Originally Posted by
Widow's Son
>>No scope language.<<
With all due respect, you either don't understand scope or don't understand our contract.
We have scope language that is arguably the strongest in the industry. It's strength lies in its simplicity.
I don't have a copy in front of me, but what it says is that any flying controlled by the company must be flown by pilots on the swapa seniority list. Period, dot. end. Other scope clauses are pages long and talk of percentages of variables.
Oftentimes, a sentence or two are stronger and more resilient than a chapter or two. The more verbiage there is, there more the precepts become subject to interpretation.
We specifically waived that provision temporarily with the Morris acquisition during the transition. Other than that, the scope provision of the contract has held tight, unlike our peers.
Code share is different than scope. We have never had code share language until the recent side letter.
Yes we could get RJ's tomorrow, we could get 777's as well. Neither of those issues involve scope as both would have to be flown by swapa pilots.
What can't happen is for the company to contract with SkyWest or Mesa to fly RJ's in SWA colors carrying SWA passengers. That is what scope is all about.
I agree, the shorter and simplier the SCOPE statement is the more rock solid it should be, however we have had ,and others have had the same statement your contract has. "All flying performed on behalf of the pilots onthe respective list".
IMO, the reason the issue has not been pursued by your managment team is you do not operate a hub and spoke system that requires feed! Your feed comes from the ability to market your product such as people are willing to drive up to a couple hundred miles away (leaving out the regional feed segment).
Many legacies have found ways to creatively circumvent a scope clause, your management has had no reason to (yet, and hopefully ever).
Regards,
AA