^^^^^Are you sure about that? If the company and APA come to an agreement that is not the MTA, but rather a new contract....we do not get to vote? I can see if during JCBA they can not reach an agreement and it goes to arbitration that we would not get a vote. However if this is an entirely new agreement, even if it only changes say pay, we will not have the right to ratify that new agreement....thats the deal?

As I understood it, we will get a say if the terms of the MTA change. If not, then the MTA will stand including the arbitration ruling under the MTA.

Regardless, same rules apply. If the Union leadership passes a contract with relaxed scope and it goes against the majority of the group, then they are to blame. As such, so are the greedy pilots that had their ear and influence. Again, it's no shock the company wants this. To scream at them is a waste. It's your counterparts and Union that control the fate of scope. Just cause they ask, or in this case leverage it with pay raises, does not mean you say yes. It's that simple. If they say yes, the it's all greed.

 

Union leadership is generally older with fewer years to fly. My guess is there will be relaxed scope for more money. The real question is, will they find pilots to fly them at low wages? They are struggling to fill classes now.

 

The 81 seats, is the larger MRJ 90 in a 2 class configuration. The regionals already have 150 on order. FAIL!

 

Well, according to those who have queried their reps, the APA's present position is that they aren't interested in scope relief and see it unnecessary as AA is on equal competitive footing with DAL and UAL. Parkers........um, shall we say "arousal" for more then 76-seats for regionals (79-81) has been known since the heady days of the early CLA negotiations to realize APA's desire to insert and ignite a JATO bottle in Horton's outflow valve.

 

I could be wrong, but I believe member ratification is only required for agreements under Section 6. This doesn't fall under that. There was a motion passed that will allow the BOD to pass it on to the membership IF they deem it necessary to do so.........

 

Eight more new routes launch today

Today, we add a total of eight additional routes to our network, including the addition of a new city on our map, Bismarck, North Dakota (BIS). The routes launching today are as follows:

CLT to both Evansville, Indiana (EVV), and Fort Wayne, Indiana (FWA), operated daily as US Airways Express with Bombardier CRJ-200 aircraft

DFW and ORD to BIS, operated daily as American Eagle with Embraer ERJ-145 aircraft

LAX to both Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (YEG), and Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (YVR), operated daily as US Airways Express with Bombardier CRJ-900 aircraft

PHL and FWA, operated twice-daily as US Airways Express with Bombardier CRJ-200 aircraft

PHX and Cleveland (CLE), operated daily by US Airways with Airbus A320 aircraft

 

 

Scope

While we have seen the comments Scott Kirby made in several venues where he expresses a company desire to add some seats to aircraft flown by regional carriers, there have been no proposals made whatsoever in the JCBA process on anything relating to Section 1/Scope.

 

They also stated they are "waiting for the company to put their major proposals on the table". I'm guessing that if the company is going to ask for scope concessions, that's when they will do it. The comments Kirby has been making I think have a lot to do with trying to measure the mood concerning scope. It will help them develop a strategy in their negotiations.

 

Seems like a lot of things shot down for a company that "wants this done."