Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > UAL/CAL Merger
Register FAQ Advertising Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

UAL/CAL Merger Discussion of UAL-CAL merger

 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums

    Already registered? Login above

OR
 
To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of
the largest community of airline pilots in the U.S. and beyond.

The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.

Join the Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-08-2012, 04:14 PM   #1 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
horrido27's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 757/767
Posts: 652
Default Equipment definition

Has anyone found it in the new TA?
Reason I ask is this-

AW&ST Nov 5/12, 2012
Ron Baur, United Airlines Vice President of fleet

Type training thrives on commonalty, drawing its sustenance from consistency. United is the first U.S. network carrier to fly the Boeing 787, which has a common type rating with the 777. One way Boeing does that is “through software, and how images are collected and displayed to the pilot,” Baur says. In terms of crew scheduling, the airline's ultimate goal is to have pilots who can fly the 787 one day and the 777 the next—seamlessly. The operational challenge with large, existing fleets is to ensure that new aircraft “integrate well with the current fleet,” says Baur.

Under CAL (Current) CBA-
  1. Equipment - “Equipment” means aircraft or an aircraft grouping (e.g., B737, B757/B767, B777, B787).
We have always been told by our union that the 787 would be a separate BES (Base/Equipement/Seat). And currently, our B787 guys are separate from the B777.

I can not find anything in the new JCBA that talks about actual fleets.

Question for the UAL guys-
1) Do the A320 crowd also fly the A319?
2) I was under the impression that the B756 is flown as separate categories at UAL with regards to Domestic/International. What has that done for your staffing?

Thanks
Motch
horrido27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
Old 12-08-2012, 05:13 PM   #2 (permalink)
Recommend Retention
 
LifeNtheFstLne's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: B-757/767
Posts: 981
Default

1.) Yes

2.) Not separate (maybe you're thinking of American)
__________________
How copper wire was invented: two pilots fighting over a penny.
LifeNtheFstLne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 07:17 PM   #3 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 181
Default

As soon as DL or American get the 787 and put it as a common BES, we will be pressured and cave to concede them as a common BES.

It will be the same as the 76 seaters.

Once our competitors concede it, UAL will need to fly it as a common
BES to "compete".

You heard it here first. It's not too difficult to predict.
Zoomie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 01:58 AM   #4 (permalink)
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 577
Default

Can I ask why you perceive that negatively or concessionary? Why would they need to be separate? 757's and 767's actually fly and land quite different. 777 and 787 are FBW so they can be made to fly the same.
Probe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 07:27 AM   #5 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 1,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horrido27 View Post
Has anyone found it in the new TA?
Reason I ask is this-

AW&ST Nov 5/12, 2012
Ron Baur, United Airlines Vice President of fleet

Type training thrives on commonalty, drawing its sustenance from consistency. United is the first U.S. network carrier to fly the Boeing 787, which has a common type rating with the 777. One way Boeing does that is “through software, and how images are collected and displayed to the pilot,” Baur says. In terms of crew scheduling, the airline's ultimate goal is to have pilots who can fly the 787 one day and the 777 the next—seamlessly. The operational challenge with large, existing fleets is to ensure that new aircraft “integrate well with the current fleet,” says Baur.

Under CAL (Current) CBA-
  1. Equipment - “Equipment” means aircraft or an aircraft grouping (e.g., B737, B757/B767, B777, B787).
We have always been told by our union that the 787 would be a separate BES (Base/Equipement/Seat). And currently, our B787 guys are separate from the B777.

I can not find anything in the new JCBA that talks about actual fleets.

Question for the UAL guys-
1) Do the A320 crowd also fly the A319?
2) I was under the impression that the B756 is flown as separate categories at UAL with regards to Domestic/International. What has that done for your staffing?

Thanks
Motch
Just to elaborate a bit further on 2) Motch.....

We fly both the 757/767-300, both domestically and internationally.... EXCEPT, there is a little issue right now with some bases (notably SFO) not being "international qualified". With SFO-CDG starting soon, the SFO pilots are requesting to be qualified so they can fly it. So far, that decision hasn't been made, but in the past, UAL would fly that with pilots from an "Intl base like IAD or ORD
gettinbumped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 07:28 AM   #6 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 1,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Probe View Post
Can I ask why you perceive that negatively or concessionary? Why would they need to be separate? 757's and 767's actually fly and land quite different. 777 and 787 are FBW so they can be made to fly the same.
I believe that Boeing is trying to make the 777 and 787 a common type, but I haven't confirmed that
gettinbumped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 10:22 AM   #7 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
horrido27's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: 757/767
Posts: 652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Probe View Post
Can I ask why you perceive that negatively or concessionary? Why would they need to be separate? 757's and 767's actually fly and land quite different. 777 and 787 are FBW so they can be made to fly the same.
It would be concessionary because of what I posted is currently in the CAL CBA.
It would be negative because it's Manpower Negative.

