Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Why are B scales so bad?


da42pilot
08-15-2017, 08:39 AM
Hello guys,

I'm a new hire at a regional trying to learn more about the industry. I keep hearing negative things about a B scale, but all things considered, it seems to me it would be better than the current situation.

With that said, I'm a newbie, so can someone explain to me exactly what a B scale is and why it's not worth pursuing?

Thanks!


Hacker15e
08-15-2017, 08:49 AM
It is very easy to Google "airline b-scale" and find more than enough reading to answer your question.

Here's a start:
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/04/28/225523/index.htm
The war started back in 1983, when a growth imperative gripped major airlines as they raced to compete with low-fare startups. Crandall convinced the pilots that the airline couldn't buy planes to add routes unless new pilots could be hired at drastically reduced pay scales. It seemed like another brilliant Crandall win-win at the time. The pilots who were then at American got to keep their pay, and the new planes offered them opportunities to move more quickly from co-pilot to captain status. Meanwhile, with each new cut-rate pilot, Crandall lowered his average labor costs, all the better to finance the debt incurred in buying the new jets.

Several years later, however, this move came back to haunt him. The pilots hired at what came to be known as the "b-scales" developed a sort of inferiority complex. "All of a sudden, there was a whole group of people working there who were extremely resentful of the fact that the person sitting next to them was making a lot more money for exactly the same job," says Larry Crawford, president of Avitas, an aviation consulting firm in Reston, Virginia. "They began to wonder what kind of scheme was coming at them next." It might seem strange, given that many of their jobs might not have even been created without the b-scales, but they still resented their status as second-class citizens.

Thanks to growth made possible by all the cut-rate hiring, American expanded so quickly that the b-scale pilots eventually made up the majority of the union that Crandall is haggling with today. The b-scalers, whom some at the airline now refer to as the Killer B's, are largely responsible for a grassroots movement called Pilots Defending the Profession that has sprung up on the Internet during the latest round of negotiations. Though the union leadership had approved a tentative settlement offer from American last year, the leaders of the splinter movement persuaded the pilots to turn it down (by almost 2 to 1) when the full membership voted on ratification in January.

da42pilot
08-15-2017, 10:40 AM
Thanks for the link, hacker. I was under the impression a B scale was a lower pay scale for flying smaller aircraft like RJs on the mainline seniority list.


John Carr
08-15-2017, 11:57 AM
Thanks for the link, hacker. I was under the impression a B scale was a lower pay scale for flying smaller aircraft like RJs on the mainline seniority list.

Technically, not a "B-scale" from back in the day AA or anyone else.

DAL's/AAG's rates are pretty much FOR THE MOST PART in line with pay for size of equipment. At least NOW.

Although the 717/E-Jet is more flexible than the traditional "RJ".

awax
08-15-2017, 12:29 PM
Hello guys,

I'm a new hire at a regional trying to learn more about the industry. I keep hearing negative things about a B scale, but all things considered, it seems to me it would be better than the current situation.

With that said, I'm a newbie, so can someone explain to me exactly what a B scale is and why it's not worth pursuing?

Thanks!

B-scale is lower pay for the same work. Originally proposed in the 80's in the wake of deregulation and became a strike issue at UAL.

Here's F Lee Bailey deconstructing b-scale over 30 years ago.

https://youtu.be/_ZLmxIQnLeI?t=12m21s

At the time, the b-scale proposal would offer substantially lower rates (think 1st year new hire rates) for 4-6 years, then spring up to a-scale rates where incremental COLA raises were given.

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-tier_system

marcal
08-15-2017, 05:36 PM
Unions in general are constantly waging their own internal wars to keep their pilots "unified". I worked for an airline that has not only B-scales, but C scales, and D scales. The infighting and chaos that exists within the union from this concept is a cancer that no labor group can fight. B-Scales and the like MUST be prevented and stopped in order to keep any semblance of unity, and as a result, bargaining power and leverage. You must look long term when it comes to this. I promise you that your career will be much better in the long run if you can prevent it. Like so many things in life, it pays to be tough short term, to have it good long term.

da42pilot
08-16-2017, 02:58 PM
Technically, not a "B-scale" from back in the day AA or anyone else.

DAL's/AAG's rates are pretty much FOR THE MOST PART in line with pay for size of equipment. At least NOW.

Although the 717/E-Jet is more flexible than the traditional "RJ".

The AA B-scale was for ALL airplanes, correct?

If all RJ flying is brought back in-house on the same seniority list, with a flow straight to the A-scale dependent only on seniority, would that be acceptable? Keep it exclusively for RJs, protected by whatever is necessary, scope clauses, etc.

If there's confusion with the term B-scale or if the term has too much historical baggage, perhaps rebrand it. The regionals are a defecto B-scale anyways, except with numerous additional disadvantages because they're separate companies and seniority lists.

I wonder why major airlines pilots would not want this. It adds people to the seniority list, which increases job security. Surely getting pushed back into the B-scale wouldn't be as bad as a furlough. Or maybe it's the major airlines that don't want this to happen?

awax
08-16-2017, 09:42 PM
If there's confusion with the term B-scale or if the term has too much historical baggage, perhaps rebrand it. The regionals are a defecto B-scale anyways, except with numerous additional disadvantages because they're separate companies and seniority lists.


Historical baggage? Seriously? Be a student of the profession and learn what the strike issues were for those who have come before you.

The '83 CAL strike was over the strategic use of bankruptcy to slash pilot wages, the 85 UAL strike was over b-scale - different pay for the same work, the '97 AA strike was (largely) over deployment of 50 seat RJ - outsourcing jobs.

In each case, it was airline management trying to avoid paying a pilot what they're worth.

Starting out at as a new pilot at a regional airline, it's paramount that you learn the lessons of the last 50 years in pilot labor. Failure to understand the methods used by management will ensure that you and your peers fall victim again and again.

There's only confusion with the term B-scale for those who are unwilling to learn the lesson.

Adlerdriver
08-17-2017, 08:12 AM
The regionals are a defecto B-scale anyways Incorrect. A B-scale is a very specific thing and calling a regional airline one is similar to calling some selfish prick who flies OT during contract negotiations a scab.

Same airplane, same company, same seat for less pay. It's that simple. One FO in a 75 seat RJ at company X flying some of the same pax after they just flew in with another FO on a mainline 757.... not the same thing.

Hacker15e
08-17-2017, 08:19 AM
The regionals are more like a C Scale.

BeechPilot33
08-17-2017, 08:31 AM
Hello guys,

I'm a new hire at a regional trying to learn more about the industry. I keep hearing negative things about a B scale, but all things considered, it seems to me it would be better than the current situation.

With that said, I'm a newbie, so can someone explain to me exactly what a B scale is and why it's not worth pursuing?

Thanks!


We are beyond B scale. Today it's C scale flying 86,000 lb GTOW AC as a "Regional" airline flying halfway across the country. Welcome to the industry!

BoilerUP
08-17-2017, 08:38 AM
Flying the Line Vol. 2 and Hard Landing...two books every active and aspiring airline pilot should read.

Those who forget the past, etc etc.

da42pilot
08-17-2017, 09:16 AM
We are beyond B scale. Today it's C scale flying 86,000 lb GTOW AC as a "Regional" airline flying halfway across the country. Welcome to the industry!

I agree, it's even worse than a B scale.

So what's it gonna take to bring regional jets into mainline? That's what I'd like to fix. Even if you keep the regional pay scale as is but inside mainline, there are huge benefits to pilots, particularly the regional pilot but also mainline.



Ps: Boiler I will look those up. Thanks!

BoilerUP
08-17-2017, 10:14 AM
I agree, it's even worse than a B scale.

So what's it gonna take to bring regional jets into mainline?

1. Economics, and
2. More negotiating capital than mainline pilots would be willing to expend

The thing about contract lift is those airframes aren't on the mainline partner's books; the liability for "large small jet" leases or debt service falls on the contract lift provider meaning that capital can be used elsewhere.

The flip side to that are certain large small jet airframes owned by mainline partners (Delta does this some, not sure of others), which lead to constant whipsaw in the contract lift ranks - the mainline partner can pull those jets from one airline and give them to another (see: XJT CRJs moving to Endeavor).

awax
08-17-2017, 11:29 AM
I agree, it's even worse than a B scale.

So what's it gonna take to bring regional jets into mainline? That's what I'd like to fix. Even if you keep the regional pay scale as is but inside mainline, there are huge benefits to pilots, particularly the regional pilot but also mainline.



You've gotta understand that airline management and more importantly, investors, don't give a hoot about "huge benefits to pilots". Regional airlines are outsourced labor operated largely by independent companies.

Let's say that everyone agreed to bring pilot labor under one tent. The owners of regional airlines are going to want to get paid, where does that money come from? Mainline pilots? Nope. Regional pilots? Nope.

That's reality.

