Originally Posted by
eaglefly
I recall a recent poll on EL earlier this year where IIRC approximately 70% of the pilots who answered (out of about 100-150 total) confirmed they planned to stick it out at Envoy unless an LCC, legacy or the AA flow called. In other words they were too committed to "flee the company like rats off a sinking ship" laterally just because. Based on that, new-hires at Envoy can expect little ejection from the more senior pilots who have too much invested should things change at Envoy. Anyone who is a captain certainly wont start over at another regional and most senior F/O's wont either. Those at the bottom of the F/O list are the only ones with so little invested that they would likely consider Envoy a bum hand and jack-knife out to another regional. However.........
An EL poll, that's solid. Well, I have actual evidence from real people who did make lateral moves when things started going bad at their company. Many former Comair pilots currently work at envoy alone, pilots who left long before their actual furlough letter came when they saw the writing on the wall. Eagle/envoy lost 800 FOs between 2011 and 2014 who made lateral moves with what was going on there. We got just under 30 Republic FOs at envoy during their contract negotiations. Beside, my argument wasn't about whether those leaving would be junior or senior. (But yes, I do agree with you that the more senior a pilot is the less likely they would be to leave) My argument was that a stoppage of flow would cause an exodus, which harms the company's staffing regardless of what seniority those pilots may have had. To the company, a pilot is a pilot and trying to fix short staffing with a solution that was cause staffing to get worse doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if you attended a state school.
Originally Posted by
eaglefly
Remember, NONE of the WO's pilots including Envoy have specific flow rights by name, only assumed proj..........er, excuse me, "suggestions" by flow RATE. If the RATE is renegotiated to provide more balance that AAG needs to keep EACH WO stable, some will win and others will lose in such a "rebalancing".
Are you just making things up as you go now. Envoy gets 50% of AA new hire class. period. Unless you figure out a way for hundreds of pilots to not turn 65 or lose their medicals or AA figures out a way to move planes around without pilots, they will have to hire new pilots and envoy gets 50% of those positions. Simple. Rates, suggestions... they have nothing to do with it. 50% of new hires are envoy. Simple.
Originally Posted by
eaglefly
Well, how about the very scenario you want someone to describe albeit it not for the reason YOU want, because that reason is flawed IMO ?
I want a theorem that can be backed up with a logical arguments and actual evidence to support that theory. Not made up rates, suggestions and claims that "anything can happen". To be far, yes, ISIS could overthrow the US Government and not allow us to flow. Not likely, but since you like to deal in extreme unlikely scenarios. I concede, anything is possible.
Originally Posted by
eaglefly
OK, AAG then informs Envoy that since they once again are resisting being competitive, Envoy will contract further and wa'la, the "rat" process begins again, but only from the bottom of the F/O list and just enough to get any delay in capitulation from Envoy ALPA. Suppose AAG concurrently offered any Envoy pilot a lateral move to another WO at their present pay rate ? You know........the very scheme Envoy ALPA tried to get their management and AAG to bite on recently targeting OTHER pilot groups ?
That would trim pilots nicely off the bottom who have little invested in Envoy and in fact, might not even delay their flows that much considering Envoy would contract even further (at least until Envoy ALPA once again cried "uncle"). Boy would Envoy ALPA then squeal about that, yes ? It wasn't "poaching" then according to many of you, but I'll bet you'd cry the opposite if Envoy was the target. At any rate, no captains would leave because of this and most senior F/O's won't because that poll ALREADY indicated most are too committed to reverse course, so Envoy only shrinks enough to get ALPA capitulation and we know that won't take long. Anyway, the bottom line is that I think in the future, AAG will want 3 approximately equal WO's with approximately equal flows (and identical CBA's) unless they instead move toward consolidation. But for a 3-legged stool (no pun intended
) like that to balance correctly, AAG cannot have lopsided costs or benefits. Since they presently ARE lopsided, that will have to be corrected either by negotiated agreement or in Envoy's case (as it is Envoy that is the one to shrink and whose flow must be diluted), pressure. I think it will be by negotiated agreement and quickly. In the situation of consolidation (less likely, but still a possibility), look for an SLI to determine flow suggestion and it likely wont be by DOH , but some component of status & category, meaning a senior F/O at PSA or Piedmont who has 2 years there, may very well be placed senior to a mid level F/O at Envoy with 3-4 years and thus flow sooner as again, none of the flows imply anything by NAME.
So your argument is, "But they can ask you to renegotiate your contract?" Your scenario has so many far fetched assumptions, I'm surprised it didn't involves aliens and Purple Spaghetti monsters. The likelihood of your scenario happening is about as likely as APA agreeing to relax scope so that Parker can put the Embraer 190s at the regionals. How likely is that to happen? So yes, they could ask ALPA to renegotiate the flow just as they could as APA to further relax scope. The Earth could also get hit by a meteor tomorrow. Just because something has an extreme possibility doesn't make it probable.