I went to the Council 44 meeting today and heard TO speak. I will say that I left convinced that he is aware of the scope threats to our profession. It was emphasized that a large threat (and he's right) are the gov't subsidized, soon-to-be MEGA middle-eastern carriers.

He did not infer or even approach re-capturing RJ scope. The presentation was more of a "let's look at the biggest threat going forward" [quotes mine] vs. spinning our wheels working for something we already have: a limit on large RJ's that is almost met, albeit frustrating and far too generous.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sick everytime I see a 175 at a mainline gate; both for us and for the crews stuck flying there that would prefer to be here. We certainly need to shore up some of the language regarding allowing ANY more RJ's regardless of the mainline fleet count. However, I DO want my elected reps to be looking over the horizon for the NEXT threats, which the new guys seem to be doing so far.

I'm rambling, but my point is I don't want to be so focused on the left hand (RJ's) that the right hand (JV's, Codeshares, Cabotage, younameit) slaps us without even seeing it coming. Unless we relax RJ scope, at least it is where it is for now. If we can tighten it up, or recapture, so much the better.

This is not to say we shouldn't work towards insourcing OUR flying by convincing mgmt to stop signing/renewing these DCI contracts and let them eventually expire, but we shouldn't let the RJ issue cloud our awareness of some of these other very big, very real threats to our job protections.

Also, I hope we eventually acquire/merge with Alaska, because that's whole 'nuther problem that noone but the west coast guys seem to care about.

Oh yeah, and the Midwest situation was/is a f*#&ing travesty! That is all :mad:

Start-up Airline Business Plan 101

DO NOT try and buy new A320s or B737s and launch a new ultra low cost carrier that is heavily reliant on flying routes where other airlines did not have direct flights and flying to secondary airports rather than heavily-trafficked ones and doing cheesy stuff like selling advertising space on the interior and exterior of its aircraft as well as selling merchandise on board.

DO buy a small fleet of cheep regional jets. Fly for a mainline carrier and get a contract where you're guaranteed a profit for each departure and you don't pay for fuel. To show good faith accept whatever base they request and call that a hub and make the pilots live there (like NYC), pay everyone really low wages and skimp on training and maintenance. One day take your small fortune and buy bigger jets and compete with the mainline carrier completely funding your new airline with a long term contract signed with the mainline carrier who probably won't even notice what you're doing. Their pilots may complain but nobody listens to them anyways. Heck, make sure your pilots join their union! It'll neuter them both.

It's simple, it's cheap, everyone who is anyone is doing it.

That ends today's lesson in Start-Up Airline Business Plan 101.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/image...tewartbeck.jpg

I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Because he doesn't believe we should. Period! He will grudgingly go along if we force it by overwhelming pressure from a majority of us.

Bottom line is that he doesn't see our current Scope as a problem.

Carl

Not that your analogy has anything to do with what we're talking about, but your strategy is a perfect for ensuring that you never get a red car.

Carl

Our current language would not stop management in any way from attempting to bust DALPA. That attempt will happen or not strictly dependant upon the wishes of management to attempt it.

Nonsense. Especially since our MEC chairman just "telegraphed" that pilots want increased pay in his first letter to the membership as chairman. Guess we just played right in to management's hands again. :rolleyes:

Carl

I hope you're right. It seems like scope is always a one-way street. Once something is gone, or allowed, it never comes back.

Our challenge is to walk, chew gum, and sidestep the steaming pile on the sidewalk. I'm optimistic we can do that, but to avoid the pile we have to see it coming in time to react.

I don't know how it will happen yet, but I am sure that RAH will attempt to exploit some sort of scope loophole in the future. The same could be said for Alaska, any present/future JV, etc. Again, the challenge is to see the threat before it's too late. I doubt the guys ever saw the RJ explosion coming when the first ones showed up. Scope erosion is an insidious problem that can occur on the bottom or TOP end.

Pardon the paranoia this evening. I've got a half-empty rum and coke in front of me :p

You are of course spot on. People like PG are just trying to give cover to the LEC reps and MEC chairman who think our current Scope is just fine. These reps KNOW they cannot say this publicly, so they need their loyalists to make the case that they are REALLY scope hawks...they just don't want to "telegraph" it until the time is right.

By the way, the "right time" will be after the TA is signed. At which time they'll say: "Look guys - we did all we could regarding Scope. This is the best we can do. If you vote this down, we'll have to dissolve the negotiating committee and start over from scratch. Is that what you want? Now please vote yes and we'll all live to fight another day."

Carl

Here's the disconnect with TO and his LEC partners. Scope is the only threat they/we can control. Cabotage, foreign ownership, gov't subsidized foreign carrier, open skies, etc is ALL controlled by governments. I know ALPA is in love with the concept of having a seat at the table, but that seat buys nothing. Again Scope is all we control.

This is so maddening. Didn't even infer recapturing Scope. Instead he wants to focus on bigger threats over which we have absolutely no control.

That would be a logical strategy if we could actually control any of these other threats. We do not. We should do all we can regarding these other threats, but let's actually focus on a threat we can actually control.

ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTELY!

No...we shouldn't let the allure of thinking we can actually control any of these other threats with our "seat at the table" cloud the issue of controlling what we can actually control. Which is...Scope.

Carl

Tip of the hat brother! Spot on.

Carl