Without SCOPE the hiring boom is a PIPE DREAM

[BrickTop]

For many it may be an easy choice to accept the opportunity to be employed by a legacy carrier like DAL,SWA,UAL,CAL US AIR etc. But one fact that has been widely un-discussed in anticipation of the hiring boom and potential threat is; SCOPE.

We can all speculate pilot integrity in regards to holding onto scope or the fact oil demands larger fleet sizes to spread operating costs. But we know the hard truth is legacy carriers are determined to navigate around or seek relief from scope in the coming years. Or at minimal find "regional" sized airframes in their operations for less than desirable pay scales.

Simple math will show indeed a retirement boom is plausible and more likely real. But the most unanswered question I have is how many positions at legacies will be a par for par replacement? I often thought the risk of moving to a Major carrier is to great without knowing the fate of Major vs Regional growth.

If mainline carriers afford the scope relief they desire through tactics like the Skywest contract in the UAL/CAL merger, dangling carrots or other market forces, Not every retirement will be a replacement at a major carrier, or as mainline carriers find themselves operating regional aircraft on former mainline routes. Much the way UAL did with their 737 fleet. Many of those positions are not coming back and were replaced by 70 seat aircraft. This risks in stagnation, reductions and even further possible furloughs at major carriers as regional fleets grow.

Major carriers may instead (pending scope) replace those city pairs with larger scale regional jets or reduced intervals. Either way the need for pilots in the industry IS REAL however, the question is where? I know the question is about as answered as quantum physics but the risk of leaving a career at XXX has had me in question for years. Is in fact the safest place to be in the future, a senior pilot at a successful regional?

Many of us hope the shift in recent years will result in more careers returning to the legacy carriers however we cannot discount the risk involved in making such as a move as the industry changes many operational measures in the years ahead.

There may in fact be massive legacy retirement in the future ahead but it may not be the safest place to be when a new era evolves from scope circumnavigation which is NOT unlikely. You may think hard about the move as a senior pilot at your regional carrier. Just a thought.

Discuss:

 

[skywdriver]

CAL/UAL will get the chance to set the course straight for the industry when it comes time to vote on a contract. I will not vote yes on any contract that alleviates scope in any way, period. Everyone talks about how important scope is, I hope their vote is as powerful as their words.

 

[Flybywire44]

CAL/UAL will get the chance to set the course straight for the industry when it comes time to vote on a contract. I will not vote yes on any contract that alleviates scope in any way, period. Everyone talks about how important scope is, I hope their vote is as powerful as their words.

Lets hope so.

 

[On Your Six]

Hopefully higher oil prices will take care of the 50 seat RJ threat.


OYS

 

[slackass]

If risk scares you stay where you are. If you would have made the move a few years ago instead of staying put you would be making at least as much as you are now with the posibility of much more. Quality of life? That's another consideration.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Shouldn't prospective legacy pilots evalute how counterproductive it is/was to their long-term career goals when they choose to go to work for an airline that operates those aircraft at substantially lower pay rates than equivalent mainline aircraft? Should they be absolved from being willing accomplices to the demise of their career goals just because they were lured into a job flying a jet that looked similar to the one they hoped to fly as a career? They shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for the state of the industry, not unlike the irresponsible homebuyers who aspired to own homes they knew they couldn't afford absent some screwball mortgage scheme are to blame for the recent housing market collapse.

Aside from a few years of relative stability and high wages which in retrospect are an aberration, the piloting profession is returning to the state it had been prior to the early 50's; a job with slightly above average pay and the job security of a migrant farm worker, no matter what size airplane you fly.

 

[pilotyip]

remember it was mainline piltos not wanting those little T-props in their fleet that started this whole thing back in the 80's

 

[Homer Jay]

remember it was mainline piltos not wanting those little T-props in their fleet that started this whole thing back in the 80's

And I'm ready to strike over the issue my ignorant predecessors created.

 

[Flopgut]

remember it was mainline piltos not wanting those little T-props in their fleet that started this whole thing back in the 80's

And they are the same ones creating the problems today. It's not so much that they were mainline pilots then, it's their generation. They only cared about themselves then, and they only care about themselves now. They sold out scope then, and now they've orchestrated a retirement age change. But, as far as moving on, we need to insist these old guys improve their ethics. A perfect example is the current CAL scope fight. Non-union Skywest was set to violate scope. Leading up to the arbitration showdown many of us felt that social enforcement of honoring the CAL contract needed to enter the discussion. Skywest has failed to join a union 3 times. They also flew 70 seat airplanes for a chroncally low wage. (flew 70 seaters for the same rate as a 50 for "growth" in the UAL brand post 2nd BK) Check Webster's definition of a scab. You'll find Skywest pilot's behavior to be very close to the criteria. Now, they've gone along with abiding by the arbitrator's ruling so far and I'm appreciative of them doing so. My point is, ALPA National leadership (those same baby-boomers that only care about themselves) was not on board with making an example of Skywest. Leadership has to be consistent from the top down. Scabs messed up their careers back in the day and when no less than the same (according to Webster's) was to be done to a subsequent generation they don't care. It's BS. It's very likely to be the eventual end of ALPA. However, we're still going to have the problems because we still have to work shoulder to shoulder with these pilots.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scab

 

[JoeMerchant]

Shouldn't prospective legacy pilots evalute how counterproductive it is/was to their long-term career goals when they choose to go to work for an airline that operates those aircraft at substantially lower pay rates than equivalent mainline aircraft? Should they be absolved from being willing accomplices to the demise of their career goals just because they were lured into a job flying a jet that looked similar to the one they hoped to fly as a career? They shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for the state of the industry, not unlike the irresponsible homebuyers who aspired to own homes they knew they couldn't afford absent some screwball mortgage scheme are to blame for the recent housing market collapse.

