AA-AE-APA-ALPA? Cont'd

[surplus1]

This reply was written for posting before the system crash. I can't remember the originall thread name so I just created a new one.

Originally posted by TWADude

The following isn't an attempt to exuse but merely to explain. The APA groupthink sees the very existance of Eagle as a contract concession (as it was, in the beginning), therefore, even Eagle's flying isn't their own. If/when APA gets Small Jet flying then it's merely undoing a past concession. Since I was an APA member for all of six months before being furloughed my brainwashing hadn't been completed. To the APA getting the coveted AA seniority number is the obvious wet-dream of every Eagle pilot. For the majority that may be so. The Eagle MEC, just like CMR, has the difficult task of representing a constituancy that has opposing career goals.

I understand all too well what you call the "group-think" of the APA, the ALPA and the MEC's of all the large major airlines. They've been playing this card and spinning this hype for so long that many of them actually believe that the flying is "all theirs" and they may do as they please, when they please, if they please, regardless of how it may affect our interests. I'll readily admit that the genie of sub-contracting should never have been permitted to get out of the bottle, but that's now a day late and a dollar short. The cows have been out of the barn for a long time and attempts (by mainline groups) to unilaterally close the barn door come too late. The mainline groups knowingly sold or gave away, take your pick, a substantial part of what was once their flying. It may have been what you call a "concession" but truthfully it was much more of a near-sighted "we don't want that stuff" decision. Riding high on the successes of the jet age, they didn't care who flew those prop jobs and failed to foresee the evolution of the commuter airline into today's "regional carrier" let alone the advent of the RJ Revolution. When the regional jet made its domestic debut at Comair, they first ridiculed our audacity in thinking we could do such a thing, then tried to push us into the flow-through BS and finally, attempted to scope us out of existence. Now that the chips are down in the legacy carriers and the other plans have failed, they resort to outright theft of seniority and jobs while clinging to the outmoded scope clause even in the face of their own bankruptcy. That pilots react that way is not too surprising. We have never been "kind" to each other. When the unions pick it up, particularly ALPA, which represents both groups, it becomes a crisis.

A prominent part of this political game has been the flow-through doctrine. The ALPA invented that bailiwick as a clever cover for predatory scope clauses they assumed would correct their mistake, while simultaneously creating potential furlough fodder of the gullible regional pilot groups. Taking advantage of the relative political inexperience of regional pilots and capitalizing on their dreams of a "major airline number", they managed to sucker in quite a few regional groups, including Eagle. Only a few years ago, most regional pilot groups, drunk on the flow-through elixir, would have sold their very souls for such an agreement. Just as the major airline pilots did not foresee the evolution of the commuter airline, the regional pilots did not foresee the potential downturn of the major that would put them on the streets. I know of one regional that literally did sell its soul and still never got the promised flow through. Luckily for regional pilots (even though many still don't get it) only a few of these schemes were ever put in place and all of them, thanks to the failure of the "mainline" itself in a couple cases, but mostly due to the resistance of the arrogant mainline groups (who stood to gain the most at zero cost), have failed or never got started.

As a matter of fact, the only regional airline that has consistently resisted this morally and politically corrupt flow through concept was Comair. The Comair MEC and pilots took a great deal of pressure from mainline groups (ALPA national), and much heat from our regional peers for letting it be known that we of Comair have always seen flow-through for what it was, i.e., a shroud in which we would ultimately be buried and from which only a very few of our most senior pilots would ever benefit if at all. The wet dreams (your words) of regional pilots who coveted mainline numbers have finally been revealed as the virginal nightmares they really were. Even Continental Express, whose non-ALPA program might be viewed as the "most successful" has proven to be a disappointment. In fact, not a single one of these ill-conceived cloaks for subterfuge has ever been fairly structured for the mutual benefit of the participants. They have all been one-sided. Is it any wonder that they failed?

The Comair MEC has indeed had some difficult tasks in its history, but contrary to your view, it has suffered no difficulty in representing a constituency with opposing career goals. We have not suffered internally from such conflicts, which exist only as wishful thinking on the part of our adversaries. In the main, our career goals have not been conflicting. Most of us sought careers in our own airline. That is why our solidarity in time of strife came as a surprise to so many while merely being a demonstration of the expected to us. Our pilots were part and parcel of the entrepreneurial spirit of our Company, well educated on the pros and cons of the flow through concept and fully informed of MEC decisions and the reasons there for. The MEC had no significant opposition on that account. In the last few years (post strike) Comair has hired many new pilots a lot of who came from other regional airlines. Some of these have been vocal in forums and opposed the MEC on these career issues having brought with them the culture of their previous employer. As each successive debacle orchestrated by the ALPA and others is unveiled, they begin to see the light and recognize what the rest of us have known for some time. When they are really out to get you, it's ok to be paranoid. "Better safe than sorry" has been a good policy for the Comair leadership and for Comair pilots. We may well have been vindicated by current events.

