I wouldn' bet the farm on anything until the new FAA rules are published.

 

Somebody needs to start holing the line on scope or its going to be game over. I dont want bigger jets. I want a better job. If scope continues to be sold out we at the regionals will be the only ones left with jobs and we will have no where to go.

"Tell me again about the rabbits George."

 

I agree, but it is going to take small steps to regain ground on scope. Eliminating 3rd party companies sends a signal to the industry that outsourcing wont fly (literally) anymore. Each company needs to be responsible for their brand whether it is on the tail of a 777 or a turboprop.

 

I can't speak for Phallus, but last week the APA Secretary-Treasurer, one of 3 national officers, sent out a blast e-mail to the membership. While the message is too long to post here, the basic context is concessionary. This is a break from the other 2 national officers who are still fairly "hard-line".

Another factoid here at APA, is that out of the last 6 contracts signed since 1983, 5 were agreed upon during an election year, in 2010 all the APA national officers and a good portion of the board are up for election. Politics are alive and well at the APA, and whether it's newly elected "company friendly" leadership, or the old re-elected "gone soft" leadership, I believe Phallus has a legitimate concern.

Whether we find ourselves with a weaker scope clause remains to be seen, but I'd wager we will be flying more, which equals fewer jobs.

 

The blast definately had a concessionary tone about it; I agree. Personally I do not think APA should give up anything at all. It may be time to go for a shorter term contract than usual, since gettign anything in this economy will be very difficult, so having a shorter term new contract would let the APA ride the storm out a little while the economy recovers.

That being said, I would suggest a short term contract that comes due in 2013 to match the end date of Eagle's pilot contract. It would allow the two groups to work as one.

As others have said, if there is to be a scope concession of any kind, it needs to be rewritten from the language AMR posted. They wanted larger jets at any commuter carrier. A middle ground would be to give AMR the larger jets, but only at Eagle - and in concert with a 2013 contract expiration date.
In an ideal world this wouldn't be an issue, and APA pilots would be doing ALL flying for AMR; and scope would never have been let out of the bag...


If you can get both pilot groups on the same contract schedules you will go a long way toward helpoing them both work together instead of always being at odds with eachother.

Look at it this way; will the APA be better off in 2013 with just the APA and EGL ALPA flying for AMR, or with APA, EGL ALPA, CHQ, CAPE AIR, TSA and Mesa all flying AMR routes and ALL ready to take work from both Eagle and AA at a moments notice... The enemy of my enemy is my friend; it's time APA and EGL started working together...

 

This plan has merit, but AMR also knows that any short-term contract at AA (for pilots) to coincide with Eagle's amendment date is probably not in their (AMR's) best interest. As it stands now and in the forseeable future, the competition and the economics of this industry will keep airline management in the drivers seat and labor scrambling for lost ground.

Trumpeting this idea is one thing, but forcing it on AMR is another. I don't see what leverage either group has to convince AMR that unity and tighter mutual scope is in the interests of AMR, even if by some outside chance the APA believed in the "mutual interest" concept with Eagle ALPA.

 

I'm not in your airline(s), but would it be rude to ask how shifting the flying to one particular regional is better than shifting it to another?

 

I have a feeling APA will cave on scope again… I had one guy tell me all about how strong scope is. Then I reminded him he is in the jumpseat of a 70 seat RJ. How did that happen?

Don’t tell me how tough you are. We all know you will give 500 seat RJ flying to Eagle for a 3% pay increase.

 

Well--it still remains to be seen. All the company needs is 50% plus 1. If they throw enough money on the table, anything is possible. I agree with your premise, but I think the money will be well north of 3%--absent BK.

Speaking of which--I have to agree with your jump seater. We (and CAL) possess stronger scope than most post BK carriers (save SWA). How tough we are is a relative term. If your backed into a corner with a gun to head (BK), you can be as tough as you want, you'll just be as dead though.

 

.......the pistoleers at the NMB have filled labor with their fair share of holes recently as well. Jeez, they've turned the APA into swiss cheese over the last several years.