Question on Scope

[Golfcart Man]

Hey all,

By posting this I am not looking to start some massive debate on scope. What I would like to understand is: what exactly is "inclusive scope" or "properly written scope"? I have asked the DCI types this question and they have failed to respond.

I know that there have been other discussions on scope but I have not been able to locate explanations to the above. Thanks for taking the time to answer this.

 

[Ted Striker]

Hey all,

By posting this I am not looking to start some massive debate on scope. What I would like to understand is: what exactly is "inclusive scope" or "properly written scope"? I have asked the DCI types this question and they have failed to respond.

I know that there have been other discussions on scope but I have not been able to locate explanations to the above. Thanks for taking the time to answer this.

Most of us DCI types don't have a clue what those fools are talking about either. The best I have been able to garner from the RJDC-heads is that good scope is something that protects THEIR job, bad scope is something that mainline pilots have made up to personally in order to destroy the regional pilot's family, get their daughters pregnant, make their sons gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) and turn their wives "morally loose". For real though, you'd have to get the "official" word from an RJDC representative-good luck in the translation.

 

[michael707767]

I have heard the RJDC fools say that "good scope" includes, "bad scope" excludes. Now, how you can write any scope clause that does not exclude someone is beyond me. By the way, CMR has scope which excludes anyone from doing CMR flying on aircraft above 20 seats.

 

[~~~^~~~]

As a RJDC supporter from day one, let me make an attempt at answering your question.

Scope is necessary. Scope glues the company to the contract by only allowing the company to use seniority list pilots to perform company flying. Without scope, the company can replace pilots with the pilots at alter ego companies. For example, Delta has at least seven groups of pilots performing narrow body domestic flying.

Good scope defines pilots, not equipment. An example of good scope is "all Airline flying will be performed by pilots on the airline's seniority list."

Instead, ALPA has allowed scope to devolve into several pages of exemptions, exclusions, and excuses.

ALPA lost its way when it began to allow individual MEC's to carve out market niche scope so that "preferred" flying could be flown by "preferred" pilots and "non-preferred" flying could be sublet out to the lowest bidder. ALPA did this because the senior pilots in charge decided that flying underneath them ( in pay and equipment ) was not worth protecting.

As you see in today's market, the definition of "preferred flying" keeps changing. The problem with recovering "preferred flying" is once that flying is traded away for more pay that flying is then performed by other ALPA members who have the same rights to union protections as do their mainline brothers. The RJDC litigation's primary claim is that ALPA has failed in its duty to represent regional pilots when it excluded them from negotiations involving the most important factor in their pay and working conditions - scope.

ALPA's downfall will be that it embraces alter ego replacement flying. The alter ego entities will compete with each other and drive down the standards of the industry. You see examples everywhere - mainline furloughing while regionals hire - mainline pilots giving up longevity and coming to work at regionals for less the current regional pilots, while performing the same narrowbody domestic flying once protected under their scope clauses. Obviously ALPA has lost control of scope.

The only way to restore our profession is to fight alter ego replacement flying. If you do not have a copy of ALPA's history, let me encourage you to pick up a copy of "Flying the Line."

 

[michael707767]

Good scope defines pilots, not equipment. An example of good scope is "all Airline flying will be performed by pilots on the airline's seniority list."

So you are telling me its ok to have scope preventing any outsourcing, but anything less than that is bad scope? Kind of an all or nothing deal? I can't allow an exemption even if its in my and my companies best interest?

 

[surplus1]

Hey all,

By posting this I am not looking to start some massive debate on scope. What I would like to understand is: what exactly is "inclusive scope" or "properly written scope"? I have asked the DCI types this question and they have failed to respond.

I know that there have been other discussions on scope but I have not been able to locate explanations to the above. Thanks for taking the time to answer this.

First, I'm not a spokesperson for the RJDC or anyone else so this is just my opinion. Keep that in mind and take it with a "grain of salt".

Inclusive Scope - This is really a euphemism (one that I personally do not subscribe to). It is based on the idea that a major airline pilot group should write scope that is designed to eventually incorporate the flying done by subsidiaries or subcontractors in a manner that ultimately leads to one pilot group doing all of the flying for a parent corporation that owns more than one airline. Close to "one list", but not one company. In many respects it is similar to what the ALPA has now labeled "brand scope".

In my personal opinion, both inclusive scope and "brand scope" are impractical. Getting the parent to agree to it is highly improbable. Getting the major pilot group to invest in it is also improbable as it has no benefit for them other than furlough protection and the cost (in negotiating capital) would be high. Additionally, the mainline pilots really don't want the regional pilots as a "responsibility". They have already found other ways to control the activities of the regionals with the kind of scope that they currently use. If they could expand the current format of scope they would gain total control of all the flying with none of the liability. There is no reason for them to give up what they think they already have to "include" people that they don't want to include and are actively seeking to exclude.

