Mainline & Regional Pilots at AC

[Guest neo]

Dear colleagues,

Despite all the current upheaval, and despite the dim view which many take of AC's handling of who will fly the new small jets, it's possible that there is a silver lining to it all.

The way this issue has been structured is likely to apply considerable leverage to bringing the two groups under one banner. Will either group prefer to have someone else decide who flies the new jets, or will they prefer to negotiate an outcome? The answer based on ACPA's past would suggest the former; but I doubt if there's still that feeling of impregnability sround ACPA HQ. Let's hope that we've all learned to bend, rather than break.

I offer this observation in support of a new initiative to join the two groups: the previous ruling on AC's Common Employer status is now a burnt piece of toast. (IMHO, of course.) You'll recall that the CIRB's ruling of some 5 years ago denied the regional pilots' bid to enforce a Common Employer status on the AC mainline. Well, it would appear that AC management has, by creating a situation where the two groups bid on the same work, rendered that previous ruling to the junk bin of labor history.

How can you have two employee groups bidding on the same work, and not have a Common Employer situation? Now, I recognize that the CIRB moves in mysterious ways, and that it's a political beast, but how could they now deny that a common employer exists?

I'd say that a merged list of regional and mainline pilots waits only for the first union to apply for it.

Best wishes,

Richard Roskell

[Guest Rob Assaf]

Hello Richard,

I'm not sure how that would play out. If the company is possibly looking at selling the regional operation or a minority portion of it post CCAA to generate cash, it would make the merging and/or maintainance of a merged list somewhat complicated. I do think that the issue of who flies what has to be sorted out and not in the somewhat misguided manner that some have on both sides of this issue.

The new fleet plan seems to favour a mainline with a mainly airbus fleet except for a 767 component. This would seem to make sense vis a vis fleet commonality, training, etc. It would NOT make sense for mainline to fly most of the airbus's and regional to fly some small airbus's as well.

The regional fleet plan seems to focus on some props (dash 8 family) and regional jets (bombardier family?). Again, from a commonality point of view it would make sense that they be from the same "family" for commonality , training, etc. On this note, it would make the most sense that ALL the regional jets be flown by the same property. Just as it doesn't make sense for us regionals to get small airbus's, it doesn't make sense for mainline to get some of the regional jet fleet. Mainline should concentrate on the "big stuff" and we concentrate on the small stuff.

The new goal right now should be getting profitable. This assures pensions for everyone, if mainline getting smaller initially (who knows what the 5 or 10 year future holds) and regional gets bigger initially and the whole corp gets finacially stronger, everyone wins. The guys that just retired and those about to retire can breathe a little easier knowing they will get at least a good portion of their pension they planned on. A stong company could see a mainline growing again in the future, hopefully sooner than later and the pilots could look forward to large jet flying opportunities and wages instead of scrapping with us over who flies the small stuff for the smaller wages.

The reality is that the creditors are going to have a large say in who flies what out of CCAA. The jazz operation is geared specifically toward regional type operations and the mainline structure is geared towards large a/c operations. While the mainline has flown small regional jets, it has not been a succesfull operation, look where we are today. While I don't think that having the RJ's at the mainline is completely the cause of the current situation, it is certainly indicitive of what has not worked to this point.

I hope that everyones fortunes improves sooner than later, but first things first, a ratification vote is at hand. Good luck to all.

Cheers, Rob Assaf

[Guest Tri-spool]

Good post Rob,

There unfortunately remains one problem that hits to heart of both pilot groups. What do you do with the pilots that will be getting layed off for an extended period of time. Do we just say that those 600-800 pilots are just sacrificial lambs, cannon fodder for the better of the pension plan and so be it. Or do we do something more constructive and secure a future for all pilots concerned, not just the 50+ crowd. It appears to me again that the Baby Boomer generation is sticking it to us Generation X'ers instead of working for a better, more amicable solution.

[Seeker]

By "better" you mean better for you, right?

[cp fa]

Just out of curiosity, how many times do the "50+ crowd" need to take a paycut or reduced block month to avoid laying off junior pilots, before you will notice that they've been doing a great deal to protect your job all along.

[Guest JW]

Richard:

You are getting very close to the issues here, imo.

I too believe that AC management positions in the CCAA make it too obvious to maintain a separation of the divisions, due to the events of the past couple of weeks in negotiations.

The issues of who scoped which scope become somewhat redundant, too. The issue of "harm" could be taken either way be either group depending on the outcome. It becomes something akin to a chicken-or-the-egg argument. ACPA's scope is in place, and would remain in place. ALPA attempts to scope that scope, and so on. ALPA offers to do all the flying up to the 767, and ACPA offers to do all the flying period. Where does it end?

I've taken a fair amount of flak for continuing to support a solution to the integration of the parties. Despite the anger in ACPA over the attempts to move flying from the mainline to the connectors, the rationale for the integration shouldn't really change. To my mind that actually strengthens the argument in favour.

Conceptually and logistically there are many problems.

As I've mentioned before, too, the pendulum swings back and forth in the apparent power struggle, and there is never going to be a "good" time for both parties over a sustained period of time to complete any arrangement.

The parties that DO have the power to negotiate are not the necessarily the ones that are interested in completing a solution.

The parties are at odds over a number of issues that require some sort of resolution, including past grievances.

There are unrealistic expectations that must address and dealt with.

A mechanism must be established to integrate the lists. We've tried a non-binding, constitutional approach that ended after great angst and expense with Pineau.

Can a merger be negotiated? I doubt that can happen. Why? Because DOH will never work for ACPA members, but there is an interest to protect the flying, too. There's a saw-off between taking a chance in arbitration over the "new" types that we have not even seen yet, and losing that flying entirely.

I believe that many ALPA members may possibly have dream of the 767 and maybe the 340 as options with those dates of hire. Realistically the current expectation MAY be - depending on how ACPA fights the potential harm to work issue - the 717/318/CRJ70-90/whatever type.

So we end up fighting over this flying to the "harm" of both groups and in the end to AC, too?

I believe that it would be very difficult to negotiate any deal with grievances outstanding, demands of DOH, and expectation of more than a relative position on the currently flown "like" equipment.

With regard to the latter point, the Lordon approach appeared to one of "like" equipment. So, if you are currently flying an RJ as a senior captain, you would continue to do so, for example.

There are some obvious drawbacks to that. A current Dash-8 captain might be quite senior. A current RJ captain at AC quite junior and maybe furloughed. Unfortunately, there would be some hits taken on both sides for any kind of implementation. The overall question would have to be "what is in the interest of the majority of pilots of both groups?" If the issue is protecting every pilot, to the last one, OVER the majority interest, then there will never be a resolution.

IMO, likely a joint, or unilateral single employer application would be hard to deny at this point, partly for the reason I mentioned earlier, but for other reasons, too. The CIRB is involved. The adversarial approach to merging lists would take the usual, costly approach, with ALPA arguing DOH, and ACPA endtail. Years would pass, lawsuits, more acrimony, etc as we've seen. With the previous rulings, anb likely supported in the upcoming decision, the merger of pilots will possibly (maybe probably) be of a "like-types" ruling. ie a current Jazz RJ pilot would still be an RJ pilot, and that COULD potentially be one that would pass without a huge input of resources and time. In any case, I think that the CIRB must be involved, and likely will be now.

...imo!

JW

[Guest JW]

Richard:

You are getting very close to the issues here, imo.

I too believe that AC management positions in the CCAA make it too obvious to maintain a separation of the divisions, due to the events of the past couple of weeks in negotiations.

The issues of who scoped which scope become somewhat redundant, too. The issue of "harm" could be taken either way be either group depending on the outcome. It becomes something akin to a chicken-or-the-egg argument. ACPA's scope is in place, and would remain in place. ALPA attempts to scope that scope, and so on. ALPA offers to do all the flying up to the 767, and ACPA offers to do all the flying period. Where does it end?

I've taken a fair amount of flak for continuing to support a solution to the integration of the parties. Despite the anger in ACPA over the attempts to move flying from the mainline to the connectors, the rationale for the integration shouldn't really change. To my mind that actually strengthens the argument in favour.

Conceptually and logistically there are many problems.

As I've mentioned before, too, the pendulum swings back and forth in the apparent power struggle, and there is never going to be a "good" time for both parties over a sustained period of time to complete any arrangement.

The parties that DO have the power to negotiate are not the necessarily the ones that are interested in completing a solution.

The parties are at odds over a number of issues that require some sort of resolution, including past grievances.

There are unrealistic expectations that must address and dealt with.

A mechanism must be established to integrate the lists. We've tried a non-binding, constitutional approach that ended after great angst and expense with Pineau.

Can a merger be negotiated? I doubt that can happen. Why? Because DOH will never work for ACPA members, but there is an interest to protect the flying, too. There's a saw-off between taking a chance in arbitration over the "new" types that we have not even seen yet, and losing that flying entirely.

I believe that many ALPA members may possibly have dream of the 767 and maybe the 340 as options with those dates of hire. Realistically the current expectation MAY be - depending on how ACPA fights the potential harm to work issue - the 717/318/CRJ70-90/whatever type.

So we end up fighting over this flying to the "harm" of both groups and in the end to AC, too?

I believe that it would be very difficult to negotiate any deal with grievances outstanding, demands of DOH, and expectation of more than a relative position on the currently flown "like" equipment.

With regard to the latter point, the Lordon approach appeared to one of "like" equipment. So, if you are currently flying an RJ as a senior captain, you would continue to do so, for example.

There are some obvious drawbacks to that. A current Dash-8 captain might be quite senior. A current RJ captain at AC quite junior and maybe furloughed. Unfortunately, there would be some hits taken on both sides for any kind of implementation. The overall question would have to be "what is in the interest of the majority of pilots of both groups?" If the issue is protecting every pilot, to the last one, OVER the majority interest, then there will never be a resolution.

IMO, likely a joint, or unilateral single employer application would be hard to deny at this point, partly for the reason I mentioned earlier, but for other reasons, too. The CIRB is involved. The adversarial approach to merging lists would take the usual, costly approach, with ALPA arguing DOH, and ACPA endtail. Years would pass, lawsuits, more acrimony, etc as we've seen. With the previous rulings, anb likely supported in the upcoming decision, the merger of pilots will possibly (maybe probably) be of a "like-types" ruling. ie a current Jazz RJ pilot would still be an RJ pilot, and that COULD potentially be one that would pass without a huge input of resources and time. In any case, I think that the CIRB must be involved, and likely will be now.

...imo!

JW

[Guest JW]

Richard:

You are getting very close to the issues here, imo.

I too believe that AC management positions in the CCAA make it too obvious to maintain a separation of the divisions, due to the events of the past couple of weeks in negotiations.

The issues of who scoped which scope become somewhat redundant, too. The issue of "harm" could be taken either way be either group depending on the outcome. It becomes something akin to a chicken-or-the-egg argument. ACPA's scope is in place, and would remain in place. ALPA attempts to scope that scope, and so on. ALPA offers to do all the flying up to the 767, and ACPA offers to do all the flying period. Where does it end?

I've taken a fair amount of flak for continuing to support a solution to the integration of the parties. Despite the anger in ACPA over the attempts to move flying from the mainline to the connectors, the rationale for the integration shouldn't really change. To my mind that actually strengthens the argument in favour.

Conceptually and logistically there are many problems.

As I've mentioned before, too, the pendulum swings back and forth in the apparent power struggle, and there is never going to be a "good" time for both parties over a sustained period of time to complete any arrangement.

The parties that DO have the power to negotiate are not the necessarily the ones that are interested in completing a solution.

The parties are at odds over a number of issues that require some sort of resolution, including past grievances.

There are unrealistic expectations that must address and dealt with.

A mechanism must be established to integrate the lists. We've tried a non-binding, constitutional approach that ended after great angst and expense with Pineau.

Can a merger be negotiated? I doubt that can happen. Why? Because DOH will never work for ACPA members, but there is an interest to protect the flying, too. There's a saw-off between taking a chance in arbitration over the "new" types that we have not even seen yet, and losing that flying entirely.

I believe that many ALPA members may possibly have dream of the 767 and maybe the 340 as options with those dates of hire. Realistically the current expectation MAY be - depending on how ACPA fights the potential harm to work issue - the 717/318/CRJ70-90/whatever type.

So we end up fighting over this flying to the "harm" of both groups and in the end to AC, too?

I believe that it would be very difficult to negotiate any deal with grievances outstanding, demands of DOH, and expectation of more than a relative position on the currently flown "like" equipment.

With regard to the latter point, the Lordon approach appeared to one of "like" equipment. So, if you are currently flying an RJ as a senior captain, you would continue to do so, for example.

There are some obvious drawbacks to that. A current Dash-8 captain might be quite senior. A current RJ captain at AC quite junior and maybe furloughed. Unfortunately, there would be some hits taken on both sides for any kind of implementation. The overall question would have to be "what is in the interest of the majority of pilots of both groups?" If the issue is protecting every pilot, to the last one, OVER the majority interest, then there will never be a resolution.

IMO, likely a joint, or unilateral single employer application would be hard to deny at this point, partly for the reason I mentioned earlier, but for other reasons, too. The CIRB is involved. The adversarial approach to merging lists would take the usual, costly approach, with ALPA arguing DOH, and ACPA endtail. Years would pass, lawsuits, more acrimony, etc as we've seen. With the previous rulings, anb likely supported in the upcoming decision, the merger of pilots will possibly (maybe probably) be of a "like-types" ruling. ie a current Jazz RJ pilot would still be an RJ pilot, and that COULD potentially be one that would pass without a huge input of resources and time. In any case, I think that the CIRB must be involved, and likely will be now.

...imo!

JW

[Guest Hewlett]

"Can a merger be negotiated? I doubt that can happen. Why? Because DOH will never work for ACPA members, but there is an interest to protect the flying, too. There's a saw-off between taking a chance in arbitration over the "new" types that we have not even seen yet, and losing that flying entirely."

How much of a beating would hard core ACPA members have to take with job loss before entertaining the idea of DOH with fences starts to seem a bit more appealing?

[Guest neo]

Hi Rob,

No one knows how things will play out. All you can do is look at the potential ramifications of the choices that have been made, and are yet to be made.

Will the regional be sold? Possibly. But how much cash would you generate with the sale in today's market? As a 'cash cow', it's definitely not a prize bull. To mix a metaphor. So left to management's own devices, it's possible that a sale is some way off, depending of course on the terms that AC arranges with the creditors.

But even in regards to a sale, there are consequences playing into a common employer situation. For instance, if the regional pilots preferred that JAZZ be sold off (to advance their own prospects), and they further believed that AC doesn't want a Common Employer scenario, then applying for Common Employer status would apply leverage towards the sale. The mainline pilots also get that leverage, but in the converse way.

I agree with your logic about where it makes sense to put the different aircraft. Of course, management in its wisdom saw fit to give the regional pilots a chance to bid on aircraft that currently (and logically) belong in the mainline fleet. That's a classic whipsaw, and triggers one of the primary criteria of a Common Employer designation, to whit: Has the employer played the two divisions off against one another? Has any employee been disadvantaged by it? You will recall that those specific points were why the previous Common Employer application failed.

I think your comments about keeping our focus on corporate survival and profitability are correct. But that doesn't mean we should ignore other issues. After all, our corporate structure is the context in which we must all strive to be profitable. Ignoring consequences, and opportunities, are part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest neo]

Hi Rob,

No one knows how things will play out. All you can do is look at the potential ramifications of the choices that have been made, and are yet to be made.

Will the regional be sold? Possibly. But how much cash would you generate with the sale in today's market? As a 'cash cow', it's definitely not a prize bull. To mix a metaphor. So left to management's own devices, it's possible that a sale is some way off, depending of course on the terms that AC arranges with the creditors.

But even in regards to a sale, there are consequences playing into a common employer situation. For instance, if the regional pilots preferred that JAZZ be sold off (to advance their own prospects), and they further believed that AC doesn't want a Common Employer scenario, then applying for Common Employer status would apply leverage towards the sale. The mainline pilots also get that leverage, but in the converse way.

I agree with your logic about where it makes sense to put the different aircraft. Of course, management in its wisdom saw fit to give the regional pilots a chance to bid on aircraft that currently (and logically) belong in the mainline fleet. That's a classic whipsaw, and triggers one of the primary criteria of a Common Employer designation, to whit: Has the employer played the two divisions off against one another? Has any employee been disadvantaged by it? You will recall that those specific points were why the previous Common Employer application failed.

I think your comments about keeping our focus on corporate survival and profitability are correct. But that doesn't mean we should ignore other issues. After all, our corporate structure is the context in which we must all strive to be profitable. Ignoring consequences, and opportunities, are part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.

Best wishes,

neo

[Guest buskipper]

I have a problem with the whole concept of merging to protect work. All we (AC and Jazz) would be getting is more pilots. We both need scope to protect our work.

AC would do everything they could to stand in our way and likely would farm out as much DHC8 flying as they could to the Tier 3 group. Then we would be wringing our hands about the loss of our tradition DHC8 jobs and looking at ways of merging their lists with ours. It's endless!

Instead, we need to improve our scope clauses. The areas that offer a conflict (ie RJ's, BA-146's, etc) should be addressed without AC's help and worked out by putting together the best move-up/down agreement in the industry. ACPA's current move-up has had no input from the regional level and this should be addressed. The agreement at American is better in many ways but still is not what we might need.

I know a lot of regional pilots, particularly those in political office will have nothing to do with a move-up agreement but they can't deny that hundreds of their former colleagues have used it transition to mainline jobs.

It would avoid hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs and result in a negotiated agreement. Perhaps we could even arbitrate the move-up agreement. We would protect all of our work instead of re-shuffling seniority numbers while AC whittled away at our jobs.

BTW, has ALPA been successful in any of these mainline/regional mergers in the US?

[Guest neo]

Hi Jim,

Roger to all of that.

A couple of points...

Merger expectations: we've seen this bite both sides at the mainline, and no doubt there will be those at the regional who entertain unrealistic expectations too. As for DOH, the CAIL pilots were unable to successfully argue in its favor. How likely are the regional pilots to get it?

Merger costs: you detail many of the consequences there, for sure. Against the costs, our memberships need to weigh the costs and harm that the divided work groups have endured. I'm with you there: it's too high and we should do something about it.

RR

[Guest BillyBigToe]

Never, never, never.

[Guest Tri-spool]

NO, Better for ALL!

[Guest Peanuts]

Did you read cp fa's response to you ?

I agree with her. She is a smart lady

[Guest neo]

Hi buskipper,

If strengthening scope is the best way to go, then the situation that's been created by allowing both pilot groups to bid on the same work also strengthens the pilots' hands to protect work. (Assuming you're correct that AC management would do everything they could to prevent a merged pilot group.) That's because the pilots could then leverage the threat of Common Employer/merged groups for protection of work through scope. The choice presented to management then would be, for example, "Protect our traditional DHC-8 flying our we apply for CE status."

I hasten to repeat and emphasized, that any of that depends completely on what the players in this scenario want. If AC management couldn't care less about merged pilot groups, then there's no leverage at all. Likewise, if both employee groups would rather be burned at the stake than merge, there's no leverage. But ironically, and perhaps counterintuitively, by allowing both pilot groups to bid on the same work, AC management may have actually strengthened the pilot groups' ability to get the outcome that favors our collective best interests.

I also hasten to point out that the gentleman who negotiated this situation on the management side was Mr. Rovinescu, and he is reported to be a very bright man indeed. You have to consider the possibility that he foresaw all of these consequences. You also have to ask yourself if, bright though he may be, the tight time frame and pressure to get a deal done gave him time to sort it all out.

In any event, time will sort it all out.

neo

[Guest neo]

Hi buskipper,

If strengthening scope is the best way to go, then the situation that's been created by allowing both pilot groups to bid on the same work also strengthens the pilots' hands to protect work. (Assuming you're correct that AC management would do everything they could to prevent a merged pilot group.) That's because the pilots could then leverage the threat of Common Employer/merged groups for protection of work through scope. The choice presented to management then would be, for example, "Protect our traditional DHC-8 flying our we apply for CE status."

I hasten to repeat and emphasized, that any of that depends completely on what the players in this scenario want. If AC management couldn't care less about merged pilot groups, then there's no leverage at all. Likewise, if both employee groups would rather be burned at the stake than merge, there's no leverage. But ironically, and perhaps counterintuitively, by allowing both pilot groups to bid on the same work, AC management may have actually strengthened the pilot groups' ability to get the outcome that favors our collective best interests.

I also hasten to point out that the gentleman who negotiated this situation on the management side was Mr. Rovinescu, and he is reported to be a very bright man indeed. You have to consider the possibility that he foresaw all of these consequences. You also have to ask yourself if, bright though he may be, the tight time frame and pressure to get a deal done gave him time to sort it all out.

In any event, we'll know the answers eventually.

neo

[Guest HPT-TOUR]

Hi Richard, as you know Picher never was DOH, we were dovetailed. Perhaps if we started working from there we might see light at the end of the tunnel.

Best Regards.

[Guest neo]

Very true, and a pertinent point.

Best,

neo

[Guest JW]

I don't believe that the ALPA "hopes" are anywhere close to a done deal. The attempt is to bypass a protection-of-work clause already in effect and agreed upon between AC and ACPA. That does not necessarily cease at the end of the ACPA Contract, which will be renewed for a long period if ratified. ACPA will not give that up without a considerable battle. How willing is ALPA to assume that the flying will actually be achieved?

...imo!

JW

[Homerun]

AS you know, Picher did however give the date of hire to about 95% of regional pilots. To pretend it was something else is a load of cr.p.

[Homerun]

Richard, for the purposes of the Pineau hearings it was ASSUMED that a single employer situation DID exist between mainline and regional. In order for the board to provide relief the regionals had to prove that their bargaining rights were damaged by this relationship. They couldn't then and now it would appear that their rights are actually enhanced by the relationship. If anyone has a case where damage can be unequivocally shown it is ACPA, given the Jazz TA.

[Guest floatrr]

Apparently, the Air Canada Pilots (CALPA at that time) thought it was a load of crap so they took their ball to a different sandbox. IMHO, I don't think a merger could ever work to the satisfaction of the "real AC Pilots" unless it was end tail. Judging from history.

[DEFCON]

Neo

There is a prohibition against starting any new litigation while the process is ongoing.