Originally Posted by Blue Dude (Post 2647818)

Read the scope clause. It prevents a AS/B6 merger without a JCBA. And that JCBA will require a loosening of the scope clause to allow Horizon or Skywest to continue to operate for the combined carrier. They can have that loosened for a cost, but it's an established fact that they will absolutely need the pilots' "say" over whether and on what terms any proposed merger goes through. Period. We paid for that scope clause and we're not letting it go without a lot more money flowing our way across the table.

Originally Posted by IDIOTPILOT (Post 2647820)

All they have to do is brand regional flying as Alaska on routes that Jetblue currently fly. A JCBA will take years. If pilots vote no or negotaitions stall over scope then they just keep adding more Alaska branded regional flying.

Originally Posted by MusicPilot (Post 2647787)

I guess United, American, and Delta could never merge/acquire jet Blue. Does B6 scope specifically state seats or weight? (I ask because I’ve not seen the full language). Now ask yourself how United was able to merge with Continental. CO had a 50 seat scope clause. UA was flying 70 seaters. Like I said, scope isn’t worth the paper it’s written on because there’s always a way. Now, I’m talking mergers/acquisitions. Keeping them off property as a stand-alone is a different game. AS needs an east coast presence and B6 needs the west coast. It’s a good fit that should easily go through the DOJ.

Originally Posted by IDIOTPILOT (Post 2647820)

All they have to do is brand regional flying as Alaska on routes that Jetblue currently fly. A JCBA will take years. If pilots vote no or negotaitions stall over scope then they just keep adding more Alaska branded regional flying.

Originally Posted by Fleet Warp (Post 2647816)

Wasn't dumping JFK the first thing AS did after buying VX? Why would they want B6?

Originally Posted by Blue Dude (Post 2647825)

A merger with a much larger carrier must result in a JCBA or the merger doesn't happen. The JCBA could just mirror the current CBA of the larger carrier and by sheer weight of numbers it would be voted in. But none of the Guadalupe style, operate separately, take it or leave it, screw job AirTran got. The B6 scope section specifies no part 121 affiliates at all unless operated by B6 pilots, and no block purchase agreements of any sort, so no seat or weight limits. They aren't allowed, period. A JCBA could toss those provisions but it would need a pilot vote to do it.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 2646798)

I agree. But capping scope at current AS levels would be reasonable, wouldn't really hurt JB pilots, and wouldn't directly cost the company(s) anything. Terminating existing feed contracts would cost big bucks. The value of the merger to management would likely outweigh the loss of some future outsourcing. Especially since now is not a great time to outsource, there really is a pilot shortage at the regionals.

Fringe benefit: AS gets some scope!

Originally Posted by MusicPilot (Post 2647899)

Hmmmm, if management doesn’t follow a contract what happens? It’s grieved or even a lawsuit is filed. You think a judge or arbitrator is going to rule in favor of the scope clause and prevent a multi-billion dollar merger from happening? Good luck. Yes, a JCBA will happen because it’s ALPA. If the carrier isn’t ALPA? Good luck. All black and white contract language is great until management thinks it’s grey!

Originally Posted by MusicPilot (Post 2647427)

Scope isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. It sounds nice and makes you all cozy inside, but in the end it will not stop management from a merger/buyout. If it’s in the BOD’s best interest it will get done. Might be a headache, but the union and management will find a way to get it done.

Originally Posted by Baradium (Post 2647935)

Two things here, when you have full scope protection, any give hurts the pilots. Second, AS doesn't have scope protection at all so there is no current level of protection to accept.


Every other airline is trying to take back scope but you are trying to advocate giving it up.