If the company can allow a pilot to fly the 787 today, and then the 777 next week, it means they can utilize that pilot more. It also means that they need less reserves.
Now, let me be the first to say that I am not against the company utilizing Pilots better. But there needs to some sort of compensation for that utilization.

Currently at CAL, we fly the 757-2,-3 & 767-2 and -4 together. Those are really 4 different aircraft!
(It's my understanding) that Delta has a separate category for the 767-4. That requires more pilots (which is a good thing for a Pilot Group) and it also allows for a higher paying aircraft.
They pay their -400er more than their 76-3's and 757's. Again, a win for the pilots.

As far as FBW and having the 787 and 777 fly the same.. I don't know. Hopefully someone who is typed on both can come on here and talk about it. But I'll ask this-
Aren't the 767-400 and 777 cockpits identical? Could they become a common type? Or could the company get permission from the FAA to allow dual type?
(our current Chief Pilot in EWR is typed on both and I believe he flies/remains current in both).

What about the A3xx series aircraft.. can/should that aircraft be common with the A350?

I do believe that at the end of the day, it is a Safety issue.

Motch
horrido27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 05:01 PM   #8 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sunvox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 756 FO
Posts: 637
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horrido27 View Post
It would be concessionary because of what I posted is currently in the CAL CBA.
It would be negative because it's Manpower Negative.

If the company can allow a pilot to fly the 787 today, and then the 777 next week, it means they can utilize that pilot more.
Absolutely not.

We all have a number in our head that we like to fly. For some of us it's max we can and for others it's the least we can. Pilot utilization is all about work rules and has nothing to do with what you can fly. At least that's my opinion, but you see there it is. I understand that what you are arguing has never been carefully studied either by management or ALPA, but it sure makes headlines when you tell everyone on the forum that such a move would be "manpower negative". Just because they change the rules doesn't mean I or any other pilot will fly more hours.
Sunvox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 05:09 PM   #9 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: Doing what you do, for less.
Posts: 1,750
Default

Having them combined together means that the company can more "efficiently" schedule pilots. Efficient means less manning required. It means one group of reserves can be available to fly trips on either plane. It means scheduling conflicts can be fixed by assigning a trip on another plane. etc.

Its a good thing for scheduling flexibility if you're looking for more options, but it is a bad thing from a pilot manning perspective, especially on a long haul widebody fleet.


I think its completely moronic that the FAA is allowing the 777 and 787 to be a common type. Sure, they might fly the same, but they are completely different airplanes. The cockpit is completely different. The systems are completely different. The airplane is completely different. Proof that the FAA is bought and owned by the FAA and the airlines.
lolwut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 08:03 PM   #10 (permalink)
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 577
Default

I could see it is slightly manpower negatives, but only slightly. A huge positive for pilots is that are current and qualed on two aircraft types. Easier to get a contract job if the economy takes another dump.

I know the systems are vastly different but in the case of these two aircraft I would say it doesn't matter. Boeing doesn't really require you know squat to be rated on the 777 and I would bet the 787 is the same or easier. so you don't have to know nada about two airplanes vice one. I believe Boeing has approval for a common type with 2-5 days differences training. Can't remember if it was 2 or 5.

757/767 was much more difficult IMHO. They land much different, especially banging the tale on the 763 vs pounding the nose gear into the ground on the 752. And don't get me started on smoke and avionics cooling. I think I had it all memorised correctly for all variants, once, for 5 minutes. Luckily that was the one time I was asked about it on my first type rating oral. LOL. I have done the course three times during my yo yo up and down UALs financial debacles.
Probe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aircraft Order SoCalGuy UAL/CAL Merger 35 07-14-2012 06:12 PM
Commercial Flying Definition airplaneit Aviation Law 2 06-05-2011 05:16 AM
Flight School Simulator Equipment Question grecoaj Flight Schools and Training 2 06-02-2011 08:49 PM
Continental Equipment System Bid Seniority and DOH CAL EWR Major 35 08-05-2007 07:31 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:31 PM.


vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2012 Internet Brands, Inc.