"The majors had control of the scope and let it go, now they need to regain control of those scopes."
Time for a little "scope" refresher.
EVERY contract contains scope. SCOPE defines the work which is to be done by the employee.
A very basic scope clause which is included in most airline contracts would be: "All flying which is to be performed by Chautauqua must be performed by pilots on the Chautauqua system seniority list."
The ownership, in the case, is Chautauqua flying. The company can not go out, for example, buy a bunch of 737s, and fly them as "Chautauqua Airlines" but with off-the-street pilots. If they buy 737s, they must be flown by Chautauqua pilots. (let's not muddy the waters with alter-egos right now)
Most major-airline scope language includes one small difference:
"All flying which is to be performed by US Airways must be performed by pilots on the US Airways system seniority list except..."
The except is the difference. Here the parties negotiating the contract may determine that certain work is undesirable, and that work may be excepted from the contract. This frees the company to find other sources to perform said work.
The company has, until now, been successful in pressuring the unions to release scope on 50, 70, and some specific 90 seat airplanes. The company can not legally (without breaking the contract) outsource work that is not specifically mentioned in these scope-clauses.
They may find themselves limited by number of aircraft, type of aircraft, gross-weight, or passenger seats. This was, I believe, the genesis of the RJDC lawsuit. They believe that once a certain aircraft type is deemed "undesirable" and released from scope, it should have no further restrictions.
I/e - the mainline pilots continue to artificially prevent the company from responding to market-forces by limiting the number of 70 seat aircraft that can be flown.
They had a point and perhaps certain sections of those clauses should have been removed to prevent those artificial restrictions.
Scope itself, however, could never just "go away". Scope is the backbone of any contract. It defines what work is to be performed and who will perform it.
There has been outcry by some regional pilots about what they term, "left-over bargaining". They're angry that they can only negotiate to gain what the mainline pilots have deemed undesirable.
Unfortunately, that is the nature of that outsourced lift. They can not negotiate for more, because there IS no more to negotiate for.
I own my house, my furniture, and my car. If one day I decide I dont want my car, and I sell it. It's gone. I can't get it back unless I BUY at back at a price that the new owner deems reasonable. (my "car" is 50/70 seat flying and the new owner is airline management who chooses to lease it to another driver)
On the same note, the person who is leasing that car can't expect to also gain access to my furniture and my home! I haven't "sold" those to airline management yet. Nomatter how badly airline management wants to sell my house and my furniture to this lessor, he can't do so unless I sign over those assets to him.
Make sense?
Up until now, airline management has been "buying" homes and furniture (almost literally) by threatening bankruptcy, loss of pensions, downgrades, furloughs, etc.
Now, suddenly, the pilots have decided, "whoa! We've sold ENOUGH of our stuff!" They are not going to make any more deals. In fact, they are willing to pay a premium in order to keep what little remaining furniture they have -- Call it protection money since the airline managers are dabbling in the mafia.
So I hope you guys are enjoying my car. I admit it was a mistake to sell it. I'm not trying to come back for it. But the next car that is purchased will be mine, and i'm not going to allow any further "exceptions" in the contract to release it.
The pilots at US Airways and apparently Delta won't sell any more jobs.
--Just an observation from a guy who is no longer an airline pilot. This stuff is much more entertaining when you no longer rely on it for a living.