The only practical way to bring an end to the so-called c-scale is for adequate numbers of prospective new hire regional pilots to stop showing up for class. When mainline operations are severely impacted for a sustained period, only then will outsourcing be viewed as a bad idea by airline management.

da42pilot
08-17-2017, 01:58 PM
Perhaps we can give airline management and investors something they'd like in exchange for bringing us in house-- say, offer them to raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list. Outside the seniority list, the old scope clauses apply.

Or perhaps that's something major airline management should propose to their pilots.

BoilerUP
08-17-2017, 03:43 PM
Perhaps we can give airline management and investors something they'd like in exchange for bringing us in house-- say, offer them to raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list.

Respectfully, this sentence shows that you don't truly understand the concept of scope and how it relates to subcontractors.

Mainline pilot scope clauses limit the size airframe a subcontractor can fly, not the size of airframe the mainline can fly.

There's zero reason for pilots to "raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list" - legacy airline management can already fly those airframes in-house with legacy pilots, they simply have chosen to not do so.

da42pilot
08-17-2017, 04:10 PM
Respectfully, this sentence shows that you don't truly understand the concept of scope and how it relates to subcontractors.

Mainline pilot scope clauses limit the size airframe a subcontractor can fly, not the size of airframe the mainline can fly.

There's zero reason for pilots to "raise scope to maybe 99 seats as long as the flying is done in-house on the same seniority list" - legacy airline management can already fly those airframes in-house with legacy pilots, they simply have chosen to not do so.

From what I've gathered, they haven't because labor rates at mainline makes them uneconomical. But, other than management, nobody wants to give away more scope. So negotiate with management- set up a B-scale but for sub 99 seats only, on the same seniority list.

That opens up the 76-99 seat market for management and gets a lot of pilots out of the "C scale".

Now, since this is a B scale, I think scope would be necessary to prevent management from growing the B scale at the expense of the A scale. That's why I mentioned scope.

awax
08-17-2017, 09:49 PM
Perhaps we can give airline management........

Who's this "we" you speak of? I think as you forward this idea you're going to find how utterly alone you are.

There's zero benefit for pilots to relax scope going forward, and the sting of last 30 years to remind us why it's a bad idea to begin with.

da42pilot
08-18-2017, 01:24 AM
There's zero benefit for pilots to relax scope going forward, and the sting of last 30 years to remind us why it's a bad idea to begin with.

That's obviously false. Huge benefits for regional pilots, job security and seniority advancement for everyone else flying 100+ seaters.

Why the viceral reaction? We have to learn from the past, but we need not block anything that resembles it, either. Especially if they can be redesigned to create benefits to all parties involved.

Otterbox
08-18-2017, 04:26 AM
That's obviously false. Huge benefits for regional pilots, job security and seniority advancement for everyone else flying 100+ seaters.

Why the viceral reaction? We have to learn from the past, but we need not block anything that resembles it, either. Especially if they can be redesigned to create benefits to all parties involved.

Almost ever airline management wants scope relaxed to outsource more flying to increase profits. Eventually they're able to come up with a price that their labor groups are willing to take to vote away more of their flying.

Management interests are in what's good for their companies profit margins.

tomgoodman
08-18-2017, 07:09 AM
Mainline unions would rather not have additional flying than get it at b-scale rates. They fear that a low-wage camel's nose under the tent could lead to intramural fighting and weakness at the next contract negotiation. That's what happened the last time b-scales were tried. :(

awax
08-18-2017, 09:45 AM
That's obviously false. Huge benefits for regional pilots, job security and seniority advancement for everyone else flying 100+ seaters.

Why the viceral reaction? We have to learn from the past, but we need not block anything that resembles it, either. Especially if they can be redesigned to create benefits to all parties involved.

Again who is "we"? And for the (mainline) pilots that actually could play a role in modifying scope, what's the benefit?

Good luck with your education.

Adlerdriver
08-18-2017, 02:38 PM
From what I've gathered, they haven't because labor rates at mainline makes them uneconomical. But, other than management, nobody wants to give away more scope. So negotiate with management- set up a B-scale but for sub 99 seats only, on the same seniority list.

That opens up the 76-99 seat market for management and gets a lot of pilots out of the "C scale".
You're throwing out terms and concepts that you clearly don't understand. Please educate yourself.

Putting sub-99 seat aircraft on mainline to be flown by pilots on the mainline seniority list isn't a "B-scale". Just because those aircraft might pay less than larger aircraft at the same airline doesn't make it a B-scale either.

