What exactly is "industry Standard Scope"
 

Its pretty clear we aren't receiving Industry Standard Pay or Retirement (At least at DOS), but I keep hearing we achieved Industry Standard Scope.

What exactly are ya'll expecting?

Is that No Codesharing?, is that No RJs? or does it mean something as Ironclad as SWA

We need to read the language but i'm sure most of ya'll have read the email that is floating around from PS/ALPA

Is that acceptable or not? I honestly am not too familiar with "Scope" other than RJs growing while Legacy Airlines remained stagnant..........

as far as "codesharing", is that going to be acceptable to us?

Gotta see the language. SW would be ideal

If banning codesharing is not important why did the southwest pilots work so hard to keep it in their TA. Among other things it’s was a big reason the first one was voted down. Why are the delta pilots so Focused on eliminating it? Why doesn’t Jetblue fly their own planes to Europe or Hawaii or UAE? Codesharing.

If codesharing doesn’t make money or eliminate growth or jobs why do it? It’s reminicent of saying RJs are just going to be used to open new markets and then the mainline jets will come in. We all know how that worked out. You want to open new markets do it with Spirit pilots

I want it all 0 seats up to 800 seats. If Spirit sells the ticket I want our seniority list flying it. It eliminates whipsaw in the future. They have none now so it should be an easy five for the company even if expensive for us.

So far it looks like we are buying Ltd and scope which I’m not against because they are so important but if it’s not worth buying there is no point. I’d pay and retirement are below industry standard shouldn’t other aspects like scope be above industry standard to make the over all agreement industry standard

I’ll have to verify but I think Delta has a 1 for 1 agreement. Meaning for every block hour of codeshare the company adds they have to add an hour of block on the same type (group) aircraft with delta pilots

Sorry couple spelling errors that it won’t let me edit now.

Five = give.

I’d = IF

I'm really hoping the new TA has a section berating those who use incorrect grammar on APC. That's pretty much the deciding factor for me in all of this ;)

Let’s also remember that Bob Fornaro had Skywest doing flying for Airtran premeger. I don’t know if it was a CPA, pro-rate, or codeshare but it was immediately canceled after the merger due to the southwest pilot’s scope.

Now the ULCC model doesn’t necearily favor RJs but it was worth mentioning and it also means he’s not a stranger to outsourcing. Also remember that baldanza is on the board of Wow. They fly 321s into bwi and 330s into LAX.

Finally somebody is asking this question. Might as well wait to read the TA but everyone saying we have "rock solid scope" in the AIP bullet points must be able to read between the lines better than me.
Here are some of my questions:
1. What exactly is "industry standard scope"?
2. How many trips that were 22.5 hour 4 days will now be approx 20.5 hour 4 days (with 3.5/1 trip rigs) with the 22-hour layover duty period credit changing to 24
3. Does transition, etc go away before the PBS implementation or is it status quo on work rules until pbs is implementated?
4. Any change to min days off to account for lack of conflict?(I'm guessing no)

...and so many others.
Point being there will be plenty of time to read and discuss but there are questions we all need to ask and have answered before we say we are yes or no vote at this point.

Sent from my LGLS992 using Tapatalk

There's no such thing as "ironclad scope" unless it's written like SWA's. Ask any labor lawyer and they will tell you scope language is one of the easiest parts of a CBA to manipulate. If you're getting "industry standard" then you're not getting much and better read it carefully. Scope is always legalese and rarely clear and precise language.

I read United’s recently and while complex seemed pretty straight forward.

Aside from the “scope choke” on RJs, codesharing has defined limits both domestic and international with restrictions on city pairs and also using historical ratios based on exact routes how many flights could or could not be added in the future. Essentially if united wanted to add codeshare on a route they would first have to add a united flight on that route and the codeshare could then be added based on historical ratios.

Delta I believe is block hour based and not the number of flights but has to be added on a 1 for 1 basis in the same type of aircraft. I still have to confirm this.

The point is it’s not a free for all with the exception of no furlough. There are defined exact limits spelled out

I just read our scope section. It is practically a joke concerning codeshare. I’d like to think that ANYTHING would be better. We shall see..... Lots of holes need to be plugged, Quagmire jokes aside... :D;)

I’m glad you read it but why now? Where have you been the last three years? Contract isn’t worth the paper it’s on if your job can be outsourced.

No furlough means you won’t lose your job now but all growth can be outsourced until they shrink the current list out of existence through retirements slowly. That will obviously take forever but every future negotiation will be drug out forever as we lose more and more leverage because we are whipsawed against the outsourcing.

I’m not saying this will happen but it can and we need to nip it now. The argument will be that there is no money to be made in codesharing. If that is so why do airlines do it? And if there is no money then why not give us southwest scope for free. And if there is money we need comprehensive restrictions that protect our growth and future while also sharing in the wealth (profit sharing).

You put in a good effort trying to convince Dracula over in F9 of scope importance.... can’t blame you for walking out of there.

Really? Get off your high horse already. There’s sooooooo much I can do right now with section 1 and how if affects my daily life as a pilot. :rolleyes:

Miami Air perked my interest earlier last year, but I wanted to reread the whole thing to have some basis for comparison when the TA gets rolled out.

It’s really not a bad idea to make yourself more familiar with the current contract to compare with the upcoming TA.

Hey I’m glad you read it. I was just hoping that when everyone was filling out their surveys over the last few years that they we educated on what we had and what we needed. You never know if the offer is good if you don’t know what you currently have.

It’s not a high horse. The contract is required reading right after IOE imo

Fair enough. In my surveys I definitely expressed the concern for stronger scope language, however, I was more concerned with the merger language and not codeshare. Just wasn’t on my radar at the time. I did not read section 1 right after OE.... I was more concerned with sections 3, 12, and 25.