Federal Scope Regulation

[Firebird2XC]

So I'm not only shooting stuff down, here's what I see as a feesible idea:

If an airline is a "wholly owned subsidiary", the parent carrier can not maintain separate pilot lists. You can only have one pilot list that will service all the subsidiaries.

Okay... so what if it's not? What's to prevent multiple contract feed carriers from being whipsawed against each other? Considering that most regionals are not wholly owned, that would only address issues at a few carriers.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Stopping regional growth should be the domain of the unions, not the Government. Really the only thing I can see the Government doing is saying if you advertise for flights on say UAL, you will only fly passengers on UAL. That is forcing transparency.

The Unions have been rendered greatly less able.. largely through acts of the government.. specifically the NMB, via the RLA.

Once again, it all goes back to politics.

 

[Polar742]

Okay... so what if it's not? What's to prevent multiple contract feed carriers from being whipsawed against each other? Considering that most regionals are not wholly owned, that would only address issues at a few carriers.

Well, here's the deal.

You have CBAs with merger and successorship clauses. Except neither union wants to force the issue with wholly-owneds for some reason.

You need to get in the door. The best place would be Eagle since you guys have a monopoly on the AA feed. You are owned by AMR, just like AA.

What makes an AE pilot less important than a Reno Air or a TWA pilot that got merged in?

Start with stuff that you can have a chance to start, then work to the stuff you want.

The foundation is laid for a victory for the wholly owneds. Ask the senators why pilots from other carriers got merged when they were bought and pilots from commuters are excluded.

See where I'm coming from?

 

[meritflyer]

Pilots have bargaining power.

If they collectively stood for scope protection, they would achieve it.

But, they haven't so attempt to have the ever efficient Feds regulate it?

Noble.

 

[Firebird2XC]

Well, here's the deal.

You have CBAs with merger and successorship clauses. Except neither union wants to force the issue with wholly-owneds for some reason.

You need to get in the door. The best place would be Eagle since you guys have a monopoly on the AA feed. You are owned by AMR, just like AA.

What makes an AE pilot less important than a Reno Air or a TWA pilot that got merged in?

Start with stuff that you can have a chance to start, then work to the stuff you want.

The foundation is laid for a victory for the wholly owneds. Ask the senators why pilots from other carriers got merged when they were bought and pilots from commuters are excluded.

See where I'm coming from?

Now I'm picking up what you're putting down.

Of course, Eagle pilots don't have exclusive feed.. we have Chatauqua or however you spell it.. and have only recently seen the end of TSA's services.

Of course, you might be on to something here. It would seem that the smallest division between mainline and regional feed is, in fact, at the wholly owned level.

Food for thought. I met a Captain once who said the only way to stop the regional nonsense was to make all 121 ops under a certain brand required to be done on one certificate. Perhaps he.. and you.. are right.

I admit it makes sense, but drawing a dividing line and leaving the 70 seaters and less market as stand alone seemed diplomatic... how many people will be squeezed out if carriers are forced who to join at the hip with?

 

[Firebird2XC]

Pilots have bargaining power.

If they collectively stood for scope protection, they would achieve it.

But, they haven't so attempt to have the ever efficient Feds regulate it?

Noble.

Bargaining power? Pinnacle pilots are in their FIFTH year of contract negotiations.. have voted to strike.. and then were not.. 'released'.

Colgan pilots can't get management to meet with them.

When a decision can be delayed inevitably and unendingly, there is no power.

 

[Polar742]

Charlie,

There are easy pickings.

Yes, Eagle doesn't have quite a monopoly, but first, it's CHAUTAUQUA. A good leader doesn't insult those being led (thus I'm not really a good leader - or really a leader in any capacity unless it's "Boss, I'm gunna jump up. Want some coffee?").

However, do like RAH. If the powers that be get their rocks off having 2 or 20 certificates, let them. Have one pilot list. One CBA. Yes, on the smaller equipment you won't make what you make on the large jets. That's just a function of productivity. However, that doesn't preclude a livable wage. And that common CBA will have a common QoL. That's where it starts.

The dream is to hire on as a young FO on the smallest equipment and retire an old salt off the best paying equipment. The way to do that is start out small.

I mean, really. Look at AMR. They bought Reno, and integrated those pilots. They bought TWA and integrated those pilots. They own Eagle yet those pilots aren't integrated? What's the difference? 2 121 carriers were OK, and the other no? Other than the equipment, is the job different? It's not like Reno was flying long haul heavies, I'd even say they had a similar route structure to Eagle.

