Clip

As RJs Squeeze Turboprops, RAA Targets Scope Clauses

Aviation Week & Space Technology

NASHVILLE, TENN. -- Capacity cuts by major airlines and the continuing growth of regional jet fleets are creating turboprop-flying restrictions that will erode air service to small communities, the Regional Airline Association will argue in a new challenge to scope clauses in major airlines' pilot union contracts.

Scope clauses, a problem-of-the-future side issue at recent RAA annual conventions, emerged front and center at this year's event. Executives of regional airlines, their suppliers and the RAA itself, meeting here last week, said developments since Sept. 11 have turned scope clauses into something that must be reckoned with now.

The clauses are "forcing a lot of non-optimal decisions" on regional carriers trying to plan service and control costs, said Tom Moore, RAA board chairman and president of Atlantic Coast Airlines.

Scope clauses tie how much code-share flying a regional airline can do for a major airline to how much flying the major itself does. Pilot-union agreements with the majors vary in how these relationships are defined--in terms of numbers of aircraft, seat miles or block hours, for example--but they are common throughout the aviation industry as pilots' unions at the majors try to preserve their jobs. Once regional operations reach scope-clause limits, majors that want regionals to do more code-share flying for them must do more mainline flying themselves.

Majors and their regional affiliates are reaching or nearing scope-clause limits "far sooner than anyone anticipated," Douglas Abbey, president of Avstat Associates and executive director of the RAA-affiliated Regional Air Service Initiative, said at a briefing. The cause is capacity cutbacks by most majors after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The majors wanted to shift flying to their regional affiliates, preserving the majors' presence and frequencies in important markets. But contraction by the majors eliminated the regionals' room for growth within scope-clause caps.

Tightening the squeeze, regionals trying to develop their RJ fleets continued to take deliveries of the popular aircraft. Thus, when scope-clause limits on regional flying come into play, all the pressure is on turboprop operations.

The poster child for this phenomenon is American Eagle. As described by Tom Bacon, marketing and planning chief, Eagle complied easily for a few months after Sept. 11 with the scope clause in the American Airlines-Allied Pilots Assn. contract, which bars increases in available seat miles (ASMs) with an AA code at Eagle when American pilots are on furlough. But early this year, as Eagle continued to take delivery of RJs, the turboprop squeeze was on.

To reduce turboprop ASMs, Eagle first removed one row of seats from its ATR and Saab aircraft, reduced frequencies in some turboprop markets and dropped out of seven markets completely. That accommodated regional jet deliveries through June or July, Eagle estimated. Then American decided to remove its code from regional flying at St. Louis by Trans States, Chautauqua and Corporate airlines, relationships it assumed when it acquired TWA. American expects that move to cover RJ growth at Eagle through the end of the year.

OPTIONS FOR EARLY 2003 include the sale by American parent AMR of its Executive Airlines subsidiary, which flies routes in the Caribbean out of San Juan, Puerto Rico. As an alternative, American could remove its code from Executive flights, as it is doing in St. Louis. Eagle is moving all its ATR aircraft to Executive's certificate.

Moore predicted similar reductions in turboprop flying at other regional airlines as their jet fleets grow, and the pressure will be relentless. More than 800 RJs are on order by U.S. regionals and are being delivered at high rates, and carriers hold options for nearly 1,200 more. A few speakers at the RAA convention speculated that a regional jet "glut" late this decade will cause airlines to drop some of those options. But even if that happens, RJ deliveries will put a lot of pressure on turboprop flying under current scope clauses.

The RAA and the major airlines aren't in conflict at all in the scope-clause squeeze, Moore said. Indeed, the regionals are protecting the majors' route networks--to the majors' pilots' ultimate benefit--by operating reduced-capacity service on them, he argued. For example, Atlantic Coast is serving Portland-Chicago in place of United.

The RAA's near-term response to the turboprop squeeze will be to try to alert the public, federal agencies and, particularly, Congress about scope clauses' consequences. So far, the Air Line Pilots Assn. and the Allied Pilots Assn. have framed the issue as a question of pilots' jobs, Moore commented. But as spun by the RAA, it goes like this: Regionals must reduce turboprop flying in order to do more RJ flying under current scope clauses. RJs are inappropriate for many turboprop markets, so service in those markets will decrease or end.

