JohnDoe said:
I have never thought that mainline had an "inherent" right to any and all NW flying. I have said many a time that you get what you can negotiate for.
On this aspect our thinking is pretty close to being the same. I'm still concerned however, about how we go about getting what we "can negotiate for". If that means lowering our compensation packages to achieve promised "growth" I would have serious problems with the concept.
There are $10 whores and $50 whores. Now that we know that, the difference in the price does not change the fact that both are whores. Ultimately the "trade" will go to the lady with the lowest bid until all eventually become $10 whores. We will all get "what we can negotiate for" but there is considerable doubt as to the value of having it.
There is a current "trend" to sacrifice contractual gains in exchange for short term growth potential. I think that is a serious mistake that will adversely affect both mainline and regional for a very long time. Perhaps I'm wrong but I do not see this "race to the bottom" as beneficial to any pilot group. In my view it is "penny wise and pound foolish".
I readily admit that my concerns about this are not altruistic. My group currently enjoys the best compensation package in the business for 70-seat jets and as everyone knows we had to risk the whole Company to get that.
For the last year or more I have seen contract after contract bid for "growth" by lowering wages and giving up other contractual benefits. Each such negotiation put increasing pressure on our contract. In my opinion, this is not justified by economics, it is the by-product of very unwise thinking and bad advice. I don't want my group to be forced into the $10 category so that some new hire can upgrade in six months on the regional side or so that a mainline pilot can
recapture flying that he previously chose to give away. If economic conditions truly justified these actions I could learn to live with them. I don't believe that they do.
That does not mean that I think anyone is obliged to "match" us for I don't. However, I do think that reasonable decisions should be made during negotiations that incorporate the whole. Given that most of us are represented by what is supposedly the same labor union, I don't understand the madness.
I hope that "NW70", if it gets off the ground, will turn out to be more than just another iteration of the lowest bidder concept, but I have little confidence that it will.
Not sure where you get that, but the proposal I read stated that management wanted to outsource a total of up to 72 70-seaters, to include the current Mesaba avros. To me, that means they want 36 additional 70's (I could be wrong).
I get if from the proposal and statements like the one you just made. Yes, the Company wants 36 additional aircraft of that size. It is highly improbable that those 36 aircraft will be Avros. If the company decides to purchase a new type, e.g., the CR7 or EMB-170, in the final analysis it will not matter whether they are placed at NWA or at MSA. Eventually they will replace the Avro in either case. That is the same fear that you have when you look at them as replacements for the DC9-10.
You are correct in presuming that regardless of where they go, eventually they will replace the DC9-10 and perhaps some -30s as well. When that happens, if the "new" aircraft are assigned to MSA, your group will lose those jobs. If they are assigned to NWA, the MSA pilots will lose the Avro jobs. That is the problem that needs to be resolved.
To be equitable, the agreement should include a provision that protects those jobs, on both sides, regardless of where these "new" aircraft are ultimately placed. That is possible, but I see nothing in the current "NW70" proposal that would come close to doing that. Therefore, the proposal in its current format becomes a "tool" that would in effect transfer those Avro jobs from MSA pilots to NWA pilots. I do not see that as being the right thing to do, nor do I see it as a practical solution for NW pilots. Sort of a self-inflicted Achilles' Heel
I also do not see permitting these "new" aircraft to be placed at MSA (or PCL) and allowing them to result in a further loss of jobs for NWA pilots. Two wrongs can't make one right.
If they go to MSA something must be done to protect the NW pilots. If they go to NWA something must be done to protect the MSA Avro pilots. I believe there are ways to do this contractually without harming anyone or threatening anyone. I just don't think that "NW70" is
the way.
It also said that it "does not envision capturing flying currently allowed by our contract and performed by our regional partners in..........or the avro-85."