Properly Written Scope - This is no more than scope in its original format. It provides job security for the group that has it. Essentially it provides that all aircraft operated by a particular airline are flown by pilots on the seniority list of that airline.

This type of scope is "traditional". It would not permit any subcontracting and it would not permit any subsidiaries, unless the pilots are all on the same seniority list. When a corporation acquires another airline, traditional scope requires a merger of the seniority lists and a single contract.

The current disputes over Scope all have their root in the conscious decision of most mainline groups to permit subcontracting of their work and then to permit ownership of multiple airlines, by one company, without integration of the pilot groups.

Once "traditional scope" has been breached, it's the equivalent of Humpty Dumpty falling off the wall; you just can't put it back together.

United pilots (as an example) do not write anything in their Scope clauses that attempts to control or limit the work of pilots employed by Delta. If they did, Delta pilots would laugh at it and it would not be enforceable. United and Delta are separate airlines and neither pilot group can create "inclusive" or "exclusive" scope with respect to the other.

If a new holding company were to be formed and it suddenly owned both Delta and United, both pilot contracts would require a "merger" of the pilot groups and there would be no conflict related to Scope. That is because both contracts include "properly written scope", with respect to each other.

Now lets take the situation between Delta and Comair (as an example). Comair was a separate corporation, subcontracting work for Delta Air Lines, in accordance with an "exemption" to the Delta pilots "properly written" scope clause. There was no direct conflict.

Delta Air Lines then decided to purchase Comair. Due to an "improperly written" scope clause, DAL was NOT required to merge the corporations or integrate the seniority lists of the two pilot groups. This created an immediate conflict between the respective scope clauses of the two groups. The Delta PWA provided for Delta pilots to do all Delta flying, except that which was specifically exempted. The Comair PWQ provided for Comair pilots to do all Comair flying, without exemption.

Now that both Delta and Comair are "owned" by the same corporate entity, how do we define what is "Delta pilots flying" and what is "Comair pilots flying"?
Does Delta pilots flying become whatever Comair pilots say it is? Does Comair pilots flying become whatever Delta pilots say it is? Do the Delta pilots now have the right to exclusively negotiate what Comair flying should be? Do Comair pilots have the same right to exclusive negotiate what Delta flying should be? The obvious answer should be NO, for both of them.

However, the Delta pilots have decided that they DO have the exclusive right to negotiate what Comair pilots flying should be. Comair pilots, as might be expected, do NOT agree. Therefore we have a conflict of interest between the pilot groups over who controls what flying.

Management takes full advantage of this conflict of interest and uses it to manipulate both pilot groups. Unfortunately the labor union that represents both Delta and Comair pilots is faced with the very same conflict of interest, which it has either refused or been unable to resolve.

I gets much more complicated but that is the "gist" of the difference between properly written scope and improperly written scope. There were flaws in the scope clauses of both the Delta pilots and the Comair pilots. Their removal or correction would require the agreement of both pilot groups with respect to what flying each controls. No such agreement has been reached or even attempted. Thus, the conflict of interest continues unabated.

When the union attempts to resolve the issues by playing favorites with one of the parties to the dispute, the union then violates its duty to represent the interests of the other group. A classic Catch 22.

IMO, the conflict cannot be resolved unless both parties (Delta pilots and Comair pilots) can agree to an equitable division of the work; in other words they must agree as to who controls what part of the total flying. Neither one can arbitrarily impose its will on the other. A scope clause that attempts to impose the will of one group upon the other, without its consent, is "improprerly written scope".

Since the union has apparently abdicated its responsibility to resolve the issue, the result is litigation. The courts will have to decide what is "proper" and what is not. I hope that helps.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive". Unfortunatel, that is what some of us think the ALPA has done. Time will tell.

 

[tranceport]

from my observation over the years working for both regionals and a major:

scope is defined by me as a concept, similar to job security or benefits packages, that has many possible outcomes and uses:

a) negotiated away by narrow minded pilots focusing on pay

b) given up slowly over years after being brainwashed by the company, media , industry know it alls, and union leadership

c) is agreed to by both workers and mgmt. only to have it violated anyway and resolved by a futile battle of grievances (mgmt wins anyway and if it doesn't, the outcome isn't exactly a 'win')

d) placing idealistic labels to the term, such as 'good scope' and 'bad scope' is the end result of fear inducing tactics by both mgmt. and unions to keep the pilot groups at odds and in constant fear. This fear tactic is very successful for whatever the crisis is at hand for either labor or mgmt.

for me, scope is just another label we put on a business practice that can't be enforced, and thus, it has lost it's 'power' as a rally point for pilots and is moot.

scenario: big co. is in trouble; scope needs to be relaxed; pilots give in; lawyers on both sides create documents that get violated and massaged; big co. gets in more trouble b/c that plan didn't work. In the meantime, flying is no longer done by big co. pilots and therefore the fear tactic worked. Next? I'm sure many of you can come up with similar 'scope' soap operas.