Just like when USAir bought Hensen, Jersey Central and Jetstream. They didn't merge those guys into mainline, but merged in the PSA and Piedmont guys?

Contiental bought Britt. Not merged in

Delta bought ASA and ComAir. Not merged in.

Well, you get the idea. I think a good attack point would be why were some airlines that were bought merged in and some weren't? Why weren't merger and successorship clauses enforced? Why were some pilots discriminated against?

 

[Firebird2XC]

Charlie,

There are easy pickings.

Yes, Eagle doesn't have quite a monopoly, but first, it's CHAUTAUQUA. A good leader doesn't insult those being led (thus I'm not really a good leader - or really a leader in any capacity unless it's "Boss, I'm gunna jump up. Want some coffee?").

However, do like RAH. If the powers that be get their rocks off having 2 or 20 certificates, let them. Have one pilot list. One CBA. Yes, on the smaller equipment you won't make what you make on the large jets. That's just a function of productivity. However, that doesn't preclude a livable wage. And that common CBA will have a common QoL. That's where it starts.

The dream is to hire on as a young FO on the smallest equipment and retire an old salt off the best paying equipment. The way to do that is start out small.

I mean, really. Look at AMR. They bought Reno, and integrated those pilots. They bought TWA and integrated those pilots. They own Eagle yet those pilots aren't integrated? What's the difference? 2 121 carriers were OK, and the other no? Other than the equipment, is the job different? It's not like Reno was flying long haul heavies, I'd even say they had a similar route structure to Eagle.

Just like when USAir bought Hensen, Jersey Central and Jetstream. They didn't merge those guys into mainline, but merged in the PSA and Piedmont guys?

Contiental bought Britt. Not merged in

Delta bought ASA and ComAir. Not merged in.

Well, you get the idea. I think a good attack point would be why were some airlines that were bought merged in and some weren't? Why weren't merger and successorship clauses enforced? Why were some pilots discriminated against?

Ahhhh okay. Now I'm picking up what you're putting down. Bear with me, I'm willing to be lead to water but don't always realize I'm thirsty right away.

That's an EXCELLENT point as to how anti-scope whipsawing starts. Take a bunch of small, hungry airline pilot groups and leverage them against the legacy kids, and ta-da. Because they don't fly same type equipment, they're separate. A good excuse to take a group that's used to being kicked around, keep them as leverage, and continue kicking them.

I get it. So you're suggesting that now that the best Scope regulation might be "One airline, one ticket" type stuff?

The problem I see with that is this- while it integrates things like American and Eagle, and Delta and Comair, Compass, etc, it leaves the door open later. If acquisition requires integration, eventually that flying can still be eliminated, those pilots furloughed, and outsourced "smaller" feed brought in. It requires original scope to be ironclad. Is the scope of all pilot groups sufficient to stop that?

I guess what I'm asking is- I see your point here, and agree. But if I push over this first domino in the stack, how do I get the rest to follow?

Furthermore- my original stance was one of simplest origins. I never intended to correct the "entire problem", lest it take on some sort of 'Final Solution' type mentality. Knee-jerk legislation can invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences to levels that would exceed the intended and positive results. My intent was simply to stop the hemorrhaging, and let Unions and Companies bargain out the rest of the issues later, and let the economy sort out the end. Would this not be wise, things considered?

 

[Matt13C]

Hold on there just a minute. The majors sought out the RFP's in the first place. You cannot blame the commuters for being parasites - they were simply offering a service that the majors desired.

I am not blaming commuters/regionals, I am just saying the system as it stands now has regionals pitted against each other to latch onto a major.

Taking the flying "back to the mainline" will never happen. At the very least, it's highly unlikely. Unless we're going to a mass-regulatory effort with "one airline, one ticket" type rules that's fairly far-fetched.

As far as limiting the regionals, well, why not? If we're going to call them regionals, let's keep them regionals. If major airlines want to do regional level flying, i.e., fly small planes, I see no reason why not. Why airline managers would let pilots fly little planes at big plane wages is beyond me.

The whole point here is to stop regional growth. If you don't, there will eventually be no mainline jobs left to go back to. Erasing the regionals as they are is too extreme- that sort of legislation would die an early death. Simply accepting that things have split already and creating boundaries for that is more realistic.

My point was, unless you limit both, you wont achieve your goal. You would need to find a way to classify an airline as regional or national/major based on something other than jet size. Perhaps when applying for a license to operate, they must state their intentions, self identify, regional or national carrier. You would also have to create legislation to limit the number of national carriers.

