Thanks Richard. There are indeed other concerns pertaining to pilot issues other than that never ending subject.
For those of us who are not pilots (and probably some who are) it is rather mystifying how the pilots gave some much ground on scope, specifically on the aircraft size that can be flown by contract carriers. It was one thing to let the 50 seaters be outsourced, another to have 86 seat aircraft flown by Republic and Mesa.
Back in the day, Piedmont (the "real" one) and later USAir operated the F-28 (BoeingBoy or someone else correct my memory if it's wrong) holding 65-75 seats. They were flown by mainline pilots, albeit at lower pay than for the 737 or DC-9.
Why was such a provision not carried over to allow mainline to operate more modern and efficient types in the same size category. (CRJ-700/900 -ugh! or EMB-170. Or even for the likes of the 50 seat EMB-145. To a non pilot observer this seems to be a horrendous error. How many mainline jobs (pilots, F/As, station agents) have been lost to the resulting outsourcing?
Not to mention the absurdity of Republic, its coffers filled by payments from mainline, buying Midwest and Frontier to become a mainline competitor to US Airways.
Can someone more conversant with the details on how the camel got its nose into the tent could shed light on the topic?
The scope issue also applies to other work groups. In some way, the CSA group has better scope protection than the pilots. An outsourced, non CWA, station can only have two mainline flights per day.
To add a further wrinkle the 86 seat CRJ-900 is considered, for CWA staffing purposes to be an "express a/c", the 86 seat EMB-175 is considered to be the same as a mainline type. (The details on how that came to be are rather murky. ) Since the little growth that is likely to be seen in the US Airways system is likely to remain on the express side for the foreseeable future, this has made a real difference in protecting mainline CSA jobs.
While many in the CSA group see much to be desired in CWA contract, the scope provision could be worse.
To set the record straight this answer will be to scope issues concerning RJ's. If you want to talk about the History of Scope issues than you have come to ther right place because Allegheny Airlines invented the code share partner in the late 60's and early 70's. The Beech 99 was the first Allegheny Commuter and that is what the companies were called. The code share commuter concept grew until 1999, when the RJ was placed in service.
Contract 1999, the same contract that US Airways East pilots are working under now, modified by LOA93, had in its origional code share section a maximum of 25 RJ's incuded in the scope section. Remember at that time that the company was betting on Metro Jet. The Metro Jet concept was the driving force of cost controls at that time. The RJ was an unknown.
Mr. Wolf an Ganghwall didn't think the RJ concept would amount to much but they hedged their bets by getting ALPA to agree to 25. Of course we now know that the industry bet against the Metro Jet model and went for RJ's. Every time then that the company came to the union during restructuring and Chapter II one and Chapter II two bankruptcies they got more RJ relief.
Our scope concessions were always negotiated on the threat of bankruptcy or some other dire situaition. It was not a well thought out or coherent plan. The company failed in bankruptcy one to get the concessions it needed. There was a rush in bankruptcy two because WAll Street was wonder if there was any management talent at all at US Airways. They had a chance to fix the airline in Chapter II and they didn't.
The messed up scope language we have no is a collection of separate agreements and side letters that were negotiated under trying conditions. There was no master plan, only quick fixes that we are now stuck with.
Also remember that the large RJ's didn't exsist in 1999, we knew they were on the drawing board but they didn't yet exist. Republic didn't have the ERJ 170 and the CRJ-700/900 didn't exist. The ERJ 900 went to Republic with the demise of MidAtlantic, as he company sold that operation to raise cash. The CRJ-900's you see down in CLT are the result of a scope relif ploy by MESA Airlines to get round US Airways scope. The US Airways scope clause in 2002 had a restriction on the number of seats onboard an aircraft operated by that carrier. Not necessarily the amount of seats under the code share. MESA then created Freedom Airlines so that they could continue to codes share on the 50 seaters with US Airways, but operate the 90 seat RJ's for America West. Those Freedome Aircraft came as part of the US Airways / America West merger. They were grandfatherd in so to speak and the company has just recently extended the agreement. The only good thing is that the agreement is tail number specific and the company cannot replace those aircraft if they are damaged or sold.
In closing to all work groups I would submit the following: Be reasonable in your contract demands considering the state of the economy and the industry. However consider that any attempt to gain concessions by the company simply unacceptable. It is an admission by management that they don't know what they are doing. Management, has had two runs at chapter II where they could have gotten anything they wanted from the empoyees and basically they did.
Now they want to take more? Are you kidding? Be reasonable in what you ask for but be firm in not giving up what you have already. Those contractual items have survived to bankruptcy filings and should not be given up without complete and total compensation in exchange.
That's my $.02
