We can have 76 seat jets on the property. There is going to be a cost associated with that. If we want that flying then we can have it I'm sure.

Go ask the negotiating committee and the scope SMEs about it and ask them what we would have to give up to get it.

 

We all know that when the company thinks they ate fat. Then they srm. The pilot group will show them collectively in the future how "short" they are.
Fitst officers too.

Bbo

 

^^^^
Given the company's demonstrated propensity to seek court injuctions, that's not the wisest post for a public forum.

 

My recollection is the negotiated Scope stayed at 70 seats.....until DELTA voted in 76. As the Mediator, Puchela forced the game change for our NC.

You need to look to Atlanta if you want to pin the blame on Scope change.

 

Did we have 50 seat scope? Seems I saw a lot of of 70-seat aircraft then. As I recall CAL bought all those 35/50 seaters with a lot of advertising saying they were now a modern and safer all jet airline--with that word "safer" in every other sentence--implying that props were unsafe. We get 50-seat scope and, oops, it was only on jets. Next thing you know those supposedly unmodern and unsafe props were back as 70 seaters.

 

Someone asked why if voted no,that is the reason we are talking about this. Just because Delta gave it up does not mean we had to. I the Delta Pilots jumped off a bridge would you? All we had to do was say no. It is water under the bridge now.

 

The props only work in select markets. That is why there were only around 50 or less of them. Much different then 153 76 seat Jets.

 

No doubt. Thanks for the details.

 

Our negotiators are weak.

I say negotiate scope like Southwest.

We fly our passengers.

It's simple.

To our leaders…it's impossible to think that we should fly our passengers. We MUST match Delta with every scope failure.

Once again, Delta is about to give up MORE large RJ's.

 

We won't be able to totally eliminate the scope problem. But, I do believe some of this problem will be self correcting.

1. There are fewer and fewer pilots getting into the game at the regional level. Fewer want to work for slave wages and fewer want to invest big big money to go and work for an opportunity to earn small wages. The return on investment is hard to see.

2. Fewer military pilots available and that trend will continue. When they do become available they will go directly to majors instead of a holding pattern in the regionals.

3. Regionals will continue to "inform" their mainline affiliated carriers of what routes they can fly with the pilots they have available to them due to their shortage in manpower. They will park unproductive airplanes like 50 and 35 seat RJ's. They will procure what airplanes they can make money with like the bigger RJ's (scope dependent) and turboprops for select markets.


With the above mentioned 3 factors, I would predict that major airline pilot unions will have increasing leverage at the bargaining table to influence and positively affect scope. Also, regionals will attract lesser qualified talent in the management departments. No one wants to work for an albatross with zero to little upside. Regionals will find it hard pressed to survive and thrive and virtually everyone there will treat those companies as revolving door/temporary stopping points.

This situation could be "helped along" by ALPA in three ways.

1. ALPA needs to put a premium value on mainline pilots dues dollars. ALPA could not and should not use our dues dollars against us in helping to prop up regional carriers contracts and/or help regionals take our revenue stream against us. Mainline carriers need to protect mainline jobs and that means protecting mainline block hours and that means mainline pilots dues moneys need to go into protecting and enhancing mainline pilot careers, career expectations and that means protecting and enhancing mainline pilot contracts and their scope protections and provisions.

2. There should be a constitutional amendment at ALPA that mandates that mainline dues money can only be spent on mainline pilot contract enforcement and negotiation. I recommend a RALPA and a MALPA format as far as our finances go. No spending of mainline dues for regional representation. We can't subsidize their efforts. It just hurts us in the long run.

3. ALPA needs to put on its big boy underpants and insure another age 65 brick wall doesn't happen again. When the age 65 brick wall went up the entire career stagnated again, not for just 5 years, more like 7 years. There was a two year shock absorbed that also affected us because people were stuck at regionals longer. Right now we're seeing 7 to 9 year regional pilots getting hired. That number should be like 4 to 5 year regional pilots. No way can we have a "carrer path" if our members are being forced to spend 1/4 to 1/3 of their career in a feeder environment working for lower pay and crappier work rules. ALPA must not fold on age 67. It will hurt both mainline and regional career paths.