gloopy

Well a semi-recent DFR issue came dangerously close to happening just because we have a scope clause. Do we really think that it will go unchallenged if we are flying ASA planes, perhaps even on the ASA certificate, perhaps with ASA FA's and dispatchers, reporting to our ASA CP's, at the top of the seniority list, and no one is going to sue? That is a Joe Merchant wet dream for a seniority land grab moonshot, even if it involves "new and larger" planes.

And besides the potential legal challenges, do we really think its wise to erode our scope clause further to allow management to chop up our entire seniority list (and airline) into perhaps multipile regional certificates (many which fly for other airlines) for our mainline narrowbody planes? Just so we can hopefuly fly (and allegedly finance) the new "hundred seater"?

You are right that unity is important. But to many unity only comes after they win the seniority lottery..or at least take a shot at it. We need all our flying on our list. That must come with an iron clad prenup that guarantees no seniority land grab against any of our pilots. There is also no way we should pay for longevity like you previously suggested so that every single mainline "new hire" pilot comes over at year 12 scale. That would be insanely expensive and would have to be "paid for" by us 100%. No way. That said, we (and everyone else) need to do away with our 2 year B scale and make first year pay the same as 3rd year pay minus a few percent. But not "flow up to 12 year pay and bennies" which would be rediculous because that windfall would come out of all our hides.

There is a battle being planned for the 100 seat segment. It is the missing link right now, because of management product failings and union scope failings. But they intend on getting them if they can. I think we need to fly them here as opposed to farming them out to the likes of Mesa, Trans States, SKYW, ASA or any rediculous third party "air group" labor busting, ace dealing, win the next RFP by any means necessary group of outsource providers.

We need to bring 100% of the 70-76 seaters in house, and maybe that can be done with some kind of a bridge agreement like that since those are already fully outsourced anyway. But our seniority list must not be tampered with in any way to make that happen (other than future new hire positions on the bottom of said list as new hires). The only way I see to make that happen is preferential hiring or a flow thorough, and even those need to be handled carefully. But to give up even more scope and even bigger airplanes in the hopes that we and our epic fail lawyers that didn't even think about the old separate certificate trick can craft some nebulous multipile airline seniority list puts everything at risk. To do it just so that our company can get fake debt relief on paper only just seems like a massive risk we shouldn't take.

I also don't think we should bow down in fear and start gutting our scope in the name of strengthening our scope just to fly airplanes in a seat range we already own. Gutting our entire airline to allow an even larger segment to be flown at outsource providers is flat out playing with fire.