Aside from a few years of relative stability and high wages which in retrospect are an aberration, the piloting profession is returning to the state it had been prior to the early 50's; a job with slightly above average pay and the job security of a migrant farm worker, no matter what size airplane you fly.

Says someone who themself worked for the regionals....I guess it was OK for you to work for the regionals...

 

[Bringupthebird]

I don't think my flying from Hays to Great Bend, KS in a sweaty Metro II had too dramatic an effect on many mainline pilots.

 

[Bringupthebird]

A perfect example is the current CAL scope fight. Non-union Skywest was set to violate scope. Leading up to the arbitration showdown many of us felt that social enforcement of honoring the CAL contract needed to enter the discussion. Skywest has failed to join a union 3 times. They also flew 70 seat airplanes for a chroncally low wage. (flew 70 seaters for the same rate as a 50 for "growth" in the UAL brand post 2nd BK) Check Webster's definition of a scab. You'll find Skywest pilot's behavior to be very close to the criteria.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you worked for CAL, a veritable Petri dish of S-types.

How many of your fellow workers gleefully took jobs at New York Air flying Eastern's and Texas Air's DC-9's in order to help put Eastern pilots out of work?

 

[Flopgut]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you worked for CAL, a veritable Petri dish of S-types.

How many of your fellow workers gleefully took jobs at New York Air flying Eastern's and Texas Air's DC-9's in order to help put Eastern pilots out of work?

Several thousand, almost. I guess I know a couple hundred myself. What is your point? It's obvious you are missing mine.

I'm talking about consistency. The CAL scabs know what they did was a mistake. Some would take it back some wouldn't. But they all have been subjected to social enforcement. What many of them do not understand is how they ended up with the title "scab", and there is no penalty for pilots who advocate a retirement age change that was no less about seniority aggression and equally outside the CBA process as what they did. (that would be you) Or when another pilot group stands to violate their CBA like Skywest, why was there no equal, widespread disgust as there was for them? See, ALPA has not been consistent on this issue. There are too many guys like you. You want to jack me up about CAL scabs but you want a free pass on the retirement age change for yourself and clearly you don't agree with me on Skywest.

Let's be clear on a couple of things with Skywest. It is shocking that the arbitrator ruled in CAL ALPA's favor (almost easily) when we lacked so much support from our National union on the issue. It's disgusting really. Supporting CAL ALPA should have been automatic and unconditional for ALPA's leadership. Additionally let me say that Skywest has been as professional and harmonious as any could be through this and it's a credit to them. I think it's further evidence that what we have is a generational problem in this profession. I'm not trying to disparage the Skywest pilots at this point. I'm trying to speak to the issues leading up to this and how ALPA needs to be consistent.

Either all forms of seniority aggression and contract violations are equally wrong, or none of them are. If you're going to bring up CAL pilot transgressions and call them or anybody "scabs", then know what the term means and be ready to level it evenly. I don't think guys like you get to pick and choose.

 

["TheBigPicture"]

Several thousand, almost. I guess I know a couple hundred myself. What is your point? It's obvious you are missing mine.

I'm talking about consistency. The CAL scabs know what they did was a mistake. Some would take it back some wouldn't. But they all have been subjected to social enforcement. What many of them do not understand is how they ended up with the title "scab", and there is no penalty for pilots who advocate a retirement age change that was no less about seniority aggression and equally outside the CBA process as what they did. (that would be you) Or when another pilot group stands to violate their CBA like Skywest, why was there no equal, widespread disgust as there was for them? See, ALPA has not been consistent on this issue. There are too many guys like you. You want to jack me up about CAL scabs but you want a free pass on the retirement age change for yourself and clearly you don't agree with me on Skywest.

Let's be clear on a couple of things with Skywest. It is shocking that the arbitrator ruled in CAL ALPA's favor (almost easily) when we lacked so much support from our National union on the issue. It's disgusting really. Supporting CAL ALPA should have been automatic and unconditional for ALPA's leadership. Additionally let me say that Skywest has been as professional and harmonious as any could be through this and it's a credit to them. I think it's further evidence that what we have is a generational problem in this profession. I'm not trying to disparage the Skywest pilots at this point. I'm trying to speak to the issues leading up to this and how ALPA needs to be consistent.

Either all forms of seniority aggression and contract violations are equally wrong, or none of them are. If you're going to bring up CAL pilot transgressions and call them or anybody "scabs", then know what the term means and be ready to level it evenly. I don't think guys like you get to pick and choose.

