replacements. After 55, there is language about a flow up-down. Below is right out of the negotiated concessionary NWA contract. Just to clear things up...or make them worse

• Furloughed NWA pilots have the first right to the jobs at “SJet”, but will be on a separate seniority list.
• There would be a “flow up / flow down” between pilots at “SJet” and NWA, including new hire pilots at SJet and NWA. The flow up / down would be subject to metering limitations.

The two bullet-points above are the points of contention. NWA management is refusing to honor this section of the agreement. That constitutes a violation of the CBA.

 

[Occam's Razor]

ALPA had the power to refuse to sign the CCAir agreement, they are responsible for every agreement they sign.

Half credit. "ALPA" is responsible for every contract. That's why the President of the Association must sign each agreement (even Letters of Agreement) before they can take effect. But you're oversimplifying the relationship between the National responsibilities and the local responsibilities.

Each MEC negotiates its own deal. That is inarguable. The National structure provides the local MEC with the tools and support necessary to negotiate the contract (or LOA).

The last layer of review in the process is the President's signature, which doesn't happen until the lawyers at National pore of the document to ensure there are no violations of Labor law or the ALPA Constitution, and that the contract doesn't contain inherent contradictions that could lead to the agreement being voided (Contract Law 101: "If it ain't possible, it ain't a legal contract"), or DFR lawsuits.

The CCAir T/A was negotiated by CCAir pilots, and contained language in Sections 1, 4, and 12 that were deemed "ambiguous enough to raise concern about the enforcability of the entire document". Hence, Duane Woerth didn't sign it. The glaring issue is that the CCAir deal had already been approved before National did its thorough review. That blame rests fully on the Representation department in Herndon.

The urban legend has grown because of Duane's public comments at the time he sent the deal back. Rather than make the exploitable flaws public, he stressed other issues.

Put his action in its proper historical context, and you'll understand. Just before the rejection of the CCAir deal, ALPA had been burned in a lawsuit brought by pilots from PanAm who claimed "ALPA" had screwed them when Delta bought PAA assets. The actions of the local ("autonomous") MEC at PAA resulted in a perfectly legal arrangement that some PAA pilots felt was not fair. They sued. They didn't go after the PAA MEC...then went after the parent organization's $100-million MCF. They were aided by lawyers who took the case not because of their altruistic belief in the unfairness of the deal...but because they would get a percentage of the settlement if they plundered ALPA's assets (See also "RJDC legal team").

That event led to a more agressive review process by ALPA National. Since I'd like the ability to use that MCF in the future, I think it's a good policy.

I understand individual MEC autonomy, but if something doesn't change, ALPA will not survive.

Then you might not truly understand MEC autonomy. It is designed to let each individual MEC negotiate its own contract based on each pilot group's priorities. FDX pilots have different priorities than DAL pilots, who have different priorites than PCL pilots.

We all embrace the relationship between the MEC's and Herndon when things are going our way...witness the self-contratgulatory crowing from the UAL and DAL pilot groups after their landmark contracts were negotiated in 2000 and 2001. "We did it!"

But when the cycle moves the other way (as it always does from time-to-time), the cry is how ALPA National has screwed us. "This is all Duane's fault!"

It'd be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

ALPA must change and exert some leadership on the mainline MECs.

Ha! Describe this "leadership". If Prater were to walk into a meeting and tell the DAL MEC that they must abandon Scope and allow wet-lease international flying for the good of the profession, he'd crawl out of the room with no pants, a mohawk, and his 'nads in a jar of formaldehyde.

Some issues are universal and demand a central voice and a unified effort. Others are "regional".

Otherwise, we should all go our separate ways and bargain for ourselves... that isn't the best solution, but that is what will/is happening.....

You may be correct about the current tone of cooperation. Maybe a simple solution would be a "citizenship" test for all Apprentice members. They would have to explain who does what within the organization before they could be granted full membership.

 

[Schwanker]

From my undestanding:

The purchase of MSA changes their status from a "Feeder Carrier" to an "Affiliate." Different rules apply, including the 1st 36 are no longer AVRO replacements and a flow-up/down will be incorportated.

 

[contrail67]

so in a flow situation, XJ pilots would start at the bottom of the list at NWA?

Still think the first 36 900's are AVRO replacements....that is how I read it. Not sure of the loopholes available on this, but I am sure they will be found if needed.

 

[titans10]

From my undestanding:

The purchase of MSA changes their status from a "Feeder Carrier" to an "Affiliate." Different rules apply, including the 1st 36 are no longer AVRO replacements and a flow-up/down will be incorportated.

That is correct and nwa furloughes should be able to flow down to those aircraft and be senior per the contract at nwa.

 

[YourPilotFriend]

I don't see how the NWA scope contact is going to work without list integration. Imagine this scenario; a third year longevity NWA pilot on the DC-9 replacement will earn about $30K. If he gets furloughed from NWA he has the option to go to compass or Mesaba captain as a senior pilot, then defer for up to 14 years. This would result in a windfall for the NWA furlough and a hardship for either a compass or Mesaba pilot. This is just a horrible situation all around in an economic downturn, especially if there is a merger between delta and NWA and age 65 passes, in this situation all mesaba and compass pilots would be furloughed.

 

[IFLYIMC]

I don't see how the NWA scope contact is going to work without list integration. Imagine this scenario; a third year longevity NWA pilot on the DC-9 replacement will earn about $30K. If he gets furloughed from NWA he has the option to go to compass or Mesaba captain as a senior pilot, then defer for up to 14 years. This would result in a windfall for the NWA furlough and a hardship for either a compass or Mesaba pilot. This is just a horrible situation all around in an economic downturn, especially if there is a merger between delta and NWA and age 65 passes, in this situation all mesaba and compass pilots would be furloughed.

Where are you getting the language for Compass on the FLow up/down? Or are you assuming it is the same language as XJ?

 

[NuGuy]

I don't see how the NWA scope contact is going to work without list integration. Imagine this scenario; a third year longevity NWA pilot on the DC-9 replacement will earn about $30K. If he gets furloughed from NWA he has the option to go to compass or Mesaba captain as a senior pilot, then defer for up to 14 years. This would result in a windfall for the NWA furlough and a hardship for either a compass or Mesaba pilot. This is just a horrible situation all around in an economic downturn, especially if there is a merger between delta and NWA and age 65 passes, in this situation all mesaba and compass pilots would be furloughed.

Maybe if you were a line pilot, instead of some person in Eagan somewhere, whose principal responsibilty is probably to count cotterpins, you might have a better understanding of the needs and desires of the pilot group.

Just a suggestion...

Nu