Originally Posted by
Scoop
Guys,
This issue is a lot more complicated than a simple "No" vote. I am pretty much a Scope hawk and have submitted a DPA card, but:
Our present Scope sucks and needs to be improved. I believe that there is presently no limit on turbro-props at any seat level as just one glaring weakness and there are others.
I think we as Pilots should only give up two things to bring the 717s onboard - Jack and Squat! If it is in the companies best interest to get them they will - end of story.
On the other hand we have to ask ourselves can we allow additional 76 seaters, say converting some to 70 to 76 seaters and still improve our scope language at the same time?
I think we can - my problem is that I do not trust our company and our union not to simply renegotiate Scope again in the future after they grow to the next Scope limit, or actually "pause" since no Scope limit has actually been more than a "pause" in growth vice an actual long term limit.
Our track record in this regard as a Union is not good. Maybe DALPA has indeed learned from past mistakes - but how do we know? How can we be guaranteed an "Ironclad" future Scope clause? And we have all seen what "force-majeur" can do in times of financial stress.
Bottom line - My personal feeling is that we could improve our Scope greatly while allowing more 76 seaters - think about , reductions in the Alaska code-share, reductions/limits in JVs, big reductions in the total number of DCI seats/percentages that we allow. All of this would be great if it wouldn't just be bargained away again in the future like other previous Scope agreements - as soon as they become limiting.
This is our conundrum and I don't know what the answer is - but I am open for suggestions.
Scoop
Here's where we, as high minded, intelligent, type A personality, ridiculously good looking pilot types tend to step on our own tails.
Theoretically what you said, in its entirety, could be interpreted as a net positive.
BUT!!!!<—there's a very big but here though
Again I liken this discussion to the company saying what if they offered each one of us 10 million dollars, taxed paid, if we agreed to allow one single additional 76 seater. Would that be a gain? Yeah, sure. But they're never going to offer that therefore the only value in asking what the price is resides in the company's favor exclusively.
Once we've established that scope is for sale, we've already agreed to sell it and now we instantly move on to pricing. Just like we're not getting 10 million dollars each for a single RJ, we're also not even close to getting all the things you mentioned simply because the value of even unlimited outsourced 76 seaters only goes so far. Especially since we already allow up to 255 of them.
Not only that, but while 153 or so are 76 seaters (90 seaters with a first class...lets never neglect to acknowledge that tidbit) the other 102 are 70 seaters. How is the company going to get out of the leases of 102 seventy seaters even if we let them replace them with 76(90) seaters? Obviously they have no intention of doing so, at least for most of them, and therefore would really be asking for growth 76(90) seaters taking the large RJ limit up to likely over 300.
Not only that, but the company as well as ALPA EFn'A don't even know how to begin to calculate the long term negative value of negative pattern barganing. IOW, whatever value more 76(90) seaters have for us will be substantially reduced once UCAL, USAir, JB, SW and AMR cave, precively because we caved. So today's value mostly comes from the EXTREMELY temporary snapshot of relaxing scope. Pretty soon every carrier has 10 billion cancer jets and now no one has an advantage. But many quarterly bonus checks will be handed out by the time that materializes and managers will move on while we're almost all still here.
Remember, they could replace 70's with 76(90)'s today if they grew the mainline fleet. As dumb as it is to sell our jobs even to supposedly grow our jobs, not only has that most definately NOT happened, but they will likely use that same stratedgy again this time. 255 large RJ's were supposed to help not only maintain the 760+ mainline jets (its 767 but I like 760+ so as to not confuse the issue with the ER) they were supposed to fuel mainline growth. We have well over a decade of fresh history that clearly, without a shadow of a doubt, shows that large RJ's are mainline replacement jets. Its not even a matter if high theory...they are literally, as in exactly, DC-9-10 replacement jets. Only they are more efficient. Maybe that's why we can't fly them?
There is no way the company is going to give up AS and AF/KLM abuse and the flexibility they have there, and do anything else that truly and sustainably grows the mainline just in exchange for more large barbie fun jets. There simply isn't that much value in the savings at even the most dirt bag POS operator immaginable when compared to full and complete mainline costs, and that's even assuming we and other work groups would hold the line on full pay and benies for them to come here. We're talking about work groups that don't even know what a scope clause is, don't care and would likely rather outsource the work anyway than to do it for a penny less because they just don't comprehend it and they certainlly ain't gonna fight for it. Not one bit. Not even during a Bolshevik "me too!" conniption fit with everything else
we get.
IMHO even a tantalizing scope deal that in the aggregate appears to "tighten scope" but allowed more large RJ outsourcing would be full of more holes than it plugged.
They already have 255 DC-9-10 replacement jets. That's more than enough. And while they may end up getting them, they ain't going to move the world in 70 seat props. Its time to turn the scope check valve around and start getting all the flying back.