Congress hates it when that happens. And "they've never heard our side of this," said RAA President Debby McElroy.The RAA wouldn't dream of seeking legislation this late in a congressional election year, and Faye Malarkey, the association's legislative affairs director, said it also will try to avoid polarizing the issue politically. But it will attempt to "educate" Capitol Hill on the dangers of losing small-community service, she said, and to persuade representatives and senators to call ALPA seeking a way to relieve the scope-clause problem.

If and when service to small communities leads Congress to rise up against scope clauses, ALPA will deal with it in stride, Moore predicted. The pilots will "move off scope and on to their next agenda item," he said.

What would happen if scope clauses disappeared overnight? Moore was asked. "I'd go out and buy a whole lot more jets," he replied.

-----------------------------------

Jury rules against flight attendants in toxic-air suit

Seattle Times

Ending a long-running legal battle, a King County Superior Court jury yesterday rejected the claims of 26 current and former Alaska Airlines flight attendants who maintained they had been seriously sickened by toxic leaks fouling the air of MD-80 jet cabins.

After deliberating more than two days, jurors voted 11-1 in favor of AlliedSignal, the manufacturer of a mechanism blamed for the leaks, and McDonnell Douglas, the plane's maker.

The verdict in the 11-week trial left some flight attendants in tears. They had pursued the case for years, arguing it raised questions about cabin air throughout the industry.

But lawyers for the companies said the verdict showed the plane and the mechanism, called the auxiliary power unit, or APU, were safe.

Pilots activate the APU on the ground to supply electrical power and pump air into the cabin. During flight, the unit typically is switched off, and the jet engines supply power and cabin air.

The flight attendants alleged that the unit, as installed on the MD-80s, allowed fumes from lubrication and hydraulic fluids, as well as exhaust, to be sucked into cabins, exposing them for years to toxic chemicals that accumulated in their bodies. The leaks, they argued, produced neurological problems ranging from unrelenting headaches to body tremors.

The companies contended that although there were leaks, including some traced to a defective seal, they were so infrequent and the level of the chemicals so small that the instances couldn't be traced to the health problems.

AlliedSignal, now owned by Honeywell, is pleased the jury found that the APU is a "safe and durable product," said Brad Keller, the company's attorney.

Its "APU has been a backbone of the American aviation industry for almost 40 years," he said, "and it will continue to do so because it is safe."

V. Woolston, an attorney for McDonnell Douglas, which was acquired by Boeing in 1997, called the verdict "very, very gratifying."

Jury forewoman Michelle Ressa said the jury was unable to find "causation" between the injuries claimed by the flight attendants and the construction of the APU or the design of the plane. Under Washington law, a civil-case verdict requires the agreement of at least 10 jurors.

Other jurors said the flight attendants' attorneys had failed to show there were specific problems with APUs or the aircraft at the time leaks occurred. The attendants had sought more than $4 million in economic damages and an unspecified additional sum for pain and suffering and other personal losses.

The lone juror to vote in favor of the flight attendants, Jim Kelly, said: "They went into the plane healthy and came out sick. It was cut and dried for me."

As Kelly left the courtroom, some of the flight attendants hugged him.

Flight attendant Ron Grant called the verdict an example of "high corporate lawyers winning again." He believes the APUs on MD-80-series planes are defective and pose a danger to passengers as well as crew members.

"I'm just numb right now," said Grant, who filed suit with the other flight attendants in 1998.

Minutes after the verdict, Randy Gordon, the lead attorney for the flight attendants, told his clients that the jury had not found they weren't sick.

The jury simply couldn't find, as a matter of law, that their illnesses were connected to the way the APU and plane were built, he said.

"I maintain that the truth is out," Gordon said.

Jurors said because they couldn't find fault with the APU or plane, they didn't have to debate the extent of the illnesses.

"We didn't doubt they were sick," juror Patricia Dusenberry said of the flight attendants. "That was hard."

Juror Michelle Ressa said attorneys for the companies were within bounds when they examined the health histories of the flight attendants, questioning whether their illnesses stemmed from other causes.

"I think if you come into a case like this, your background is fair game," Ressa said.

Some jurors cited the MD-80's 19-year production history as a factor, saying a small number of problems had been raised, with the companies working to address them.

During the trial, attorneys for the companies argued that far more flight attendants, passengers and pilots would have been harmed if the claims were true. Any ill effects would have been limited to irritated noses, eye and throats and, at worst, nausea, they said.

The verdict may blunt efforts to bring similar cabin-air lawsuits while bolstering the Federal Aviation Administration's position that studies so far have found no link between cabin-air leaks and neurological damage.

Alaska Airlines was not a defendant in the trial, having settled with the flight attendants for $725,000 last year without admitting responsibility.

Dusenberry said there was some sentiment on the jury that Alaska was at fault "for not keeping the APU up as it should have" with adequate cleaning and oil changes.

But pursuing claims against Alaska would have been difficult because under Washington statute employees must show they were deliberately harmed in order to seek damages beyond workers' compensation.

As part of the settlement, the flight attendants, without disavowing their claims, signed a statement saying the airline had never intended to harm them and had taken measures to improve workplace safety.

------------------------------------

Reforms Needed In Labor Negotiations, Carty Says

Aviation Daily

U.S. airlines and their unions should consider reforming the current negotiation process to avoid almost inevitable disruptions in the future, according to American CEO Don Carty. Speaking yesterday at the American Association of Airport Executives conference in Dallas, Carty addressed a number of current "taboos" in aviation, from what he thinks is an unreasonable ban against foreign ownership of U.S. airlines to a variety of security problems.

"I can't accept the notion that is impossible to improve a process that was developed for railroads in 1926 and has remained virtually unchanged since then," Carty said of the Railway Labor Act. The solution must be "one that respects the collective bargaining process," but keeps passengers and everyone in the industry "from being held hostage in the process."

Carty believes that carriers seem to be "coalescing" around some form of mandatory arbitration, which could include the "last best offer approach." He said that method forces both sides to the center and avoids a scenario in which all the bargaining leverage goes to unions that can impose a strike.

"This is not a secret plan to destroy the collective bargaining in the airline industry," he said. "It is simply a way of bringing negotiations to a prompt conclusion." Under current law and practice, the U.S. president has had to get involved in labor negotiations. "This is not evidence of a system that is working," he noted.

Separately, Carty acknowledged the obvious need for heightened security and said a number of measures, including many intelligence efforts behind the scenes, have made aviation much more secure than it was before. Given limited resources, he said, efforts should be expended on measures that make sense, instead of the many that don't.

"Some in the government are now thinking about extending the positive bag match program beyond the end of the year and expanding it to include connecting flights," he told AAAE attendees. "If you think this is a unique airline problem, think again. In off-schedule operating conditions, imposing positive bag matches on connecting flights will cause absolute paralysis in airports." He added that the rule barring parking within 300 feet of most airport terminals is "nuts."

In another area, due to current deep financial losses, "what sense does it make to cut our industry off from half the world's supply of capital," Carty asked. "It's time to lift the wraps on all investment restrictions." As far as allowing foreign carriers to serve passengers inside U.S. borders -- cabotage -- Carty is "not afraid of it," and "neither should anyone else be, so long as it is reciprocal." He urged Congress to provide the right of foreign investment in U.S. carriers, if allowed on a fully reciprocal basis.

__________________
Jet Delta's Big Flies

Scott

So Carty is unafraid of cabotage as long as it's reciprocal? What was that "Crandall-light" smoking as he uttered that comment?
Let's say BA, Virgin, and BMI received authority to fly any segment in the U.S: for that juicy market AA, UA, NW, CO, WN, DL, etc would have a crack at the lucrative intra-U.K. market.
Sounds great to me..... NOT!
Yeah, it's not that simple, but I'm too tired tonight to cogently argue the contrary. Besides, I'm too wound up waiting for Gordon to post the "Aeroclassics surprise."

__________________
Fly the Friendly Skies of United

uniTED takes wing Feb 12, 2004

Bill G

Hmm. Wonder if Carty would change is thinking if we could decide on what HE makes for a living.

Bill G

__________________
Ozark Flies Your Way

FEES DON'T FLY AT SOUTHWEST

Scott

Hahahahahahahahahahah! If only we could, Bill! He'd live on bread and water for several months!

__________________
Fly the Friendly Skies of United

uniTED takes wing Feb 12, 2004

Bill G

Your doing a great job here Gabby. I certainly enjoy the information in the News Digests.

Bill G

__________________
Ozark Flies Your Way

FEES DON'T FLY AT SOUTHWEST