Combining labor is always good for leverage. In fact that's what I would want for the regionals. Could you show me where I said otherwise?

Also, I believe I used the term "C scale" correctly. Could you explain exactly why you disagree?

 

This is exactly what I don't like about ALPA. There's no benefit being associated with ALPA at the negotiating table if each labor group is on their own. In fact, it's very limiting and promotes under-bidding in the same market. So many regional carriers are ALPA, which actually limits their ability to combine labor and strengthen their leverage.

Here's a semi-interesting read related to the subject.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/17/fe...ne-workplaces/

 

You did in fact say that combining labor is good, then immediately seemed to want to exclude regional pilots from that benefit. Do you really think a regional pilot only union is going to have the resources and talent that ALPA does?

A "B scale" is a term coined in the 80s to refer to portions of contracts that had lower wages for pilots hired after the contract was signed, for operating the same equipment on the same seniority list.

"C scale" (or D, or pick whatever letter you want) is just some made up term to piggy back off that idea.

 

You seem to be forgetting all of the ALPA regional carriers getting large increases in compensation, particularly for FOs, in the last year.

In pilot markets like we've had for most of the last 20 years, regional pilot compensation is constrained more by an oversupply than by ALPA. Now, not so much. "Underbidding" is hardly the problem.

In addition, there are other benefits to ALPA. Just looking at my own carrier's ALPA directory, we have committees for:

Accident Investigation
ASAP
FRMP
FOQA
Training Review
Communications
Contract Enforcement
Grievance Review
Hotel
Legislative Affairs
Membership
Merger & Flow Through
Negotiating
Pilot Assistance
FMLA
Aeromedical
CIRP
HIMS
Pro Stans
Retirement and Insurance
Scheduling
Security
P2P

And backup for all that at the national level.

Or maybe we should just let each pilot handle all that for themselves.

 

Not once did I say combining regional labor should be excluded. If you'd like to share where I said that, please do. The resources and talent at ALPA national have been working against regional pilots for decades. Why else would mainline pay be so high, and regional pay so low? All under the same "union"? ALPA resources and talent are completely useless for regional pilots at the negotiating table.
Yes I piggy-backed off the idea. Consider that after the scope was signed away, any following generation of airline pilots will have to start at the regional pay scale. That is a lower scale than mainline, all-the-while flying the same passengers and same equipment (see mainline CRJ rates versus regional CRJ rates). It is even less than the ULCCs.

It's a glorified C scale. Especially when considering the wholly-owned regional carriers. What a joke that is, the mainline carrier owning a "separate" company flying the same passengers while paying less money for the same work. AND keeping all the profits from the cheaper labor. That is the biggest insult and is certainly a C scale.

 

Recent gains for regional FOs mostly benefits management. So many weak unions out there allowing FOs to receive uneven pay raises and bonuses is nice for the newbies but is not exactly something to be proud of. It also doesn't address the fundamental problems (of principle) with being associated with ALPA.

So you don't think that regionals under-bidding each other by taking concessions was a major problem? What does that do to our leverage?? What is the purpose of associating with ALPA if they wouldn't put a stop to it?

What's stopping anyone from having all those benefits under a different union? Do we need to suckle ALPA's teat so bad that we should sacrifice the ability to jointly negotiate?

But yeah, let's waste all that leverage and money so we can have Pro Stans

 

Oh so there weren't enough mainline pilots? Is that why their pay was always so much higher?

 

Your original quote was:
Which really makes no sense. If ALPA is supported by dues revenue, why does having a lot of underpaid labor on their roles (who's representation they're subsidizing) make any sense?

If you really want to understand that, you need to correctly answer three questions:

1. Under the RLA, who actually owns a given company's flying?
2. How many customers does a mainline carrier have?
3. How many customers does a regional carrier have?

Um,
Not same equipment.
(like it or not) not same seniority list.

We probably agree about the "joke" part, but supporting one's position with emotion, mixing metaphors, a lack of knowledge as to why we are where we are, and your dope internet keyboard warrior skillz doesn't actually solve anything.

 

See question number one and two of my above post.

 

You completely misread my original quote. My point was that under ALPA the regionals have no chance to combine their labor, because ALPA carriers negotiate separately. Now, why does this make sense to ALPA? Because the higher wages of mainline, which are subsidized by lower regional wages, pay a higher amount of dues. So it doesn't actually harm their bottom line. If the regional wages rivaled mainline's, airlines would have to either raise prices or reduce service. Or (more likely) bring more flying back in house, which I think most of us agree would be a good thing.

What does the size of the company have to do with it? Why does it matter who owns the routes? Why should ALPA care about these things? They should be more concerned with equally representing the people that pay them dues.
Wrong. That's why I mentioned the actual pay rates that mainline lists for their CRJs versus a regional. I have explained every one of my positions calmly and clearly, so I don't think the keyboard warrior comment is appropriate. Trying to discredit me is not going to make your argument make any more sense.