Originally Posted by Check Essential

Following on the heels of our RAH surrender, its a disturbing trend we have going here when the ALPA guys are so ready to capitulate on scope issues and claim there's nothing we can legally do about outsourcing and subcontracting.

The notion that we can't force management to bargain about scope and job security because its a "permissive" topic and we can never strike over those issues is just plain dangerous.

Here's the Supreme Court on that issue:

The type of "contracting out" involved in this case -- the replacement of employees in the existing bargaining unit with those of an independent contractor to do the same work under similar conditions of employment -- is a statutory subject of collective bargaining under § 8(d) of the Act.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that, on the facts of this case, the "contracting out" of the work previously performed by members of an existing bargaining unit is a subject about which the National Labor Relations Act requires employers and the representatives of their employees to bargain collectively.

FIBREBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORP. V. LABOR BOARD, 379 U. S. 203 :: Volume 379 :: 1964 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Originally Posted by Timbo

Personally I think the 76 seat ship has sailed. I doubt if we (mainline DL) will ever be able to 'recapture' that flying. There is a limit per our contract to how many 76 seat RJ's can exist. So let's focus on defending that limit, and let's turn our attention to the NEXT threat, the much fabled 100 seater.

If we hold the line on 76 seats for DCC's, then obviously any 100 seater would have to be flown by mainline pilots. As much as many of you hate to admit it, DALPA was right when they said the 36 and 50 seat RJ's would eventually dissapear, over congestion and higher fuel prices helped. So where's the next logical step? 100 seater replaces 76. OK, Who flys it?

If the RJ guys want mainline jobs, they should be supporting mainline scope. If instead they want to spend the rest of their careers flying 76 seaters at DCC pay/benefits, then by all means, sue DALPA over our scope clause, if/when the 100 seater comes along.

And for you mainline guys, here's a no-kidding question that is sure to come up over the 100 seater, if/when it ever shows up. How much of a pay raise would it take for you to give away the 100 seater to the DCC's? If RA offered you a 30% pay raise tomorrow, and put some limit on the total number of 100 seaters allowed, would you let it go to the DCC's?

That is exactly the tactic used to get to where we are today, first it was the 50 seaters, then 76, next step, 100.

So, what's your selling point? 30% raise? 50%? 100%? Here's mine, I want a 100% raise for a couple years, (to get my last kid through college) and my $1.4 Million DB money returned to my 401K, and then I'll retire 10 years early, you can have my 777 left seat.

BTW, in all the previous contracts, all of which allowed more relaxation of our scope, I voted no... Now it's your turn.