Some have said that we lost our strike and I might agree, but don't think for a moment that I was dissatisfied with our MEC or our negotiators. Remember that when we entered negotiations, and for nearly two years of the process, we had only two known adversaries to face, our management and our union. We did not anticipate that prior to the conclusion of negotiations there would be the take-over by Delta, Inc. While we realized that it would be tough and we might have to strike, we knew we could hold our own against those two. When Delta entered the picture the balance of power changed and not in our favor. Nevertheless, I think we gave a good account of our mettle against the third largest airline in the country and the largest pilot union, and no Comair pilot need bow his head. If Delta had not entered the picture, I personally believe we would have achieved all of our objectives perhaps without a strike but surely without such a long one. Maybe we didn't win, but we didn't lose either. A draw against mighty Delta Air Lines might demonstrate that "it's not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but the size of the fight in the dog." All of the "experts" at ALPA told us that we were fools. "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes." We were!

Despite all of that we are not overconfident. The current struggle with ALPA and the Delta MEC is another battle for our jobs and survival, one that we cannot afford to lose. We will stand our ground and hold our territory as long as we can. One thing is certain. If we should fail, it will not be without a fight.

My apologies for jumping on the soapbox. There is a great deal at stake for my fellow pilots and sometimes I can't restrain my emotions completely. I didn't mean to bore you and others.

Continued in Part 2

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

What does that say about AMR, who signs both contracts?

It says that AMR is just as unethical as the APA if not more so.

Look, I'm obviously not going to admit to supporting unethical behavior. Lying and deceit are obviously unethical. Misleading may or may not be (sometimes called "negotiating"). Obviously the "unity" speach is past history considering the current TA. I believe it would've been right to include Eagle in the discussions but it's a fact that the feverish pace of the concessionary talks to avoid bankruptcy precluded tri-lateral talks. We'll see what fun stuff follows now.

My thesaurus tells me that the terms, "lying", "deceit" and "misleading" are synonyms of each other. I respectfully submit that using the pace of concessionary talks as the excuse for avoiding tri-lateral talks is somewhat lame. The idea of transferring Eagle jobs to AA pilots did not originate with concessionary bargaining. It pre-dates it by far. If the APA had ever been truly interested in the wishes or rights of the Eagle pilots, bilateral talks between the APA and the Eagle MEC would have taken place long before bargaining with the Company began. There was ample time. Negotiations with the company on the relevant issues would have commenced with the presentation of positions on scope related and job security issues already mutually agreed between the two pilot groups. The APA has every right to bargain for AA pilots, but no right at all to bargain for Eagle pilots. That is exactly what it has done, in collusion with AMR.

One of the issues in the ex-TWA Pilots vs. ALPA lawsuit is that the experts were hired by us yet paid by ALPA National. To whom was their allegiance? While I have no doubt that the ALPA EC colluded against TWA it's not so clear that the hired attorneys did.

I really can't comment intelligently on the merits of the class action litigation brought by the TWA pilots. While I do know people like Compton and Pastore personally as well as the big players at the ALPA, I don't know any of the attorneys and I really don't know enough about the intricacies of your specific events. As for the EC, it has done many a strange thing that only its members understand. In that it is not a judiciary body but a political entity, it should not surprise you that politicians often have strange bedfellows and may well be the inventors of collusion.

Obviously society has changed since the Leave it to Beaver '50s. Some is for the better and some for the worse. We're a much more prosperous society and as we all know money corrupts us. May we all be cursed with more of it.

Ah yes, the good old days of Leave it to Beaver, when women were women and men were men, character and integrity were words that most Americans not only understood but traits they possessed, and morality was not a dirty word. As you say, we are a much more prosperous society but we've paid a he!l of a price for that material prosperity. Things may not be as different as you think though. Civilization has always been in a constant state of flux and will likely continue that way long after you and I are forgotten. I do wish however, that money had not replaced God.

While I admire that sentiment, the fact is that societal changes often do require changes in definitions. You have the benefit or greater wisdom yet even I can remember a time when guns in grade schools were never a fear. Religious dogma tends to be absolute but the secular laws of the U.S. do indeed change with the times. It may sound like I'm rationalizing but I'm trying not to. Businesses cheat more today but battered spouses are finally protected by the law. Drugs are readily available but racist laws have been stricken. The list goes on. To quote the French expression, "The more things change; the more they stay the same."

Careful quoting the French, the right wing conservatives have decreed 'tis no longer politically correct. Remember they really have no right to disagree with the man from Crawford and since they have, they and all those that treat with or make reference to them must be forever banished from our midst. If you take to quoting them you yourself may be branded a collaborator.  I guess your can deduce what I really think about that.

