The same ASM limits, but capped at 70-seats. The problem with the old scope clause was that it lacked holding company language, lacked merger protections, etc.

Because you never get everything you want in negotiations. The 86-seats was a trade for the holding company scope.

 

Fair enough....

but in your estimation.... do you think this essentially eliminates any chance they'll do it since the economics of 20 aircraft being outsourced seems to me to be pretty weak.

 

I think the SWA merger makes it all a moot point, because that deal will close in six months, and the SWAPA contract doesn't allow SWA to outsource domestic flying. No point in adding regional feed for six months.

But had we stayed as an independent carrier, I think they might have eventually used it as a method to test new routes and feed the hubs from smaller cities, but it doesn't provide them with any real ability to outsource flying that would otherwise be mainline flying.

 

Don't listen to anything this guy says. He knows not of what he speaks.

 

Here are the places American Airlines used to fly from ORD using MD-80's:
DTW, CLE, CVG, MKE, MSN, DSM, OMA, YYZ, YUL, BUF, RST, ROC, ALB, SLC, PDX, OKC, XNA, BNA, CHQ, YYC, DAY, IND, SDF, IAH, CHM, just to name a few.

It all started with a statement from AMR: "it's not flying you want to do anyway"; regarding the 72 seat limit in APA's original give on scope in 1987, and the RJ's will be used to develop "long thin routes" that will be turned over to the mainline. You would be surprised at the amount of flying 20 large RJ's can do...

What's more is how will SWAPA keep this from coming to WN outside of relying on SWA's managements benevolence? What happens if SWA says they'll have to operate AAI separately fro 18 to 24 months (which is exactly whats happening over at CAL--UAL), then start moving RJ's to LAS, MDW, and PHX with SWA colors on them?

 

Very true. ALPA is completely unwilling to limit scope creep. Unfortunately the talk is not cheap. Around 2.0% .....

When you look at the payrates, keep in mind the effect of the new scheduling rules. Over 30% of the seniority list will either receive a paycut or only a $ 200-300 a month raise.The "bonus" is shameful.

Changing the unions name to ALPA has not changed the players. The negotiating committee chairman is a deposed NPA President. He was thrown out under very questionable circumstances. His performance remains consistent.

The pilot group is looking forward to SWAPA. Except for PCL of course.

 

Not speaking on a SWA pilots behalf here but I have faith they won't allow RJs at any point. Or at least I'd like to think that no matter what happens, say stagnant growth at some point, that they still would never allow it.

 

Well, actually I was just yanking his chain, but I do agree with pretty much everything you wrote above.

 

I'm no rocket surgeon but my understanding is that we only outsource flying that is near-international. There are some ASM limits but ,sadly, we allowed it in our contract. I hope we don't trade away our protection for a pony or something .

 

I'm sure their unity to keep RJ's off the property is resolute, I'm not questioning that. From a pragmatic point of view, in the framework of the RLA: with AAI allowing RJ's how will SWAPA prevent SWA from deploying them? They can't, anymore than ALPA can prevent UAL from sending 70 seaters to IAH, even though CAL-ALPA's scope clearly prevents it.

What will happen at UAL: ALPA will sue, the judge will defer the case to an arbitrator because judges don't like medaling with the RLA. The arbitrator will rule in favor of UAL because most of the arbitrators are owned by wall street.

So, if SWA decides that RJ's are in the companies future, this is the best way to introduce them. I have a lot of respect for the SWA pilots, but they have yet to face a hostile management team. Not saying this is what will happen, but I'm curious as to why ALPA's TA with AAI has any scope exceptions in it if after the merger is complete, the RJ operators will be sent packing.