It's a good scope clause with a few holes. If there is anyway you can do it...keep the flying in house.
No reduction in 717 block hours? from when? if it's your DOS (which I am guessing it is) I am positive that Hawaiian has added a huge amount of 717 flying since then.
How many block hours is 29,000 hours in comparison to today? I'm guessing a lot less.
No furlough due to feeder flying? This is happening in good times so when things go south it won't be because of the feed...it'll be because of the macro-economic environment, or because Airbus is late on the 350, or you don't get New Zealand government approval for Auckland, or the next terrorist attack, or the next bird-flu.
No flying on the major city pairs...that's great...what would happen if the company decided to turn the "Maui hub" over to the regional tomorrow? How many less pilots would that mean?
First interview/hire at the feeder? I suppose if this makes you feel better. When I was furloughed I didn't apply to any regional because the pay was better on unemployment...just saying.
The thing with Scope clauses is that your flying gets sucked away from you at a very slow rate...so slow that you won't notice it until you look up one day and half your inter-island feed is going to be over at the regional and there is a 300 pilot Dash-8 operation in LAS feeding your 767's. These operations are setup when times are good, and your scope will be eroded when times are bad. Management - we need a 5% pay cut across the board...or you can let the regional fly HNL-OGG during the off peak times of 1000-1400. Next year...we need some pay give backs again...but...if you extend the off peak times just one hour...and let us fly RJ's (but not more than 67 seats) we'll be good.
Additionally, because scope erosion always happens in bad times, it is difficult to enforce. In other words, say the economy falls off a cliff again, the company NEEDS to drop 717 inter-island flying to 25,000 block hours which is against your scope by 4,000 hours. Your negotiating committee has confirmed this by looking at the companies books...this is real. Do you A. Allow the company to drop the 717 hours to 25,000 hours with no further effect on you aside from the 12.5 pilots that would be furloughed; or do you B. enforce your scope clause which in theory would force the company to shut down this regional causing X millions in losses in revenues because if the routes couldn't be supported by a 717 in good times, it surely can't be supported now. Millions in write downs by having to sell planes at fire-sale prices, further placing the company in financial jeopardy? Historically, pilot groups have chosen A, as you will to.
That's the slow way, the fast way is for some future management has the opportunity to invoke force majeure in regards to scope due to some outside event, or heaven forbid a Hawaiian bankruptcy. It's not easy to start a new airline, so if the cheaper option doesn't already exist, they will have to work with you.
Pilot groups have a hard time seeing more than 5-10 years out. I know Dunkerly is very popular...and that's great. I'm guessing he earned the respect because you can believe what he says and he's not going to be cut throat, but try to look 20-30 years out, what if you get a Bob Crandall type at the head after Dunkerly leaves.
I think the lesson learned in airline history over the years about scope clauses is that they don't really work. With Hawaiian, the horse is still in the barn. Don't let it out! Work out the other minor issues...give the company relief from by-pass pay if you need to...but keep the horse in the barn. If Hawaiian wants to offer service in a Cessna 152 from JRF-HNL, if there is a Pualani on the tail...then there is a Hawaiian Pilot at the controls. All of the arguments you are making have all been made before.
Do you think American pilots think it was a good idea to allow American Eagle to be created? After all...they just fly props in tertiary markets that don't make economic sense with the Fokkers.
Last edited:
