Originally Posted by Gooner

I completely understand your displeasure with the situation of regional size and career hoops they create, I spent a number of years in this situation and jumped through said hoops. I also feel you don’t fully respect or understand how contract negotiations work and particularly bankruptcy works. I say this admitting that at some point there was definitely an ego choice that cracked the door open for regional jets.

First off though pilots in general overestimate the power of our contract in regards to how an airline is run. All we can and could ever do since being part of the railway labor act, is to make a company practice that is undesirable to us expensive. Example would be language on sit length, we say if you have us sit for more than 4 hours you must pay us 2 hours of pay. So the company has to AGREE knowing that they can schedule how they want without a 4 hour sit, or if the math is worth it have us sit anyways. The same goes for scope unfortunately we can say no to any other flying done by someone else but if they don’t AGREE then no contract gets done.

This is wher bankruptcies come into play, if they deem they need to add regional flying as per a new business model idea. Then during a bankruptcy they can try to prove that they need a change in scope language to implement a new business model that will save the company, the “point” of bankruptcy.

This all leaves pilots with the option of continuing to fly for the company they have seniority and created a life with an option of accepting the contract or quitting. Quitting is the only actual action available to a pilot who doesn’t accept what is happening, as we no longer can strike. Hard to take responsibility for something when your options are so extreme.
Hopefully, the result has been now a generation of pilots later that maybe scope is THE contract item of importance. But if the company really wants it they will create a situation that you have to pick your dream job, its ability to take care of your family or scope changes. A hard choice, even in the good times we now are reaping.

Originally Posted by poopplop

Excellent first post. I understand the complexity of contract negotiations and bankruptcy. However, I am speaking from simple and understandable logic. Yes, the company can propose adding regional subcontractors to cut costs and save the airline. That means that other pilots, schedulers, management etc would have to do the same jobs for less money. The simple alternative to that is providing cheaper labor to save your own company and jobs, instead of pushing the lower wages onto others. At some point the choice was made to push those hardships onto someone else, instead of taking the hit and waiting until they had leverage again. They sold their job market share to prop up their own wages and ensure company profits. That's called "selling out" the industry.

Originally Posted by poopplop

Excellent first post. I understand the complexity of contract negotiations and bankruptcy. However, I am speaking from simple and understandable logic. Yes, the company can propose adding regional subcontractors to cut costs and save the airline. That means that other pilots, schedulers, management etc would have to do the same jobs for less money. The simple alternative to that is providing cheaper labor to save your own company and jobs, instead of pushing the lower wages onto others. At some point the choice was made to push those hardships onto someone else, instead of taking the hit and waiting until they had leverage again. They sold their job market share to prop up their own wages and ensure company profits. That's called "selling out" the industry.

Originally Posted by Gooner

Simple logic it may be, it feels a bit over simplified for such a complex action. Having voted for a bankruptcy contract I can tell you I didn’t feel like I sold out the industry even though I, temporarily, set a floor for some aspects of contracts. The pilots that “sold out” to bring about the regionals of 98-2015 probably were sold and maybe even partially believed they were opening an opportunity for industry new comers, while also saving themselves some short term pain. Till that point regionals posed little danger, management saw an opportunity.

So by simple logic did they “sell out?” Maybe. But I wonder if we would have felt like we were selling the future in their shoes at the time. I know as an industry, and lots have now brought their experience to Delta, we won’t be so easily sold on such things anymore. Or at least that’s my hope.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Have you ever been thru a major airline bankruptcy? Many, many items were lost including scope, QOL issues and a pretty severe pay cut. Ever since then, in pretty much every subsequent contract, we have made strides to reduce the outsourced (RJ) flying. You don’t mention anything about that. It’s easy to criticize when you don’t have to live through it.

Denny

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

You never answered my question. Have you been thru a bankruptcy and subsequent "negotiation?" I think not. You say you understand the complexity but, your past posting history (including this one) indicates you have no clue about the complexities.

Denny

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

Still won’t answer the question. I’ve made my point. You are not worth the effort any more.

Denny

Originally Posted by poopplop

So they either sold the scope on purpose, or sold it by accident because they were fooled by management. Either way is bad, and the history is set in stone. I don't see why grown men can't acknowledge the mistakes they made in the past, which are the same mistakes they outwardly claim they won't make again in the future.

Originally Posted by msprj2

As things improve “non rev”
Wise at least our biggest opponent are mainline pilots who allowed these sub standard jobs to exist and now are arguing to stop their improvement.