And you wonder what fosters the mistrust?

 

The Chairman of code share compliance, sorry, should have been more specific. It was already on their desk.

Then again, it is also our duty as ALPA pilots to defend our own contract, and help with compliance. This was the case as I recall it from the Pinnacle PA announcements. It gotten taken care of because of proof, and that proof was then used to go to the company and order a cease and desist. The process works, and it works quicker when we all know our PWA.

 

That is kidneys!

 

You already said that since there is sensitive info, we are not privy to the JV agreement. So we have to "trust" those that do... Whether or not we all know the PWA is becoming increasing irrelevant in cases like these.

 

I agree with almost all of that. I do see the potential issues of subdividing every section, and I'm not in favor of doing that for the reasons you describe. However, I think section 3 is unique in that it is so often used to mask (and sometimes to create) massive fault lines in our foundation. I would say section 1 is more important, but that is not the section that is used to bait the hook for a pilot group's future demise...section 3 is, often to the detriment of section 1 (and every other section...see below).

I would not agree that scope is more important to junior pilots though. Unless you are a 777A/747A with so much seniority that you could still hold a line with weekends and holidays off in the same categoty even if potentially thousands of company pilots were suddenly on the street, then you have a huge stake in scope. Even if you are "furlough proof" you can (and many to most will) be downgraded, lineholder to reserve, smaller equipment, changed categories and maybe now FORCED to commute (no it isn't always an essenctric Murphy Brown "lifestyle choice"), lose your weekends off, suddenly have to work holidays, etc.

When junior pilots are furloughed, the vast majority of the list (bottom 90-95%+) take a hit one way or another. Scope is every pilot's issue because no matter what other section you like the most (pay tables, work rules, retirement, other bennies, etc) the negative effects of outsourcing serve to undermine the gains in every other section because that's what outsourcing is for in the first place...to give management relief against every single section of your contract in direct proportion to the section 1 relief that you grant them. The more good stuff that's in the other sections, the more exemptions in section 1 are used to reduce the pilot group's benefit of the other sections.

Scope is the most important, but pay is the shiny penny laid carefully just before a huge crack in the sidewalk and we keep tripping on it again and again.

 

The metrics and leveling formulas are. If you have attended an LEC meeting, they are able to go in to further detail, and have over the last two years on this agreement. I was very impressed with the presentation they gave last March at the C44 meeting on the AF JV. It effectively quelled my fears about it.

Therefore suggest to your 66 chair to bring the same guy up to do a presentation at your April/May LEC meeting. It isn't that they refuse to share, not at all, it is that they can only do in certain ways due to the sensitive nature of much of these types of documents.

 

Generally true, but many do not see Scope that way .I will admit that with the AS code share and the JV's more senior guys are realizing that scope is not a junior pilot section of the contract. That said, there are always a few that realize they are where they will retire, and it becomes all about money. That is the minority though.

 

I would agree with that as well. I think that section 1 is gaining attention of more and more pilots at every level. Its not just a pilot issue either. The other work groups can be union or non union, that is not for us to decide. But either way I would like to see more pressure from most of them in that regard as well (even non union groups can exert pressure...namely give us XYZ or we will unionize, and the company usually at least tries to throw them a compromise to make them happy enough not to unionize).

In any case, scope used to be mostly an RJ issue. Even that has negative consequences for the bottom 90%+ of the list. Throw in narrow and wide body mainline equipment and the entire list is being flanked by 3 fronts. An awesome section 3 becomes less and less important proportionate to the size of the holes that the company can use to avoid section 3 in the first place (and ditto for every other section). We get great work rules, they can outsource to company X who doens't have them. Ditto for pay, retirement, health care, etc. Scope is the page upon which every single other thing in the contract is written on. Most pilots need more than one more contract before they retire, and a lot need way more than that.

And its important not to wholesale demonize the uber senior anyway, as not all, and in fact probably most, are unwilling to sacrifice everyone else as collateral damage anyway. You will always have a few of the type who will sell their own mothers down the river for a few pieces of silver, but I think that is the minority judging from what I've seen.

 

As you have pointed out, we have many, many new LEC reps in place. And yet very little has actually changed. We're still almost half a decade into compensation that was designed for bankruptcy and as an emergency measure to save the company from liquidation. And this new slate of reps still refuses to even ASK the company for a mid contract partial pay restoration. They take up the same, tired old mantra of "what are you willing to give up to get that?" Sounds to me like SSDD. Maybe the structure per se is okay. But the culture appears to be too ingrained to be able to penetrate. I see very little change from the same path Lee Moak put us on. And I think that spells disaster for any chance of real unity. You can't unite this pilot group around the idea that the rest of our careers are going to be mediocre and we should just accept that.

 

Frankly, they could ask and may have or will. Input, input input. But I know they would get hammered if they went and asked before asking the pilots in a contract survey. They would be seen as acting without pilot input. It is a catch 22.