Before the airlines came up with "banded" pay rates for similar sized aircraft, each aircraft had it's own rate. When UAL got their big contract in the summer of 2000, the pay rates were basically determined on gross weight. The more productive the aircraft, the higher the pay rate. Lowest GW/Pax capacity up to the 747-400. If you plotted the pay rates vs GW on a graph, they essentially made a straight line going up at an angle to the right. The higher the GW, the higher the pay rate.

So, if an airline added sub-99 aircraft to a pay system like that, they would just extend the line back and down to the left, find the GW of the aircraft and determine the pay rate. That's not B-scale, C-scale or whatever you want to call it. It's just a lower pay rate because the aircraft is smaller and less productive.

A true B-scale would be a completely different line on the graph, below and running parallel to the original line. Go to the GW for a 747 on the bottom scale and go up and you hit the B-scale line first with it's lower pay-rate. Keep going straight up and then you hit the A-scale line with it's higher 747 pay rate.

No airline's pilots are going to negotiate that for any reason. Certainly not to get some RJ flying folded back into the mainline. If the company wants that flying back on the mainline, then the pay rates will be negotiated appropriately and they'll be whatever the market can support and be in line with mainline pay rates.

Now, since this is a B scale, I think scope would be necessary to prevent management from growing the B scale at the expense of the A scale. That's why I mentioned scope.
Finally, you mention "scope" but again, it appears you don't understand what you're talking about. Someone already pointed this out but I guess you didn't get it. You don't negotiate scope to control allocation of flying or the pay scales within your own airline. A scope clause in a contract limits the ability of the company to outsource flying to another sub-contractor airline as well as limiting the size of the aircraft that sub-contractor can use.

da42pilot
08-18-2017, 03:25 PM
You're throwing out terms and concepts that you clearly don't understand. Please educate yourself

I never intended to use the terms B scale and scope in exactly the way they are traditionally used. I thought I made myself clear on this, so please try to be a little more flexible. Using those terms in this conversation can be confusing I suppose, but it's also quite useful because they make sense in this alternative use.




A true B-scale would be a completely different line on the graph, below and running parallel to the original line. Go to the GW for a 747 on the bottom scale and go up and you hit the B-scale line first with it's lower pay-rate. Keep going straight up and then you hit the A-scale line with it's higher 747 pay rate.

No airline's pilots are going to negotiate that for any reason. Certainly not to get some RJ flying folded back into the mainline. If the company wants that flying back on the mainline, then the pay rates will be negotiated appropriately and they'll be whatever the market can support and be in line with mainline pay rates.

It seems like the economic viability of airplanes at different sizes might not be linear. Such a B scale, as in the separate line you described, might be necessary in order to bring RJ flying in house.

da42pilot
08-18-2017, 03:41 PM
Again who is "we"? And for the (mainline) pilots that actually could play a role in modifying scope, what's the benefit?

Good luck with your education.

I meant we as in airline pilots, in general, assuming we have an interest in looking out for each other and our careers, and in some cases the careers of our kids who chose to become pilots as well. I know it's mainline pilots who control scope, however.

The whole point of this thread is because I want to see less outsourcing, not more. Heck I think a B scale for sub-99 seats could even reverse at least some outsourcing.

BoilerUP
08-18-2017, 03:44 PM
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is literally nothing preventing legacy management from going to their pilots and saying "we'll bring all outsourced small jet flying in-house, flown by pilots on your list - but only if they are flown for existing payrates. If you negotiate them up later, fine."

To date, no airline management has done that with all outsourced lift, or even "large small jet" 70-76 seaters.

da42pilot
08-18-2017, 04:00 PM
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is literally nothing preventing legacy management from going to their pilots and saying "we'll bring all outsourced small jet flying in-house, flown by pilots on your list - but only if they are flown for existing payrates. If you negotiate them up later, fine."

To date, no airline management has done that with all outsourced lift, or even "large small jet" 70-76 seaters.

Well, this kind of significant change would probably need to be pursued by management as well as pilots for it to have a chance of happening. Considering the rather poor relationship between management and labor of recent years, it shouldn't be a surprise that something like this hasn't been attempted.

Not to mention all the bankruptcies and reorganizations that took several years to complete- the airlines have had plenty on the table as is.

awax
08-20-2017, 12:06 AM
The whole point of this thread is because I want to see less outsourcing, not more. Heck I think a B scale for sub-99 seats could even reverse at least some outsourcing.

Have fun stormin’ da castle.