"Does not envision", what does that mean? In fact, it means absolutely nothing. This reminds me of the classic contractual phrase "the Company will use its best effort", which is equally meaningless. Given the experience of the NW MEC and its ALPA "advisors", I can only regard the phrase you quoted as one that attempts to obscure an attempt to "capture flying currently <> performed by our regional partners." This phraseology is a dose of Kool Aid suitable for amateurs who are presumed to be both inexperienced and naïve. It is either ludicrous, subterfuge or both.
Now if you mean the avros may go away because it might be more advantageous for mainline to do all 72 aircraft due to cost of the avros or some similar situation, well, thats speculation and may or may not happen. Only management knows that one.
That is exactly what I mean and it is not speculation. It is a foregone conclusion that anyone with experience as a negotiator should instantly recognize. If that is the intent of the proposal, why not just come out and say it? While I might not agree with it, I can deal with an honest presentation.
From my perspective, there is no doubt whatever that if this "new" aircraft goes to NWA, it will replace the Avros one day. If it goes to MSA (or PCL) it will replace the DC9-10 one day. Instead of all the phony pretense, what we need is a solution that protects the interests of both parties. When one is put in place the aircraft can then go to the place that benefits the Company most and the jobs of both pilot groups will be protected. Not jobs for future new hires, but current jobs (including those of furloughed NW pilots) in both pilot groups.
I'll grant you it's a little harder to do that than it is to just take from each other. Nevertheless, it needs to be done. If the Company really needs this "new" aircraft saying that "if we don't fly it then it won't fly" is just as nonsensical as "full pay to the last day". A win/win situation that benefits the Company and protects the pilots in both groups is not only possible, it is essential.
As pilots, it is my opinion that our best interests are better served by being realistic rather than defensive. Some out-of-the-box thinking would appear to be prudent, especially in the current state of our industry. Management is going to do what it sees as being best for the Company and believe me, they don't care who flys what airplane. It is our task to find ways to accommodate their desires while at the same time protecting our needs. In most cases it is not impossible to do that. In my opinion, "NW70" (or what we know about it) falls short of the mark.
I will add, however, that if the rates do end up being lower, say equal to what Mesaba currently has for the avro, it may hurt future 70 seat negotiations, and that would be unfortunate, but I don't see that it would be underbidding Mesaba, as their rate would be the same. And if we don't do the flying, they or PCL will be. I doubt Mesaba would be getting a much better rate than what they currently are getting for the avro. They would be "underbidding" everybody else as well
I tend to agree with most of that, with one important exception. Low-balling the rates will not hurt only future 70-seat negotiations, it will hurt all negotiations. Low wages and inferior work rules for 70-seat jets increase the pressure to reduce rates on larger jets as well. Your current contract pays a common rate for all versions of the DC9, including the 78-seat DC9-10. My information says your 4-yr CA rate is $180; your 12-yr rate $191. Your 2-yr FO rate is $88 and 5-yr rate $112. (I won't even mention the rest of your contract.) Over at MSA on the Avro, the 4-yr CA rate is $64; the 12-yr CA rate is $81. The 2-yr FO rate is $28 and the 5-yr FO rate is $34.
It will be interesting to see just how you plan to compete with MSA on that basis.
If NWA acquires the CR7 or the EMB-170 and operates them at NWA, it does not take rocket science to see what will happen to your DC9-10, even if you give up all the extras in your contract. It should also tell you that ALL of your DC9 rates will come under intense pressure and there is only one way for them to go. This is true, even if you "match" MSA's Avro rate, which is already substantially less than CMR's. On top of that, your DC9's will be competing with USAir's EMB-170's where all captains fly for $58 hr.
Given these realities, it does not appear to me that any proposal to operate a 70-seat regional jet at NWA mainline will ever be able to approach the practical, unless you give up everything and get the rest of your Company's non-pilot employees to accept similar circumstances.
As the saying goes, "necessity is the mother of invention". If you really expect this airplane to be operated at NW mainline, you will have to be a lot more creative. In the process, none of us will benefit.
The devil is in the details, however, for now, management has rejected whatever details they may have been.
Very true. Is it any wonder why?
Oops, gave myself away again!
