Scope works - ACA furloughs more pilots

[surplus1]

Skyway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Midwest Airlines and we operate under a different certificate.
SF

Not to worry SF, what Mike seems to be telling you is that all you need is a different name and a different operating certificate and then you can drive a truck through his scope clause. Sounds like you already have both.

Had ACA wanted to (assuming Mike is right) all they had to do was retain the separate certifice they once had for the DOJets, and voila, no problem.

 

[80drvr]

While I might agree with not subsidizing the competition, I have to ask you. Are you prepared to fly the E-170 for USAirways rates of $58/hr or would you rather fly the E-190 for JetBlue rates? Apart from the rates, rember too ... no pension and no work rules ... you fly to FAR's.

My friend the "degradation" of 70-110 seat compensation is not coming from the "regionals", it's coming from the so-called majors.

Second question. While AA scope may prohibit CHQ from flying the E-170 for UAL, if you try to stop them and they decide to take you to court (the company not the pilots) what do you think will happen to your "scope"? Taking any bets?

If we don't hold the line on scope, the wage argument is a moot point. I'm not pointing fingers, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the wages on new 70-110 seat equipment are not degraded. We'll just have to wait and see what is deemed competitive for this category of domestic flying. But, it is a lot easier to fix pay scales moving forward if you own the flying.

On your second point, what law would the AA/APA CBA be in violation of? I have placed a huge bet...it's my career.

 

[Carl_Everett]

Yes there are areas that need improvement but all in all things are at least going as expected.

Chingow! (I'm not a spanish major so the speeling needs some improvement)

21% load factors are what you girls expected. Better start sending out resumes. Or start hoping for a major change in managerial thinking. ($10 bucks says the 320's are on hold for now)

I'll take that bet! Just make it for 319's. Independence is not getting 320's.

http://forums.aca-lounge.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=531

 

[AirBoard]

Yes there are areas that need improvement but all in all things are at least going as expected.

Chingow! (I'm not a spanish major so the speeling needs some improvement)

21% load factors are what you girls expected. Better start sending out resumes. Or start hoping for a major change in managerial thinking. ($10 bucks says the 320's are on hold for now)

Actually the 380's are on hold for now dips!%t.... But anyway, good idea about the resume, I'll throw it on over to your airline - your hiring right? Oh wait a minute then I'd have to work with your miserable ass.....forget it then.

 

[surplus1]

error

 

[surplus1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 80drvr
If we don't hold the line on scope, the wage argument is a moot point. I'm not pointing fingers, but you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the wages on new 70-110 seat equipment are not degraded. We'll just have to wait and see what is deemed competitive for this category of domestic flying. But, it is a lot easier to fix pay scales moving forward if you own the flying.</B></B>



I sure wasn't trying to convince you that the wages on that size equipment are not degraded. If fact degraded is a benign word, it's more like devastated. I'm just fussing about who did it. Your scope statement isn't wrong, but trying to force CHQ to give up that flying in the E-170 is not like to result in your getting it. It will just go to someone else. The effect of that makes the scope argument as moot as the wage argument.



Quote:
On your second point, what law would the AA/APA CBA be in violation of? I have placed a huge bet...it's my career.


Unless Chautauqua or Republic (whichever one of them flys that type for UAL) has agreed, in their deal with AMR, to comply with the AA CBA I would call attempts to stop their agreement with a third party (UAL) "restraint of trade". Does federal law allow that? I don't think so.

The problem is merely that no one has chosen to challenge that type of scope in court. At least not yet. Does Republic Holdings or Republic Airlines have a code share agreement with AA? If they don't, how does what they fly for UAL manage to violate your scope? How does that affect your career at AA?

I understand your intent clearly, but many of you (major unions) tend to "reach" beyond the bounds of reason. Perhaps they'll get scared if you threaten and roll over, but one of these days somebody will call your bluff.

 

[FDJ2]

While AA scope may prohibit CHQ from flying the E-170 for UAL, if you try to stop them and they decide to take you to court (the company not the pilots) what do you think will happen to your "scope"? Taking any bets?

Does AA scope "prevent" CHQ from flying the E-170, or does it prevent AA, due to a mutaully agreed upon contract, from outsourcing its code to a carrier that flies the E-170. Big difference.