HuggyU2
08-20-2017, 08:49 AM
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

awax
08-22-2017, 07:09 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Keep up man! :)

https://youtu.be/AjUmULa0R-8

sailingfun
08-24-2017, 05:03 AM
The AA B-scale was for ALL airplanes, correct?

If all RJ flying is brought back in-house on the same seniority list, with a flow straight to the A-scale dependent only on seniority, would that be acceptable? Keep it exclusively for RJs, protected by whatever is necessary, scope clauses, etc.

If there's confusion with the term B-scale or if the term has too much historical baggage, perhaps rebrand it. The regionals are a defecto B-scale anyways, except with numerous additional disadvantages because they're separate companies and seniority lists.

I wonder why major airlines pilots would not want this. It adds people to the seniority list, which increases job security. Surely getting pushed back into the B-scale wouldn't be as bad as a furlough. Or maybe it's the major airlines that don't want this to happen?

As someone who has been on a B scale please stop using the term incorrectly. What you are talking about is not a B scale. It's simply pay based on the revenue generation of the airframe which is how most pay scales are constructed.
As far as bringing the RJ's to the mainline it's not up to pilots. Delta had RJ rates in their pay scales for years. Management did not want the airframes at the mainline. Management controls that not pilots. In the end it's all about cost and management is not willing to pay the increased costs associated with moving all flying to the mainline.
Delta is however now moving a significant amount of RJ flying to the mainline via the 717 and CS100.

da42pilot
08-24-2017, 05:10 AM
Delta had RJ rates in their pay scales for years. Management did not want the airframes at the mainline. Management controls that not pilots. In the end it's all about cost and management is not willing to pay the increased costs associated with moving all flying to the mainline.

How do those DL RJ rates compare to the rates at endeavor?

It's really meaningless that DL has RJ rates in some document if they're not willing to fly them in house for those rates. If they're not competitive rates with outsourced RJ flying, having those rates is a moot point.

sailingfun
08-24-2017, 06:08 AM
How do those DL RJ rates compare to the rates at endeavor?

It's really meaningless that DL has RJ rates in some document if they're not willing to fly them in house for those rates. If they're not competitive rates with outsourced RJ flying, having those rates is a moot point.

CA rates were under a 100 an hour. You seem to be under the mistaken approach mpression that pilots control the seniority list and fleet makeup. Both are management functions. Management at any mainline airline could and can place RJ's at their airlines tomorrow if they want. Pilots would have no say in that choice.

da42pilot
08-24-2017, 03:57 PM
CA rates were under a 100 an hour. You seem to be under the mistaken approach mpression that pilots control the seniority list and fleet makeup. Both are management functions. Management at any mainline airline could and can place RJ's at their airlines tomorrow if they want. Pilots would have no say in that choice.

According to info from this website, Delta's rates are actually more than double endeavor's rates.

And pilots do have a say, indirectly. If they decide to keep rates as high as they're right now, effectively they're saying no.

sailingfun
08-24-2017, 04:24 PM
According to info from this website, Delta's rates are actually more than double endeavor's rates.

And pilots do have a say, indirectly. If they decide to keep rates as high as they're right now, effectively they're saying no.

The rates went up substantially with the new contract. They were very low for a long time.

Airbum
03-30-2018, 10:45 AM
According to info from this website, Delta's rates are actually more than double endeavor's rates.

And pilots do have a say, indirectly. If they decide to keep rates as high as they're right now, effectively they're saying no.

my guess is no wage is low enough for Delta or any airline. The mgt structure likes outsourcing and whipsawing labor groups. If all flying was in house this would not be possible.

PowderFinger
03-30-2018, 01:11 PM
Unions in general are constantly waging their own internal wars to keep their pilots "unified". I worked for an airline that has not only B-scales, but C scales, and D scales. The infighting and chaos that exists within the union from this concept is a cancer that no labor group can fight. B-Scales and the like MUST be prevented and stopped in order to keep any semblance of unity, and as a result, bargaining power and leverage. You must look long term when it comes to this. I promise you that your career will be much better in the long run if you can prevent it. Like so many things in life, it pays to be tough short term, to have it good long term.

Yep ... I was on that D scale.

PowderFinger
03-30-2018, 01:24 PM
Flying the Line Vol. 2 and Hard Landing...two books every active and aspiring airline pilot should read.

Those who forget the past, etc etc.

Yes this. Educate yourself on the industry.

Flying the Line Vol. l and ll.

Hard Landing by Thomas Petzinger, Jr.

Confessions of a Union Buster by Martin J. Levitt. Don't buy this book. It will benefit the dead bastards estate. It will be available at most libraries. My be some vids on YouTube.

