Otterbox

Almost ever airline management wants scope relaxed to outsource more flying to increase profits. Eventually they're able to come up with a price that their labor groups are willing to take to vote away more of their flying.

Management interests are in what's good for their companies profit margins.

tomgoodman

Mainline unions would rather not have additional flying than get it at b-scale rates. They fear that a low-wage camel's nose under the tent could lead to intramural fighting and weakness at the next contract negotiation. That's what happened the last time b-scales were tried.

awax

Again who is "we"? And for the (mainline) pilots that actually could play a role in modifying scope, what's the benefit?

Good luck with your education.

Adlerdriver

You're throwing out terms and concepts that you clearly don't understand. Please educate yourself.

Putting sub-99 seat aircraft on mainline to be flown by pilots on the mainline seniority list isn't a "B-scale". Just because those aircraft might pay less than larger aircraft at the same airline doesn't make it a B-scale either.

Before the airlines came up with "banded" pay rates for similar sized aircraft, each aircraft had it's own rate. When UAL got their big contract in the summer of 2000, the pay rates were basically determined on gross weight. The more productive the aircraft, the higher the pay rate. Lowest GW/Pax capacity up to the 747-400. If you plotted the pay rates vs GW on a graph, they essentially made a straight line going up at an angle to the right. The higher the GW, the higher the pay rate.

So, if an airline added sub-99 aircraft to a pay system like that, they would just extend the line back and down to the left, find the GW of the aircraft and determine the pay rate. That's not B-scale, C-scale or whatever you want to call it. It's just a lower pay rate because the aircraft is smaller and less productive.

A true B-scale would be a completely different line on the graph, below and running parallel to the original line. Go to the GW for a 747 on the bottom scale and go up and you hit the B-scale line first with it's lower pay-rate. Keep going straight up and then you hit the A-scale line with it's higher 747 pay rate.

No airline's pilots are going to negotiate that for any reason. Certainly not to get some RJ flying folded back into the mainline. If the company wants that flying back on the mainline, then the pay rates will be negotiated appropriately and they'll be whatever the market can support and be in line with mainline pay rates.

Finally, you mention "scope" but again, it appears you don't understand what you're talking about. Someone already pointed this out but I guess you didn't get it. You don't negotiate scope to control allocation of flying or the pay scales within your own airline. A scope clause in a contract limits the ability of the company to outsource flying to another sub-contractor airline as well as limiting the size of the aircraft that sub-contractor can use.

da42pilot

I never intended to use the terms B scale and scope in exactly the way they are traditionally used. I thought I made myself clear on this, so please try to be a little more flexible. Using those terms in this conversation can be confusing I suppose, but it's also quite useful because they make sense in this alternative use.



It seems like the economic viability of airplanes at different sizes might not be linear. Such a B scale, as in the separate line you described, might be necessary in order to bring RJ flying in house.

da42pilot

I meant we as in airline pilots, in general, assuming we have an interest in looking out for each other and our careers, and in some cases the careers of our kids who chose to become pilots as well. I know it's mainline pilots who control scope, however.

The whole point of this thread is because I want to see less outsourcing, not more. Heck I think a B scale for sub-99 seats could even reverse at least some outsourcing.

BoilerUP

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

There is literally nothing preventing legacy management from going to their pilots and saying "we'll bring all outsourced small jet flying in-house, flown by pilots on your list - but only if they are flown for existing payrates. If you negotiate them up later, fine."

To date, no airline management has done that with all outsourced lift, or even "large small jet" 70-76 seaters.

da42pilot

Well, this kind of significant change would probably need to be pursued by management as well as pilots for it to have a chance of happening. Considering the rather poor relationship between management and labor of recent years, it shouldn't be a surprise that something like this hasn't been attempted.

Not to mention all the bankruptcies and reorganizations that took several years to complete- the airlines have had plenty on the table as is.

awax

Have fun stormin’ da castle.

HuggyU2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk