I disagree with your base premise.

The lack of scope allowed Midwest management to outsource Midwest flying, BUT it was economics that sealed the Midwest pilots group's fate. During the time that Midwest was "failing" (without a bankruptcy), many similar size carriers failed. The fact that their primary investor was TPG didn't help them, either.

IMO, even if Midwest had ironclad scope, the results likely would have been the same. Midwest pilots would not be doing Midwest flying. There wouldn't have been any flying.

I think your point is that MidWest was toast in any event, thus the scope failure that allowed their entire airline to be outsourced out from under them does not matter. No harm no foul.

But, the fact their pilots will be on the street is likely to hurt them, if even they get integrated into Republic's list.

As a union member, your post frankly scares the bejeesus out of me. If you disagree with my premise, then kindly correct me with great specificity and explain just what our Association's role is.

Wow, thanks for clearing that up. Those 100 seaters being flown around at regional rates had me a little worried about scope but now I see that they're completely unrelated issues! Carry on, then!

The crazy thing is.... That I believe it was always a profitable airline, sad....:(

MEH was bought when it had less than 4.5 in the bank. They were a great airline that has had its fare share of issues, but worked though them.

MEH was one of the last airlines that had customer loyalty.

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that scope didin't matter, and I especially didn't say "no harm no foul". You espoused that "MidWest is an illustration of what happens when scope is relaxed to the point that the primary pilot group loses relevance." My point is that scope is not the causal factor that the group lost relevance. Economics was. Scope was only a contributing factor.

With perfect scope and bad economics you can wind up without a job. With crappy scope and bad economics you can wind up without a job. The common theme is economics.

Scope is not the "be all end all" argument from my point of view. It is one section of a contract. Those that think it should be the singular focus scare the bejeesus out of me.

I would argue that the "be all end all" to most Pilots is quality of Life. What defines QOL is different to everybody, but in the long run what is important about retirement, pay, scope, and reserve issues is how they affect an individuals QOL.

I think most junior guys are understandably worried about scope erosion. Most senior guys are understandably more concerned about retirement type issues. All pilots are obviously concerned with pay. The problem is the junior guys will eventually be affected by everything that affects the senior guy also - the inverse is not true. Many senior Pilots, rightly or wrongly, consider scope issues safely behind them and do not want to waste “bargaining capital” on scope type issues.

I feel that our chances of improving QOL for all of us is directly proportional to our leverage as a Pilot group. What all pilots should realize is that the more we outsource, whether it is via small jet scope, widebody JVs, or code sharing, the less leverage we as a pilot group have. If we are not careful we can get to a point where we are basically impotent as a labor group.

Scoop

I do not think that anyone sees it as the "only" issue. I know people see it as the one issue that is not getting its due diligence. With the continued outsourcing of our flying we can expect lower lows.

Many of the pilots I talk to see Scope having utmost importance, because without it, the remainder of the contract will begin to lose relevance. You have to have a Section One that can support the agreed upon terms in the remainder of the PWA. If you do not, the flying will get outsourced, further limiting your bargaining position.

Of course economics plays a part, no one argues that. In MEH's case the company lives on as a shell for another company. It soon will have no jets and no employees, but it will have a code share, a reservation system, and gates. That is what is scary. A horrible Section One allowed that. If they had some of the protections that most major carriers have the company would have gone out of business. It would not have been sold to the airline that operates its "Connect" flying.

No, this cannot happen to DAL, we do have more protections that they did. If we keep selling scope little by little to fend off the wolves some day we may in fact be at the place where the company could operate as virtual airline. We as a union need to makes sure that never happens, and fight for everything we have lost. People are pragmatic enough to realize reality. But you never know unless you ask.

The nice thing is that even the senior guys are starting to see what poor scope does. I have talked to many Senior CA's that get it. The see the 767's and 757's going to the desert and smaller jets taking over their routes. I think many are finally realizing that if we have any hope of stopping the spiral down, we need to make sure the foundation of the airline, its smallest flying, is in sourced. That is a marked change.

Or, a 747-400 captain being a spot lower than he would be if the guy ahead of him could bid a daytrip schedule on an Embraer. Some people value that over money.

Scope literally effects the bottom 95% of the seniority list.