Read these and if you comprehend you will only be fooled in the future if you choose to be fooled.

Packrat
03-30-2018, 01:45 PM
Holy Necroposting, Batman!

sailingfun
03-31-2018, 05:32 PM
The AA B-scale was for ALL airplanes, correct?

If all RJ flying is brought back in-house on the same seniority list, with a flow straight to the A-scale dependent only on seniority, would that be acceptable? Keep it exclusively for RJs, protected by whatever is necessary, scope clauses, etc.

If there's confusion with the term B-scale or if the term has too much historical baggage, perhaps rebrand it. The regionals are a defecto B-scale anyways, except with numerous additional disadvantages because they're separate companies and seniority lists.

I wonder why major airlines pilots would not want this. It adds people to the seniority list, which increases job security. Surely getting pushed back into the B-scale wouldn't be as bad as a furlough. Or maybe it's the major airlines that don't want this to happen?

Most major airline pilots would be fine with it. There are however three issues.
First most regional airlines when actual discussion occurred on the subject stated very clearly they would not accept being stapled to the bottom of the list. Comair is a prime example of this.
The second issue is unions do not control seniority lists. They have no right to remove or add anyone to a list. Management controls the seniority lists and to state they are against the idea is a huge understatement.
The third issue is a union has a legal duty to represent all members equally. Regardless of what is said prior to merging a regional airline to a major airline list about pay before the ink is dry on the combined list the DFR lawsuits would start flying. It would be a legal mess and nightmare for the union.

JoeMerchant
05-16-2018, 06:53 PM
Most major airline pilots would be fine with it. There are however three issues.
First most regional airlines when actual discussion occurred on the subject stated very clearly they would not accept being stapled to the bottom of the list. Comair is a prime example of this.
The second issue is unions do not control seniority lists. They have no right to remove or add anyone to a list. Management controls the seniority lists and to state they are against the idea is a huge understatement.
The third issue is a union has a legal duty to represent all members equally. Regardless of what is said prior to merging a regional airline to a major airline list about pay before the ink is dry on the combined list the DFR lawsuits would start flying. It would be a legal mess and nightmare for the union.

Sailingfun, you sure like that ALPA koolaid....

1. Neither ASA nor CMR demanded "date of hire" as the Delta MEC lied about. We simply asked that ALPA merger policy be used. We are all ALPA members aren't we? Shouldn't ALPA merger policy be used?

2. This is simply DALPA spin. Everything is negotiable. On the AA property, every Envoy, PDT, and PSA pilot flows to AA without any other hoops. You have Delta pilots who were turned downed by Delta. You have retirees who hired on at Southern flying the Metro. The DALPA spin machine is fun to watch. I enjoy the Council 44 antics especially....You Deltoids hate that a real union person from NWA was elected MEC Chairman.

3. More BS....Yes ALPA has not treated the regionals equally...Everyone but you and a few other will acknowledge that. It's obvious to everyone. I think United is going to "crack the code" while you double breasted folks keep on your talking points...

sailingfun
05-17-2018, 01:37 PM
Sailingfun, you sure like that ALPA koolaid....

1. Neither ASA nor CMR demanded "date of hire" as the Delta MEC lied about. We simply asked that ALPA merger policy be used. We are all ALPA members aren't we? Shouldn't ALPA merger policy be used?

2. This is simply DALPA spin. Everything is negotiable. On the AA property, every Envoy, PDT, and PSA pilot flows to AA without any other hoops. You have Delta pilots who were turned downed by Delta. You have retirees who hired on at Southern flying the Metro. The DALPA spin machine is fun to watch. I enjoy the Council 44 antics especially....You Deltoids hate that a real union person from NWA was elected MEC Chairman.

3. More BS....Yes ALPA has not treated the regionals equally...Everyone but you and a few other will acknowledge that. It's obvious to everyone. I think United is going to "crack the code" while you double breasted folks keep on your talking points...

CMR unequivocally stated they would demand ALPA merger policy be used and would seek DOH. You are correct that was their right under ALPA rules. It validates exactly what I posted. Regional pilots would not accept a staple! Delta pilots were also fully within their rights to not support CMR’s position asking them to push for a merger. You omit that many airlines reach pre nuptial agreements. Had Comair done as the OP posts and offered a prenuptial agreement there would have been far more support from DALPA.
It was all simply a academic exercise anyway as Delta management was never going to merge the airlines regardless of union thoughts or wishes.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1