Many of our secular laws should change with the times and it is often necessary to add new definitions to our language. I understand that we have lost some things while gaining others and in the end it is left to be seen if we are truly ahead or behind. However, the old definitions remain useful and things like ethics, integrity and character, born of religious morality, are perhaps more critical to our long-term survival than the more recent concepts licentious behavior, theft without consequence, malfeasance in office, loss of rights and freedoms -- in exchange for false security, and abuse of power. Here are a couple of thoughts, this time from and Englishman (more politically correct) that you might consider. "The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see." "Short words are best and the old words when short are best of all." - Churchill (both)

Well, there's the rub: "Entitled" and "Legitimate claim". As I've argued AMR owns the flying thus there is no entitlement. Contracts determine who gets what flying. For the APA to pine for Eagle's flying is certainly not very considerate but I disagree that it's unethical. What business doesn't try to move in on another's?

Fair enough, a poor choice of words on my part earned me that one. May I presume then that the APA and you would have no problem if the Eagle pilots should offer to fly AA's narrow-body aircraft for say 50% less than AA pilots receive and staff them with Eagle pilots? That way the AA pilots could have the RJs with the Eagle compensation package and the Eagle pilots could move to the DC9s with a new compensation package that could save the Company millions. As you point out it might not be considerate but it would not be unethical, right? If the AA pilots should have to counter with an even lower bid in an effort to retain their work, what does it matter. After all it's not personal, it's just business. Far fetched? Maybe, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.

This I agree with. Is there any hope for a solution?

Candidly, at this point I doubt there is much hope for negotiated solution. The mainline groups have chosen to make war. Some regional pilot groups have chosen not to surrender. Both are entrenched. Under those circumstances, the only solution may have to come from a Federal court.

Of course. Ten years ago before the Small Jets changed the paradigms the subserviance of the regional operators was unquestioned. Eventually the industry will have to figure out what to do with the SJs. Will SJs become mainline or will 737s become SJs?

I would say that the subservience of the regional operators remains unchanged or has actually increased. All of the regional jet operators are either subsidiaries of the Parent Corporation or are totally controlled through fee-for-departure contracts. Management has already figured out what to do with the small jets, but to some extent is still hindered by the remnants of outmoded scope clauses. The conflicts between pilot groups stem from the fact that mainline pilots believe that the subservience of the regional operator to the parent company equates to subservience of the regional pilot groups to the mainline pilot groups. That is a fallacy. Each pilot group is dependent upon the Company but not upon the other pilot group. In the final analysis a pitch battle between the opposing pilot groups may ultimately determine whether the small jets will become mainline or the 737s will become regional. As we destroy each other in battle, management will take the spoils to the bank. Remember, management has no true preference as to who flys what aircraft. Him that will do it for less is better for them that he that considers himself superior but costs far more. The real bidding war between the pilot groups has yet to begin but the APA may well have fired the first shot.

May the force be with you.

 

[TWA Dude]

I understand all too well what you call the "group-think" of the APA, the ALPA and the MEC's of all the large major airlines. They've been playing this card and spinning this hype for so long that many of them actually believe that the flying is "all theirs" and they may do as they please, when they please, if they please, regardless of how it may affect our interests.

(italics added by me)

If I may discuss your interests briefly. All airline pilots basically want the same things: job security, benefits, advancement opportunities, etc. Therein lays the root problem: management has made us all competitors. When the Small Jet carriers flew only turboprops, even large ones, there was no competition. Now there's overlap in routes and one airline's growth means another's shrinkage. Remember when Small Jet growth actually increased mainline flying? Though it may again someday times are different now.

The mainline groups knowingly sold or gave away, take your pick, a substantial part of what was once their flying. It may have been what you call a "concession" but truthfully it was much more of a near-sighted "we don't want that stuff" decision. Riding high on the successes of the jet age, they didn't care who flew those prop jobs and failed to foresee the evolution of the commuter airline into today's "regional carrier" let alone the advent of the RJ Revolution.

I like that thought, but you imply that somebody actually did forsee the regional carrier growth. And I don't mean Embraer or Canadair either. Both were afterthoughts.

You deride mainline pilots for "we don't want that stuff" but don't Small Jet pilots feel the same way?

Now that the chips are down in the legacy carriers and the other plans have failed, they resort to outright theft of seniority and jobs while clinging to the outmoded scope clause even in the face of their own bankruptcy.

I object to the word "theft". When you get down to it Mainline can't take the Small Jet carrier's flying; it must be given to them. Since the Comair strike Delta has gone head-over-heels to spread out Connection flying amongst other carriers. Are they stealing your flying? Should they violate the contract then yes, they are. In the case of Eagle and APA, well, nothing's happened yet.

The wet dreams (your words) of regional pilots who coveted mainline numbers have finally been revealed as the virginal nightmares they really were.

