scope, pay, and QOL.......that is our concern.

what goes where....and why....at least so far as our employment goes:D...is for management to figure out.

Newbie here. . . shouldn't scope be based on max payload rather than MTOW?

IMHO scope should be based on Certificates. Delta pilots perform Delta flying. Pilots performing Delta flying are a part of the same craft and class of worker.

Next, if that is not obtainable, is scope based on type certificates.

Payload and even MTOW can be changed with a log entry and a sticker. Republic would change the GTOW on an overnight depending on which airline they were flying for (American (aka US Air) allowed more than anyone else).

Honestly, back when some of these provisions were designed they were not well thought out. None the less, that is what we have today and the provisions have been sort of grandfathered forward. The E170 is a "scope buster" and we should have stopped outsourcing at the CL-65. While they are all "mainline" jets, the E175 only gets to 86,000 via a "certificate of convenience."

I had hopes an airline would engage in a grand redesign of outsourcing with the end state goal of insourcing. The economics work.

Delta is headed that direction. It is a bit of shame that management is being unreasonable about PS, pay, vacation and other marginal items that are standing in the way of a new agreement.

Need new material.

What are you talking about?

They can get any plane they want and put it on any route they want. As long as we fly them.

There is no one acid test for scope protections. We need MGTOW, max certified seats, max installed seats, range and any other metric to protect our jobs. Because any and every loophole they can possibly use WILL be exploited.

One list is the gold standard for scope protections.

If we did not insist that RJ flying and RJ pay was below our idea of what a mainline pilot is, we would do our own flying and not have these bottom line scope issues.

There's never going to be "one list" though. We're not ever going to blend all the regionals (let alone Alaska or whoever, not to mention AF/KLM/China/Brazil/Aeromexico/Korean/etc) into one master list.

I appreciate your ideology but we need real JV metrics that will work for us and protect us from all the "we didn't think they'd do that" stuff. If they "can" they WILL.

I only mean to state one list within an airline's brand. I think we are already moving that direction and truly effective union leadership could achieve that end state goal in two or three bargaining cycles. Again, to get to no DCI we must transition through less DCI.

JV's are another thing altogether. Joint Ventures, in their most evolved state, are mergers. Often there are regulatory and certification barriers which would prevent an actual list merger.

JV's are economically far superior to marketing agreements like SkyTeam. JV partners are truly partners who can act together to restrain capacity and drive up prices. Figure that's worth 15% to 20% top line revenue (or so) unless a competitor enters the mix and queers the arrangement.

The best tool yet devised is a production balance. We could do much better proactively managing for compliance.

Give a consistent metric(s), I agree. Moving the goal posts or swapping them for a hockey net is just stupid.

What's next, a basketball hoop? Or back to goal posts?