In terms of making your point, or making sense...this post is ridiculous.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Hey Floppy-
Age 65 change cost me personally over $85K and I still agree it was the right thing to do.

You need to have Mohamar Gadaffi proof read your posts for clarity and coherence.

 

[FBN0223]

If you're at Delta, get your card in for the DPA. With over 75% of our dues going to regional airline causes, it's obvious that DALPA can no longer effectively represent the Delta pilot group. With DALPA, more scope will be sacrificed. You can count on it.

 

[Bringupthebird]

HUH? With the combined influence of Delta and Northwest, you think ALPA is driven by regionals? ALPA is not short on problems, but any union leadership is only as good as the degree to which members keep them accountable.

 

[Flopgut]

Hey Floppy-
Age 65 change cost me personally over $85K and I still agree it was the right thing to do.

You need to have Mohamar Gadaffi proof read your posts for clarity and coherence.

I'm telling you the biggest problem in ALPA leadership is ethics. As an example I bring up the term scab and how the same behavior is interpreted two different ways by ALPA depending on how it affects leadership. I further explain that the recent change to retirement age smacks of less than ethical actions by the same leadership. This is what has to be fixed at ALPA if it's going to stay around. Ethics. Forget the intracasies or exact mechanics of the two issues for a moment and look at the behavior of the leadership. Let's not debate 65 again. Let's look at how the change was writtten. It was an attack on seniority. If it wasn't there would have been a meaningful way for those under 65 to have come back paired with some acknowledgment that a progression should have been preserved. Not done=lack of ethics. Don't allow ALPA leadership acting as though they have ethics, to replace actually being treated ethically by them! Do you not get that?!

Instead of trying to grasp the point, you blurt out like a 15 yo girl: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you worked for CAL, a veritable Petri dish of S-types." What was your point in telling me that? This is not news to anybody and it doesn't diminish the point I'm trying to make. I've flown with scabs AND strikers. Sadly, at the point we've reached in ALPA today, you can almost trust the scabs more than you can the strikers.

Whether or not you know any of these types or not, this is basically who we've got running ALPA National. The guys who were junior when Lorenzo was wreaking havoc. Striker types who need to update their ethics and follow through at the National level in the same way as was done for them.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Trying to preserve Age 60 was indefensible. ALPA shouldn't have compromised it's relevance by demanding some unworkable construct like returning as an F/O as a backdoor way to oppose Age 65.

ALPA ethics? I don't think anyone should mistake conservative stewardship of diminishing influence as a lack of ethics. ALPA is trying to save what it can by doing what it must, but they are dealing with an industry that prices first and then figures the cost later, using bankruptcy to make up for any miscalculation. There may come a time and an issue over which dramatic action must be taken, but Age 65 was not it. Sorry if the show disappointed you.

But then again, why so much outrage over delayed upgrade from someone who chooses (or chose) to remain an F/O for whatever reason?

For anyone who likes massive rhetoric and stomping around while losing all credibility with both those you are bargaining with AND for, then give USAPA a call. They're the real men of genius you're looking for.

 

[Flopgut]

Trying to preserve Age 60 was indefensible. ALPA shouldn't have compromised it's relevance by demanding some unworkable construct like returning as an F/O as a backdoor way to oppose Age 65.

ALPA ethics? I don't think anyone should mistake conservative stewardship of diminishing influence as a lack of ethics. ALPA is trying to save what it can by doing what it must, but they are dealing with an industry that prices first and then figures the cost later, using bankruptcy to make up for any miscalculation. There may come a time and an issue over which dramatic action must be taken, but Age 65 was not it. Sorry if the show disappointed you.

But then again, why so much outrage over delayed upgrade from someone who chooses (or chose) to remain an F/O for whatever reason?

For anyone who likes massive rhetoric and stomping around while losing all credibility with both those you are bargaining with AND for, then give USAPA a call. They're the real men of genius you're looking for.

That's a good post. But I can't agree in principle.

What you characterize as "conservative stewardship of dimininshing influence" is what I have a problem with. If ALPA truly had diminishing influence, and the retirement age change was going to happen anyway (as our leader at the time claimed), then why get involved at all? Why not conserve our influence for another issue? (wouldn't that be more "conservative"?) You know, another issue that maybe 80% supported instead of 80% opposed? The answer is: our leader at the time wanted to advantage himself and a small minority of the membership. We could have just let the age change happen and just as many members would have been helped or hurt in aggregate. But National wanted to pick the winners. That's not the kind of ethics a union should have. It's not credible. It's really no different than what USAPA stands for. I don't know how you can make a distinction there.

The government allowed ALPA National to write the age change, and then we got put in time out. Nothing else has gotten done since and I don't know when we'll get past it. There were a lot of solid things the union should have been efforting that got left untouched by our former leader. However important changing the age was, I don't think it was worth the whole profession's entire future. Which might be the case....

BTW, there is no "outrage over delayed upgrade" on my part. I was a captain and I got displaced out of base and eventually my seat. Which was unpleasant but I'm past it. I have a better schedule and make more money on the widebody. Retirements will start soon and things will move pretty fast. As long as nobody pulls a seniority stunt.