AirTran/SkyWest Expansion Rumors

surreal1221 said:
Increased pay is useless if you do not have the protections in place to maintain, much less protect or grow, your flying.

Well written scope.
Click to expand...

What else is in the contract? We had a KILLER scope clause in our TA. However, the other "gains" weren't good enough for me to vote "yes." I would have gone backwards on the QoL scale than what I have now on a 1999 contract because of a) the ambiguous language found in the TA and b) management's "go to" guy when it comes to contract interpretations. It was almost like he wrote in the loop holes himself. Come to think of it, he IS one of management's negotiators.....

Serious question here as I'm an outsider looking in....

What do those two things have to do with each other?

Again, just an honest question.
Click to expand...

Give us this, or we'll outsource to the max of the scope clause.....and push it further until a judge tells us to stop.
 
B767 said:
I know very little about airline contracts and what not, so if these two are unrelated I apologize:

If you couldn't have both, would you rather have well written scope clauses or increased pay (if you were making $15000 less than you are now)?
Click to expand...

As Kell and Surreal said, everything else is worthless without the scope to protect your flying. A $500/hr rate doesn't mean anything if management has the right under your agreement to outsource your flying and put you on the street.

With that said, if I had to make $15,000 less per year, I would likely leave this profession. It's not really worth continuing at that level of pay.
 
Look at United and then ask yourself what Scope is worth. Look at how WN pilots voted their last contact down because it left a loop hole for scope. It's all about scope right now.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Quite the contrary, management comes begging for relief whenever they want something; they don't just ignore the language and trot out the lawyers.
Click to expand...

That's no different than a professional athlete pretending to not have just committed a violation of the rules. Maybe the official will be swindled into believing them.

You could have management pulling a trick play out of their books to make the pilot group believe that their scope is actually protecting their jobs. In some cases it would be much easier to convince the union to give concessions, than to risk a grievance process. It all depends on the situation.

You could also have situations where management isn't smart enough to figure a way around the language.
 
falconvalley said:
That's no different than a professional athlete pretending to not have just committed a violation of the rules. Maybe the official will be swindled into believing them.

You could have management pulling a trick play out of their books to make the pilot group believe that their scope is actually protecting their jobs. In some cases it would be much easier to convince the union to give concessions, than to risk a grievance process. It all depends on the situation.
Click to expand...

Quite unlikely. Whenever management has achieved scope concessions (except in bankruptcy, of course), they have had to make rather large trades in return. Believe me, management would not be making deals for millions upon millions in trades if they actually believes that they could simply circumvent the scope. The grievance process for an expedited scope grievance would be of nill cost in comparison.

You could also have situations where management isn't smart enough to figure a way around the language.
Click to expand...

Trust me, not the case. These guys have some of the best attorneys in the business working on this stuff. If there was a loophole, they'd know it. In cases where scope has been weak, managements have exploited it (TSA, Midwest, Mesa). In cases where scope has not been weak, managemeng has been forced to comply and bargain for concessions.

Don't ever let anyone tell you that scope is worthless because management can just get around it. Absolute BS.
 
I base my opinion on life experiences, not on believing everything I hear. Perhaps you have not encountered a scenario where the sword was, in fact, pulled out of the stone, but it happens. Sure, it's easy to look back and say "Well of course!" I do agree that some language is absolutely horrible when applied to the way management handles an employee group (I've been there). I agree that when millions are involved, one side might think twice about pulling a fast one. That's my point, however. Each side, if they are smart, will weigh the benefits and potential consequences of their actions. You say that management hires the best lawyers and I say that if I were a lawyer, I would advise my client not to agree to anything that doesn't allow for leeway (if stone cold perfect language was even possible). Then again, I'm no lawyer, but that just seems like common sense to me. The job of management is to run the company and avoid scenarios that limit their ability to succeed. I'm certain that negotiations for concessions are mostly monetary related and in some cases, a show of respect for an employee group, but I would never agree that it's because management thinks that the employee group has more power and needs their permission. The best we can hope for, imo, is scope language that covers as much as possible and perhaps a more cooperative relationship. In many cases, management goes away from the current employee group because the relationship is not cooperative at all. Steep hills we have here. :)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
For the sake of IBT pilots everywhere, I certainly hope your buddy Dave doesn't have the same attitude about scope that you do. :rolleyes:



Believe me, it didn't go unnoticed.
Click to expand...

The opinion is shared by those who have been around since before scope existed. You never bet the bank on having anything that is iron clad. Decades of experience has proven that someone will come along with an angle to blow a hole in the plan. Therefore, while the language may seem bulletproof, you always plan for and anticipate that you will have problems.

Kinda like flying. Always stay ahead of the game.

Scope can and will be tested and violated. The determining factor is the level of desire of a management to do so. As long as they have deep financial pockets, they will hold the upper hand. Therefore a smart union leadership will always have a contingency plan. Part of that is figuring out a way to forge a good working relationship with management if possible. When they are convinced that their best interests are served by such a relationship, the chances of them looking for ways to violate scope are reduced.

All the chest thumping in the world by labor means nothing if they aren't willing to back it up. Many years ago, a UAL pilot asked a simple question of then ALPA President. He asked, "do you know why we elected you?" The president answered, "because I was the best qualified."

The UAL Captain replied, "No. We elected you to go to jail for us."

People can wax poetic all they want, but the reasoning was simple. If a union leader is unwilling to take a stand with more than just words, then management knows they have already won.

Tragically, management has figured this out with ATN, UAL and others. Call it Aer Lingus or SkyWest, it's the same thing. When they see a union violate employee agreements, fire employees and impose work rules on unionized employees, and then see no coordinated effort to stop the likes of AerLingus, they know that they can operate with impugnity.

Unfortunately for AirTran, they will find out that when they finally get a TA, the scope language will not be what everyone wants. The question will then be; are they willing (and will they convince ALPA) that it's worth striking over in a down market? Or will ALPA say, "live with it and pass the TA, this is costing us too much money."

Battles aren't won by believing your own press releases. They're won by having better intelligence on your opponent and anticipating his next move.
 
falconvalley said:
I base my opinion on life experiences, not on believing everything I hear. Perhaps you have not encountered a scenario where the sword was, in fact, pulled out of the stone, but it happens. Sure, it's easy to look back and say "Well of course!" I do agree that some language is absolutely horrible when applied to the way management handles an employee group (I've been there). I agree that when millions are involved, one side might think twice about pulling a fast one. That's my point, however. Each side, if they are smart, will weigh the benefits and potential consequences of their actions. You say that management hires the best lawyers and I say that if I were a lawyer, I would advise my client not to agree to anything that doesn't allow for leeway (if stone cold perfect language was even possible). Then again, I'm no lawyer, but that just seems like common sense to me. The job of management is to run the company and avoid scenarios that limit their ability to succeed. I'm certain that negotiations for concessions are mostly monetary related and in some cases, a show of respect for an employee group, but I would never agree that it's because management thinks that the employee group has more power and needs their permission. The best we can hope for, imo, is scope language that covers as much as possible and perhaps a more cooperative relationship. In many cases, management goes away from the current employee group because the relationship is not cooperative at all. Steep hills we have here. :)
Click to expand...

KA-CHING!!!! We have a WINNER!!!

You have cracked the code Grasshopper.:clap:
 
Southwest voted down their contract for only one reason.....scope. I would fight tooth and nail over it.
 
Well you can probably guess; it has to with the amount of flying that can be contracted out, along with the size of the planes.

I'm sure there are infinite levels of complexity to it, but that's the jist of it.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
With that said, if I had to make $15,000 less per year, I would likely leave this profession. It's not really worth continuing at that level of pay.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention the part where you paid more than that for your first airline job, holmes.
 
aloft said:
You forgot to mention the part where you paid more than that for your first airline job, holmes.
Click to expand...

Is this necessary? I mean I'm all for proving a point and if you wanted to say this in order to do so, that's great; but really, are you doing anything useful here?
 
727to7400 said:
Therefore, while the language may seem bulletproof, you always plan for and anticipate that you will have problems.

Kinda like flying. Always stay ahead of the game.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you there, but that's a far cry from what you seemed to be saying in your ealier post, which was very defeatist in nature. Far too many union reps fall into the trap of believing that scope isn't worth fighting for, because they've been convinced that scope isn't enforceable. That's simply not the case. Good scope language isn't "bullet proof," but no contract language is. However, it gives you an excellent chance of protecting yourself in arbitration and the courts, and if you've got good language, you'll win far more often than not. In other words, it's worth the fight and the negotiating grease.

Unfortunately for AirTran, they will find out that when they finally get a TA, the scope language will not be what everyone wants. The question will then be; are they willing (and will they convince ALPA) that it's worth striking over in a down market? Or will ALPA say, "live with it and pass the TA, this is costing us too much money."
Click to expand...

This MEC has made scope a top priority, so no agreement will get to the pilots without much-improved scope language. Regarding a strike, as I hope you already know, you can't actually strike over scope language, because it's a permissive item of bargaining. You would have to strike over another item and simply refuse to settle the other item until scope has been resolved to your satisfaction.

bLizZuE said:
Can someone explain scope?
Click to expand...

Among pilots, it has basically come to be understood as "what flying can be outsourced?" In reality, it's far more than that. It is really the "scope" of the agreement; in other words, what does the agreement cover? Does it cover all flying done for the company, period, or does it cover most of the flying with some exceptions? That's what "scope" really means.

Section 1 of every ALPA contract is usually titled "Scope and Job Security," meaning that it deals with items other than simply the scope of the agreement. These are the items usually covered in Section 1 of an ALPA contract:
  • Recognizing ALPA as the bargaining agent
  • Setting seat, weight, block-hour, and ASM limits on code shares
  • Merger procedures
  • Successorship protection
  • Transfer of assets protection
  • Expedited arbitration procedures for scope disputes
aloft said:
You forgot to mention the part where you paid more than that for your first airline job, holmes.
Click to expand...

Actually, I paid a bit less than that, but thanks for adding to the conversation, "holmes."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top