Fear. it's not's just a battle cry, it's a way of business and a perfect way of dividing a labor group (ie all pilots: regional and mainline).

p.s. apologies for the sarcasm but for me, scope gets lumped into the same trash bin as cabotage, sick bank, and other concepts we as pilots perceive to be 'important'.

 

[FurAA]

As long as you are flying the colors of UAL, NW, AA, DAL, etc, than you will be subject to those companies scope. If that doesn't work, than the "regional" company should have the marbles to go it alone like Independence Air. Notice IA no longer has a problem with the scope issues of UAL mainline? The "regionals" owe whatever success they enjoy to past scope exemptions. No one anticipated the bombardment of small jets, which is compounding the problems of outscourcing. No "regional" wants to admit that they owe their bread and butter to their mainline afiliations, but it is the truth. Without the mainline, they go away or go independent and become a "real" airline. Yes, that means sell your own tickets, buy your own fuel, and market your own product. All for greatly increased costs of course.

Eagle found out first hand with American Connection just how fun it is when your jobs are outscourced to lower paid labor. That is what we are talking about now, outscourcing to lower paid labor. Scope, in all it's forms is simply trying to prevent this. We as a pilot group are so shortsighted that we can't see that all this outscourcing is killing the profession. The more mainline gives on scope, the more you might as well get comfortable at you lower paying "regional" job, because that will be career.

 

[P38JLightning]

good scope/bad scope

what exactly is "inclusive scope" or "properly written scope"?

Fins description above of how ALPA got us into this mess for their own selfish and shortsighted reasons is right on.

I'm not so sure the judge will carry the notion of squatters rights to the extent the RJDC is hoping, but there is some merit in that claim too.

WHat you will never see the RJDC do, however, is provide specific examples of what a "good" scope clause looks like, and they will never, ever tell you how we get to that point.

Fins came about as close as anyone in the movement when he said a single seniority list is an example of an acceptable solution. Simply throwing that idea, ripe for abuse, out there will never cut it and he knows it, although he is right to the tiny extent that the end result would hopefuly look like that.

Take our oil situation. You could propose "becoming less dependant on foreign oil" as a solution and you would be right. But how to get there is a massive can of worms. You could argue the big evil oil companies would work against that solution and you'd probably be right too, but that doesn't add any more credibility to such a vague and grossly incomplete solution. How bout we clearcut Alaska and drill the entire state? What if we could proove that would emiminate our dependance on foreign oil? Acceptable? Hardly. How about something equaly vague, like "uh, convert to solar powered everything!" Yeah right. Thanks for the philosophical contribution.

I have followed the RJDC movement for a few years too, and I have read all their updates and looked at most of their web site. Its all so vague its meaningless. They put on a clinic prosecuting ALPA for its sins, shortfalls, arrogance and myopia. They rail about "bad scope" and the need for "good scope" but what's funny is this multibillion dollar movement (if even a sizeable fraction of their sought dammages are awarded) never says jack about the specifics of how to get there.

Ask some RJDC supporters, however, and they will tell you. Not the "official spokespersons" who know what they need to say in public and what they can't say to preserve the potential windfalls they believe are possible and they are due. But average supporters. They expect a greater than a staple number at Delta. Onelist was a proposed solution from the beginning, but they would never admit up front to a staple, because they don't want to "tip their hand during negotiations".

Thats why the lawsuit stemmed directly from the rejection of the PID (asking ALPA to commit to the merger process of Comair, ASA and Delta first and then work out those pesky details later).

They even went so far as to advise Comair and ASA pilots who were hired at Delta (back when Delta was hiring of course) that they should seriously think about not going because typicaly in a merger you got something between staple and DOH so by going to Delta now they stood to lose out on some seniority. How's that for well intended?

So in that context, good scope means either I get a greater than staple number at DAL or a stapled number only if thats what some arbitrator who we hand the process over to says I should get or the ability for me to bid on any size equipment I see fit (they gripe about 70 seat limits, but push them just a wee little bit and they quickly go to 105 seat limits and even whip out the 120 seat limit number because that's what they were once "limited to", always of course keeping their options open for unlimited bidding, because how can "my bargaining agent put limits on me? oh boo hoo") or a sweet multimillion dollar check via the lawsuit.

That's the true definition of good and bad scope. Like any propaganda spin meisters, they include a generous helping of the truth in their rhetoric, i.e. their laundry list of ALPA's sins and transgressions. They include specific after specific of what ALPA has done wrong, but are oh so vague with what ALPA needs to do to make it right. When pressed for an answer they become like a Navajo elder: "quiet young one, its the journey that counts, not the destination" even though they know darned well what destination they want and are doing everything they can to make sure they get there.