If you didn't, a regional could simply operate on two different licenses, one as a regional, doing the short hop flights in sub 70 seat jets. The other as a national carrier in 70+ seat jets, both under code share agreements, both at substantially lower wages. Both taking jobs from mainline pilots.

In the end all you would have is virtual airlines selling tickets for their regional or national arms.

 

[Polar742]

I get it. So you're suggesting that now that the best Scope regulation might be "One airline, one ticket" type stuff?

That's not what I was thinking. I was thinking in the broader holding company idea. One holding company (AMR or DAL), one pilot list, one CBA regardless of the number of operating certificates

The problem I see with that is this- while it integrates things like American and Eagle, and Delta and Comair, Compass, etc, it leaves the door open later. If acquisition requires integration, eventually that flying can still be eliminated, those pilots furloughed, and outsourced "smaller" feed brought in. It requires original scope to be ironclad. Is the scope of all pilot groups sufficient to stop that?

You can't stop a business from being a business. They will buy or sell, or acquire equipment and park equipment. People will be hired and furloughed. In any case it will all work the same. If they cut 100 pilots, the bottom 100 are off the list.

Look at a "down the road" picture. Once time goes on, all merged lists look "typical" with the new guys starting at the bottom. It's not like at Eagle where my buddy got hired at AA, got furloughed down, and theoretically took a CA seat at Eagle, pushing Eagle pilots out of their seats even though he was junior to them.

I guess what I'm asking is- I see your point here, and agree. But if I push over this first domino in the stack, how do I get the rest to follow?

Success is contagious. :beer:

 

[Firebird2XC]

That's not what I was thinking. I was thinking in the broader holding company idea. One holding company (AMR or DAL), one pilot list, one CBA regardless of the number of operating certificates

Ahh.. but still. Start another holding company, start a new airline, and contract from them. Squashing the whipsaw monster is harder than it sounds.

Look at a "down the road" picture. Once time goes on, all merged lists look "typical" with the new guys starting at the bottom. It's not like at Eagle where my buddy got hired at AA, got furloughed down, and theoretically took a CA seat at Eagle, pushing Eagle pilots out of their seats even though he was junior to them.

Yeah.. that flowthrough/flowback thing was a disaster. I used to refrain from argument, because I couldn't really say I'd felt the immediate effects as I'm so junior.

When the flowback 'super seniority expired', they were displaced into my seat, base, and equipment. With the last furloughs, I was displaced out of base as a result.

I wasn't too upset about it until I got wind of a Flowback letter complaining about the 'Poverty level wages' they expect Eagle FOs to fly for. Well gee, you asshat, if it's too little for you, quit. You were all too ready to take my seat and push me elsewhere. I'm hoping now that they've lost that arbitration they DO quit Eagle.

 

[Timbuff10]

Take it a step further... Make contract flying illegal.

You sell a ticket, you have to provide the entire product.

 

[derg]

Take it a step further... Make contract flying illegal.

You sell a ticket, you have to provide the entire product.

That's actually a good idea, kind of like the old days.

At least from a pilot perspective when I flew domestic, I'd be intercepted mid-terminal by a passenger with their hair on fire about a flight. I'd ask about the segment they were flying and say it was flight (something with four digits higher than 3XXX), I wouldn't even know who they should contact about customer service.

Do you have them talk to Southernjets about the last plane being dirty? They wouldn't care... Do I have them write the crack management team at Chautauqua, Skywest, Trans States, ACA, ASA, Comair, Eagle (for a period of time), Mesa/Freedom... GAH!

But the blame lies with mainline. We kept letting company negotiators, fear of 1113(c) processes and mouthbreathers like the RJDC break our resolve on scope.

So what's going on today is largely our own fault.

The royal "we", not I because I didn't vote for it.

 

[Screaming_Emu]

That's actually a good idea, kind of like the old days.

At least from a pilot perspective when I flew domestic, I'd be intercepted mid-terminal by a passenger with their hair on fire about a flight. I'd ask about the segment they were flying and say it was flight (something with four digits higher than 3XXX), I wouldn't even know who they should contact about customer service.

Do you have them talk to Southernjets about the last plane being dirty? They wouldn't care... Do I have them write the crack management team at Chautauqua, Skywest, Trans States, ACA, ASA, Comair, Eagle (for a period of time), Mesa/Freedom... GAH!

But the blame lies with mainline. We kept letting company negotiators, fear of 1113(c) processes and mouthbreathers like the RJDC break our resolve on scope.

So what's going on today is largely our own fault.

The royal "we", not I because I didn't vote for it.

Same goes for us. I had one person complaining as they got off a flight saying "I'm never flying Delta again!!!" I wanted to say "ok, seeya next time!"