Originally Posted by
What
I am not making a big deal out of it, but since you insist.
PSA took concessions under the premise that they would get growth flying at the expense of Eagle as the airplanes they were awarded "were" supposed to have gone to Eagle if we would have accepted the B scale.
Eagle has said no twice , after the first time management went to PSA, they came back to Eagle and we said no again. One of the threats used against the Eagle pilots was that PDT could see airplanes, and management is on the record stating that they would like to refleet the wholly owned regionals. I understand that PSA signing this letter has mixed feelings, but my concern is not so much PDT not signing it, but rather the timing. So close to Eagle and others saying NO, while AAG seeks someone to fly their large RJs that are to replace routes currently flown by Eagle.
My concern is that as pilots, regional pilots but specifically AAG regional pilots... we are negotiating against our selves and management is trying to divide and ensure that there is no unity between the three pilot groups. When PSA negotiated their last deal they separated from the rest of the industry as they did their deal, I am wondering if the same thing is happening at PDT. This is the intent of management, and we are hurting each others careers and negotiating against our collective futures.
Just following the money will give you the bottom line on this and virtually any other issue in this industry as it relates to ALPA's mainline carriers and the regionals.
First and foremost, no ALPA contract is valid without the association president's signature. He will ultimately sign a contract at a regional that is in the best interest of the mainline carrier(s) it feeds. The less that feed costs, the lower the cost to the mainline carrier, and the more money that is left over for mainline pay. In our history, that's the reason why Airways Group had Piedmont acquire Allegheny. The Allegheny contract (arguably one of the best, if not the best in ALPA), cost more. With the exception of the Piedmont vacation language, it was far superior. Simple ALPA economics: The association president signed it because it benefitted the mainline carrier. That is and always has been the unspoken conflict that exists within our union.
People complain all the time about Mesa's bottom feeding contract, and PSA dropping their pants yet again. But you don't hear any complaints from ALPA's Executive Council. The president signs contracts that aid and abet our professions race to the bottom at the regional level.
The fact that BF didn't sign the solidarity letter means absolutely nothing.
If you look at ALPA from arms length and follow the money, you will see that institutionally the main line member carriers are the captains, and the regionals are the F/Os. Given the opportunity to influence F/O wages to their advantage, which way do you think they'll turn?
Follow the money.