I love it! It just shows to go you that there's very little free-tickets-to-the-majors going on. I agree that flow-through/flow-back is a failure. It sure seemed like a good idea at the time.

The Comair MEC has indeed had some difficult tasks in its history, but contrary to your view, it has suffered no difficulty in representing a constituency with opposing career goals.

Point taken.

I respectfully submit that using the pace of concessionary talks as the excuse for avoiding tri-lateral talks is somewhat lame.

I wasn't looking for an excuse. Keep in mind that AMR came to AA for concessions and not to Eagle. The APA basically got AMR to agree to giving up SJ flying to AA furloughees, yet they didn't hammer out the details. The devil's in the details, right? Look for a classic AMR double-cross. I know many at Eagle will look forward to that double-cross and nothing I say could possibly assuage that. Near as I can tell AMR is an equal-opportunity oppressor so any glee will likely be short-lived.

If the APA had ever been truly interested in the wishes or rights of the Eagle pilots, bilateral talks between the APA and the Eagle MEC would have taken place long before bargaining with the Company began.

Forgive my cynicism, but why should the APA be interested in the wishes of the Eagle pilots? Or even vice-versa? Does Mainline growth spur Eagle growth or is it the other way around? Once again that fact that both pilot groups are competing poisons any chance at unity. And the fact that a mainline job is so far superior to a SJ job ( I said the JOB, not the PILOT!) means continued friction ad infinitum.

The APA has every right to bargain for AA pilots, but no right at all to bargain for Eagle pilots. That is exactly what it has done, in collusion with AMR.

I don't mean to be glib, but APA hasn't taken any Eagle jobs yet. In fact, if I may be so bold, I don't forsee things taking place the way they might appear. I read the Eagle-ALPA press release today and it's completely factual. What's AMR goint to do?

Careful quoting the French, the right wing conservatives have decreed 'tis no longer politically correct.

I first learned the quote from a song by one of my favorite bands, Rush. So that makes it okee-dokey.

May I presume then that the APA and you would have no problem if the Eagle pilots should offer to fly AA's narrow-body aircraft for say 50% less than AA pilots receive and staff them with Eagle pilots? That way the AA pilots could have the RJs with the Eagle compensation package and the Eagle pilots could move to the DC9s with a new compensation package that could save the Company millions.

Shhhh! AMR might be listening!

But seriously, I wouldn't have any "problem" with such a proposal, per se. I simply wouldn't support it. I feel no need to lecture anybody about such lofty sentiments as "protecting the profession". It's all self-righteous gibberish in my view. The "profession" will do as well as the pax buying the tickets will support it.

Candidly, at this point I doubt there is much hope for negotiated solution. The mainline groups have chosen to make war. Some regional pilot groups have chosen not to surrender. Both are entrenched. Under those circumstances, the only solution may have to come from a Federal court.

In my view the courts are disinterested in inter-union squabbling. (I'm obviously not referring to the RJDC suit which is a topic for other threads.) That leaves the unions to figure things out themselves, which obviously Management will cleverly sabotage. The only long-term solution I envision is One List, though I can't even conceive of how that might be put into action.

I would say that the subservience of the regional operators remains unchanged or has actually increased.

I meant that by their increase in size and revenue the regional operators obtained de facto powers.

The conflicts between pilot groups stem from the fact that mainline pilots believe that the subservience of the regional operator to the parent company equates to subservience of the regional pilot groups to the mainline pilot groups.

That's a fair statement, but why is it so? Lemme think aloud: in terms of supposed subservience, exactly what effect has the SJs had on the regional pilot groups? Are regional pilots suddenly less subservient since they can now fly jet planes? Having flown both we both know well that those little turboprops required a lot more "piloting" than the jets. Of course jets offer their own challenges but I'll always look back at flying that P.O.S. Jetstream 31 as the most challenging stick-and-rudder airline flying I've done. The SJs ushered in explosive growth for most regional carriers giving them strength in numbers.

We all know that an individual pilot's stature is unfortunately defined by his airline and the equipment he flies. "Stature" of course doesn't say a thing about flying skills or whether that guy is any fun to fly with (the most important thing!). In Capitalism how hard one works has little effect on one's pay. Things like revenue-generation and seniority are the norms that define pay. So the root of the conflict as you state has zero chance of ever changing since Management will clearly never own two airlines of equal stature. One must be the "big guys" and one or more must remain the "little guys".

In the final analysis a pitch battle between the opposing pilot groups may ultimately determine whether the small jets will become mainline or the 737s will become regional. As we destroy each other in battle, management will take the spoils to the bank.

As always. But consider that mainline would happily give up the 737s if it means more 777s and 7X7s in their place. Today that isn't happening but tomorrow it might.

Be kind; rewind.